Post by: huntrights on February 04, 2012, 08:31:47 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: wrongway on February 04, 2012, 08:55:01 AM
Post by: goosegetter79 on February 04, 2012, 09:03:20 AM
Post by: jaymark6655 on February 04, 2012, 09:19:58 AM
In a lot of ways I like this, I am a dog owner and I never put my dog on a line of any kind, but I think this is for all the people who do not take care of thier dogs the right way. nothing worse then a dog barking who it tied up all night.
I had a lab, use to keep him on a run 100 ft cable with a pulley and then a 30ft lead attached to the dog. He was aways kept outside, too big for inside. Never barked all night. As for taking care of the right way, I guess my other option is to lock him in a crate all day while I am at work, bet he will love that.
Post by: goosegetter79 on February 04, 2012, 09:39:43 AM
In a lot of ways I like this, I am a dog owner and I never put my dog on a line of any kind, but I think this is for all the people who do not take care of thier dogs the right way. nothing worse then a dog barking who it tied up all night.
I had a lab, use to keep him on a run 100 ft cable with a pulley and then a 30ft lead attached to the dog. He was aways kept outside, too big for inside. Never barked all night. As for taking care of the right way, I guess my other option is to lock him in a crate all day while I am at work, bet he will love that.
I got a lab, he's inside all day when i'm here and gone and not in a crate. How's he too big for ur house? :dunno:
Post by: wrongway on February 04, 2012, 09:43:23 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 04, 2012, 10:38:26 AM
I understand and applaud those of you who would protect animals from abuse, but don't do it with this law. It's a bad law with a broad sweep that will restrict people who ARE taking good care of their animals by tethering them to keep them from harm.
Not only should you not support this bill, you should oppose it. My :twocents:
Post by: jaymark6655 on February 04, 2012, 11:43:36 AM
Well I guess too big isn't the right word, but ten hours or more away is a long time for him to not poop or piss. Since I was little dogs aways stayed outside. He has an awesome house (spent one night in it -10 deg and an ice storm had frozen the locks shut when I was a kid and parents couldn't make it home from work so I crawled in there with the dog) and more room to run than the house has. Just saying the writting in this bill is too vague and could get a lot of people in trouble. :twocents:In a lot of ways I like this, I am a dog owner and I never put my dog on a line of any kind, but I think this is for all the people who do not take care of thier dogs the right way. nothing worse then a dog barking who it tied up all night.
I had a lab, use to keep him on a run 100 ft cable with a pulley and then a 30ft lead attached to the dog. He was aways kept outside, too big for inside. Never barked all night. As for taking care of the right way, I guess my other option is to lock him in a crate all day while I am at work, bet he will love that.
I got a lab, he's inside all day when i'm here and gone and not in a crate. How's he too big for ur house? :dunno:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 04, 2012, 12:12:09 PM
Post by: Stilly bay on February 04, 2012, 02:23:02 PM
unfortunately this is going to be a low priority for the police, lower even than pot with just got dropped to a non priority.
every thing listed is reasonable and makes sense. no where does it say you can't have your dog chained up, you just have to be humane about it and respect your neighbors .
I cannot fathom any opposition to this bill by responsible dog owners.
Post by: singleshot12 on February 04, 2012, 03:24:13 PM
Post by: Houndhunter on February 04, 2012, 04:28:50 PM
Post by: Widgeondeke on February 04, 2012, 04:41:50 PM
As was stated, we already have laws for animal abuse.
Also, this means your yard was just reduced by 10' if it borders a road or sidewallk, hmmm
Post by: wraithen on February 04, 2012, 04:55:14 PM
Post by: Stilly bay on February 04, 2012, 08:45:28 PM
this one piece of the bill obviously applies to disrespectful people whose leave their yapping dogs out all night for the neighbors to listen to. how are the cops going to find out about your noisy damn dog- that only is in violation in the dead of night?? probably because your neighbors are tired of listening to it and called the cops to complain. now the police have grounds to issue you a fine instead of a warning. maybe now you will do something to shut your damn dog up!
everything else is just neglect or abuse issues. if you have a problem with those you don't deserve a dog in the first place. don't drink the paranoid kool-aid.
if this bill doesn't pass I will blame the Washington state school system for not focusing more on reading comprehension.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 04, 2012, 09:03:52 PM
In my opinion this is one of the ways the animal rights groups is sneaking in their agenda. What next? Collars and leashes? Electronic collars?
Post by: wraithen on February 04, 2012, 10:26:05 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 05, 2012, 08:49:52 AM
everything else is just neglect or abuse issues. if you have a problem with those you don't deserve a dog in the first place. don't drink the paranoid kool-aid.
if this bill doesn't pass I will blame the Washington state school system for not focusing more on reading comprehension.
It's only that one part of the bowl which does need to be changed. As i said earlier, opposing animal neglect is a good thing. Writing a bill that could negatively affect people who are not neglecting their animals is just dumb. The new section 1 is very specific and i believe that most people could get behind this without that section.
When a bill is written in such a way that it allows for the punishment of citizens who've done nothing wrong, then it should be changed or voted out. We have to watch our step far too often as it is.
Post by: Stilly bay on February 05, 2012, 09:24:54 AM
everything else is just neglect or abuse issues. if you have a problem with those you don't deserve a dog in the first place. don't drink the paranoid kool-aid.
if this bill doesn't pass I will blame the Washington state school system for not focusing more on reading comprehension.
It's only that one part of the bowl which does need to be changed. As i said earlier, opposing animal neglect is a good thing. Writing a bill that could negatively affect people who are not neglecting their animals is just dumb. The new section 1 is very specific and i believe that most people could get behind this without that section.
When a bill is written in such a way that it allows for the punishment of citizens who've done nothing wrong, then it should be changed or voted out. We have to watch our step far too often as it is.
How would you change it, if you could ? would you omit the offending article or alter it?
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 05, 2012, 09:57:29 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on February 05, 2012, 10:03:49 AM
Post by: huntrights on February 05, 2012, 08:55:21 PM
I hope this goes through, this won't affect people who care about their dogs.
unfortunately this is going to be a low priority for the police, lower even than pot with just got dropped to a non priority.
every thing listed is reasonable and makes sense. no where does it say you can't have your dog chained up, you just have to be humane about it and respect your neighbors .
I cannot fathom any opposition to this bill by responsible dog owners.
Stilly bay, 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: runamuk on February 05, 2012, 09:08:18 PM
I hope it passes too. Common sense restrictions might atleast help the irresponsible to think twice while being a dog owner. Something needs to be done to curb neglect etc. All Dogs deserve justice. All animals for that matter.then you would also be for common sense restrictions on owning guns...like must be a certain age and must keep them locked a specific manner the government decides is safest??
It is all the same...the good dog owners are already responsible and the bad ones are currently violating ordinances and laws that exist now whats going to make them suddenly obey a "new" law? and if by some freak chance it passes then the over burdened sheriffs departments get to enforce this ...so my question is should they be chasing down complaints of tied up dogs put out for a quick 10 minute midnight pee or should they be looking into the tweeker snooping around your house :dunno: because they cannot be in both places at once. :dunno: so in effect this law doesnt do crap to actually protect dogs but it effectively strips more rights to privacy of the citizens...it creates more rightful intrusion by authorities since ownership of a dog now makes you suspect.... :dunno:
Post by: BIGINNER on February 06, 2012, 07:00:35 AM
In a lot of ways I like this, I am a dog owner and I never put my dog on a line of any kind, but I think this is for all the people who do not take care of thier dogs the right way. nothing worse then a dog barking who it tied up all night.
I had a lab, use to keep him on a run 100 ft cable with a pulley and then a 30ft lead attached to the dog. He was aways kept outside, too big for inside. Never barked all night. As for taking care of the right way, I guess my other option is to lock him in a crate all day while I am at work, bet he will love that.
I got a lab, he's inside all day when i'm here and gone and not in a crate. How's he too big for ur house? :dunno:
so,.. you're saying everybody should keep their dogs inside at night? i wouldn't be caught dead leaving any kind of animal inside our house. this bill doesnt affect one bit since i hate tieing up my dog,.. and i keep them in a kennel, but there was a one week period after i moved to my new place where i didn't have a kennel, so i kept the dogs tied up at night,... the dogs were comfortable, and well fed, and weren't neglected, so by this law i could have been doing jail time for that, its just plain stupid. if you don't like tieing up your dog,... well its easy, just don't do it, don't be shoving your life style down other people's throats, yes there is people that just negelct dogs and leave them tied up all the time without any attention, but also i've sen just as much if not more people that just neglect their dogs and let them fend for themselves searching dumpsters for food, you can't fix stupid with laws that will affect the normal people with common sence.
