<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4150094190944675304</id><updated>2012-02-15T23:37:01.620-08:00</updated><title type='text'>Washington State Animal Law</title><subtitle type='html'>Do you need help with an animal law issue in the State of Washington? Please contact me for a free consultation.</subtitle><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://animallawrights.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4150094190944675304/posts/default?max-results=100'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://animallawrights.blogspot.com/'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><author><name>Brandon</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/13683322860232514504</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>2</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>100</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4150094190944675304.post-941353615262180163</id><published>2010-01-12T12:08:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2010-01-12T12:15:08.769-08:00</updated><title type='text'>Washington's Marauding Dog Law Remains In Effect Another Year</title><content type='html'>Article By Hilary Bramwell Mohr&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Most dog owners are probably unaware that&lt;br /&gt;Washington currently has a law on the books that requires&lt;br /&gt;the owner of a dog found guilty of killing any&lt;br /&gt;domestic animal to kill the dog within 48 hours of being&lt;br /&gt;notified of the determination of guilt. RCW&lt;br /&gt;16.08.030. An owner who fails to kill his or her dog in&lt;br /&gt;compliance with the statute is deemed guilty of committing&lt;br /&gt;a misdemeanor. Id. The same statute requires&lt;br /&gt;the sheriff or deputy sheriff to kill any dog found running&lt;br /&gt;at large between August and March without metal&lt;br /&gt;a metal identification tag. Id. The statue, entitled&lt;br /&gt;“Marauding Dog—Duty to Kill,” was enacted in 1917&lt;br /&gt;and last codified in 1929 as part of an eleven-section&lt;br /&gt;act addressing licensure of dogs and taxation of their&lt;br /&gt;owners. Laws of 1929, ch. 198, §§ 1-11. Of that 1929&lt;br /&gt;act, only two sections of the eleven remain law in&lt;br /&gt;Washington. RCW §§ 16.08.020 and .030; Laws of&lt;br /&gt;1929, ch. 198, §§ 6-7.&lt;br /&gt;In this past legislative session, Senator Brandland&lt;br /&gt;introduced Senate Bill 5200, which would have&lt;br /&gt;deleted the portion of the statute requiring the sheriff&lt;br /&gt;to kill dogs running at large. Senator Hargrove subsequently&lt;br /&gt;introduced Senate Bill 5870, which would delete&lt;br /&gt;the remainder of the statute. Senate Bill 5870 did&lt;br /&gt;not make it out of the Senate Committee. At the second&lt;br /&gt;reading of Senate Bill 5200 in the Rules Committee,&lt;br /&gt;Senator Hargrove proposed amending SB&lt;br /&gt;5200 to repeal RCW 16.08.030 in its entirety.&lt;br /&gt;That amendment was adopted. In the House, however,&lt;br /&gt;the House Committee on Judiciary inserted the original&lt;br /&gt;statutory language mandating that an owner kill his or&lt;br /&gt;her dog within 48 hours of being notified of the fact&lt;br /&gt;that the dog killed a domesticated animal. The Senate&lt;br /&gt;subsequently insisted that the House approve a full&lt;br /&gt;repeal of RCW 16.08.030, but the House refused, insisting&lt;br /&gt;instead that the Senate accept its amendment reinserting&lt;br /&gt;the language requiring owners to kill their&lt;br /&gt;dogs within 48 hours. As a result of this back-andforth,&lt;br /&gt;no part of SB 5200 was passed, and RCW&lt;br /&gt;16.08.030 remains on the books in its entirety.&lt;br /&gt;The legislature has missed its opportunity to repeal&lt;br /&gt;the law this legislative session, but should take the&lt;br /&gt;matter up again next year. The legislature should repeal&lt;br /&gt;all of RCW 16.08.030, not just the portion requiring&lt;br /&gt;sheriffs to kill dogs running at large. That portion&lt;br /&gt;of the law should be repealed because it is not followed,&lt;br /&gt;not enforced, conflicts with numerous other&lt;br /&gt;laws, and enforcing that portion of the law would be&lt;br /&gt;repugnant to modern sensibilities. Today, most Washingtonians&lt;br /&gt;would no longer find it acceptable for officials&lt;br /&gt;to kill a dog running at large for the sole reason&lt;br /&gt;that the dog was not identified by a metal tag. Detailed&lt;br /&gt;laws have been adopted at the state and local&lt;br /&gt;levels of government to manage not only licensure for&lt;br /&gt;dogs, but the capture, recovery, or adoption of unidentified&lt;br /&gt;stray dogs. See, e.g., Chapter 16.10 RCW (dog&lt;br /&gt;licensing); Seattle Municipal Code 9.25.030 (authority&lt;br /&gt;of Animal Control to detain unidentified or at-large&lt;br /&gt;animals). A law requiring officials to kill, without further&lt;br /&gt;inquiry, an unidentified animal now stands alone,&lt;br /&gt;inconsistent with an extensive body of newer and more&lt;br /&gt;humane regulations.