Kid dies; animal rights "activists" rush in to save the dog.
...
Woman gets mauled to death by dogs while taking her daily walk; that state's legislators rush to pass a laws to protect the doggies and the doggie owners.
...
Right.
So, here's my counter proposal. (Not lawyer speak, I know)
Your dog kills someone who is not committing a felony crime against your person, you get charged with manslaughter and the dog is euthanized.
Your dog maims a person who is not committing a felony (loss of limb, use of hand, eye, causes facial disfigurement, all of which can effect future earnings potential), you get charged with a felony and are on the hook for all future medical bills. The dog is euthanized.
Your dog unprovoked bites a person or severely bites and/or kills another's animal off your property, or a person or animal legally on your property, you're on the hook for all medical/vet bills and must better control your dog in the future. If it happens again, you get charged with a felony and your dog is euthanized.
Am I missing anything?
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Why would anyone want to "save" this dog?
I read this post (thank you, dear author) and an dumbfounded as to why anyone would want to save a dog that mauled a baby to death.
Seems to me that a dog that kills a family member violates the prime directive of dogdom - Thou Shalt Not Injure Thy Human Family.
See, there was a deal made between humans and dogs thousands of years ago. You, dog, can hang out at our camps and eat our scraps, as long as you do no harm to us.
In exchange for our scraps, you'll bark to warn us of larger predators, pick off a few rodents, and DO NO HARM TO THE PEOPLE IN THE CAMP.
Human, way back then, and up until the '60's or '70's, seemed to understand that those dogs that violated this agreement had to be "sent to the farm", culled, killed, you know, the smart thing.
When I was a kid, I had a dog that bit a neighbor girl, not once, but on two separate occasions. My parents, flawed as they were, "sent the dog to the farm". At six, I already 'knew' what that meant. IT took me awhile to understand that that end was a necessary evil.
Sad, very sad, but dogs that bite unprovoked, lose their cushy lives of being camp followers.
So what's with these people who want to save dogs that have KILLED? Hell, they just "culled" an african elephant, and endangered WILD species, for overturning a car.
Why save DOGS THAT HAVE KILLED?
It's not just one, hell, there's a whole ORGANIZATION that does nothing but save dogs that have killed our mauled people. Maybe more than one.
I like (some) dogs. I know there are millions of dogs euthanized each year, most for doing nothing wrong at all. And I'd bet thousands, if not tens of thousands, are killed because their owners fell on hard times, or died before their pets did.
These were LOVED animals that did no harm.
What motivates a person to save the dangerous dog, no, not just save it, but cherish it, and ignore the dozens of dogs with 'normal' pasts that are probably no more than an hour's drive away waiting to die in the local shelter?
Makes no sense to me.
Seems to me that a dog that kills a family member violates the prime directive of dogdom - Thou Shalt Not Injure Thy Human Family.
See, there was a deal made between humans and dogs thousands of years ago. You, dog, can hang out at our camps and eat our scraps, as long as you do no harm to us.
In exchange for our scraps, you'll bark to warn us of larger predators, pick off a few rodents, and DO NO HARM TO THE PEOPLE IN THE CAMP.
Human, way back then, and up until the '60's or '70's, seemed to understand that those dogs that violated this agreement had to be "sent to the farm", culled, killed, you know, the smart thing.
When I was a kid, I had a dog that bit a neighbor girl, not once, but on two separate occasions. My parents, flawed as they were, "sent the dog to the farm". At six, I already 'knew' what that meant. IT took me awhile to understand that that end was a necessary evil.
Sad, very sad, but dogs that bite unprovoked, lose their cushy lives of being camp followers.
So what's with these people who want to save dogs that have KILLED? Hell, they just "culled" an african elephant, and endangered WILD species, for overturning a car.
Why save DOGS THAT HAVE KILLED?
It's not just one, hell, there's a whole ORGANIZATION that does nothing but save dogs that have killed our mauled people. Maybe more than one.
I like (some) dogs. I know there are millions of dogs euthanized each year, most for doing nothing wrong at all. And I'd bet thousands, if not tens of thousands, are killed because their owners fell on hard times, or died before their pets did.
These were LOVED animals that did no harm.
What motivates a person to save the dangerous dog, no, not just save it, but cherish it, and ignore the dozens of dogs with 'normal' pasts that are probably no more than an hour's drive away waiting to die in the local shelter?
Makes no sense to me.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Here's a fun factoid - WA State Congress Proposes to Change Law
Basically, these law makers, Appleton, Reykdal, Goodman, and Haigh, wish to amend the law so it says no community in WA can pass legislation banning a particular breed or breed of dog.
They also stuff in a lot of "without regard to the breed of dog" clauses in the old law.
What do YOU think?
H-2930.1 _____________________________________________
HOUSE BILL 2117
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2014 Regular Session
By Representatives Appleton, Reykdal, Goodman, and Haigh
Prefiled 12/10/13. Read first time 01/13/14. Referred to Committee on
Judiciary.
1 AN ACT Relating to preventing breed-based dog regulations; amending
2 RCW 16.08.070, 16.08.080, 16.08.090, and 16.08.100; and creating a new
3 section.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) A number of local jurisdictions have
6 enacted ordinances prohibiting or placing additional restrictions on
7 specific breeds of dogs. While the legislature recognizes that local
8 jurisdictions have a valid public safety interest in protecting
9 citizens from dog attacks, the legislature finds that a dog's breed is
10 not inherently indicative of whether or not the dog is dangerous and
11 that the criteria for determining whether or not a dog is dangerous or
12 potentially dangerous should be focused on the dog's behavior.
