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?

WA Animal Cruelty Legislation for 2013: HB 1201 and HB 1202

As we begin the 2013 legislative session, there are several animal-related laws that have already begun the legislative process, and several more that are in working groups and committee meetings at present.

You can go to the Washington State Legislature website at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/ and click on "bills by topic" to keep abreast of the latest legislation on any topic.

As of this writing, a number of laws have been introduced and are listed under the categories of "animals" and "livestock." Please be sure to check out the WA Legislature site to see all the proposed legislation for yourself. There are others besides these listed already, and new bills can be added at any time.

The links go to the home page for each bill--click on the links on that page to see the original text of each proposed law and any revisions and additional information as the law progresses through the legislative process. Each house bill will also gain a companion bill in the senate as it proceeds through the process, with additional sponsors for the companion bill. A link to the companion bill is added to the bill's home page on the legislature's website and to the search results as it reaches that point.

Only laws that have officially been introduced and have started the process of becoming law are listed on the WA Legislature site; laws that are still in the formation and discussion stage will not be posted yet. For instance, a new law about humane restraint is in the works, but has not yet been introduced for this session.

As a quick review, RCW 16.52, the section of the law on animal cruelty, defines animal this way for purposes of animal cruelty in RCW 16.52.011:

 (2)(b) "Animal" means any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian.

This definition applies when the term "animal" is used in all of the RCW 16.52 animal cruelty laws unless there are specific changes to the definition within a given statute.

Also, remember that WA law imposes certain mandatory penalties for animal cruelty convictions, including a prohibition on "owning, caring for, or residing with any similar animals" for a period of two years for a first conviction of 2nd degree animal cruelty, or permanently for a first conviction of 1st degree animal cruelty or a second conviction of any degree of animal cruelty (in some circumstances, with the option to petition for reinstatement of the right to own animals after 5 years), as well as making anyone convicted responsible for all costs involved in the legal proceedings and the seizure and care of the animals in addition to any other fines or penalties imposed.

Some of the consequences for conviction under animal cruelty laws can be found in RCW 16.52.200 at  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=16.52.200 as well as in the various sections outlining specific crimes and penalties under each statute.

It would be helpful to keep the possible penalties in mind as you consider whether these are reasonable consequences for any newly proposed laws falling under the category of animal cruelty. Keep in mind, also, that there has been a repeated push for measures such as mandatory registration on an offender list, including public publication of personal information, for anyone convicted of an animal cruelty offense.

Here are summaries of two proposed laws that we found to be of particular concern.

*** HB 1201, Preventing Animal Cruelty. This bill would make it a crime to "sell, offer for sale, barter, or auction an animal upon any public property or upon private property open to the public," with certain exceptions (please read the entire text of the bill for more details).

This law calls for this new section to be added under RCW 16.52, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This would define the unauthorized selling of animals as animal cruelty, even if no actual harm or risk came to any animal in the process.

The link to the HB 1201 homepage is http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1201

*** HB 1202, Preventing Animal Cruelty. This bill covers a number of different topics, adds several entire new sections to the animal cruelty laws, and revises several others. 

Section 1 creates a new crime that people can be charged with, a "civil infraction," adding several new categories and milder severities of neglect to the law. Any law enforcement or animal control officer is empowered to issue the infraction.

"An owner who, under circumstances not amounting to animal cruelty in the first or second degree, fails to provide an animal with necessary food, water, shelter, ventilation, rest, sanitation, space, or medical attention has committed the civil infraction of failure to provide care."

Note that this law does not require that the animal suffer any ill effect, injury, discomfort or risk from this failure in order for the owner to be convicted of animal cruelty under this statute, since it specifies conditions not rising to the level of 1st or 2nd degree animal cruelty. There is also no requirement of intent, knowledge or recklessness on the owner's part.

Many of the definitions about what qualifies as adequate or necessary care are left open to interpretation, with no real guidelines about what constitutes appropriate care, or whether ideal vs. adequate practices are being judged.

A person can attempt to contest the infraction as outlined in RCW 7.80.080, but with the law so vague and not requiring any actual risk or injury to the animal for an infraction to take place, it could be difficult to contest a difference of opinion regarding animal husbandry practices.

Section 2 is about leaving animals in vehicles, and says, in part:

"A person may not leave or confine any animal unattended in a motor vehicle or enclosed space in such a manner that places the animal in a life or health-threatening situation by exposure to excessive heat or cold or deprivation of ventilation.

It also authorizes "an animal control officer, law enforcement officer, or employee of a fire and rescue organization . . . to enter a vehicle or enclosed space to remove an animal by any means reasonable under the circumstances" and holds them free of liability in such circumstances.

