Sample Letter Regarding the Dog Tethering Laws

Here is what I will be sending to our lawmakers:


Dear (name of lawmaker or committee member)

My name is _______

I am writing to voice my opposition to HB 1755, relating to the humane treatment of dogs.

We do not need more vague or excessively restrictive laws about animal cruelty. With our ever-increasing mandatory penalties for all animal cruelty convictions, no matter how minor or unintentional the offense, extreme caution is warranted in changing the cruelty laws.

We need laws that require the minimum basic care necessary for the health and wellbeing of the animal, and allow the flexibility to adjust husbandry practices to be appropriate for the species and the individual animal. Our laws need to address actual cruelty effectively, but not criminalize activity that is harmless to animals.

I am asking you to OPPOSE HB 1755, Concerning the humane treatment of dogs, because it is too restrictive in some areas and too vague in others, with far too much likelihood of unintended consequences. If this law passes, many owners who are not neglectful or abusive to their animals could be convicted of animal cruelty for actions which do not harm the health or welfare of their animals.

The changes to the definitions section also do not take animals other than cats and dogs into account, such as amphibians which CANNOT be kept dry.

If the bill is going to go through anyway, please ask for the following revisions:

*** Add the phrase "at suitable intervals" or some other clarification that the access to food and water need not be at every moment of every day. This is urgent because in some municipalities, the word "accessible" is being interpreted as requiring food and water to be accessible to all animals at all times.

Providing food and water 27/7 for all animals is neither practical nor possible. Unlimited access to food can cause obesity, fatal bloat, or other health problems for some types of animals. Water cannot be offered at every moment while an animal is working or playing, and watering twice a day is a standard practice in some situations, especially for livestock. Even the USDA allows for both food and water to be offered at suitable intervals rather than having it available constantly.

Accusing someone of cruelty based on lack of appropriate water and food should be determined by physical evidence of dehydration and malnutrition, not solely on the presence or absence of water and food in front of the animal at the moment.

***Strike the section defining necessary shelter.

Alternatively, change the definition to something like: "Necessary shelter" means a structure or natural feature that gives protection from the elements in a manner sufficient for the species and type of animal, and does not cause injury, disfigurement, or physical impairment to the animal.

The section requiring the animal to be able to sit, stand, lie down and turn around should be struck since it would outlaw standard horse stalls and possibly many types of animal transport carriers, and prevent animals from being restrained when necessary for health and safety (for instance, an animal should be kept from moving too much when nursing a spinal injury).

Also, extreme limitation of movement for long periods of time would cause injury, disfigurement, or physical impairment to an animal anyway, so the requirements not to restrict specific types of movement in addition to that are redundant.

One could also add the word "reasonably" to modify the requirement that it keeps animals clean and dry if the committee decides to keep that phrasing, since it is impossible to completely keep any animal from ever getting at all wet or dirty. But since amphibians are included in the definition of animal in Washington state law, requiring that an enclosure keep animals dry would be fatal to an entire class of animals that need to be kept damp in order to be healthy. For these reasons, I strongly recommend striking the "clean and dry" phrase altogether.

*** Regarding the dog tethering rules, they are unreasonably restrictive and would have the basic effect of outlawing tethering altogether while pretending to only set reasonable limits. I would point out that it is impossible to guarantee that a dog can never have a chance of getting tangled even briefly in a tether or any other object, that the restrictions on times of day and ages of dog are unreasonable, and that there are times other than the stated exemptions where a dog can be safely and reasonably tethered or where temporary or brief tethering may be necessary.

People should not be accused of cruelty for briefly tying their dog to the front porch so it can be outside with them while they do yardwork, for instance. And if a parent out for a walk needs both hands to deal with a child for a moment, it should not be a crime to tie the dog to the nearest tree for a couple of minutes.

As the House Bill Summary states, "The AVMA also claims that many other animal cruelty statutes likely would be interpreted to prohibit tethering where it is detrimental to the animal, though the statute may not specifically use the term "tethering."
Washington State already has laws prohibiting cruelty and neglect of animals. Tethering to the extent it was harming the animal or preventing it from reaching necessary food, water and shelter is already illegal. This bill would likely not catch significantly more people who are truly abusing and neglecting their animals, while criminalizing many who are NOT abusing or neglecting their animals.

Any law that has the potential to criminalize many innocent people is one to approach with extreme caution. And it is important to remember that the animal cruelty statutes affect far more species than just cats and dogs. What is appropriate for a cat or dog may not be at all appropriate for a horse, cow, reptile or amphibian.
Please oppose HB 1755, Concerning the Humane Treatment of Dogs. In the event that this law does continue forward, please press for revisions that would make it more reasonable, and would keep the definitions section appropriate for every species of animal it affects.

If interested, you may read more about some of the concerns some have with this law at
http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/01/urgent-new-animal-cruelty-and-dog.html

Thank you very much,

(name and contact info.)

See comments below for a version under 4,000 characters that will fit in the legislative widget.