13 (2) The legislature further finds that breed-specific ordinances
14 fail to address any of the factors that cause dogs to become aggressive
15 and place an undue hardship on responsible dog owners who provide
16 proper socialization and training. The legislature intends to redirect
17 the focus away from particular breeds and to instead encourage local
18 jurisdictions to employ more effective and data-driven prevention
19 models to control dangerous dogs and enhance public safety.
p. 1 HB 2117
1 Sec. 2. RCW 16.08.070 and 2002 c 244 s 1 are each amended to read
2 as follows:
3 ((Unless the context clearly requires otherwise,)) The definitions
4 in this section apply throughout RCW 16.08.070 through 16.08.100 unless
5 the context clearly requires otherwise.
6 (1) "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog, without regard to
7 the breed of the dog, that when unprovoked: (a) Inflicts bites on a
8 human or a domestic animal either on public or private property, or (b)
9 chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any
10 public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, or
11 any dog, without regard to the breed of the dog, with a known
12 propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause
13 injury, or to cause injury or otherwise to threaten the safety of
14 humans or domestic animals.
15 (2) "Dangerous dog" means any dog, without regard to the breed of
16 the dog, that (a) inflicts severe injury on a human being without
17 provocation on public or private property, (b) kills a domestic animal
18 without provocation while the dog is off the owner's property, or (c)
19 has been previously found to be potentially dangerous because of injury
20 inflicted on a human, the owner having received notice of such and the
21 dog again aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of
22 humans.
23 (3) "Severe injury" means any physical injury that results in
24 broken bones or disfiguring lacerations requiring multiple sutures or
25 cosmetic surgery.
26 (4) "Proper enclosure of a dangerous dog" means, while on the
27 owner's property, a dangerous dog shall be securely confined indoors or
28 in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure, suitable to prevent
29 the entry of young children and designed to prevent the animal from
30 escaping. Such pen or structure shall have secure sides and a secure
31 top, and shall also provide protection from the elements for the dog.
32 (5) "Animal control authority" means an entity acting alone or in
33 concert with other local governmental units for enforcement of the
34 animal control laws of the city, county, and state and the shelter and
35 welfare of animals.
36 (6) "Animal control officer" means any individual employed,
37 contracted with, or appointed by the animal control authority for the
38 purpose of aiding in the enforcement of this chapter or any other law
HB 2117 p. 2
1 or ordinance relating to the licensure of animals, control of animals,
2 or seizure and impoundment of animals, and includes any state or local
3 law enforcement officer or other employee whose duties in whole or in
4 part include assignments that involve the seizure and impoundment of
5 any animal.
6 (7) "Owner" means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or
7 department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or
8 having control or custody of an animal.
9 Sec. 3. RCW 16.08.080 and 2002 c 244 s 2 are each amended to read
10 as follows:
11 (1) Any city or county that has a notification and appeal procedure
12 with regard to determining a dog within its jurisdiction to be
13 dangerous may continue to utilize or amend its procedure. A city or
14 county animal control authority that does not have a notification and
15 appeal procedure in place as of June 13, 2002, and seeks to declare a
16 dog within its jurisdiction, as defined in subsection (7) of this
17 section, to be dangerous must serve notice upon the dog owner in person
18 or by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested.
19 (2) The notice must state: The statutory basis for the proposed
20 action; the reasons the authority considers the animal dangerous; a
21 statement that the dog is subject to registration and controls required
22 by this chapter, including a recitation of the controls in subsection
23 (6) of this section; and an explanation of the owner's rights and of
24 the proper procedure for appealing a decision finding the dog
25 dangerous.
26 (3) Prior to the authority issuing its final determination, the
27 authority shall notify the owner in writing that he or she is entitled
28 to an opportunity to meet with the authority, at which meeting the
29 owner may give, orally or in writing, any reasons or information as to
30 why the dog should not be declared dangerous. The notice shall state
31 the date, time, and location of the meeting, which must occur prior to
32 expiration of fifteen calendar days following delivery of the notice.
33 The owner may propose an alternative meeting date and time, but such
34 meeting must occur within the fifteen-day time period set forth in this
35 section. After such meeting, the authority must issue its final
36 determination, in the form of a written order, within fifteen calendar
37 days. In the event the authority declares a dog to be dangerous, the
p. 3 HB 2117
1 order shall include a recital of the authority for the action, a brief
2 concise statement of the facts that support the determination, and the
3 signature of the person who made the determination. The order shall be
4 sent by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, or
5 delivered in person to the owner at the owner's last address known to
6 the authority.
7 (4) If the local jurisdiction has provided for an administrative
8 appeal of the final determination, the owner must follow the appeal
9 procedure set forth by that jurisdiction. If the local jurisdiction
10 has not provided for an administrative appeal, the owner may appeal a
11 municipal authority's final determination that the dog is dangerous to
12 the municipal court, and may appeal a county animal control authority's
13 or county sheriff's final determination that the dog is dangerous to
14 the district court. The owner must make such appeal within twenty days
15 of receiving the final determination. While the appeal is pending, the
16 authority may order that the dog be confined or controlled in
17 compliance with RCW 16.08.090. If the dog is determined to be
18 dangerous, the owner must pay all costs of confinement and control.