It does not require that the animal be harmed by such confinement in order for a person to be charged with a civil infraction, and also clarifies that:

"In the event that an animal suffers physical pain, injury, or death from unsafe confinement in a vehicle or enclosed space, nothing in this section prevents the person who has confined the animal in the vehicle or enclosed space from being convicted of separate offenses for animal cruelty under RCW 16.52.205 or 16.52.207."

Section 3 revises the definitions in the animal cruelty statute under RCW 16.52.011.

It adds the phrase, "or as directed by a veterinarian for medical reasons" to the definitions of "necessary food" and "necessary water" in sections (j) and (k).

Then it adds sections (p) through (s) as follows:

(p) "Necessary medical attention" means prompt and appropriate treatment of an animal's illness or injury.

(q) "Necessary rest" means the provision of regular rest intervals sufficient to maintain an animal's health.

(r) "Necessary shelter" means a constructed or natural structure that provides adequate space, light, ventilation, protection from the elements and protection from heat and cold, suitable to the species, age, condition, size, and type of the animal, and that is sufficiently clean and safe to minimize the risk of injury, physical suffering, or impairment of the animal's health.

(s) "Necessary space" means space sufficient to allow an animal to move in a manner that does not cause injury, disfigurement, or impairment of the animal's health, suitable to the species, age, condition, size and type of animal, and that allows normal movements of the animal, such as sitting, standing, lying down, and turning around, except when confinement of an animal is necessary for medical treatment or transportation. "Necessary space" includes space sufficient to allow an animal to reasonably avoid injury by other animals in the same space.

Notice that it does not define several of the terms added in section 1, including ventilation, rest or sanitation. Many terns are left open to interpretation, such as what constitutes "adequate light" and how broadly or narrowly things like "prompt and appropriate treatment of an animal's illness or injury" could be defined.

For example, does prompt mean within minutes, hours, days? Is home treatment of routine injuries and illnesses considered to be appropriate, or not? Could the mere presence of even a minor issue such as a scratch, a missing chunk of fur, or evidence of a flea or tick be prosecuted as cruelty if the owner could not prove it had already been treated by a veterinarian, even if the injury or condition had just taken place or wasn't of a severity to require being seen by a veterinarian?

Since husbandry practices vary widely, not all law enforcement officers are thoroughly trained and knowledgeable in the appropriate care of every species, and the law does not establish specific standards in every aspect; this could leave the definition of appropriate care open to broadly varying opinions and standards.

Section 4 amends the animal fighting statutes to make it a crime to cause a minor to do any of the things listed in the law, but also makes several other quite major changes.

For example, it removes the word "knowingly" from the law, removing the requirement that a person's actions must be knowing or purposeful in order to be convicted of being involved in animal fighting.

It also removes all the clarifications and definitions as to type of animal (making it no longer apply to just dogs and roosters) and whether the animal is a stray or a pet or not.

This makes it a class D felony for any person, knowingly or not, who is involved or present in any way with any sort of animal fight, whether it be owning the property, transporting a person or animal, holding money, preparing the facility, or being present.

This proposed change to the law could make any transporter, carrier or person who cared for or handled an animal at any step in the process guilty of a felony even if they did not know the animal was intended to be used for animal fighting, training or baiting--for instance, making an airline and its employees guilty of a felony even if they had no idea the animal was being shipped to a location for the purpose of fighting. It also makes transporting any person to or being present at an animal fight a felony whether the person is aware of the situation or not--making a taxicab driver delivering a passenger or a pedestrian walking through the area guilty of a felony, even if they did not know about the fight. It could make the owner of a facility and anyone helping clean, prepare or maintain the facility guilty even if they do not know what the facility is being used for.

This law also makes the mere possession or handling of any animal with the apparent intent or purpose of animal fighting to be a felony, even if an actual fight never takes place.

Section 5 revises the definitions of animal cruelty in the first and second degree to add the word "injury" to the definitions as follows:

A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the person knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence inflicts unnecessary injury, suffering, or pain upon an animal.

This could potentially make it a crime to allow an animal to become injured even if the injury is so mild that it does not cause suffering or pain, such as a minor scratch or broken toenail.

It also makes the abandoning of any animal to be 2nd degree animal cruelty, cleaning up the language in 2 (b) and removing the clause saying that the animal must suffer or be at risk of suffering substantial harm from being abandoned in order for the crime to rise to the level of 2nd degree cruelty.

Finally, this section removes the possibility of taking the person's financial situation into consideration in convicting them of 2nd degree cruelty, deleting the following paragraph:

(((4) In any prosecution of animal cruelty in the second degree under subsection (1) or (2)(a) of this section, it shall be an affirmative defense, if established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant's failure was due to economic distress beyond the defendant's control.))

Section 6 changes the wording to refer to animals instead of livestock in making it a crime to harm or kill someone else's animals.