Post by: Stilly bay on February 06, 2012, 11:06:50 AM
I hope it passes too. Common sense restrictions might atleast help the irresponsible to think twice while being a dog owner. Something needs to be done to curb neglect etc. All Dogs deserve justice. All animals for that matter.then you would also be for common sense restrictions on owning guns...like must be a certain age and must keep them locked a specific manner the government decides is safest??
It is all the same...the good dog owners are already responsible and the bad ones are currently violating ordinances and laws that exist now whats going to make them suddenly obey a "new" law? and if by some freak chance it passes then the over burdened sheriffs departments get to enforce this ...so my question is should they be chasing down complaints of tied up dogs put out for a quick 10 minute midnight pee or should they be looking into the tweeker snooping around your house :dunno: because they cannot be in both places at once. :dunno: so in effect this law doesnt do crap to actually protect dogs but it effectively strips more rights to privacy of the citizens...it creates more rightful intrusion by authorities since ownership of a dog now makes you suspect.... :dunno:
I am resigned to this being a leverage bill that will allow the blatant violators to be prosecuted swiftly and loose ends to be tied up neatly without wasting any more court time than needed.
the hypothesis that once this passes the police dept is going to drop every thing to pursue dog owners in violation of this bill over other crimes is completely asinine. show me an example of a particular law that overlaps this proposed one. One caveat being this must be a law specific to the sheriff/police dept jurisdiction and NOT animal control or other department. I would love to know as I seem to be missing something here.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 06, 2012, 11:14:42 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 06, 2012, 11:26:34 AM
So, if you come back from walking the dog and loop the leash around the trailer hitch while getting the vehicle ready...it appears you've just violated this law (assuming normal leash length) and can go to jail. Or at the park and wrap the leash around the bench while you tie your shoe....
And to add:
I don't think cops will be out patroling for this....BUT I do think animal rights people will be calling the police when they see a dog tied up. I can just imagine all the greenies from Seattle headed out for their hikes driving through small towns calling the sheriff because the rope looks to short or the dog was on the rope when they drove by 11 hours ago, etc.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 06, 2012, 11:30:17 AM
We already have laws that protect animals from abuse, including leaving them outside without proper care or protection from the cold. Those who have hunting hounds often must keep them tied up to keep them apart or the dogs will fight and can injure or kill each other. The dog that needs to go out at night for even a short time wouldn't be able to be tethered for even 5 minutes under this law.
I understand and applaud those of you who would protect animals from abuse, but don't do it with this law. It's a bad law with a broad sweep that will restrict people who ARE taking good care of their animals by tethering them to keep them from harm.
Not only should you not support this bill, you should oppose it. My :twocents:
Thanks for the EASY letter!
Post by: huntrights on February 06, 2012, 12:38:03 PM
show me an example of a particular law that overlaps this proposed one. One caveat being this must be a law specific to the sheriff/police dept jurisdiction and NOT animal control or other department. I would love to know as I seem to be missing something here.
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 06, 2012, 12:50:24 PM
It amazes me that people will turn a blind eye to the negative effects that sweeping, poorly written legislation will have on the 9 out of 10 people who DO take proper care of their animals. It also amazes me how quickly people just accept that we need more laws everyday, regardless of the fact that the old ones are not being enforced. Why are people so addicted to new legislation? Every new law has the capacity or further limiting us in our homes and lives. This is not the freedom our forefathers envisioned. They envisioned a government which only stepped in when absolutely necessary, not at every opportunity.:yeah: :tup:
Post by: Curly on February 06, 2012, 12:57:55 PM
This is bull, I'm tired of people telling you how you can raise a animal. I dont need laws to tell me that, this may not sound bad but this will start down a path in the wrong direction. Any stupid laws like this need to be kept in city limits only
:yeah:
Exactly! No way should this be a state law. I could see a City adopting legislation such as this if there was a problem and the citizens decided on something like this, but a Statewide law is ridiculous in my opinion.
Post by: runamuk on February 06, 2012, 01:33:56 PM
I hope it passes too. Common sense restrictions might atleast help the irresponsible to think twice while being a dog owner. Something needs to be done to curb neglect etc. All Dogs deserve justice. All animals for that matter.then you would also be for common sense restrictions on owning guns...like must be a certain age and must keep them locked a specific manner the government decides is safest??
