Updates on WA Animal Legislation

A few quick updates on several items of WA animal-related legislation:

There is a hearing on HB 5102, the veterinarian immunity law, scheduled on Wednesday, March 13th at 8am in the House Committee on Judiciary in Olympia. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5102&year=2013

You may see the previous WA Animal Watch post about veterinary immunity laws here: http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-veterinarians-should-not-be-immune.html

HB 1202, "Animal Cruelty Prevention," has been placed on the House floor calendar, which makes it eligible for a vote by all members of the State House of Representatives. If it passes that, the next step would be the Senate. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1202

SB 5202, the spay/neuter assistance bill, was moved on March 8th from the Senate Rules Committee to the Senate floor calendar. The next step would be a vote by all members of the Washington State Senate. An amendment and the substitute bill change the funding mechanism to donations rather than a tax on pet food or pet licensing. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5202&year=2013

Two new animal-related laws were introduced in the WA state legislature on Feb. 8th:

HB 1786 would require registration of animal abusers (defined as anyone convicted of 1st or 2nd degree cruelty, animal fighting, or poisoning animals). http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1786&year=2013

See our previous post about animal abuser registry bills here: http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2011/12/animal-abuser-registry-bills.html

HB 1787 would ban the tail docking of dairy cows, outlawing both the act of docking and also essentially banning ownership of already-docked cows, in addition to forbidding bringing them into the state. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1787&year=2013

Rep. Derek Stanford is the prime sponsor of HB 1786 and 1787.

A few more animal-related pieces of legislation in WA:

HB 1830 would change the crime of causing harm to a service animal or search and rescue animal from a gross misdemeanor to a Class C felony if done "with reckless disregard". In previously existing law, a Class C felony under this statute required intent to harm the animal. As of today, it has received a first reading and been referred to the Judiciary committee. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1830

  
HB 1024 and SB 5645 revise the language in WA statutes regarding service animals to more closely align with federal law.

HB 1024: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1024

SB 5645: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=5645

HB 1886 adds data entry and processing expenses to the costs that can be recovered by the Dept. of Agriculture in disease control and traceability actions. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1886 

SHB 1010 expands the requirement to add an aversive agent to antifreeze/coolant to include wholesale containers of 55 gallons or more, and exempts spent antifreeze/coolant being stored/transported for disposal. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1010&year=2013

WA Animal cruelty bills scheduled for executive session Feb 12th

The Washington House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to have an executive session on HB 1201 and HB 1202 on Feb 12, 2013, at 10:00AM. This is where they will be voting on whether to pass the bills out of committee to go on to the next step in the process of becoming a law or not.

Again, HB 1201 (companion bill SB 5203) would make selling animals in public places or private places open to the public, with certain exceptions, an animal cruelty crime.

HB 1202 (companion bill SB 5204) adds a new animal cruelty infraction for issues not rising to the level of 2nd or 1st degree cruelty, and makes several other changes to the animal cruelty laws.

If you would like to make your opinion known and hopefully influence the way the committee members vote, please contact the judiciary committee members ASAP.


Contact Information for the WA House Judiciary Committee:
http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2013/02/2013-wa-house-judiciary-committee.html


See the following posts for more information:

Washington Animal Cruelty Legislation for 2013: HB 1201 and HB 1202 (This post contains a summary of the two bills and the changes they would be making to existing law):
http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2013/01/wa-animal-cruelty-legislation-for-2013.html

Unofficial Transcript of Public Hearings on HB 1201 and HB 1202, including a link to video of the hearing:
http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2013/02/unofficial-transcript-of-public.html

Unofficial Transcript of Public Hearings on Animal Cruelty Bills, Jan 31, 2013

Please note, this is not an official transcript of the 1/31 House Judiciary Committee Public Hearings. This is just notes taken by one of our volunteers, for those who need (or prefer) to read rather than listen to it. Please let us know if you notice any major errors and what the timestamp on the video was so we can double check it.

This post is extraordinarily long, so only the first several paragraphs will appear on the main blog page. Click on the "read more" link for the rest of the post.

The video is here: http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013010137

HB 1186 (27:55 on video)

Omeara Harrington, Counsel (staff):"House Bill 1186 provides legal immunity for licensed veterinarians who report animal cruelty. The animal cruelty statutes outlaw killing or harming animals or engaging in a number of practices that are hazardous to animals, including unsafe confinement, animal fighting and poisoning animals.

Veterinarians can be involved in animal cruelty investigations in a number of ways. The animal cruelty statutes specifically permit law enforcement officers to solicit the help of veterinarians in determining whether animal abuse or neglect has occurred to such a degree that would justify the law enforcement officer in removing the animal for care. Veterinarians may also be called on to advise and assist the law enforcement officers in the euthanasia of an animal that has been seriously injured and is suffering, and there is statutory immunity provided to veterinarians participating in these activities as long as they are carried out with reasonable prudence. Veterinarians may also encounter evidence of animal cruelty in the course of their practices.