Section 7 changes the amount from two to seven hundred dollars in the threshold below which stealing an animal qualifies as a misdemeanor under RCW 9.08.070 and 2003 c 53 s 9 ., and adds "or under chapter 16.52 RCW for animal cruelty" to the section starting, "Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person from also being convicted of separate offenses under" a list of various laws.

The link to HB 1202 is http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1202

You can take action on anything that concerns you in these proposed laws by contacting the sponsors initially. As they progress through the lawmaking process, you may contact committee members as the bills go through various committees, and then the lawmakers who will be voting on them at different stages.

Particularly in the early stages, there is still time and opportunity to push for changes and revisions to the law, or even for the sponsors to withdraw them.

Each law's home page on the WA Legislature website will have information about things like sponsors and committees that are working on the law.

Information from WA State Veterinarian's Office About Health Certificate Requirements

A concerned citizen wrote to the Washington State Veterinarian's office with some questions about health certificates. Dr. Paul Kohrs, the assistant state veterinarian, was kind enough to reply, and to give his permission for his letters on the topic to be posted publicly. The citizen shared their emails with us and gave permission to reprint them, as well.

The citizen asked if health certificates were required for small animals with little to no health risk coming into the state for a brief visit. They also inquired whether a health check at an event such as a show would meet the requirements and substitute for a health certificate.

They also said,

I called every veterinarian in the phone book in [nearest city across a state line] and found that the average price for a health certificate is $100 for one animal. Most of the clinics would not even do CVIs for animals other than cats and dogs, period--especially small animals like pocket pets. Many also gave little to no discount for multiple animals getting veterinary certificates at once.

This fits with what others who have attempted to obtain health certificates for animals other than cats and dogs have shared with me, also. It is very difficult and expensive to obtain a veterinary certificate, especially for small animals other than cats and dogs, since finding a vet who will even see them is impossible in some locales.

The way the law is written, it appears that even an earthworm would require a health certificate to be brought into the state on a brief visit. (It's fairly common for earthworms to be raised for bait or for redworm composting, and quite possible they could be brought across state lines that way--and earthworms are not insects.)

For small animals like cavies, rabbits, hamsters or earthworms, what is the purpose of requiring a health certificate for things like a brief visit by private conveyance into the state, since there are no testing or vaccines required that need to be verified?

Are there any diseases that would be dangerous to humans or other types of animals that a rabbit, for instance, would be likely to carry? Or any reportable diseases that would not be apparent to a lay person but that a vet would find in a simple examination without running any tests?

I would like to better understand what benefit is gained by this requirement when it is so costly and difficult to fulfill.

How does the state calculate that the benefit/cost analysis works with these types of animals, when the cost of meeting requirements to bring one of these small animals into the state is higher than the cost of replacing a whole herd of them would be? Especially when there is little to no risk to any other species.

If it cost that many times the value of a cow every month just to meet the requirements to bring it across state lines, I imagine that would have a pretty significant impact on the cattle industry.

Thank you again,

---------

Dr. Kohrs' first reply:

Dear _______,

I have been asked to help clarify the meaning and reasoning in developing regulations for the importation of livestock and other animals into the State of Washington. To begin, allow me to repeat what Ms. Jones emphasized in an earlier note;
     The Mission of the Animal Health program is to:

• Protect and enhance animal health and animal well being.


• Promote the economic vitality of the livestock industry by minimizing exposure to animal diseases.
• Safeguard the citizens of Washington State by identifying and limiting the exposure to zoonotic diseases (transfer from animal to human).

To accomplish this mission, rules and regulations need to be developed and administered in what we feel is a fair and equitable manner. The law states that all animals as defined in Chapter 16.36 RCW are members of the animal kingdom, except humans, fish and insects. To develop regulations for each and every species and subspecies of these smaller animals is a monumental task, the scope of which our department has never had the funding or staff for such an endeavor.

In answer to your statement of these small pets being brought into our state by private conveyance for a brief visit, it is true that we do not require a health certificate (also known as a certificate of veterinary inspection; CVI). If, however, the animal is being imported to a fair or show in Washington, or sold, it must be examined by a licensed and accredited veterinarian to assure it is healthy. One must consider that these animals, although small and cuddly, can carry organisms that can cause disease in other animals and humans also.

For example:

• Cavies (gerbils) [sic] can have, carry and transmit mites, lice, ringworm, Salmonella, just to name a few
• Rabbits can have, carry and transmit Pasteurella sp, Bordetella sp, Rabbit diarrhea, Clostridium sp (enterotoxaemia), and Epizootic Rabbit Enteropathy.
• Hamsters can have, carry and transmit Campylobacter sp, Salmonella sp and ringworm.
• Earthworms can carry and transmit Histomonas meleagridis that affects turkeys, chickens and other breeds of poultry.

It should also be remembered that any warm blooded mammal can contract rabies, and although rare, it is still possible for a rabbit or cavy to have the disease.