It is all the same...the good dog owners are already responsible and the bad ones are currently violating ordinances and laws that exist now whats going to make them suddenly obey a "new" law? and if by some freak chance it passes then the over burdened sheriffs departments get to enforce this ...so my question is should they be chasing down complaints of tied up dogs put out for a quick 10 minute midnight pee or should they be looking into the tweeker snooping around your house :dunno: because they cannot be in both places at once. :dunno: so in effect this law doesnt do crap to actually protect dogs but it effectively strips more rights to privacy of the citizens...it creates more rightful intrusion by authorities since ownership of a dog now makes you suspect.... :dunno:
I am resigned to this being a leverage bill that will allow the blatant violators to be prosecuted swiftly and loose ends to be tied up neatly without wasting any more court time than needed.
the hypothesis that once this passes the police dept is going to drop every thing to pursue dog owners in violation of this bill over other crimes is completely asinine. show me an example of a particular law that overlaps this proposed one. One caveat being this must be a law specific to the sheriff/police dept jurisdiction and NOT animal control or other department. I would love to know as I seem to be missing something here.
there seem to be about 15 of this thread in one the rcw related to some of these issues has been posted....
each county has laws dealing with dogs as do most cities and the state.
Grays harbor county some numb nuts decided we needed a barking dog ordinance....and the do gooders passed it. The existing noise ordinance covered all noise so it was a redundant ordinance. The sheriff who's jurisdiction any given night is from ocean shores to elma flat said this was a bad idea they dont have the time or resources to run around enforcing the existing rules...
As was posted elsewhere there are dangerous dog laws at a STATE level that cover the chained dog near the sidewalk. Every jurisdiction I have lived in and I have lived in more than most both rural and urban have noise ordinances that cover barking dogs, so the person with a brain knows they can get that chained to the tree barking its ass off dog dealt with using noise/nuisance. The bigger issue as I see it is we now have so many damn laws telling us how to live that it is easier to make up a new one than research the proper use and enforcement of the ones that exist....
My suggestion is peoplewho think this is a good idea sit down abnd read every rcw and then read every ordinance for their jurisdiction and see if they can find a law that could be used to deal with the neighbor that has them so upset they'd willingly pass another law... :dunno:
Post by: Curly on February 06, 2012, 01:59:22 PM
Post by: seth30 on February 06, 2012, 02:06:17 PM
Post by: wraithen on February 06, 2012, 02:11:20 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on February 06, 2012, 02:50:11 PM
I hope it passes too. Common sense restrictions might atleast help the irresponsible to think twice while being a dog owner. Something needs to be done to curb neglect etc. All Dogs deserve justice. All animals for that matter.then you would also be for common sense restrictions on owning guns...like must be a certain age and must keep them locked a specific manner the government decides is safest??
It is all the same...the good dog owners are already responsible and the bad ones are currently violating ordinances and laws that exist now whats going to make them suddenly obey a "new" law? and if by some freak chance it passes then the over burdened sheriffs departments get to enforce this ...so my question is should they be chasing down complaints of tied up dogs put out for a quick 10 minute midnight pee or should they be looking into the tweeker snooping around your house :dunno: because they cannot be in both places at once. :dunno: so in effect this law doesnt do crap to actually protect dogs but it effectively strips more rights to privacy of the citizens...it creates more rightful intrusion by authorities since ownership of a dog now makes you suspect.... :dunno:
:yeah: I see your point! and I'm starting to change my views on this after reading most of the feedback here, especially "pianoman's".. I know there are already enough existing laws already.. I just wish something MORE could be done about the irresponsible dog owner. It pisses me off just as much as child neglect or abuse. And like that I just wish something more could be done to curb it
Post by: BIGINNER on February 06, 2012, 02:56:10 PM
I hope it passes too. Common sense restrictions might atleast help the irresponsible to think twice while being a dog owner. Something needs to be done to curb neglect etc. All Dogs deserve justice. All animals for that matter.then you would also be for common sense restrictions on owning guns...like must be a certain age and must keep them locked a specific manner the government decides is safest??