State law does not require that animal cruelty is reported, and veterinarians are not provided with immunity from liability in statute if they do decide to voluntarily report.

House Bill 1186 would provide licensed veterinarians with immunity from criminal and civil liability for reporting suspected animal cruelty in good faith and in the normal course of business.

And I can answer questions.

Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D): Thank you, do you have any questions for staff? OK. Our resident veterinarian, the lady from the 35th, is not with us at this point. We'll give her a chance to testify if she comes a little bit later. In the mean time, Mr. Vice Chair, let's bring up the witnesses.

May we please hear from Mr. Greg Hanon and Dr. Mike Anderson?

2013 WA House Judiciary Committee

Contact Information for the WA House Judiciary Committee Members, as of Jan 2103
 http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/JUDI/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx

Legislative Toll-free Hotline:
1-800-562-6000
1-800-635-9993 (TTY)

Tara Weaver, Legislative Asst.     JLOB 204A     (360) 786-7122     tara.weaver@leg.wa.gov
(Ms. Weaver is the person who can put your testimony or comments into the case file for the law under consideration.)
Representative    Room    Phone    Email    FAX

Pedersen, Jamie (D) Chair     LEG 436B    (360) 786-7826    jamie.pedersen@leg.wa.gov

Hansen, Drew (D) Vice Chair     JLOB 369    (360) 786-7842     drew.hansen@leg.wa.gov

Rodne, Jay (R) *     JLOB 430    (360) 786-7852    jay.rodne@leg.wa.gov

O'Ban, Steve (R) **     JLOB 424    (360) 786-7890    steve.oban@leg.wa.gov

Goodman, Roger (D)     JLOB 328    (360) 786-7878    roger.goodman@leg.wa.gov

Hope, Mike (R)         JLOB 466    (360) 786-7892    mike.hope@leg.wa.gov

Jinkins, Laurie (D)     JLOB 311    (360) 786-7930    laurie.jinkins@leg.wa.gov

Kirby, Steve (D)     LEG 437B    (360) 786-7996    steve.kirby@leg.wa.gov

Klippert, Brad (R)     JLOB 410    (360) 786-7882    brad.klippert@leg.wa.gov

Nealey, Terry (R)     JLOB 404    (360) 786-7828    terry.nealey@leg.wa.gov

Orwall, Tina (D)     JLOB 326    (360) 786-7834    tina.orwall@leg.wa.gov

Roberts, Mary Helen (D)     JLOB 420    (360) 786-7950    maryhelen.roberts@leg.wa.gov

Shea, Matt (R)     JLOB 437    (360) 786-7984    matt.shea@leg.wa.gov

*Ranking Minority Member  **Asst. Ranking Minority Member

Video of Jan 31st Public Hearings in Olympia

Video footage of the proposed animal-related laws that had public hearings in the House Judiciary Committee on Jan 31, 2013 is now available, here:

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013010137

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.**

Update on HB 1755, the Dog Tethering law.

HB 1755, Concerning the Humane Treatment of Dogs, passed out of committee yesterday. Please note that this does NOT mean the bill has passed the legislative process and will become law. This was just one step in the process, and there is still time to take action.

The first substitute bill passed the judiciary committee by a small majority, but they DID take out the part that would revise the definitions section to change the definitions of food, water and shelter for all animals. So that's good. But we still need to keep an eye on the bill even though it is now only about tethering dogs.

I have so far received emails from three of the committee members that voted against the bill. I am asking them what happens next with it, and what we can do, now that it has passed committee. I'm also offering to publish their statements about why they take the position they do on the bill. If I receive replies from any that voted to pass, I will make the same offer to them so that readers can see both sides of the argument.

You can read the substitute house bill here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/cmd/default.aspx?cid=JUDI

Select the plus sign next to 1/30/2012 1:30 PM, then Executive Session, then 1755, then Amds/Proposed Subs and click on 01-PSHB 1755 with effect(1) (162k)

Proposed Substitute House Bill 1755 (1)
By Representative Goodman

EFFECT:

- Removes modification of the definitions of “necessary food” and “necessary shelter.”

- Charging is mandatory rather than discretionary if the owner is found to have restrained a dog under the circumstances described in the act.

- It is a violation to restrain or tie a dog outside during a severe weather advisory (rather than a declared weather advisory) unless the dog is provided with adequate shelter.

- The dog must have a range of movement equal to three times the dog’s length and cannot be restrained in such a way that the dog has to stand, sit, or lie down in its own excrement or urine or that causes pain to the dog.