19 (5) It is unlawful for an owner to have a dangerous dog in the
20 state without a certificate of registration issued under this section.
21 This section and RCW 16.08.090 and 16.08.100 shall not apply to police
22 dogs as defined in RCW 4.24.410.
23 (6) Unless a city or county has a more restrictive code
24 requirement, the animal control authority of the city or county in
25 which an owner has a dangerous dog shall issue a certificate of
26 registration to the owner of such animal if the owner presents to the
27 animal control unit sufficient evidence of:
28 (a) A proper enclosure to confine a dangerous dog and the posting
29 of the premises with a clearly visible warning sign that there is a
30 dangerous dog on the property. In addition, the owner shall
31 conspicuously display a sign with a warning symbol that informs
32 children of the presence of a dangerous dog;
33 (b) A surety bond issued by a surety insurer qualified under
34 chapter 48.28 RCW in a form acceptable to the animal control authority
35 in the sum of at least two hundred fifty thousand dollars, payable to
36 any person injured by the dangerous dog; or
37 (c) A policy of liability insurance, such as homeowner's insurance,
HB 2117 p. 4
1 issued by an insurer qualified under Title 48 RCW in the amount of at
2 least two hundred fifty thousand dollars, insuring the owner for any
3 personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous dog.
4 (7)(a)(i) If an owner has the dangerous dog in an incorporated area
5 that is serviced by both a city and a county animal control authority,
6 the owner shall obtain a certificate of registration from the city
7 authority;
8 (ii) If an owner has the dangerous dog in an incorporated or
9 unincorporated area served only by a county animal control authority,
10 the owner shall obtain a certificate of registration from the county
11 authority;
12 (iii) If an owner has the dangerous dog in an incorporated or
13 unincorporated area that is not served by an animal control authority,
14 the owner shall obtain a certificate of registration from the office of
15 the local sheriff.
16 (b) This subsection does not apply if a city or county does not
17 allow dangerous dogs within its jurisdiction.
18 (8) Cities and counties may charge an annual fee, in addition to
19 regular dog licensing fees, to register dangerous dogs.
20 (9) Except as provided in RCW 16.08.090(4), nothing in this section
21 limits a local authority in placing additional restrictions upon owners
22 of dangerous dogs. This section does not require a local authority to
23 allow a dangerous dog within its jurisdiction.
24 Sec. 4. RCW 16.08.090 and 1987 c 94 s 3 are each amended to read
25 as follows:
26 (1) It is unlawful for an owner of a dangerous dog to permit the
27 dog to be outside the proper enclosure unless the dog is muzzled and
28 restrained by a substantial chain or leash and under physical restraint
29 of a responsible person. The muzzle shall be made in a manner that
30 will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or
31 respiration but shall prevent it from biting any person or animal.
32 (2) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section,
33 potentially dangerous dogs shall be regulated only by local, municipal,
34 and county ordinances. Nothing in this section limits restrictions
35 local jurisdictions may place on owners of potentially dangerous dogs.
36 (3) Dogs shall not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or
37 damage was sustained by a person who, at the time, was committing a
p. 5 HB 2117
1 ((wilful)) willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by
2 the owner of the dog, or was tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog
3 or has, in the past, been observed or reported to have tormented,
4 abused, or assaulted the dog or was committing or attempting to commit
5 a crime.
6 (4) The breed of dog may not be considered when declaring a dog
7 dangerous or potentially dangerous. A local jurisdiction may not
8 prohibit possession of a particular breed of dog or declare a breed of
9 dog to be dangerous or potentially dangerous.
10 Sec. 5. RCW 16.08.100 and 2002 c 244 s 3 are each amended to read
11 as follows:
12 (1) Any dangerous dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal
13 control authority if the: (a) Dog is not validly registered under RCW
14 16.08.080; (b) owner does not secure the liability insurance coverage
15 required under RCW 16.08.080; (c) dog is not maintained in the proper
16 enclosure; or (d) dog is outside of the dwelling of the owner, or
17 outside of the proper enclosure and not under physical restraint of the
18 responsible person. The owner must pay the costs of confinement and
19 control. The animal control authority must serve notice upon the dog
20 owner in person or by regular and certified mail, return receipt
21 requested, specifying the reason for the confiscation of the dangerous
22 dog, that the owner is responsible for payment of the costs of
23 confinement and control, and that the dog will be destroyed in an
24 expeditious and humane manner if the deficiencies for which the dog was
25 confiscated are not corrected within twenty days. The animal control
26 authority shall destroy the confiscated dangerous dog in an expeditious
27 and humane manner if any deficiencies required by this subsection are
28 not corrected within twenty days of notification. In addition, the
29 owner shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable in accordance
30 with RCW 9A.20.021.
31 (2) If a dangerous dog of an owner with a prior conviction under
32 this chapter attacks or bites a person or another domestic animal, the
33 dog's owner is guilty of a class C felony, punishable in accordance
34 with RCW 9A.20.021. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant
35 must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was in
36 compliance with the requirements for ownership of a dangerous dog
37 pursuant to this chapter and the person or domestic animal attacked or
HB 2117 p. 6
1 bitten by the defendant's dog trespassed on the defendant's real or
2 personal property or provoked the defendant's dog without justification
3 or excuse. In addition, the dangerous dog shall be immediately
4 confiscated by an animal control authority, placed in quarantine for
5 the proper length of time, and thereafter destroyed in an expeditious
6 and humane manner.