In regards to what veterinarians charge for a CVI, we have no control of nor can we comment on that, as it is up to each individual veterinary practitioner, clinic or hospital.

If you have further comments, please feel free to contact our office.

Sincerely,

Paul Kohrs, DVM
Washington State Assistant State Veterinarian

The reply from the inquirer, asking for more clarification:

Dear Dr. Kohrs,

Thank you very much for your reply.

Your letter states,

"In answer to your statement of these small pets being brought into our state by private conveyance for a brief visit, it is true that we do not require a health certificate (also known as a certificate of veterinary inspection; CVI). If, however, the animal is being imported to a fair or show in Washington, or sold, it must be examined by a licensed and accredited veterinarian to assure it is healthy."

This states that a small animal being brought into WA by private conveyance for a brief visit does not require a CVI. I had been given to understand that a CVI was required to bring these animals into the state, so I appreciate the clarification.

I am not quite clear on whether you're saying small animals traveling with their owner by private conveyance to attend a show, etc. need a CVI, or if they just need to be examined by a veterinarian and appear healthy. Do they need to carry a CVI or proof of a veterinary exam with them at all times during their visit to WA, or does the animal just need to be healthy?

Does the animal always have to be examined before being brought into WA, or can it be examined by a veterinarian within WA, such as a situation where a show has a required veterinary exam at the show before the animal is allowed in?

Also, you mentioned several diseases such as Salmonella, Histomonas meleagridis, Clostridium, Pasteurella, Bordatella, etc. that are commonly found asymptomatically in the systems of healthy animals of these species.

Are animals required to be tested for these things? How would a veterinarian ascertain whether an earthworm is carrying Histomonas meleagridis or a hamster is carrying salmonella, for example?

I have connections with rescues also, and frequently animals being rescued do have minor issues like mites, fleas, intestinal parasites, etc.

If it is not a reportable or controlled disease, and is not something that requires vaccines or testing, would such issues prevent an animal from being brought into the state?

Thank you very much,

-----------

Dr. Kohrs' reply:

February 21, 2012

Dear ------,

I will try to add more clarity to my last missive. To repeat: all animals entering the State of Washington are required to have a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) also known as a health certificate. The exception to this rule is in regards to a dog, cat or ferret coming into this state, being transported in the owner’s vehicle for a brief visit at a private residence, do not need a CVI; however, they are required to have a certificate of rabies vaccination. If there are other animals at this private residence and there is mixing of the animals’, that is a matter between the person importing the animals and the person being visited.

If, on the other hand the animal(s) are being brought into the State of Washington for exhibition/sale at a public arena, the animal(s) are required to be examined by a licensed and accredited veterinarian and be issued a CVI which must accompany the animal(s) being imported. So, to answer your question of the animal being examined by a veterinarian and be issued a CVI before coming to an exhibition/show/sale, the answer is, yes. Bear in mind that the Washington State CVI is valid for only 30 days.

You commented about testing for the organisms mentioned; this would be up to the examining veterinarian. If the animal is showing signs of illness, no matter what the cause, the veterinarian will not issue a CVI. If then the animal’s owner wishes to find out the cause of the illness, tests may then be done to establish a cause. If the animal is asymptomatic and the owner wants to make sure there is no infectious organism being harbored, samples can be taken and tests run to determine if the animal is carrying Salmonella, Clostridium, Bordetella or any or any other known organism. When importing livestock, certain tests for diseases are required before entry into Washington, but not for the animals discussed here. As for rescue animals, we require they have a CVI and be vaccinated against rabies. If dogs are from a heartworm endemic area, they are required to be tested for heartworm and we do the best we can to oversee the importation of these rescue animals. However, we do not have the staff or the funding to cover all the rescue operations and rely on the integrity of the people doing the rescue.

In answer to your lasts [sic] question, I believe it has been taken care of in the body of this letter.

Sincerely,

Paul H. Kohrs, DVM

Again, these letters are being published with both original authors' permission.

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.

Urgent: New Animal Cruelty and Dog Tethering Bill Going to Session Today.

URGENT: This bill has already had a hearing and is scheduled for session TODAY, Jan 30.
This law would change the definitions of food, water, and shelter for all animals and put extreme restrictions on dog tethering.

House Bill 1755, AN ACT Relating to the humane treatment of dogs, scheduled for executive session in the House Committee on Judiciary at 1:30 PM January 30, 2012:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2011&bill=1755

Companion senate bill 5649, AN ACT Relating to the humane treatment of dogs:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2011&bill=5649

At this point, we recommend focusing on contacting the bill's sponsors, and the Jucidiary Committee members.

The bills' sponsors, and links to contact them, are on the above pages. The members of the House Juciciary Committee can be found here: http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/JUDI/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx

Their telephone numbers are provided, as well as links to email them.

