Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Super Dawg Member Phil Kaufman aka AffiliateHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 22nd, 2007
    West Covina, CA
    Washington State Members - Urgent Help for Dogs Needed
    All of you who reside in the state of Washington, especially dog lovers, but really ALL of you compassionate people out there - my daughter who lives in Seattle, just sent me the following email re State Senate Bill 5870 that is up for a public hearing tomorrow and which will require any "sheriff or any deputy sheriff to kill any dog found running at large"!!!!!!!

    Please contact your state Senator and Rep. to register your outrage at this. Feel free to use any of the material my daughter has sent out.

    THANKS from all us Hounds.

    Here's a copy of the letter I posted on Senator Jacobsen's website,
    also copying our state representatives. It also looks like, from
    looking at the web site a bit more, that it isn't up for a vote
    tomorrow, it's up for a public hearing. We posted an alert on NARN's
    page on Facebook. Hopefully others will pay attention. Facebook is a
    big vehicle for animal rights groups.

    Senator Jacobsen,

    I am a voter from the 46th legislative district. I have just recently
    become aware of a bill that will be up for public hearing tomorrow,
    February 20, 2009. This is bill SB 5870 - Concerning dogs running at
    large, requiring "sheriff or any deputy sheriff to kill any dog found
    running at large (after the first day of August of any year and before
    the first day of March in the following year) without a metal
    identification tag."

    I find this bill both ludicrous and reprehensible. The idea that a
    dog MUST be put to death because it finds itself in a situation
    separated from human control is astounding. Yes, it is true that dog
    behaviour can be an unknown. But, to commit a sentence of death
    because of a "what if" or a "could be" is a truly extremist and
    alarmist action.

    There are many reasons this bill is a very bad idea. Dogs,
    unfortunately, can find themselves out in the world more easily than
    is ideal. Fences grow old and can form nearly invisible weak spots
    allowing escape. Fence latches also become defective with age, and
    gates with the help of weather, open up. People (perhaps in a
    friendly visit, perhaps doing a duty such as meter-reader) are often
    careless with the amount of attention they pay to how well they latch
    a gate. Dogs sometimes find themselves loose. These are not just
    "wild" dogs. These are not just strays (not that any such dogs should
    be deemed criminals because of their cast). Often these are companion
    dogs, who through some misfortune or happenstance find themselves away
    from home. They need our help, not our hate.

    The detail in this bill suggesting lack of metal tag marks a dog as a
    more dangerous threat is also a very shaky stance to take. Microchips
    are a common mode of identification these days. Just because a dog
    isn't tagged does not mean a dog does not belong to someone. Also,
    collars which generally carry these metal i.d. tags can come off.
    Collars slip over heads if they have not been fitted correctly. If
    the dog comes from a responsible human, the dog would be wearing a
    quick-release collar, which are designed to more easily come off to
    prevent strangulation if the collar was to get caught on something.
    Neither the feline nor the canine members of our family wear collars
    in the house - especially when they are alone, due to the very real
    danger of accidental strangulation. It is because of those very tags
    pointed out in this bill, that this is a concern. Tags can get stuck
    on things found in an ordinary house (i.e. heater vent). Many animals
    have been strangled from this. This nearly happened to our cat.
    Luckily, she was wearing a quick-release, break-away collar which
    allowed her to break the collar off her neck when she exerted enough

    Another thing to consider with this bill is safety to wildlife. I
    understand that Senator Hargrove is from the district that contains
    the Olympic National Forest. I would hope wildlife would be a concern
    to him and all of our WA state and U.S. senators. I could understand
    that one might feel they are protecting wildlife from a potential
    threat posed by loose dogs when posing this bill. However, in
    reality, I fear that SB 5870 would simply be creating a new and
    certainly mortal threat. The risk of confusion could be very great.
    How easy would it be to mistakenly shoot and kill a wild animal
    (perhaps a wolf, a fox, or some other four-legged trotting beast)
    thinking it was a dog. This is precarious and troubling ground we are
    stepping onto.

    I am very interested to hear your thoughts and opinions concerning SB
    5870. This is a horrible bill and does nothing but put the blood of
    the innocent on the hands of Washington citizens.

    Thank you for your time,

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador purplebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    I don't live in Washington state but I sure hope they don't do that. Don't understand what on earth their thinking is. If a dog is a problem there are plenty of other things they can do other than what they're proposing. This idea is crazy

  3. #3
    Join Date
    June 9th, 2008
    Any idea what prompted this bill? Regardless, sounds like a bone-headed knee-jerk reaction to something. I just can't believe that they've actually thought about the full implications of putting this into action.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    February 28th, 2008
    I will certainly join the fray.....but I find this too far out for even politicians.
    Do you have a link to info about the bill?
    Actually, just found this..

  5. #5
    ABW Ambassador simcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17th, 2005
    found some links
    the bill?


    I have no clue if these links actually provide the correct facts, seems hard to find the real info about anything political nowadays.

  6. #6
    Super Dawg Member Phil Kaufman aka AffiliateHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 22nd, 2007
    West Covina, CA
    Okay - I did some research and it turns out this law is already on the books in Washington, and SB 5870 is to amend the law to remove the duty of dog owners to kill their own dogs who have killed a domestic animal, but retains the duty of the sheriff to kill any dog they find running loose, that does not have a "metal identification tag", but curiously enough, only from August to March of each year.:

    1 AN ACT Relating to the duty of a sheriff with regard to a dog
    2 running at large; and amending RCW 16.08.030.
    4 Sec. 1. RCW 16.08.030 and 1929 c 198 s 7 are each amended to read
    5 as follows:
    6 It (shall be the duty of any person owning or keeping any dog or
    7 dogs which shall be found killing any domestic animal to kill such dog
    8 or dogs within forty-eight hours after being notified of that fact, and
    9 any person failing or neglecting to comply with the provisions of this
    10 section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and it
    {repealed portion}
    shall be the
    11 duty of the sheriff or any deputy sheriff to kill any dog found running
    12 at large (after the first day of August of any year and before the
    13 first day of March in the following year) without a metal
    14 identification tag.
    --- END ---

  7. #7
    Full Member snappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 21st, 2009
    Palm Bay Florida/Portland, Oregon
    Actually what has happened is the large number of pitbulls roaming the streets literally attacking people. For a second there it was like pitbulls were planning on taking over.

  8. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Hello from Washington State
    By micah-h in forum Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 19th, 2009, 09:03 AM
  2. From Washington State...Joseph Ratliff
    By Joseph Ratliff in forum Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 19th, 2008, 03:03 PM
  3. Washington State ABWers (Pearl Jam)
    By CDC in forum Virtual Family and Off-Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 19th, 2006, 03:58 PM
  4. Washington State Files First Suit Under Their New Spyware Law
    By Kellie aka Ms. B in forum Legal opinions on ParasiteWare
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2006, 04:49 PM
  5. Washington State Outlaws Spyware
    By Donuts in forum Legal opinions on ParasiteWare
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: May 30th, 2005, 02:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts