Post by: huntrights on February 04, 2012, 08:30:17 AM
Related forum thread:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=92038.0
Washington State has recently passed two bills through the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Both bills, HB1755 and SB5649 are very restrictive and will affect every dog owner in the state. Like me, I suspect most dog breeders, trainers, dog owners in general, and those that have working dogs knew nothing about this pending legislation; you have a right to know and to decide for yourselves.
They contain such restrictions as:
“(1)(a) A person shall be subject to penalties as provided in this
8 section if the person leaves a dog restrained or tied outside by use of
9 a tether, chain, rope, cord, pulley, trolley system, or other device
10 under any of the following circumstances:
11 (i) Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
12 (ii) For more than ten hours consecutively, or more than ten hours
13 within any twenty-four hour period;…”
“1 (iv) On the same chain, tether, rope, cord, pulley, trolley system,
2 or fixed point as another animal;
3 (v) In a manner that allows the dog to be within ten feet of any
4 public right-of-way;
5 (vi) In a manner that prevents the dog from lying, sitting, and
6 standing comfortably, and without the restraint becoming taut, and that
7 does not allow the dog a range of movement equal to at least three
8 times the length of the dog, measured from the tip of its nose to the
9 base of its tail; …”
“18 (b) A person shall be subject to penalties as provided in this
19 section if the person leaves a dog restrained or tied under
20 circumstances that do not meet the following requirements:
21 (i) Any tether, fastener, chain, tie, or other restraint must weigh
22 no more than one-eighth the body weight of the dog, and must be
23 attached to a properly fitted buckle-type harness or collar, not less
24 than one inch in width, that provides enough room between the collar or
25 harness and the dog's throat to allow normal breathing and swallowing.”
We all care about our dogs and would not intentionally hurt them. If these laws pass and you have your dog tethered in your back yard at 10:01pm, you have just broken the law. Think about it. In my opinion, they’ve gone too far with this.
I feel relatively confident in saying that most dog owners would oppose this legislation. Unfortunately, I don’t believe most dog owners know this legislation is pending. Please write your representatives about your views on these bills.
Washington Legislature Web Site link for HB1755
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1755&year=2011
HB1755 Bill Analysis:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1755%20HBA%20JUDI%2012.pdf
HB1755 PDF link:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1755-S.pdf
Post by: Stilly bay on February 04, 2012, 02:19:22 PM
all the restrictions are reasonable and make a good deal of sense.
if you read it carefully there is nothing saying you can't have your dog chained up outside, you just have to do it humanely and responsibly.
Post by: fethrduster on February 04, 2012, 03:04:52 PM
I for one hope this goes through. :tup: I have worked with enough rescues and shelters and have seen first hand the neglect people are capable of.
all the restrictions are reasonable and make a good deal of sense.
if you read it carefully there is nothing saying you can't have your dog chained up outside, you just have to do it humanely and responsibly.
+1
Post by: huntrights on February 05, 2012, 08:47:19 PM
I for one hope this goes through. :tup: I have worked with enough rescues and shelters and have seen first hand the neglect people are capable of.
all the restrictions are reasonable and make a good deal of sense.
if you read it carefully there is nothing saying you can't have your dog chained up outside, you just have to do it humanely and responsibly.
Stilly bay and fethrduster, you have a right to your opinion. However, 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 you mentioned neighbor’s dogs keeping you 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: Sitka_Blacktail on February 05, 2012, 09:19:12 PM
Post by: Stilly bay on February 05, 2012, 11:38:45 PM
I am just about done with this thread since its marching straight into politics and arguing politics online is absolutely useless not to mention against the guidelines of this forum. Is this a matter of animal cruelty or implied freedom to the citizen? those voting against it will cry that rights are being taken away from people. those voting for it will say its the ability to neglect taken from animal abusers. and Im pretty sure neither will see anything eye to eye.
one more chime in is that I hope it passes. responsible dog owners need not worry about its implications. if they are a threat to your way of life I wouldn't think of you as entirely responsible to your dog.