When you contact lawmakers, be sure to mention the name of the bill as well as the number--they consider so many bills that a number is unlikely to stick in their mind. Try to be as concise and specific as possible.

Please be sure to read the bill in full, as the dog tethering portion is all new and is quite extensive. To briefly summarize, it puts such extreme restrictions on tethering (such as disallowing any possibility that the dog might ever become entangled in anything) that there is little likehood of any case (other than a few situations specifically exempted) in which it would actually *allow* tethering. It does specifically say that pulley and trolley systems are considered tethering.

It appears that this bill could even outlaw such activities as tying your dog to an object briefly while you use the restroom when out for a walk, as well as tying or chaining a dog to prevent its escape from a yard or enclosure.

The changes regarding food, water and shelter apply to all animals--not just dogs. Interestingly enough, in the bill digest and in the summary of the testimony for and against the bill at the January 10 hearing, the changes to these definitions are not mentioned at all.

Among other things, this bill would remove the phrases "at sufficient intervals" and "sufficient to provide a reasonable level of nutrition" from the definitions of adequate food, in conjunction with saying it must be "accessible." In counties with similar phrasing, this is being interpreted by law enforcement to mean that all animals must have food in front of them 24/7.

The words with a strike through them are being taken out, and the underlined words added

(h) "Necessary food and water" means ((the provision at suitable

21 intervals of wholesome foodstuff suitable for the animal's age and

22 species and sufficient to provide a reasonable level of nutrition for

23 the animal)) food or feed appropriate to the species for which it is

24 intended. Both food and water must be in sufficient quantity and

25 quality to sustain the animal and must be easily accessible to the

26 animal.

This is of concern because for many species of animals it is actually harmful to keep food accessible to them at all times. Even for species that benefit from or will not be harmed by having food available all day long, there are times such as walking, grooming, brief transport, etc. that the animal will not have food accessible to it in the course of routine daily activities. Reptiles are included in this law, and many snakes need to eat only once every few days.

The same goes for water. Even if you generally keep water available to animals, in many situations it is impossible to give access to water every moment of every day. Just picture trying to take your dog for a walk or your horse for a ride while keeping both food and water accessible to it every moment, and you'll start to understand the impracticality of such a law if interpreted to its logical extreme.

Also, many horse and livestock owners take their animals out to pasture during the day and only water the animals twice a day. Some species of animals rarely or never drink water, as they obtain all they need from their food or can store it in their bodies.

WSAW feels that appropriate levels and frequencies of food and water should be determined by the needs of the individual species and the health of the animal. Owners and their veterinarians need to have freedom to adjust feeding amounts and frequencies to the needs of the individual animals, rather than every animal having constant access to food and water dictated by state law.

We would like to ask that the phrase "at suitable intervals" or something similar, clarifying that this access need not be constant, be added back into the law.

The USDA has much more reasonable requirements for frequency of feeding and watering in their animal husbandry standards:

§ 3.129 Feeding.
. . . Animals shall be fed at least once a day except as dictated by hibernation, veterinary treatment, normal fasts, or other professionally accepted practices. . . .

§ 3.130 Watering.
If potable water is not accessible to the animals at all times, it must be provided as often as necessary for the health and comfort of the animal. Frequency of watering shall consider age, species, condition, size, and type of the animal. . .

The proposed new Washington State law also adds the following definition of necessary shelter:

27 (i) "Necessary shelter" means a structure that keeps the animal

28 clean, dry, and protected from the elements, allows the animal to turn

29 around freely, sit, stand, and lie without restriction, and does not

30 cause injury, disfigurement, or physical impairment to the animal.

While on the surface this sounds like a good thing, again this gives no exemption or wiggle room for standard practices or common everyday occurrences.

If interpreted strictly to the letter of the law, it could mean that if your cat gets its paws dirty while using the litterbox; your puppy poops on the floor, tips its water dish over, and rolls in the whole thing; or you want to give your pet duck a wading pool; you may be committing animal cruelty--no matter how quickly you clean it up, because the animal was not KEPT clean and dry at all times. A horse that defecates on the floor and then steps in it, or decides to roll in it, is not going to stay clean at all times even if the stall is cleaned daily.

Keeping any animal clean and dry at all times is an unattainable standard. Adding some qualifier such as "reasonably" to this section might go a log way toward helping make the standards more attainable. Or, better yet, just state that the shelter must be appropriate to the species of animal.

For some types of livestock, particularly in mild climates, a wind break or coat might be sufficient. For other animals, more protection is needed. Some types of animals may need shelters or roosts raised off the ground, while others do not. Some animals are much more tolerant of cold than others. Remember, reptiles and amphibians are defined in the WA cruelty statutes as animals. If you keep an amphibian dry, you kill it! Again, there is no one-size-fits-all standard.