7 (3) The owner of any dog that aggressively attacks and causes
8 severe injury or death of any human, whether or not the dog has
9 previously been declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, shall,
10 upon conviction, be guilty of a class C felony punishable in accordance
11 with RCW 9A.20.021. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant
12 must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the human severely
13 injured or killed by the defendant's dog: (a) Trespassed on the
14 defendant's real or personal property which was enclosed by fencing
15 suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent
16 the dog from escaping and marked with clearly visible signs warning
17 people, including children, not to trespass and to beware of dog; or
18 (b) provoked the defendant's dog without justification or excuse on the
19 defendant's real or personal property which was enclosed by fencing
20 suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent
21 the dog from escaping and marked with clearly visible signs warning
22 people, including children, not to trespass and to beware of dog. In
23 such a prosecution, the state has the burden of showing that the owner
24 of the dog either knew or should have known that the dog was
25 potentially dangerous as defined in this chapter. The state may not
26 meet its burden of proof that the owner should have known the dog was
27 potentially dangerous ((solely)) by showing the dog to be a particular
28 breed or breeds. In addition, the dog shall be immediately confiscated
29 by an animal control authority, quarantined, and upon conviction of the
30 owner destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner.
31 (4) Any person entering a dog in a dog fight is guilty of a class
32 C felony punishable in accordance with RCW 9A.20.021.
--- END ---
p. 7 HB 2117
They also stuff in a lot of "without regard to the breed of dog" clauses in the old law.
What do YOU think?
H-2930.1 _____________________________________________
HOUSE BILL 2117
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2014 Regular Session
By Representatives Appleton, Reykdal, Goodman, and Haigh
Prefiled 12/10/13. Read first time 01/13/14. Referred to Committee on
Judiciary.
1 AN ACT Relating to preventing breed-based dog regulations; amending
2 RCW 16.08.070, 16.08.080, 16.08.090, and 16.08.100; and creating a new
3 section.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) A number of local jurisdictions have
6 enacted ordinances prohibiting or placing additional restrictions on
7 specific breeds of dogs. While the legislature recognizes that local
8 jurisdictions have a valid public safety interest in protecting
9 citizens from dog attacks, the legislature finds that a dog's breed is
10 not inherently indicative of whether or not the dog is dangerous and
11 that the criteria for determining whether or not a dog is dangerous or
12 potentially dangerous should be focused on the dog's behavior.
13 (2) The legislature further finds that breed-specific ordinances
14 fail to address any of the factors that cause dogs to become aggressive
15 and place an undue hardship on responsible dog owners who provide
16 proper socialization and training. The legislature intends to redirect
17 the focus away from particular breeds and to instead encourage local
18 jurisdictions to employ more effective and data-driven prevention
19 models to control dangerous dogs and enhance public safety.
p. 1 HB 2117
1 Sec. 2. RCW 16.08.070 and 2002 c 244 s 1 are each amended to read
2 as follows:
3 ((Unless the context clearly requires otherwise,)) The definitions
4 in this section apply throughout RCW 16.08.070 through 16.08.100 unless
5 the context clearly requires otherwise.
6 (1) "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog, without regard to
7 the breed of the dog, that when unprovoked: (a) Inflicts bites on a
8 human or a domestic animal either on public or private property, or (b)
9 chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any
10 public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, or
11 any dog, without regard to the breed of the dog, with a known
12 propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause
13 injury, or to cause injury or otherwise to threaten the safety of
14 humans or domestic animals.
15 (2) "Dangerous dog" means any dog, without regard to the breed of
16 the dog, that (a) inflicts severe injury on a human being without
17 provocation on public or private property, (b) kills a domestic animal
18 without provocation while the dog is off the owner's property, or (c)
19 has been previously found to be potentially dangerous because of injury
20 inflicted on a human, the owner having received notice of such and the
21 dog again aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of
22 humans.
23 (3) "Severe injury" means any physical injury that results in
24 broken bones or disfiguring lacerations requiring multiple sutures or
25 cosmetic surgery.
26 (4) "Proper enclosure of a dangerous dog" means, while on the
27 owner's property, a dangerous dog shall be securely confined indoors or
28 in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure, suitable to prevent
29 the entry of young children and designed to prevent the animal from
30 escaping. Such pen or structure shall have secure sides and a secure
31 top, and shall also provide protection from the elements for the dog.
32 (5) "Animal control authority" means an entity acting alone or in
33 concert with other local governmental units for enforcement of the
34 animal control laws of the city, county, and state and the shelter and
35 welfare of animals.
36 (6) "Animal control officer" means any individual employed,
37 contracted with, or appointed by the animal control authority for the
38 purpose of aiding in the enforcement of this chapter or any other law
HB 2117 p. 2
1 or ordinance relating to the licensure of animals, control of animals,
2 or seizure and impoundment of animals, and includes any state or local
3 law enforcement officer or other employee whose duties in whole or in
4 part include assignments that involve the seizure and impoundment of
5 any animal.
6 (7) "Owner" means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or
7 department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or
8 having control or custody of an animal.