I have seen countless dogs that are purchased with every intent of being taken care of, only to be forgotten on the end of a chain in the back yard. the only contact they have is when their loving "responsible" owner comes out to pat them on the head and feed before retiring for the day.
with any luck this will slow impulse dog purchases, where parents buy their kids a dog and the kids loose interest and instead of giving fido to a good home he gets chained up and more or less forgotten.
I hope this will in turn slow dog production at puppy mills, because it will curtail the impulse dog purchases.
if this infringes upon what some peoples consider their rights, then that is unfortunate. I believe having a dog or even children should be a privilege and not a right. bottom line is sometimes you can't get what you want no matter how much you think you are entitled to it. and if this means you can't afford a dog because of the investment of a kennel or because of your living situations and not being able to bring the dog in at night, then maybe in all likely hood you just can't afford a dog. dog food and vet bills for proper care are expensive as well, its all part of the territory for dog/animal ownership or at least it damn well better be.
before I am totally flamed, I wil add that I don't believe dogs or animals are due the same rights as people, but I do believe in respecting Life and doing right by your responsibilities and after years of shelter, and rescue work I can say too many people need to be curtailed with rules and regulations when it comes to their animals.
I cannot for see a total and complete crackdown on dog ownership in violation to this bill, this whole thing was simply creation for leverage in extreme violations. marijuana has been taken off the list of priorities for the police dept, enforcing this tether law will be far below marijuana. but it will be a good tool for when the time comes to enforce a blatant case, and believe it or not the police are not out to get everyone and they are able to use their own discretion in many situations.
these are just my opinions and I fully respect your right to disagree.
yours truly
one trigger happy -blood thirsty- hunter and lifelong dog owner.
Post by: huntrights on February 06, 2012, 09:30:47 AM
I cannot for see a total and complete crackdown on dog ownership in violation to this bill, this whole thing was simply creation for leverage in extreme violations.
If legislation is written, but not intended to be enforced, it should not have been written. Badly written laws can and do hurt innocent people. In my opinion, this legislation is badly written and has the potential of putting every dog owner at risk of prosecution at some point in time.
I started this thread because dog owners have a right to know what legislation is out there that could affect them, most would never know unless the word can get out through communication methods such as this. Let the people be informed and make up their own mind; they just need to be sure to read the proposed legislation carefully and understand the potential implications. I have to add, beware when assuming a law will not be enforced because of the perception it is low on the priority list or it's only intended for extreme violators (this legislation is not written that way); the law is the law. Law enforcement officers are obligated to enforce all laws that are on the books as is our judicial system.
This thread was not intended to be inflammatory , it was intended to inform.
Post by: Mike450r on February 06, 2012, 09:38:05 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 06, 2012, 09:49:06 AM
If you don't have a fence, don't have a dog. Just an opinion but I am sticking to it. I think it is a good proposal from top to bottom.
You obviously don't keep hunting hounds. They need to be kept separated by tethers or they'll fight and hurt each other. Why do we need more state laws about animal abuse when we already have so many that aren't being enforced? I don't get this frame of thinking.
Post by: Mike450r on February 06, 2012, 10:46:56 AM
If you don't have a fence, don't have a dog. Just an opinion but I am sticking to it. I think it is a good proposal from top to bottom.
You obviously don't keep hunting hounds. They need to be kept separated by tethers or they'll fight and hurt each other. Why do we need more state laws about animal abuse when we already have so many that aren't being enforced? I don't get this frame of thinking.
You're right, I don't. I know several who do however, and only one keeps his hounds separate by tethering them which I disagree with. The others keep their hounds separated in individual chain link kennels. So you are incorrect to say they need to be tethered, tethering is just the cheapest option to keep them separated. I don't think any dog should be tethered for any length of time other than possibly a rare need to do so but only very short term. My personal feelings but thats why I think it is a good proposal.