Several states, including Michigan, state that "natural features such as trees or topography" can be adequate shelter for some species, or even that a windbreak alone is sufficient for some livestock. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture's website states, in their factsheet on horses,

"In areas with low annual rainfall, a windbreak may be all that is needed for outdoor housing. Windbreaks are essential for all animals housed outdoors to slow the wind speed and, therefore, the wind chill. Many different objects can be used as windbreaks: large bales stacked two or three high and stored adjacent to a paddock, solid board fences, cedar hedging, a bush lot or snow fences of at least six feet in height. In some areas, material such as shade cloth, as used in the ginseng industry, is attached to tall fence posts to act as a windbreak."

Please note that the requirements regarding freedom of movement would potentially outlaw typical straight or tie stalls for horses, even though horses do fine backing out of a stall and rarely lie down. As long as a horse has access to pasture or regular exercise, a standard stall is fine.

Also, the freedom of movement requirements might potentially cause a problem with transport crates for animals, since in order to keep the animal safe during transport they must for some species be small enough to restrict movement--much like a child's car seat or a seatbelt.

Animals recovering from something like a spinal injury may need to be kept still as much as possible, requiring restraint.

We would suggest asking legislators to consider putting a specific exemption in for animals that need to be transported or confined for health or safety reasons, if they choose to leave this part of the bill intact.

As for "protected from the elements" we weren't sure exactly how that would be defined legally, so we ran some searches for the phrase as relating to animal cruelty.

How throughly does it have to keep out the elements? Does an enclosure which has part of the area protected from the elements, but the animal has freedom to go out into the elements when it wants to (and get wet and dirty) qualify? Is a dog house or chicken coop good enough, or not?

Without this phrase being specifically defined, animal owners may be at the mercy of the personal opinion of whatever law enforcement officer they happen to get.

Apparently, it depends on who is interpreting it. In many areas, the typical 3-sided loafing shed is fine for some types of animals. In others, heavy tree cover or a wind break is all that's required for some types of livestock. Some municipalities require structures with 4 walls and closable/lockable doors, or weather barriers covering the doorways of shelters. Others require raised floors. Still others require insulated housing with climate control. At least one, the town of Taos, interprets this phrase as requiring that animals be brought indoors during cold weather. Not all requirements are equally necessary and practical for all types of animals.

Adding a phrase clarifying that the protection of the elements need only be sufficent for the type of animal might help keep law enforcement from going overboard in requiring things like completely insulated, climate-controlled enclosed barns for animals for which this would be overkill.

We do not need more vague or excessively restrictive 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.

A sample letter can be found at
http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/01/sample-letter-regarding-dog-tethering.html


Please feel free to leave a comment with any other thoughts or suggestions.

Updated: WA Health Certificates for Rabbits and Other Animals

Apparently the Show Rabbit Protection society is researching entry requirements for rabbits in various states. Here is their report on WA.

An excerpt:

There is at this time, no exemption in place for rabbits traveling into Washington that has been obtained by any agency or group including the ARBA.

We spoke with the staff in Dr. Paul Kohr's office, the Wa. Assistant State Veterinarian concerning traveling into Washington with show or sale rabbits.

At this time, all rabbits entering Washington regardless of quantity are required to have a veterinary health certificate from their out of state veterinarian before entering Washington for show or sale stating the rabbit is healthy and free of communicable disease and meets all of Washington's health standards.

I would recommend that you read the entire post.

The way WA law is written, technically any animal down to the level of an earthworm is required to have a health certificate, unless it is specifically exempted.

WAC 16-54-030 "(1)(a) A certificate of veterinary inspection must accompany all animals entering Washington state, except where specifically exempted in this chapter. Certificates of veterinary inspection expire thirty days from the date of issuance."

RCW 16.36.005(1) "Animal" means all members of the animal kingdom except humans, fish, and insects. However, "animal" does not mean noncaptive wildlife as defined in RCW 77.08.010, except as used in RCW 16.36.050(1) and 16.36.080 (1), (2), (3), and (5).

The exemptions can be found in the WAC section on animal importation.

It is important to be informed.

Addendum to post January 7, 2012:

It has come to our attention that some were misinterpreting our previous post as saying that people are not required to have health certificates for small animals coming from one town to another across state lines. So we have revised that paragraph to be more clear, as follows:

"Of course they aren't sending out staff to stop every car and see if you are smuggling a mouse across state lines, and 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."

Note that each individual animal is apparently considered a separate violation even if they are all traveling together. Each day it occurs is also considered a separate violation.

The bottom line is, the law clearly states that *all* animals not otherwise exempted need to have a health certificate when entering Washington. Communications from the state department have verified that this does include brief visits for shows.