9 Sec. 3. RCW 16.08.080 and 2002 c 244 s 2 are each amended to read
10 as follows:
11 (1) Any city or county that has a notification and appeal procedure
12 with regard to determining a dog within its jurisdiction to be
13 dangerous may continue to utilize or amend its procedure. A city or
14 county animal control authority that does not have a notification and
15 appeal procedure in place as of June 13, 2002, and seeks to declare a
16 dog within its jurisdiction, as defined in subsection (7) of this
17 section, to be dangerous must serve notice upon the dog owner in person
18 or by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested.
19 (2) The notice must state: The statutory basis for the proposed
20 action; the reasons the authority considers the animal dangerous; a
21 statement that the dog is subject to registration and controls required
22 by this chapter, including a recitation of the controls in subsection
23 (6) of this section; and an explanation of the owner's rights and of
24 the proper procedure for appealing a decision finding the dog
25 dangerous.
26 (3) Prior to the authority issuing its final determination, the
27 authority shall notify the owner in writing that he or she is entitled
28 to an opportunity to meet with the authority, at which meeting the
29 owner may give, orally or in writing, any reasons or information as to
30 why the dog should not be declared dangerous. The notice shall state
31 the date, time, and location of the meeting, which must occur prior to
32 expiration of fifteen calendar days following delivery of the notice.
33 The owner may propose an alternative meeting date and time, but such
34 meeting must occur within the fifteen-day time period set forth in this
35 section. After such meeting, the authority must issue its final
36 determination, in the form of a written order, within fifteen calendar
37 days. In the event the authority declares a dog to be dangerous, the
p. 3 HB 2117
1 order shall include a recital of the authority for the action, a brief
2 concise statement of the facts that support the determination, and the
3 signature of the person who made the determination. The order shall be
4 sent by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, or
5 delivered in person to the owner at the owner's last address known to
6 the authority.
7 (4) If the local jurisdiction has provided for an administrative
8 appeal of the final determination, the owner must follow the appeal
9 procedure set forth by that jurisdiction. If the local jurisdiction
10 has not provided for an administrative appeal, the owner may appeal a
11 municipal authority's final determination that the dog is dangerous to
12 the municipal court, and may appeal a county animal control authority's
13 or county sheriff's final determination that the dog is dangerous to
14 the district court. The owner must make such appeal within twenty days
15 of receiving the final determination. While the appeal is pending, the
16 authority may order that the dog be confined or controlled in
17 compliance with RCW 16.08.090. If the dog is determined to be
18 dangerous, the owner must pay all costs of confinement and control.
19 (5) It is unlawful for an owner to have a dangerous dog in the
20 state without a certificate of registration issued under this section.
21 This section and RCW 16.08.090 and 16.08.100 shall not apply to police
22 dogs as defined in RCW 4.24.410.
23 (6) Unless a city or county has a more restrictive code
24 requirement, the animal control authority of the city or county in
25 which an owner has a dangerous dog shall issue a certificate of
26 registration to the owner of such animal if the owner presents to the
27 animal control unit sufficient evidence of:
28 (a) A proper enclosure to confine a dangerous dog and the posting
29 of the premises with a clearly visible warning sign that there is a
30 dangerous dog on the property. In addition, the owner shall
31 conspicuously display a sign with a warning symbol that informs
32 children of the presence of a dangerous dog;
33 (b) A surety bond issued by a surety insurer qualified under
34 chapter 48.28 RCW in a form acceptable to the animal control authority
35 in the sum of at least two hundred fifty thousand dollars, payable to
36 any person injured by the dangerous dog; or
37 (c) A policy of liability insurance, such as homeowner's insurance,
HB 2117 p. 4
1 issued by an insurer qualified under Title 48 RCW in the amount of at
2 least two hundred fifty thousand dollars, insuring the owner for any
3 personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous dog.
4 (7)(a)(i) If an owner has the dangerous dog in an incorporated area
5 that is serviced by both a city and a county animal control authority,
6 the owner shall obtain a certificate of registration from the city
7 authority;
8 (ii) If an owner has the dangerous dog in an incorporated or
9 unincorporated area served only by a county animal control authority,
10 the owner shall obtain a certificate of registration from the county
11 authority;
12 (iii) If an owner has the dangerous dog in an incorporated or
13 unincorporated area that is not served by an animal control authority,
14 the owner shall obtain a certificate of registration from the office of
15 the local sheriff.
16 (b) This subsection does not apply if a city or county does not
17 allow dangerous dogs within its jurisdiction.
18 (8) Cities and counties may charge an annual fee, in addition to
19 regular dog licensing fees, to register dangerous dogs.
20 (9) Except as provided in RCW 16.08.090(4), nothing in this section
21 limits a local authority in placing additional restrictions upon owners
22 of dangerous dogs. This section does not require a local authority to
23 allow a dangerous dog within its jurisdiction.
24 Sec. 4. RCW 16.08.090 and 1987 c 94 s 3 are each amended to read
25 as follows:
26 (1) It is unlawful for an owner of a dangerous dog to permit the
27 dog to be outside the proper enclosure unless the dog is muzzled and
28 restrained by a substantial chain or leash and under physical restraint
29 of a responsible person. The muzzle shall be made in a manner that
30 will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or
31 respiration but shall prevent it from biting any person or animal.
32 (2) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section,
33 potentially dangerous dogs shall be regulated only by local, municipal,
34 and county ordinances. Nothing in this section limits restrictions
35 local jurisdictions may place on owners of potentially dangerous dogs.
