Post by: pianoman9701 on February 03, 2012, 01:09:29 PM
This could affect how hound hunters are able to use their dogs at night or dog owners training their dogs. It's not a well-written bill.
Calls Needed – Vote on Harmful Washington Tethering Bill Pending
Sportsmen and Sporting Dog Owners Need to Call and Oppose Bill
House Bill 1755, introduced by Representative Roger E. Goodman (D – Kirkland), would create many new restrictions and prohibitions on dog tethering. Among the most harmful restrictions included in the bill is a complete ban on the tethering of a dog between the hours of 10:00 Ppm. and 6:00 a.m. Also, included in the bill is a prohibition on the tethering of a dog for more than 10 total hours in a 24 hour period.
The bill provides an exception for dogs while temporarily at exhibitions, shows, and contests such as field trials. However, this would not protect sporting dog owners while at home or while training.
Sportsmen and sporting dog owners need to contact their state representatives today and ask them to oppose House Bill 1755. The bill recently passed out of the House Judiciary Committee and could soon move on to a vote before the full House.
“The tethering prohibitions in House Bill 1755 don’t make any sense,” said Jeremy Rine, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance in-house counsel and associate director of state services. “Many sporting dog owners safely tether dogs outdoors both during the day and the night. This bill would even prohibit someone from tethering their dog outside at night for only a few minutes when their dog needs to go out.”
Similar legislation, Senate Bill 5649, is also pending before the state’s Senate.
Take Action! Sportsmen should contact their state representatives and ask them to oppose HB 1755. Tell them that the prohibitions in the bill are arbitrary and will prohibit many safe tethering practices used by sporting dog owners. To find your state representative’s contact information, please visit www.ussportsmen.org/LAC.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 03, 2012, 02:18:33 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2012, 03:55:54 PM
My hounds are outdoor animals, they are completely conditioned to being outside. Simply put my dogs are like livestock, they are not inside dogs. However, we do not let the hounds run loose. I keep my dogs on chain leads that allow them about a 20 foot circle to run. They each have a dog house with straw and fresh water pan 24/7/365 that is filled daily when I feed.
If I am not allowed to keep my dogs in this manner I would have to build kennels and put concrete floors to keep them from digging out. I prefer having my dogs on leads and out in the dirt where they can dig at will. They often dig big holes for shade and coolness in the summer and they also dig just to be dogs. It would greatly sadden me and cost a lot of money to put my dogs in kennels with concrete floors where they cannot run, dig, and act like dogs.
Sometimes these legislators who are sheltered from rural life just don't have a clue.
Post by: Arteman on February 03, 2012, 04:03:05 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2012, 04:05:26 PM
Post by: Arteman on February 03, 2012, 04:09:40 PM
There are likely other dog owners with different scenarios who will be affected by such a law.Yep say like anybody who may work a night shift but don't have a kennel, and doesnt want to leave there dogs indoors all night. So they clip them up to their dog house outside tell their return.
Post by: huntrights on February 03, 2012, 09:35:42 PM
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass
Signed by Representatives Pedersen, Chair; Goodman, Vice Chair; Eddy, Hansen, Kirby, Orwall, and Roberts.
Minority Report: Do not pass
Signed by Representatives Rodne, Ranking Minority Member; Shea, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Chandler, Klippert, Nealey, and Rivers.
I think it is important for all to know who would vote to pass along such a bill; those are the 7 representatives listed with the majority report heading.
This is another piece of legislation that blindsided most of us; I just found out about it today. I would think that just about any dog owner in this state would oppose such overbearing restrictions. In my opinion, this is a bad piece of legislation that needs to be stopped ASAP.
There is also a companion bill, SB5649. Apparently this one went through the Senate Committee last month. Here is the voting record on that one:
Majority Report: That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5649 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass
Signed by Senators Kline, Chair; Harper, Vice Chair; Baxter, Carrell, Hargrove, Kohl-Welles, and Regala.