- Removes the prohibitions against restraining or tying a dog in a manner that does not allow the dog shelter when temperatures are outside of the range of forty to eightyfive [sic] degrees or when there is precipitation, or in a location near a school or daycare.

- Adds a requirement that the restraint cannot weigh more than one-eighth the dog’s body weight.

- Exempts the act of transporting a dog in a vehicle from constituting unlawful tethering.

- A written notice of first violation must describe the nature of the violation.

- Changes the time an owner has to remedy the violation from 48 hours to 14 days.

- Adds a new chapter describing written exemptions granted to individual owners at the discretion of the animal control authority. An exemption can be granted upon unusual circumstances that make the tethering necessary as long as the tethering is for no more than 16 hours in a 24 hour period. An exemption may also be granted if the dog is an arctic breed used as a sled dog. In either circumstance the dog’s health and safety must be attended to. Exemptions may be revoked at the animal control authority’s discretion if the conditions for the exemption no longer exist or a wellfounded [sic] complaint is placed alleging neglect, nuisance, or safety threat.

- Removes the emergency clause.

- Makes several other changes for technical correctness and clarity

To read the actual bill as it appears now, you need to go on the website as described above.

Here, again, is the link to the main legislative website page for HB 1755, Concerning the Humane Treatment of Dogs: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2011&bill=1755

And here is the page for the companion Senate bill, SB 6749, Concerning the Humane Treatment of Dogs: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2011&bill=5649

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.

Report on WSDA Health Certificates Hearing

**Note: The deadline for written comments submitted to WSDA to be included in this hearing is 5PM Pacific Time today, Dec 12, 2011.**

One of our community members attended the hearing in Olympia today. Here is their report:

I appreciated the opportunity to attend the hearing today to ask questions, listen, learn, and give testimony. I shared the concerns laid out in the previous blog post, and was able to get answers to some of my questions from Dr. Eldridge, the state veterinarian with the WSDA.

First, regarding the question of what address should go on the health certificate if an animal is being sold at a show, farmer's market, or other location where the buyer and final destination may or may not be known. I was told that in this situation, the address of the show, market, etc would be what would be put on the health certificate.

More than one address can be put on a health certificate, so if you are attending several different shows or other events in a given month, you would have the veterinarian writing the health certificate put all the locations you intended to take the animal in the next 30 days on one health certificate. I am not sure how this would work for someone who had a pet being used for animal assisted therapy or going with them to visit family, when all the destinations were not known 30 days in advance.

There are some situations where animals such as large livestock require entry permits (different from a health certificate), especially if they are in a class that meets exemptions from some entry requirements.

I asked how long an animal has to remain at the destination on the health certificate, and was told that basically as long as the entry requirements (any required vaccines, inspections, etc) have been met, where the animal goes or what happens to it after it arrives at the destination on the health certificate is not of concern. It can immediately be sold or transferred elsewhere as long as it is healthy and has entered the state properly.

So theoretically an animal could be delivered to a temporary location on the health certificate, and then taken to a different location not on the health certificate that same day, as long as they have met entry requirements such as any required vaccines, testing, etc.

Regarding the concerns about giving one's home address to a stranger when purchasing, being given or rescuing an animal, Dr. Eldridge had an interesting suggestion for handling that. He said that if your veterinarian is willing, they might allow your veterinarian's address to be given as the destination address, as long as the veterinarian knows how to get hold of you. Or, if you have a specific situation or concern come up, you can contact the WSDA and they will help you figure out how to handle it, or may allow an exception to some rules depending on the situation.

He reiterated several times that their goal is to prevent people from circumventing entry requirements such as required vaccines and testing. As long as any applicable entry requirements have been met, they aren't as concerned about what happens to the animal after it has entered the state.

There was some conversation about how requiring destination addresses on health certificates would assist in quickly tracking down animals after it was discovered they had been exposed to a contagious disease. However, if they had been sold or given to someone else after entering Washington, or moved to another location, they may not be able to be tracked farther.

I asked what would be gained from having the buyer's physical address over simply having the contact information of the veterinarian issuing the health certificate, who would have the contact information for the seller and would likely be able to help track down the buyer if needed. I had a bit of a difficult time understanding the reply, but I think the gist of it was that in a disease outbreak, speed is of the essence, and having the destination address would facilitate faster location of animals that may have been exposed.

The state vet reiterated that the goal of these rules was to help ensure safe, healthy animals and not to make life difficult for people.

