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.

Update on 2012 Animal-Related Legislation

I have received several communications this week from Rep. Matt Shea regarding the notes I had sent about laws of concern regarding animals. He said that it appears the dog tethering bill and the offender registration bills are dead for this legislative session, and will not be passed.

Thank you very much to everyone who made their voices heard about these laws, and to the lawmakers who listened to and acted on our concerns.

I am very impressed that Rep. Shea not only responded to my initial letter, but also took the initiative to follow up weeks later to give me an update on the status of the laws. That type of concern and follow-through will serve his constituents well.

If anyone is aware of animal or agriculturally related legislation of interest or concern that could still have potential activity in this session, please drop us an email at wa.animal.watch (at) gmail (dot) com, or leave a comment on the blog to let us know about it.

Here are links to our previous posts on these bills:

Animal Abuser Registry Bills

New Animal Cruelty and Dog Tethering Bill Going to Session Today

Sample Letter Regarding the Dog Tethering Laws

Update on HB 1755, the Dog Tethering law

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

Sample Letter Regarding the Dog Tethering Laws

Here is what I will be sending to our lawmakers:


Dear (name of lawmaker or committee member)

My name is _______

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***Strike the section defining necessary shelter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much,

(name and contact info.)

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

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.

New WA State Rabies Vaccine Rule

As of January 1, 2012, all dogs, cats and ferrets are required by Washington State to have current rabies vaccines.

Most municipalities already required documentation of rabies vaccines in order to license dogs and cats, and dogs/cats/ferrets were required to have rabies vaccines to enter the state. However, the rule in the Washington Administrative Code is new.

Washington State Department of Health's page on Rabies Vaccine Requirements can be found here.

The rule reads, in part:

"WAC 246-100-197 (3) An owner of a dog, cat, or ferret shall have it vaccinated against rabies and revaccinated following veterinary and vaccine manufacturer instructions. This requirement does not apply to animal shelters."