Public Hearings on Proposed WA Animal Cruelty Laws, Jan 31st

Three animal cruelty-related bills proposed in WA state are scheduled for public hearings on Jan 31st, 2013 in the House Committee on Judiciary at 1:30 PM.

Please note that these bills HAVE NOT yet become law; currently they are in the public hearing stage of the process and could be withdrawn or changed as a result of public feedback.

****
HB 1201/SB 5203 would make animal sales/barters/etc. illegal in most public places or private property open to the public, with certain exceptions. It defines unathorized sales as animal cruelty crimes.

This law would, for instance, make exchanging money/animal on the street or sidewalk in front of a buyer's home after a home check; or a member of the public selling animals at a Saturday market, at a swap meet, in a parking lot, or inside a store an animal cruelty crime--even if, for instance, a feed store gave a non-employee permission to sell animals there.

It does include exemptions for shelters, rescues, bona-fide exhibitors at sanctioned shows, fairs, 4-H/FFA activities, pet store sales by the store owner/operator, and licensed livestock auctions, among other things.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1201

****
HB 1202/SB 5204 makes numerous significant changes to the animal cruelty statutes, including the following:

adds a new civil infraction level of animal cruelty for issues that don't rise to the level of 2nd degree misdemeanor cruelty (2nd degree cruelty currently requires some negligence or knowing act/failure on the owner's part, and that the animal either has been abandoned or that it experience some sort of pain or suffering to rise to the level of cruelty ["mild discomfort" defined as sufficient pain for a conviction in precedent-setting rulings]); this new law does not appear to require any harm or risk to the animal (or negligence on the owner's part) for a law enforcement or animal control officer to issue an animal cruelty citation for care they consider inadequate;

adds the word "injury" to the 2nd degree cruelty statute so that allowing an animal to experience a minor injury that is not severe enough to cause pain or suffering could qualify as 2nd degree cruelty;

changes the animal fighting statutes to add "causing a minor" to the language and changes definitions to cover all animals rather than just dogs or roosters, but also removes the word "knowing" from the statute so that anyone involved in any way (such as a taxi or bus driver transporting someone to a location, or the owner of a building) could be guilty of felony animal cruelty even if they had no knowledge it had anything to do with fighting;

adds multiple new definitions to the animal cruelty statutes, and also adds several new terms to the animal cruelty laws that are left undefined and open to interpretation;

adds a requirement of "prompt and appropriate treatment of an animal's illness or injury," but leaves those definitions open to interpretation and does not clarify whether home treatment or monitoring for minor routine issues would be acceptable or not;

also adds a statute on leaving animals in vehicles, and makes a number of other changes.

It's a very long and involved bill, covering many different topics and editing many portions of existing animal cruelty law.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1202

****
HB 1186/SB 5102 removes any civil or criminal liability for a veterinarian reporting suspected animal cruelty.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1186


****
HB 1194, limiting a landowner's liability when their land is used for habitat projects on the official habitat project list, is also scheduled to be heard during this time slot.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1194

***

You can see a more detailed post about HB 1201 and HB 1202 on the Washington Animal Watch Blog here:

http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2013/01/wa-animal-cruelty-legislation-for-2013.html

****

House committee hearings are generally held in the John L. O'Brien next to the Legislative Building in Olympia, WA. You can call the legislative hotline at 1.800.562.6000 to verify when and where the hearings are.

The page on how to testify at these hearings is at: http://www.leg.wa.gov/legislature/Pages/Testify.aspx

It also says, "If you cannot appear before a committee, contact your legislator making your position on a bill known. You can do so by writing a letter, sending an e-mail, calling the legislator's Olympia office, or by calling the Legislative Hotline at 800.562.6000."

It is important to make your voice heard. Public feedback could have a huge influence on the final wording of these laws.

A summary of the various arguments and points of view on both sides is generally compiled from the public hearing process and posted on the bill's page of the legislative website, so this is a particularly good opportunity to make your input count.

~~ Washington Animal Watch ~~

**Forwarding or reposting of this message is permitted, but please leave the message and links intact.**

Time is running out

There are just a few hours left to comment on the proposed rule that would drastically expand the USDA/APHIS' authority over private pet breeders in their homes throughout the USA. Comments need to be in by 11:59PM Eastern time tonight, Wednesday August 15th, 2012, but don't try to cut it too close.

Please comment and tell them this rule needs to be withdrawn. Remember, you can make as many comments as often as you like, and substance is more important than number. But HSUS and other anti-breeding organizations are blitzing the comments in these last few hours, and we need to make sure they are outnumbered and we make our voices heard. It's important to use your own words, but here are some ideas for you to use if desired.

Some talking points (Please use your own words when commenting, as duplicate comments are treated as one, even if posted multiple times):

* It's not APHIS' job to regulate private breeders in their homes. The Animal Welfare Act was never intended to regulate private retail sales, and the courts have affirmed that this is not USDA's job.