Minority Report: That it be referred without recommendation
Signed by Senator Pflug, Ranking Minority Member
I believe every hunting dog club in this state needs to be notified of this legislation that has now passed Committee. Letters, emails, and phone calls need to happen now to make sure both pieces of legislation go no further. Even though they have passed through their respective Committees at this point, it would be worth writing all of the Committee members anyway.
Post by: huntrights on February 05, 2012, 09:06:01 PM
There are already plenty of animal cruelty laws on the books. We don’t need more legislation entering into our personal lives placing unjustified restrictions on every dog owner in the state. In another post Stilly bay mentioned neighbor’s dogs keeping people up at night; there are already laws and ordinances in place to address such issues. Many people don’t have fences to confine their dogs, so they still give their dogs the freedom to be outside on a tether of some type versus being confined in a house, garage, or some other structure. According to this new legislation, dog owners can be sentenced to county jail for up to 60 days if their dog is tethered for over 10 hours in a 24-hour period, they can go to jail if their dog is tethered any time between 10:00pm to 6:00am, they can go to jail if the tether is slightly less than 3-times the dog’s length, they can go to jail if the collar is slightly less than 1-inch wide, they can go to jail if the weight of the tether is greater than 1/8 of the dog’s weight, they can go to jail if the dog gets entangled on another object (this could be their dog-house by the way), etc. If there is a vicious dog tethered next to a sidewalk where kids are walking; there are plenty of laws in place that address that issue; please reference RCWs 16.08.010 thru 16.08.100 (specifically 16.08.090).
If dog owners of this state had known about this proposed legislation sooner, I seriously doubt it would have made it past the Judiciary Committees. This is bad legislation and it should go no further.
Post by: Machias on February 06, 2012, 12:57:44 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on February 06, 2012, 02:18:54 PM
Post by: halflife65 on February 06, 2012, 02:48:01 PM
What a ridiculous bill...I have a run and never really tether my dogs, but that's just stupid.
What if I tether my dogs when I go hiking? Say if I'm in the wilderness: it's illegal to have a dog run loose, it's illegal to tether, so now what? I better have it in the tent with me - except when I don't use a tent and I guess it needs to on a leash attached to my arm - if, indeed, this doesn't meet the definition of "tethering." Good God.
Post by: huntrights on February 06, 2012, 02:59:57 PM
Relevant laws already in place are within these RCW chapters (these were found just doing a quick search). Local ordinances should also be considered.
Chapter 16.52 RCW
Prevention of cruelty to animals
Chapter 16.08 RCW
Dogs (formerly dangerous dogs)
Chapter 9.08 RCW
Animals, crimes relating to
Here is an added important note:
Since the AVMA was mentioned at the beginning of the Bill Analysis; I contacted the AVMA to inquire about the reference to them. AVMA response (this is not a quote): They [AVMA] have not taken a position on legislation related to tethering because there have been no scientific studies producing valid data establishing exactly what tethering practices are detrimental to a dog. It appears that the information about tethering legislation in other states that was referred to in the Bill Analysis was obtained from the AVMA web site where they [AVMA] have listed such legislation. Reference to the AVMA in the beginning of the Bill Analysis does not constitute their endorsement of the Bill; if such endorsement is implied by the writers of the bill or others, the AVMA said they will correct that misinterpretation.
Post by: huntrights on February 07, 2012, 10:49:36 AM
1) Having a dog tethered between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. has absolutely nothing to do with the humane treatment of dogs. It doesn’t matter if the dog owner is outside with the dog while it’s tethered in that time frame or not; the dog owner will be guilty of breaking the law. This appears to be related to barking dog issues which are covered by local ordinances and/or other laws; it doesn’t belong in legislation such as this anyway.
2) If your dog is tethered for more than ten hours in a 24 hour period, you are guilty. There is no valid data to support this tethering time restriction.
3) If a severe weather advisory has been issued in your area and you tether your dog, you are guilty unless they have some natural or protective structure they can go to. It doesn’t matter if the bad weather happens or not, you are guilty.
4) In the case of hunting dogs and other scenarios, several dogs may be connected to a primary length of chain or tie-line by a secondary tether of some type; how does this constitute inhumane treatment of dogs? Is the tie-line considered part of the tether? Do this and you may be guilty.
5) If your dog is tethered within ten feet of a sidewalk (public right-of-way), you are guilty. This has absolutely nothing to do with the humane treatment of dogs. There are already dangerous dog laws in place (Chapter 16.08 RCW).
6) If you tether your dog on a restraint that is less than three times the length of the dog (measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail), you are guilty. It doesn’t matter how long the dog is tethered or if you are present, you are still guilty. Where is the valid data to support this restriction?
7) If your dog gets sick while on a tether, you might be guilty.
8.) If your dog is in distress (definition please) and on a tether, you are guilty.
9) If your dog is in the advanced stages of pregnancy (definition please) and on a tether, you are guilty.
10) If your dog is under six-months of age and on a tether, you are guilty. Where is the valid data to support this restriction?
11) What exactly constitutes conditions that “force” a dog to stand, sit, or lie down in its own excrement or urine? My dogs run free in a large, fenced-in back yard all day. Guess what; they step in their own excrement all the time even when it’s picked up frequently. Regardless of the length of a tether, your dogs may still step in their own excrement. If they do, are you guilty?
12) If a tether weighs more than one-eighth of your dog’s body weight, you are guilty. Where is the valid data to support this restriction? Does this include the weight of the tie-line where you may already be guilty of tethering more than one dog to a fixed point? If so, you may be guilty.
13) If your dog is tethered while wearing anything other than a “properly” fitted buckle-type harness or collar, you are guilty. What is “properly-fitted”? The only criteria that makes sense is if the dog has trouble breathing, swallowing, or its circulation is cut off due to the restraint, but I guess that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? “Properly-fitted” is very dependent on the anatomy of every individual dog. Beware: This is very subjective; you might be guilty.
14) If your dog is tethered and its collar is less than one-inch in width, you are guilty. There is no valid data to support this restriction. I guess that’s too bad for the little Chihuahua and every other small breed of dog with collars less than one-inch in width.
Frankly, there is only one part of this legislation that makes any sense: A dog should not be tethered in a manner that causes injury or pain to the dog. That’s it; no more, no less. Inflicting physical injury or substantial pain on an animal is already clearly addressed in Chapter 16.52 RCW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Specifically RCW 16.52.205).
Please carefully read and understand the legislation, and the potential implications it can have on every dog owner in this state. If you are a dog owner, will you inadvertently become a criminal as a result of this badly written legislation? Think about it. Remember, the law is the law; if you break the law, you are guilty. I highly recommend writing your representatives about this legislation very soon.
Post by: KillBilly on February 13, 2012, 12:14:48 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2012, 12:33:58 PM
Post by: KillBilly on February 14, 2012, 12:54:00 PM
Post by: huntrights on May 01, 2012, 06:50:59 PM
“2012 2ND SPECIAL SESSION Apr 11 By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.”
I am not sure how the legislative process works at this point, but these Bills are not dead.
Read the Bills. If these Bills are passed, at some point in time, virtually every dog owner is likely to violate some portion of these Bills. This is badly written legislation; it is NOT needed, and can very easily be abused if passed.
Relevant laws already in place are within these RCW chapters:
Chapter 16.52 RCW
Prevention of cruelty to animals
Chapter 16.08 RCW
Dogs (formerly dangerous dogs)
Chapter 9.08 RCW
Animals, crimes relating to
Link to the Washington State Legislature page pertaining to HB1755 and SB5649
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1755&year=2011
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5649&year=2011
Links to the Bills
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1755-S.pdf
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5649-S.pdf
Link to the Bill Analysis:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1755%20HBR%20JUDI%2012.pdf
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5649-S.pdf
The AVMA DOES NOT endorse this legislation.