According to the SRPS research, you are not required to have a health certificate when re-entering Washington with an animal that originated in Washington and is returning to the state within 30 days of when it left. Health certificates are only required for animals from out of state, not for animals being transported in Washington that originated in Washington.

Here are some of the relevant laws. Please click through each link to read the rest of the law--we are only posting excerpts on the blog for most of them.

RCW 16.36.050

(1) It is unlawful for a person to bring an animal into Washington state without first securing a certificate of veterinary inspection, reviewed by the state veterinarian of the state of origin, verifying that the animal meets the Washington state animal health requirements. This subsection does not apply to:

(a) Those animals that qualify for an exemption in RCW 16.36.140; or

(b) Other animals exempted by the director by rule.

RCW 16.36.110: Violations, gross misdemeanor

(1) Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or the rules adopted under this chapter shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Each day upon which a violation occurs constitutes a separate violation.

RCW 16.36.113
Violations of chapter or rules — Civil penalty — Moneys collected — Time and mileage fee.

(1) Any person in violation of this chapter or its rules may be subject to a civil penalty in an amount of not more than one thousand dollars for each violation. Each violation is a separate and distinct offense. Every person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids, or abets in the violation is in violation of this chapter or its rules and may be subject to the civil penalty provided in this section. Moneys collected under this section must be deposited in the state general fund.

(2) The department may charge a time and mileage fee for the cost of an investigation including inspecting animals and related records during an investigation of a proven violation of this chapter. The fee may be up to eighty-five dollars per hour and the current mileage rate set by the office of financial management. The director may increase the hourly fee by rule as necessary to cover costs of investigations. All fees collected pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited in an account in the agricultural local fund and used to carry out the purposes of this chapter.

[2011 c 204 § 11; 2007 c 71 § 4.]

The law on checkpoints and stopping vehicles for inspection:

RCW 16.36.045
Transporting of animals — Requirements — Vehicle inspection — Authorization by director or appointed officers.

The director may establish points of inspection for vehicles transporting animals on the public roads of this state to determine if the animals being transported are accompanied by valid health certificates, permits, or other documents as required by this chapter or its rules. Vehicles transporting animals on the public roads of this state are subject to inspection and must stop at any posted inspection point established by the director, with emphasis on livestock being brought in from outside the state. The director or appointed officers are authorized to stop a vehicle transporting animals upon the public roads of this state at a place other than an inspection point if there is reasonable cause to believe the animals are being transported in violation of this chapter or its rules.

[2007 c 71 § 1.]

This law addresses animals being transported without required documentation even within the state (i.e. not just while crossing the border). Our understanding is that this only applies to animals that were required to have a health certificate (CVI) in the first place (i.e. animals from outside WA). It does not apply to transporting an animal *from* Washington within the state, since a CVI is not required for them.

RCW 16.36.116 states,

"(1) Any person found transporting animals on the public roads of this state that are not accompanied by valid health certificates, permits, or other documents as required by this chapter or its rules has committed a class 1 civil infraction."

There is a fee schedule for fines here: WAC 16-92-020: Penalty schedule for notices of infraction. It's currently $100 per violation for the first offense.


The law also gives them the right to search your home or other property if they have reason to believe you have animals that were brought in illegally:

RCW 16.36.060
Tests, examinations, inspections, samples, examine and copy records — Entry onto property — Unlawful conduct — Seizure of property — Search warrant.

(1) The director has the authority to enter a property at any reasonable time to:

(b) Determine, when there is reasonable cause to investigate, whether animals on the property have been imported into Washington state in violation of requirements of this chapter, and to conduct tests, examinations, and inspections, take samples, and examine and copy records during such investigations.

(3) If the director is denied access to a property or animals for purposes of this chapter, or a person fails to comply with an order of the director, the director may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for a search warrant. To show that access is denied, the director shall file with the court an affidavit or declaration containing a description of all attempts to notify and locate the owner or owner's agent and secure consent. The court may issue a search warrant authorizing access to any animal or property at reasonable times to conduct investigations, tests, inspections, or examinations of any animal or property, or to take samples, and examine and copy records, and may authorize seizure or destruction of property.

Hola the Llama

The case of Hola the llama in Washington State vs. Smith is an interesting one. It is a case in which an animal owner was convicted of 1st degree animal cruelty for attempting to treat an llama's illness at home instead of hiring a veterinarian to treat him.

Mr. Smith was convicted in spite of the fact that the llama did not improve even in animal control hands while receiving veterinary care, and the vet was unable to do anything to help him or ascertain the cause of his illness.

The story, in brief, is this: Hola the llama came to Mr. Smith in 2003 through a rescue, in very poor condition. Mr. Smith successfully nursed him back to health and the llama recovered very well.

Several years later, in 2007, the llama began to lose weight and appear ill. Mr. Smith was concerned and took steps to address the issue.