* People are perfectly capable of making their own decisions about how and where to buy a pet. We don't need the government regulating that.

* There is no evidence that animals purchased sight-unseen or shipped/transported to the buyer have a higher incidence of *anything* than animals purchased any other way, and APHIS themselves has admitted they have no data whatsoever on this. This makes this rule arbitrary, specious and capricious; based on anecdotal and emotional claims rather than on real data supported by evidence.

* We don't need more small hobbyist breeders forced to raise pets in sterile laboratory-style facilities, and AWA standards do not allow for home-raised pets. A small hobbyist breeder is not able to be home from 7AM to 7PM every weekday for inspections, and the requirement for sterile facilities with no impermeable surfaces, no animals raised with other types of animals, etc. makes it impossible for a home environment to meet AWA standards.

* Not being able to ship or transport breeding stock will destroy the genetic diversity of rare breeds and harm breeding programs, and will harm the production of working/service dogs, as well as preventing people from doing their own research and buying pets where and how they choose.

*  Animals have been purchased remotely and transported sight-unseen for thousands of years. The internet makes it easier, not harder, to research a breeder and make an informed purchasing decision.

* If they are going to pass this rule they need to make the "face to face" exemption clearly outlined in the text of the rule itself. Simply promising not to enforce the rule as written (as the current plan is) is not a good solution.

* Any problems can be dealt with simply by APHIS enforcing their own standards on existing licensed breeders, and by enforcing existing animal cruelty and mail fraud laws. All states already have laws with potentially severe penalties for dealing with animal cruelty.

* The USDA/APHIS is required to do an impact analysis when creating new rules. Their calculated cost of this rule both to breeders and to APHIS is severely underestimated to the point that it is laughable. Their data does not even attempt to include species other than dogs that will be impacted, and grossly underestimates even the number of dog breeders that will be impacted and the costs associated with that.

* The information given to the public and the way APHIS has described this rule during the comment period is grossly misleading and undermines transparency.

* $500 is an extremely low threshold for requiring breeders to be licensed, especially since it is calculated based on raw income rather than on profit.

The AWA says in Sec. 2133. Licensing of dealers and exhibitors,

"That any retail pet store or other person who derives less than a substantial portion of his income (as determined by the Secretary) from the breeding and raising of dogs or cats on his own premises and sells any such dog or cat to a dealer or research facility shall not be required to obtain a license as a dealer or exhibitor under this chapter."

$500 is no longer a substantial portion of the average person's income and this needs to be updated. If inflation continues at the same average rate as it has since the AWA was passed, by 2020 it will take about $5,000 to have the same buying power that $500 had in 1966. The exemptions for cats, dogs and exotic animals allow for the potential sale of many thousands of dollars worth of animals before licensing is required; it is unfair and capricious to have a so much lower threshold for other types of animals.

* Breeding females are not clearly defined, and several other definitions in the rule are not clearly defined either. 4 intact females is a very low threshold to reach, and owning them does not necessarily mean they are being bred. This threshold for determining licensing is also unfair, capricious and specious, as is the requirement that a breeder must never sell any animal that was not bred and raised by them in order to be exempt from licensing.

* This rule is being pushed by anti-breeder animal rights organizations such as HSUS that have the ultimate agenda of eliminating all existence and use of domestic animals. No amount of regulation will make them happy unless we do away with all breeding and animal ownership completely, and the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture should not be pandering to them.

Read and comment on the proposed rule here:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

Permission to repost granted; the original post is from Washington Animal Watch blog at http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/08/time-is-running-out.html and updates and any edits/corrections will be posted there.

All Charges Dropped in Bailey Case, Olalla, WA

All civil and criminal charges have been dropped in the Yorba-Bailey case in Olalla, WA.

The family and their lawyer are still trying to get copies of evidence and records in their case. They are hoping to either get their animals back, or be reimbursed for them. There are now no pending allegations of animal cruelty, and the county has admitted they did not have enough evidence to take the case to trial.

Updates are available on the Justice For Pacific Northwest Farmers (Justice4PNW) website.

Olalla Animal Confiscation

The Bailey family in Olalla, WA has their first hearing on January 3rd, 2011 at 8:30 PM in Port Orchard, WA. This will include the arraignment on the criminal charges (2nd degree cruelty) and a hearing on the Bailey's petition for the return of their animals.

You can find more information about the case and the hearing at the Justice for Pacific Northwest Farmers website: http://justice4pnw.weebly.com

The site also has information giving details about how people can help.

It's possible that this case could influence whether the new definitions of sufficent food and water in WA state law will be interpreted as requiring unlimited access to both food and water at all times. There are also concerns about violation of due process in this case.