36 (3) Dogs shall not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or
37 damage was sustained by a person who, at the time, was committing a
p. 5 HB 2117
1 ((wilful)) willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by
2 the owner of the dog, or was tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog
3 or has, in the past, been observed or reported to have tormented,
4 abused, or assaulted the dog or was committing or attempting to commit
5 a crime.
6 (4) The breed of dog may not be considered when declaring a dog
7 dangerous or potentially dangerous. A local jurisdiction may not
8 prohibit possession of a particular breed of dog or declare a breed of
9 dog to be dangerous or potentially dangerous.
10 Sec. 5. RCW 16.08.100 and 2002 c 244 s 3 are each amended to read
11 as follows:
12 (1) Any dangerous dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal
13 control authority if the: (a) Dog is not validly registered under RCW
14 16.08.080; (b) owner does not secure the liability insurance coverage
15 required under RCW 16.08.080; (c) dog is not maintained in the proper
16 enclosure; or (d) dog is outside of the dwelling of the owner, or
17 outside of the proper enclosure and not under physical restraint of the
18 responsible person. The owner must pay the costs of confinement and
19 control. The animal control authority must serve notice upon the dog
20 owner in person or by regular and certified mail, return receipt
21 requested, specifying the reason for the confiscation of the dangerous
22 dog, that the owner is responsible for payment of the costs of
23 confinement and control, and that the dog will be destroyed in an
24 expeditious and humane manner if the deficiencies for which the dog was
25 confiscated are not corrected within twenty days. The animal control
26 authority shall destroy the confiscated dangerous dog in an expeditious
27 and humane manner if any deficiencies required by this subsection are
28 not corrected within twenty days of notification. In addition, the
29 owner shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable in accordance
30 with RCW 9A.20.021.
31 (2) If a dangerous dog of an owner with a prior conviction under
32 this chapter attacks or bites a person or another domestic animal, the
33 dog's owner is guilty of a class C felony, punishable in accordance
34 with RCW 9A.20.021. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant
35 must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was in
36 compliance with the requirements for ownership of a dangerous dog
37 pursuant to this chapter and the person or domestic animal attacked or
HB 2117 p. 6
1 bitten by the defendant's dog trespassed on the defendant's real or
2 personal property or provoked the defendant's dog without justification
3 or excuse. In addition, the dangerous dog shall be immediately
4 confiscated by an animal control authority, placed in quarantine for
5 the proper length of time, and thereafter destroyed in an expeditious
6 and humane manner.
7 (3) The owner of any dog that aggressively attacks and causes
8 severe injury or death of any human, whether or not the dog has
9 previously been declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, shall,
10 upon conviction, be guilty of a class C felony punishable in accordance
11 with RCW 9A.20.021. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant
12 must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the human severely
13 injured or killed by the defendant's dog: (a) Trespassed on the
14 defendant's real or personal property which was enclosed by fencing
15 suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent
16 the dog from escaping and marked with clearly visible signs warning
17 people, including children, not to trespass and to beware of dog; or
18 (b) provoked the defendant's dog without justification or excuse on the
19 defendant's real or personal property which was enclosed by fencing
20 suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent
21 the dog from escaping and marked with clearly visible signs warning
22 people, including children, not to trespass and to beware of dog. In
23 such a prosecution, the state has the burden of showing that the owner
24 of the dog either knew or should have known that the dog was
25 potentially dangerous as defined in this chapter. The state may not
26 meet its burden of proof that the owner should have known the dog was
27 potentially dangerous ((solely)) by showing the dog to be a particular
28 breed or breeds. In addition, the dog shall be immediately confiscated
29 by an animal control authority, quarantined, and upon conviction of the
30 owner destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner.
31 (4) Any person entering a dog in a dog fight is guilty of a class
32 C felony punishable in accordance with RCW 9A.20.021.
--- END ---
p. 7 HB 2117
Monday, November 4, 2013
I blame Barbara Woodhouse
I blame Barbara Woodhouse, remember her? "Walkies!"?
I think she was the first one to really gain attention with the line "no bad dogs".
I understand the motivation, she was famous in the era I came from where rolled up newspapers and "rubbing their nose in it" were common training techniques. Probably not the best for the dog.
Anyway, what appears to have happened in the average dog owner's mind, is that No Bad Dogs implies Dogs can do No Wrong.
Dogs can do No Wrong, means that if the dog does something that appears wrong, than it MUST be the humans' fault.
TADA! Dogs suddenly are a vengeful deities who must be placated, appeased and sacrificed to so that nothing bad happens to their human subjects.
Dog bite you? It's your fault, you must have provoked it!
Dog kills your livestock? You should have put up a better fence!
Dog harasses your animals and you shoot it? You HORRIBLE PERSON! It was just PLAYING! HOW DARE you kill my DOG just to save your worthless animals?
Dog barks all day? He's just trying to protect his owners!
Dog kills your kid? Well, just see the comments after any news article of the sort and you'll see all the nauseating excuses.
I think she was the first one to really gain attention with the line "no bad dogs".
I understand the motivation, she was famous in the era I came from where rolled up newspapers and "rubbing their nose in it" were common training techniques. Probably not the best for the dog.
Anyway, what appears to have happened in the average dog owner's mind, is that No Bad Dogs implies Dogs can do No Wrong.
Dogs can do No Wrong, means that if the dog does something that appears wrong, than it MUST be the humans' fault.