The fact that some animal abuse laws are not being enforced isn't a good argument against a new law. There was no law making it illegal to f*ck a dog (or any animal) in Washington until fairly recently, but I am glad there is now even if they may not enforce other animal abuse laws. You say that as if you would be against ANY new animal abuse laws but I think it is this one in particular since you disagree with IT in particular.
Post by: Special T on February 06, 2012, 11:09:09 AM
I'm tired of whining by a bunch of panises that pass laws but don't do anything where the rubber meets the road!
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 06, 2012, 11:10:09 AM
Post by: Stilly bay on February 06, 2012, 11:13:58 AM
, or SACK UP and take the dog from the owner and find it a good home!
just make sure your wearing a bullet proof vest when you do it and have a good lawyer on retainer.
Post by: Stilly bay on February 06, 2012, 11:21:31 AM
Just because you think that all animals need separate kennels and Iams dog food doesn't mean that they do. And it also doesn't mean that people can afford to do it. Some dogs are treated very well on tethers eating generic kibbles.
Dogs are damn expensive, and really don't think the vast majority of the american population see it this way. when they buy junior a puppy and figure dog food is going to cost $50 bucks a month thats just the bird chit on the tip of the ice berg. if you can afford all the incidentals that go along with dog ownership a $300-500 investment for a kennel is not much. you should have that saved in the bank incase your dog gets ill and needs to go the vet.
I hate to say it but the old school ways are dying and in some cases thats a good thing. for the houndsmen its a damn shame. they have been flogged to death in washington, and would love to see special considerations made for them as its a unique way of life.
dang it I thought I was done with this :bash:
Post by: Special T on February 06, 2012, 12:14:55 PM
, or SACK UP and take the dog from the owner and find it a good home!
just make sure your wearing a bullet proof vest when you do it and have a good lawyer on retainer.
I'm so tired of people not talking with thier neighbors. If you got to work early in the am and there is a party going until 2am, be nice and walk over and tell them that, and ask nicely to tone it down instead of calling the cops all the time. If the neighbor is broke actually talking to the person might help, not all these stupid laws they come up with. I TALK to my neighbors if i have a problem and expect them to do the same.
My father rescued a dog from that very kind of situation, He talked to the owner then walked up and took the dog off the chain home.
1 by "Sacking Up" I mean if it bothers YOU, YOU should be the one to do something, not someone else.
2 I would bet that anyone that actually was in rough shape would not take a gun to you if they couldn't afford the dog.
Post by: Stilly bay on February 06, 2012, 12:47:12 PM
, or SACK UP and take the dog from the owner and find it a good home!
just make sure your wearing a bullet proof vest when you do it and have a good lawyer on retainer.
I'm so tired of people not talking with thier neighbors. If you got to work early in the am and there is a party going until 2am, be nice and walk over and tell them that, and ask nicely to tone it down instead of calling the cops all the time. If the neighbor is broke actually talking to the person might help, not all these stupid laws they come up with. I TALK to my neighbors if i have a problem and expect them to do the same.
My father rescued a dog from that very kind of situation, He talked to the owner then walked up and took the dog off the chain home.
1 by "Sacking Up" I mean if it bothers YOU, YOU should be the one to do something, not someone else.
2 I would bet that anyone that actually was in rough shape would not take a gun to you if they couldn't afford the dog.
I agree special T. just not a good Idea to snag a dog off anyones porch -no matter how destitute- without getting permission first.
communication seems to be at an all time low these days, just look at all the middle class neighborhoods. there will ten separate drive ways in a cul de sac and they will all have their own basketball hoop (the point being you only need one hoop for a game). or how many times have you been at the grocery store and someone will just stand next to you silently if your in their way waiting for you to move instead of simply saying "excuse me".
it seems like the status quo for neighbors is: don't know you, don't want to know you. a far cry from the good old days when your neighbors were some of your best friends just because you were part of a community together.