++ Of course they aren't sending out staff to stop every car and see if you are smuggling a mouse across state lines, and they are most concerned about livestock and other animals that require testing and vaccines. RCW 16:36:045 indicates that inspections are "with emphasis on livestock being brought in from outside the state." But they *do* legally have the right to stop your vehicle and check for animals that have inappropriately entered the state. The fines and consequences if you do get stopped and they verify that you have brought non-exempted animals into the state without a health certificate are outlined in the law. The animal can be quarantined and tested at your expense, can be euthanized under certain conditions, and you can be subject to fines or other penalties. ++

Basically, they said that this law was enacted to prevent situations like people circumventing entry requirements (i.e. required testing, vaccinations and health certificates) by saying the animals were going to slaughter or a feedlot, but then diverting the shipment so that the animals were not actually sent there. They don't want animals that were exempted from entry requirements because they were supposedly going to slaughter, ending up in production or in situations where they might come into contact with or infect other animals within the state without having gone through appropriate channels for entry into the state.

I sent in a comment suggesting that they focus their rule-making on requiring that animals couldn't be diverted from shipment to circumstances that would require a greater level of entry requirements than the destination on the health certificate, or something like that. Such an approach might effectively keep it limited in scope to what was necessary to achieve the goal of the law.

The deadline for written comments is 5PM today, Pacific Time.

(This post was updated Jan. 7th, 2012 to add/edit the paragraph surrounded by plus symbols ++.)

Hearing Regarding Addresses on Health Certificates

On Monday morning 12/12/2011 at 9AM, WSDA is holding a hearing at the Natural Resources Building in Olympia, WA regarding how, when, and for what species of animals to implement the new rules for having the exact destination address on health certificates for animals entering Washington.

Details here:
http://agr.wa.gov/LawsRules/Rulemaking/AH/AnimalImportationCurrentRulemaking.aspx

CR-102 has the address and details about the hearing, and also information about how to submit written comments.

It is worth noting that this particular law applies to anyone who may ever visit or sell an animal to anyone in Washington, even if you do not live in Washington State yourself.

WSDA's website says, about these hearings:

"Accepting public comments: Anyone may go to public hearings to testify about WSDA proposed permanent rules, offer written comments, or just listen. WSDA hearings are held around the state depending upon the rule's subject matter. For those who can't attend a hearing, sending written comments is just as effective."

The rule was made to prevent things like shipments of cattle being diverted to a different address than where they were supposed to be delivered. However, the law itself is much broader and applies to all animals with no exceptions. WSDA's role is to define when, in what situations and for what types of animals to apply this law.

Here are some of our concerns with this new rule and its possible unintended consequences: 

• Safety for the citizens of Washington. It is usually advised that when doing transactions via Craigslist, Freecycle, newspaper ads, or dealing with anyone not known and trusted, the transaction take place in a neutral public location. This is to avoid either the buyer or the seller having to give their personal information and home address to the other, as well as to keep the meeting in a place where other people are around in case one person turns out to be dangerous.
  
  If the exact destination address is required, this would mean that the Washington resident is required to give their home address to the person they are getting an animal from. This could be particularly uncomfortable and dangerous in cases such as a private party doing an unofficial rescue. Giving one's home address to someone who is surrendering a neglected or abused animal is not the wisest or safest thing to do. Neither would most people want to have to give their home address to everyone giving away free chickens or selling meat goats.


• The potential impact on the showing community, and anyone who frequently visits the state with their animals. The cost of a veterinary exam and health certificate already exceeds the value of many small animals and poultry. If owners had to get a separate health certificate for each show or other event they attended, rather than getting one health certificate every 30 days as the law previously allowed, the cost would quickly become prohibitive to attend shows. While some animals (such as llamas, goats, cats and dogs) already have exemptions in the WAC 16-64 rules for brief round-trip visits, many species of animals--including several species of small animals that commonly compete in shows--are not currently covered by such exemptions.


• The impact on buying and selling animals when the purchaser is not known in advance. It is very common for people to offer animals for sale at shows, fairs, auctions, livestock markets, farmer's markets and other events. If the final destination address is required on health certificates, how would that work when the animal is being transported to a temporary location and offered for sale? The potential buyer and the final location would be unknown at the time the health certificate was acquired.


• Relocation ability. How long would an animal be required to stay at the location listed on the health certificate before moving to another location? What if the owner decides to sell or give away the animal, move the animal from their ranch to their home or vice versa, or the owner moves to a different location and wants to take the animal with them?


• Rescues and shelters. Rescues and shelters often bring in animals to Washington and then distribute them to foster homes or adopters. How would this rule impact the ability to bring in a needy animal to a temporary location in the state while the needed homes or foster homes are found? 

While we can certainly understand the reasoning behind this new law, we do hope that the WSDA will make rules that accomplish that purpose while avoiding unintended consequences that could deter people from showing, buying and selling animals, or that could even place Washington residents in unnecessary danger.