It is all the same...the good dog owners are already responsible and the bad ones are currently violating ordinances and laws that exist now whats going to make them suddenly obey a "new" law? and if by some freak chance it passes then the over burdened sheriffs departments get to enforce this ...so my question is should they be chasing down complaints of tied up dogs put out for a quick 10 minute midnight pee or should they be looking into the tweeker snooping around your house :dunno: because they cannot be in both places at once. :dunno: so in effect this law doesnt do crap to actually protect dogs but it effectively strips more rights to privacy of the citizens...it creates more rightful intrusion by authorities since ownership of a dog now makes you suspect.... :dunno:
:yeah: I see your point! and I'm starting to change my views on this after reading most of the feedback here, especially "pianoman's".. I know there are already enough existing laws already.. I just wish something MORE could be done about the irresponsible dog owner. It pisses me off just as much as child neglect or abuse. And like that I just wish something more could be done to curb it
think about it this way, poaching is illegal, there are laws against poaching, but to try and curb poaching a bit more they decide to pass a law that makes it illegal to have a rifle in your car after dark,... :dunno: sounds pretty rediculouse, right? well thats exactly what this law is like. :)
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 06, 2012, 04:19:06 PM
I hope it passes too. Common sense restrictions might atleast help the irresponsible to think twice while being a dog owner. Something needs to be done to curb neglect etc. All Dogs deserve justice. All animals for that matter.then you would also be for common sense restrictions on owning guns...like must be a certain age and must keep them locked a specific manner the government decides is safest??
It is all the same...the good dog owners are already responsible and the bad ones are currently violating ordinances and laws that exist now whats going to make them suddenly obey a "new" law? and if by some freak chance it passes then the over burdened sheriffs departments get to enforce this ...so my question is should they be chasing down complaints of tied up dogs put out for a quick 10 minute midnight pee or should they be looking into the tweeker snooping around your house :dunno: because they cannot be in both places at once. :dunno: so in effect this law doesnt do crap to actually protect dogs but it effectively strips more rights to privacy of the citizens...it creates more rightful intrusion by authorities since ownership of a dog now makes you suspect.... :dunno:
:yeah: I see your point! and I'm starting to change my views on this after reading most of the feedback here, especially "pianoman's".. I know there are already enough existing laws already.. I just wish something MORE could be done about the irresponsible dog owner. It pisses me off just as much as child neglect or abuse. And like that I just wish something more could be done to curb it
I sure applaud your care for critters. Thanks for being open-minded in this conversation.
Post by: Happy Gilmore on February 07, 2012, 12:48:21 AM
Post by: Fowlweather25 on February 07, 2012, 10:40:12 AM
Post by: Happy Gilmore on February 07, 2012, 10:49:58 AM
Woohoo so imprison them instead of given them a run on a high line with a nice doghouse and dry bedding, with an automatic waterer. Hmm where they can chit and piss without having to be within 10 feet of it makes perfect sense! :tup: NOT
It is safer for the dog. Leaving a dog on a long lead is not safe unsupervised. The wonderful dumped off pit bull shows up and tears your dog apart because he's tied to a long line and you're not home? That doesn't make sense to me. It is unsafe.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 07, 2012, 10:52:44 AM
Dogs should not be left on chains or tie outs unsupervised. If you leave a dog unsupervised it should be in a locked and secure chain link kennel with water and dry bedding at minimum.
There are plenty of dogs on chains that are very well taken care of and have water and dry bedding. Your comment shows some ignorance of alternative methods of care. You're somehow picturing an abused animal left for days without anyone caring for it. That's already illegal in WA and violators should be brought to justice. But, there are plenty of dogs that are on tether that have freedom of movement that a kennel doesn't provide, a place to dig that a kennel doesn't provide, and are very happy and well cared for.
Post by: Fowlweather25 on February 07, 2012, 10:57:09 AM
Post by: Happy Gilmore on February 07, 2012, 10:57:34 AM
Dogs should not be left on chains or tie outs unsupervised. If you leave a dog unsupervised it should be in a locked and secure chain link kennel with water and dry bedding at minimum.
There are plenty of dogs on chains that are very well taken care of and have water and dry bedding. Your comment shows some ignorance of alternative methods of care. You're somehow picturing an abused animal left for days without anyone caring for it. That's already illegal in WA and violators should be brought to justice. But, there are plenty of dogs that are on tether that have freedom of movement that a kennel doesn't provide, a place to dig that a kennel doesn't provide, and are very happy and well cared for.
I'm not insinuating they are not well cared for. I agree they get freedom of movement and that is relaxing for the dog. I just do not feel an unsupervised, (at least be home) dog who is out free to the world is safe. Purely from a safety standpoint, nothing else. I believe they can be well cared for and have good dog house etc and be on a tie out. I just would not want to risk the cable breaking/getting loose or a strange dog showing up and mauling my dog on a cable.
Post by: Happy Gilmore on February 07, 2012, 10:59:31 AM
So theoretically that same pit bull could show up and chew on me while I'm home alone! Should I stay in the house cause it's safer? Your dog could drown when hunting or get attacked by a friggen otter, should they just stay in the kennel? I would much rather give my dog freedom to move and be a dog than to imprison him in a kennel or crate with nowhere to do his business!