Post by: huntrights on February 06, 2012, 03:07:49 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, 10:57:13 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: Wenatcheejay on February 14, 2012, 01:55:47 PM
I cannot for see a total and complete crackdown on dog ownership in violation to this bill, this whole thing was simply creation for leverage in extreme violations.
If legislation is written, but not intended to be enforced, it should not have been written. Badly written laws can and do hurt innocent people. In my opinion, this legislation is badly written and has the potential of putting every dog owner at risk of prosecution at some point in time.
I started this thread because dog owners have a right to know what legislation is out there that could affect them, most would never know unless the word can get out through communication methods such as this. Let the people be informed and make up their own mind; they just need to be sure to read the proposed legislation carefully and understand the potential implications. I have to add, beware when assuming a law will not be enforced because of the perception it is low on the priority list or it's only intended for extreme violators (this legislation is not written that way); the law is the law. Law enforcement officers are obligated to enforce all laws that are on the books as is our judicial system.
This thread was not intended to be inflammatory , it was intended to inform.
(((If legislation is written, but not intended to be enforced, it should not have been written.)))
Common sense right there!
Post by: huntrights on May 01, 2012, 06:59:30 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: huntrights on May 02, 2012, 11:20:24 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: huntrights on May 03, 2012, 04:44:22 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: Special T on May 08, 2012, 04:54:27 PM
Post by: ironhead14 on May 09, 2012, 04:01:19 AM
You folks need to know about this legislation; if you own a dog, it affects you.I can't believe the crap they come up with. Politicians need to be put on leashes. Very short ones too! Make sure you get out to vote. Take note of the party that brings us this type of brilliance!!
Related forum thread:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=92038.0
Washington State has recently passed two bills through the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Both bills, HB1755 and SB5649 are very restrictive and will affect every dog owner in the state. Like me, I suspect most dog breeders, trainers, dog owners in general, and those that have working dogs knew nothing about this pending legislation; you have a right to know and to decide for yourselves.
They contain such restrictions as:
“(1)(a) A person shall be subject to penalties as provided in this
8 section if the person leaves a dog restrained or tied outside by use of
9 a tether, chain, rope, cord, pulley, trolley system, or other device
10 under any of the following circumstances:
11 (i) Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
12 (ii) For more than ten hours consecutively, or more than ten hours
13 within any twenty-four hour period;…”
“1 (iv) On the same chain, tether, rope, cord, pulley, trolley system,
2 or fixed point as another animal;
3 (v) In a manner that allows the dog to be within ten feet of any
4 public right-of-way;
5 (vi) In a manner that prevents the dog from lying, sitting, and
6 standing comfortably, and without the restraint becoming taut, and that
7 does not allow the dog a range of movement equal to at least three
8 times the length of the dog, measured from the tip of its nose to the
9 base of its tail; …”
“18 (b) A person shall be subject to penalties as provided in this
19 section if the person leaves a dog restrained or tied under
20 circumstances that do not meet the following requirements:
21 (i) Any tether, fastener, chain, tie, or other restraint must weigh
22 no more than one-eighth the body weight of the dog, and must be
23 attached to a properly fitted buckle-type harness or collar, not less
24 than one inch in width, that provides enough room between the collar or
25 harness and the dog's throat to allow normal breathing and swallowing.”
We all care about our dogs and would not intentionally hurt them. If these laws pass and you have your dog tethered in your back yard at 10:01pm, you have just broken the law. Think about it. In my opinion, they’ve gone too far with this.
I feel relatively confident in saying that most dog owners would oppose this legislation. Unfortunately, I don’t believe most dog owners know this legislation is pending. Please write your representatives about your views on these bills.
Washington Legislature Web Site link for HB1755
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1755&year=2011
HB1755 Bill Analysis:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1755%20HBA%20JUDI%2012.pdf
HB1755 PDF link:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1755-S.pdf