TADA! Dogs suddenly are a vengeful deities who must be placated, appeased and sacrificed to so that nothing bad happens to their human subjects.
Dog bite you? It's your fault, you must have provoked it!
Dog kills your livestock? You should have put up a better fence!
Dog harasses your animals and you shoot it? You HORRIBLE PERSON! It was just PLAYING! HOW DARE you kill my DOG just to save your worthless animals?
Dog barks all day? He's just trying to protect his owners!
Dog kills your kid? Well, just see the comments after any news article of the sort and you'll see all the nauseating excuses.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Yo! Moron! Voice control means CONTROL!
So I nearly ran over your freaking dog yesterday as it darted across two lanes of rush hour highway traffic in pursuit of a jogger on the other side of the road from you and where IT should have stayed.
Again I kick myself for having too fast (or maybe too slow) reflexes that kept be from running down your mutt and instead slamming on my brakes and honking my horn.
Don't know if the jogger was attacked or not, but that damned dog didn't even bat an eye with all the noise my car was making and you, YOU pathetically ran 20 yards behind it carrying a leash.
The leash SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON YOUR EFFING DOG, YOU USELESS WASTE OF SKIN!
You LET you damned dog off leash, you DAMNED WELL BETTER HAVE CONTROL OVER IT!
Yeah, yeah, I know this is a hard concept, I had difficulties with it myself, when I as SIX.
Yep, when I was six, I got my first puppy. Second dog, first puppy. One hard headed Keeshund that didn't believe for a second that a punk kid should outta tell it what to do.
Took a bit 'fore my Mom realized this situation wasn't going to sort itself out successfully, but then she laid down the law. You take the dog out of the yard, the dog's gonna be on a leash, and if you can't hold onto the leash, the dog doesn't go off the property again.
See that? Isn't that hard, it is?
Oh wait, you don't know what voice CONTROL is still, do you? You think running after your dog yelling it's name is some kind of control, don't you? I mean, it will EVENTUALLY stop, maybe, like when I run it over with a car, or somebody shoots it for attacking them, or it gets hungry or it runs into a wall...
Got news for you, that's not control.
THIS is CONTROL. Watch. Take notes. You can't control your animal that well with voice commands? Then DON'T LET IT OFF THE LEASH!
Again I kick myself for having too fast (or maybe too slow) reflexes that kept be from running down your mutt and instead slamming on my brakes and honking my horn.
Don't know if the jogger was attacked or not, but that damned dog didn't even bat an eye with all the noise my car was making and you, YOU pathetically ran 20 yards behind it carrying a leash.
The leash SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON YOUR EFFING DOG, YOU USELESS WASTE OF SKIN!
You LET you damned dog off leash, you DAMNED WELL BETTER HAVE CONTROL OVER IT!
Yeah, yeah, I know this is a hard concept, I had difficulties with it myself, when I as SIX.
Yep, when I was six, I got my first puppy. Second dog, first puppy. One hard headed Keeshund that didn't believe for a second that a punk kid should outta tell it what to do.
Took a bit 'fore my Mom realized this situation wasn't going to sort itself out successfully, but then she laid down the law. You take the dog out of the yard, the dog's gonna be on a leash, and if you can't hold onto the leash, the dog doesn't go off the property again.
See that? Isn't that hard, it is?
Oh wait, you don't know what voice CONTROL is still, do you? You think running after your dog yelling it's name is some kind of control, don't you? I mean, it will EVENTUALLY stop, maybe, like when I run it over with a car, or somebody shoots it for attacking them, or it gets hungry or it runs into a wall...
Got news for you, that's not control.
THIS is CONTROL. Watch. Take notes. You can't control your animal that well with voice commands? Then DON'T LET IT OFF THE LEASH!
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Guest Post - Sometimes, I feel guilty about what happened to your dog
Sometimes, I feel guilty about what happened to your dog.
I see how much my friends love their dogs. They take care to keep them safe with
fenced-in yards, obedience school, and Flexi-leads. They’d grieve long and hard if any
harm ever came to their pet. If they
thought they could have prevented their dog from being hurt, they’d carry the
burden of such a failure with them for all of their lives.
Sometimes, I feel guilty about what happened to you dog, but
then I remember that it wasn’t my fault.
You moved into the triple-decker at the end of my street
when I was in elementary school.
Immigrants from a war-torn country, you assimilated nicely in the
suburbs, hanging your laundry on the clothesline outside and sending your kids
to Girl Scouts on Wednesday afternoons.
I had just started middle school when you got Stormy*.
She was a lab mix with solid black fur and the pricked ears
of a German Shepherd. I never saw her in
your yard. I never saw her in your
house. I never saw her on a leash,
although our city had a leash law and my mother called the animal control
officer nearly every day about Stormy.
I did see her as she leaped from her sleeping place in the
middle of our street to jump on me and knock me down on my way to school every
day, her jaws snapping and claws tearing into my clothes. The animal control officer feared you,
telling us that you were in the Mafia, no small accusation in the land of
Whitey Bulger.
I’d leave the house each morning in trepidation of the abuse
to come. Sometimes I’d be able to get by
Stormy and make my way to my friend’s house so we could walk the remainder of
the way to school together. But more
often than not, I’d stand in the road in tears before retreating back home to
get my father. My fondest memories of my
father are those where he’d lead me down the street, a stick in his hand to
beat the dog when it tried to attack me.