Dogs are a responsibility and daily cleaning is required, along with exercise, vet visits, shots and training.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 07, 2012, 11:00:20 AM
Woohoo so imprison them instead of given them a run on a high line with a nice doghouse and dry bedding, with an automatic waterer. Hmm where they can chit and piss without having to be within 10 feet of it makes perfect sense! :tup: NOT
It is safer for the dog. Leaving a dog on a long lead is not safe unsupervised. The wonderful dumped off pit bull shows up and tears your dog apart because he's tied to a long line and you're not home? That doesn't make sense to me. It is unsafe.
Let me get this right: So, because the owner of a stray pitbull has violated the law and his dog is running wild, apparently randomly killing animals, the owner of the tethered dog should be restricted? This is true liberal thinking. That's like saying that if I were attacked by a wandering pit bull, we should pass a law that 54 year olds shouldn't be allowed to walk without wearing Kevlar pit bull protection.
Post by: Happy Gilmore on February 07, 2012, 11:03:48 AM
Woohoo so imprison them instead of given them a run on a high line with a nice doghouse and dry bedding, with an automatic waterer. Hmm where they can chit and piss without having to be within 10 feet of it makes perfect sense! :tup: NOT
It is safer for the dog. Leaving a dog on a long lead is not safe unsupervised. The wonderful dumped off pit bull shows up and tears your dog apart because he's tied to a long line and you're not home? That doesn't make sense to me. It is unsafe.
Let me get this right: So, because the owner of a stray pitbull has violated the law and his dog is running wild, apparently randomly killing animals, the owner of the tethered dog should be restricted? This is true liberal thinking. That's like saying that if I were attacked by a wandering pit bull, we should pass a law that 54 year olds shouldn't be allowed to walk without wearing Kevlar pit bull protection.
Didn't it say for over 10 hours left unsupervised? I don't care about potential laws other people break. I only care about keeping my animals safe. I don't believe that a law should be made for this but, I would never leave my own dogs home alone on a long lead. I would with a very well fenced yard to make sure they couldn't get in/ my dogs out.
Not true liberal thinking. You can do what you want to do but, I'm only commenting that I don't think it's safe for the dogs. They are the ones who don't have a choice.
Post by: Fowlweather25 on February 07, 2012, 11:06:15 AM
So theoretically that same pit bull could show up and chew on me while I'm home alone! Should I stay in the house cause it's safer? Your dog could drown when hunting or get attacked by a friggen otter, should they just stay in the kennel? I would much rather give my dog freedom to move and be a dog than to imprison him in a kennel or crate with nowhere to do his business!
Dogs are a responsibility and daily cleaning is required, along with exercise, vet visits, shots and training.
[/quote so as long as it's cleaned once a day it's ok to haveto live in that condition as long as you are gone for the day?
Post by: huntrights on February 07, 2012, 11:13:38 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.
Didn't it say for over 10 hours left unsupervised?
It says: "For more than ten hours consecutively, or more than ten hours within any twenty-four hour period".
Post by: Happy Gilmore on February 07, 2012, 11:21:50 AM
Post by: BIGINNER on February 07, 2012, 11:48:05 AM
Woohoo so imprison them instead of given them a run on a high line with a nice doghouse and dry bedding, with an automatic waterer. Hmm where they can chit and piss without having to be within 10 feet of it makes perfect sense! :tup: NOT
It is safer for the dog. Leaving a dog on a long lead is not safe unsupervised. The wonderful dumped off pit bull shows up and tears your dog apart because he's tied to a long line and you're not home? That doesn't make sense to me. It is unsafe.
well in that case a metior can hit my dogs while they're in the kennel... :dunno:
Post by: Happy Gilmore on February 07, 2012, 12:01:43 PM
Woohoo so imprison them instead of given them a run on a high line with a nice doghouse and dry bedding, with an automatic waterer. Hmm where they can chit and piss without having to be within 10 feet of it makes perfect sense! :tup: NOT
It is safer for the dog. Leaving a dog on a long lead is not safe unsupervised. The wonderful dumped off pit bull shows up and tears your dog apart because he's tied to a long line and you're not home? That doesn't make sense to me. It is unsafe.
well in that case a metior can hit my dogs while they're in the kennel... :dunno:
Maybe it's different for me because I'm expected to keep other peoples' dogs safe?
Post by: huntrights on May 01, 2012, 06:57:52 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, 11:20:57 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, 04:45:02 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.