Mr. Smith moved Hola to where he could receive more personalized care, and was actively treating Hola's issues by giving him extra food, special weight-gain supplements, treating for parasites, etc. to help him gain weight. Feed store employees testified that he asked for advice in treating the llama and was quite concerned about him.

The llama at times seemed to be improving with treatment, and Mr. Smith apparently thought that since he had been able to nurse him back to health this way in the past, he would be able to do it again. Hola had times when he seemed to be improving, but then would get worse again.

When animal control was called by a neighbor, Hola was in a "downer" position. Animal Control confiscated both Hola and the other llama on the property, even though the other llama was perfectly healthy. By the time the veterinarian examined him after he was confiscated, Hola was up on his feet with normal responsiveness and vital signs.

Hola was confiscated on December 7th, 2007, and spent 6 and 1/2 weeks in animal control custody and under veterinary treatment, which still was unable to find a clear cause for the weight loss or illness and did essentially the same things Mr. Smith had been doing to treat him.

Hola had ups and downs, just as he had in Mr. Smith's care. He improved, became "downer" again in late December 2007, and them seemed to improve again. When he became "downer" yet again on January 20th, 2008, they finally decided to euthanize him.

Even though the llama did not improve with veterinary care and the
veterinarian was unable to treat the illness or find a cause of the illness, the veterinarian used essentially the same approach to treat the llama as what Mr. Smith had already been doing with the same results, and the llama did not die while in the owner's custody, Mr. Smith was still convicted of 1st degree animal cruelty in the death of Hola the llama.

Mr. Smith appealed on the basis of ineffective counsel. The court found that 2nd degree animal cruelty would have been a more appropriate conviction and reversed and remanded the case, based on a finding of ineffective counsel because the jury was not instructed about the possibility of finding Mr. Smith guilty of 2nd degree cruelty.

As summarized in the court's decision,

RCW 16.52.205(2) provides:

"A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when, except as authorized by law, he or she, with criminal negligence, starves, dehydrates, or suffocates an animal and as a result causes: (a) Substantial and unjustifiable physical pain that extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering; or (b) death."

RCW 16.52.207(2) provides in pertinent part:

"(2) An owner of an animal is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the owner knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence:
(a) Fails to provide the animal with necessary shelter, rest, sanitation, space, or medical attention and the animal suffers unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain as a result of the failure. "

Here are the documents I was able to find in the case:

The court's decision remanding and reversing the case: PDF format or plain text on a webpage.

Appellant Brief (Smith's side of the story, giving his appeal): PDF format

Respondent's Brief (Washington State's statement giving the reasons why they feel Mr. Smith should not win the appeal): PDF format.

Bills Pertaining to Livestock and Water Quality

There are two bills going through the WA legislative process currently that pertain to livestock and water quality. One is in the state Senate, the other is in the House.

1. HB 1152: Providing technical assistance to achieve voluntary compliance with water pollution control statutes.

This bill would require that the State Department verify the livestock are actually causing a water quality problem and give the owner assistance and time to voluntarily resolve it before penalizing them for a water quality violation related to livestock.

The Bill Summary says, "For lands on which livestock graze or seek feed in pastures, fields, or rangeland, the Department must first make a determination that a water quality problem exists and a pollution violation has occurred due to the presence of livestock. This determination must be made before a notice of violation or a penalty may be assessed. When the Department determines that a pollution violation has occurred or is about to occur, it must first attempt to achieve voluntary compliance by offering information and technical assistance in writing. If education and technical assistance fail to remedy the problem, the Department may then issue a notice of violation."

2. SSB 5723: Addressing water quality issues associated with livestock operations.

This bill directs the Commission to examine the livestock and water quality issue, and requires that authorities do fecal coliform and DNA testing to verify that the water quality problems are actually coming from the livestock on the property and not from other sources such as wildlife before penalizing a livestock operation for a water quality violation.

The senate bill report has some interesting discussion on both sides of the issue, including one example given of a farm that was fined $6,000 for the "potential to pollute" the water, although he was taking significant voluntary steps to prevent a violation and there appears to have been no actual violation.

It is worth noting that current law allows for fines of $10,000 per individual violation per day on top of other penalties for water quality violations.

Both of these bills require the state to actually prove that a farmer's livestock is causing a water quality issue before penalizing them for a violation.

It looks like neither of these bills has made a lot of progress, but they have been "reintroduced and retained" several times so far. Neither has a companion bill yet. You can contact the relevant lawmakers and ask them to take action on these bills at this link.

I am no expert, but to me the first bill (HB1152) looks the most promising. It gives more leeway in how exactly a problem is determined (rather than limiting it to or requiring two specific tests), and also requires that the owner be given a chance to fix the problem. Either one seems like a potential step in the right direction, though.

What do you think?