Since the AVMA was mentioned at the beginning of the Bill Analysis; I contacted the AVMA to inquire about the reference to them. AVMA response (this is not a quote): They [AVMA] have not taken a position on legislation related to tethering because there have been no valid scientific studies producing valid data establishing exactly what tethering practices are detrimental to a dog. It appears that the information about tethering legislation in other states that was referred to in the Bill Analysis was obtained from the AVMA web site where they [AVMA] have listed such legislation. Reference to the AVMA in the beginning of the Bill Analysis does not constitute their endorsement of the Bill; if such endorsement is implied by the writers of the bill or others, the AVMA said they will contact those making such claim and have them correct that misinterpretation.
If you need to hear for yourselves; call them:
AVMA's Department of State Legislative and Regulatory Affairs:
Phone: 847-285-6780
These are the sponsors of HB1755:
Representatives Goodman, Fitzgibbon, Dunshee, Springer, Anderson, Dickerson, Hunt
These are the sponsors of the companion Bill SB5649:
Senators Harper, Shin, Murray, Nelson, Pridemore, Chase, Kohl-Welles, Kline
Write your representatives and ask them to oppose HB1755 and SB5649.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/
Post by: blackdog on May 01, 2012, 09:24:53 PM
Post by: TWG2A on May 01, 2012, 09:49:59 PM
I have a lot of WA people on my email distribution. I'll make sure they see this and get involved.
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
~Ayn Rand
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2012, 07:27:23 AM
Post by: huntrights on May 02, 2012, 11:02:37 PM
“2012 2ND SPECIAL SESSION Apr 11 By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.”
Since this legislative session is now over, we appear to have a reprieve.
Take note of who sponsored these Bills when you are casting your votes in the election this year; they will NOT get my vote.
Post by: TWG2A on May 03, 2012, 08:56:32 AM
There are other issues to go after right now. This one is off the docket. When you flood people with information about bills they won't be able to find, they'll start to tune you out. IMO, we should be concentrating on getting the right people elected in November and on the UN Small Arms Treaty.
I, and my Friends, are multitaskers. We can fight this before it comes to a head.
The best way to avoid an asteroid is to blast it before it hits.
Post by: blackdog on May 03, 2012, 12:03:33 PM
Post by: huntrights on May 03, 2012, 04:36:24 PM
“Since the session ended before any action could be taken on either bill they are considered dead bills. In order for any further action to be taken, a New Bill with a New Number would have to be authored by a Sponsor and introduced at the 2013 legislative session. We will have to watch for a New Bill from Goodman, Fitzgibbon, Dunshee, Springer, Anderson, Dickerson, Hunt on the House side or Harper, Shin, Murray, Nelson, Pridemore, Chase, Kohl-Welles, Kline on the Senate side. Unless elections change some of these names, they are the most probable culprits to keep an eye on. As a matter of fact, Hans Dunshee is probably the Hunters greatest enemy in Washington.”
I agree with Blackdog and TWG2A; letting our representatives know there is significant opposition to this type invasive and unnecessary legislation may discourage any future support when the pushers of this legislation try to slip it in under the radar again in 2013. It doesn't hurt to be proactive on issues like this, especially when we believe there is a good chance of it resurfacing in the next session. By the way, the 2013 legislative session starts in January, so it’s not that far off.
Post by: huntrights on May 09, 2012, 02:12:08 PM
http://www.ussportsmen.org/legislative-action/delaware-anti-tethering-bill-introduced/
This appears to be a planned, national attack on dog owners. Which organizations are pushing this legislation behind the scenes? I wonder if the sponsors of these bills would be willing to reveal who is pushing this type of extremely restrictive legislation.