My mother was not so kind.
She’s rail at me for waking my father who had just fallen asleep after a
night of working third shift. I felt
useless and small when I was unable to defend myself against Stormy’s torment.
When I got to high school, the bus picked up the kids one
street away from mine. Stormy still
slept in my street, blocking the route between my house and the school bus
stop. I used to be a good student, but I
missed the bus often. If I was lucky
enough to get a ride, waking my tired father and getting a note for the
homeroom teacher, I’d only miss half of my first class. If I had to walk the whole way, five miles
distant, I’d miss more.
I was never good in math.
Staying after school for extra help wasn’t an option because I feared
little else more than having to negotiate a safe passage past Stormy when I was
alone walking up my street. I missed
making the Honor Roll every year because of my math grade. When I clutched my books to my chest as I
walked by Stormy, I didn’t understand how much Stormy was
shaping shaped my life. I only felt
the paralyzing fear of a child who was threatened by a vicious beast from whom
no one could protect her.
After I graduated from high school, I didn't get into a
four year college. I went to a Community
College for two years and landed a job as a retail manager at a store at the
mall. The work was hard and customers
were annoying, especially during the holiday season when I was kept late at
night, sometimes not getting home until well after midnight.
I never saw Stormy, but I heard her yelp loudly as my wheels
ran over her on a night when the roads were slick with rain. I pulled into my driveway, hoping there were
no blood stains on my car.
“A black dog... sleeping in the middle of a dark road,” my
father said when he learned the news of Stormy’s death from the neighbors the
next morning. “It’s a wonder it didn't
happen sooner.”
*Story submitted by a dog-hating friend. Dog's name changed to protect, uh, somebody.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Hey YOU! Ya moved out into the country to GIVE YOUR DOG ROOM TO RUN
I hate YOU and YOUR DOG.
Why?
Well, for one, I don't like playing dodge-em-doggie at 60 MPH, especially in the DARK and the RAIN. Frankly, if I weren't worried about body damage, I run it right over. And ya know what? If' I'm hauling horses, I'm not going to hurt them to try avoid your mutt.
But that's not the main reason. The main reason why I HATE YOUR DOG, and every livestock owner I know HATES YOUR DOG is that your dog is a THREAT to my animals.
Oh, but your doggie wouldn't hurt a fly. Well, I'm not going to give it a chance. Any dog near my stock is vermin as far as I'm concerned, and I'll take it out if I can get a shot at it.
No, I'm not going to call Animal Control, they've got their head stuck too far up in the dark to actually CONTROL animals. In fact, I've been TOLD by AC that the best thing to do is to shoot first and forget about the questions.
Shoot, Shovel and Shut up is what most farmers do. However, because the law in this state is that any dog caught, chasing, harassing or killing livestock can be shot on sight, the best advice I've heard was from one old farmer who said, shoot them and if you know the owner, contact them and have them call the Sheriff, and let the Sheriff read them the law.
Knowing the law keeps SOME of you idiot owners from doing the same thing with your next dog.
Seriously, you don't have a clue how bad it gets. People who let your dogs run, blow off any request for compensation or assistance with boundary fencing. Ha, Ha! Your chickens got killed! Oopsie, you lost another lamb to my poochie. We'll try to keep him in.
Sure you will.
Yep, I hate your dog.
Hate it so much, I'll shoot it on sight.
And I'm an animal lover. Ninty percent of the dogs I've had, have been pound pups. But my sympathy for random dog X ends right at my property line.
Hey, HEY! I got an idea! You keep your DAMNED MUTT on your property and I won't run it over or shoot it, OKAY?
Why?
Well, for one, I don't like playing dodge-em-doggie at 60 MPH, especially in the DARK and the RAIN. Frankly, if I weren't worried about body damage, I run it right over. And ya know what? If' I'm hauling horses, I'm not going to hurt them to try avoid your mutt.
But that's not the main reason. The main reason why I HATE YOUR DOG, and every livestock owner I know HATES YOUR DOG is that your dog is a THREAT to my animals.
Oh, but your doggie wouldn't hurt a fly. Well, I'm not going to give it a chance. Any dog near my stock is vermin as far as I'm concerned, and I'll take it out if I can get a shot at it.
No, I'm not going to call Animal Control, they've got their head stuck too far up in the dark to actually CONTROL animals. In fact, I've been TOLD by AC that the best thing to do is to shoot first and forget about the questions.
Shoot, Shovel and Shut up is what most farmers do. However, because the law in this state is that any dog caught, chasing, harassing or killing livestock can be shot on sight, the best advice I've heard was from one old farmer who said, shoot them and if you know the owner, contact them and have them call the Sheriff, and let the Sheriff read them the law.
Knowing the law keeps SOME of you idiot owners from doing the same thing with your next dog.
Seriously, you don't have a clue how bad it gets. People who let your dogs run, blow off any request for compensation or assistance with boundary fencing. Ha, Ha! Your chickens got killed! Oopsie, you lost another lamb to my poochie. We'll try to keep him in.
Sure you will.
Yep, I hate your dog.
Hate it so much, I'll shoot it on sight.
And I'm an animal lover. Ninty percent of the dogs I've had, have been pound pups. But my sympathy for random dog X ends right at my property line.
Hey, HEY! I got an idea! You keep your DAMNED MUTT on your property and I won't run it over or shoot it, OKAY?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)