&lt;br /&gt;The portion of RCW 16.08.030 requiring a person&lt;br /&gt;who owns a dog found guilty of killing any domestic&lt;br /&gt;animal to kill the dog within 48 hours of being&lt;br /&gt;notified of the finding of guilt should also be repealed.&lt;br /&gt;That requirement is in apparent conflict with other,&lt;br /&gt;more recently enacted statutes, and presents potentially&lt;br /&gt;significant constitutional concerns beyond the&lt;br /&gt;scope of this article.&lt;br /&gt;For example, RCW 16.08.070(a) defines the&lt;br /&gt;term “dangerous dog” to include dogs that kill domesticated&lt;br /&gt;animals or that bite humans, among other&lt;br /&gt;things. There are several statutes prescribing how to&lt;br /&gt;deal with dangerous dogs. Owners of dangerous dogs&lt;br /&gt;are required to register the dogs and meet certain insurance&lt;br /&gt;and restraint requirements, but they are not&lt;br /&gt;required to kill their dogs upon being deemed dangerous,&lt;br /&gt;even if the dogs were deemed dangerous for biting&lt;br /&gt;humans. RCW §§ 16.08.080–100. Inexplicably, a&lt;br /&gt;dog that kills a domesticated animal is treated differently&lt;br /&gt;and must be killed under RCW 16.08.030,&lt;br /&gt;wholly outside the scheme provided for handling dangerous&lt;br /&gt;dogs under RCW §§ 16.08.080–100.&lt;br /&gt;The primary incongruity between RCW&lt;br /&gt;16.08.030 and the dangerous-dog statutes are the latter’s&lt;br /&gt;appeal provisions. Owners of “dangerous dogs”&lt;br /&gt;may appeal the dangerous-dog determination within&lt;br /&gt;twenty days as provided in RCW 16.08.080(4) or pursuant&lt;br /&gt;to the administrative appeal procedure of the&lt;br /&gt;local jurisdiction, if any. The owner of a dog that was&lt;br /&gt;deemed a “dangerous dog” for killing a domestic animal&lt;br /&gt;could therefore be placed in the unfair position of&lt;br /&gt;being required to kill his or her dog within 48 hours,&lt;br /&gt;even though the dog may later be exonerated on appeal.&lt;br /&gt;If an owner must comply with RCW 16.08.030,&lt;br /&gt;the dog will already be dead when exonerated. In addition,&lt;br /&gt;any owner who, while awaiting appeal of the&lt;br /&gt;dangerous dog determination, elects not to kill his or&lt;br /&gt;her dog in accordance with RCW 16.08.030 “shall be&lt;br /&gt;deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.” By exercising his&lt;br /&gt;or her statutory right to appeal, the owner is deemed to&lt;br /&gt;have committed a crime.&lt;br /&gt;Requiring an owner to kill a dog that has killed a&lt;br /&gt;domesticated animal within 48 hours is wholly inconsistent&lt;br /&gt;with the subsequently enacted statutes providing&lt;br /&gt;a detailed scheme for managing dangerous dogs&lt;br /&gt;and appealing dangerous-dog determinations. Requiring&lt;br /&gt;a sheriff or deputy sheriff to kill untagged dogs&lt;br /&gt;running at large is also inconsistent with other state&lt;br /&gt;statutes and local codes. The law should be repealed.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4150094190944675304-941353615262180163?l=animallawrights.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://animallawrights.blogspot.com/feeds/941353615262180163/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://animallawrights.blogspot.com/2010/01/washingtons-marauding-dog-law-remains.html#comment-form' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4150094190944675304/posts/default/941353615262180163'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4150094190944675304/posts/default/941353615262180163'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://animallawrights.blogspot.com/2010/01/washingtons-marauding-dog-law-remains.html' title='Washington&apos;s Marauding Dog Law Remains In Effect Another Year'/><author><name>Brandon</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/13683322860232514504</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4150094190944675304.post-3716752174132178556</id><published>2009-11-11T11:42:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-11-11T11:44:51.051-08:00</updated><title type='text'>Revised Code of Washington</title><content type='html'>Follow this link to take you to Title 16 of the Revised Code of Washington which covers Animals and Livestock:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=16&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4150094190944675304-3716752174132178556?l=animallawrights.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://animallawrights.blogspot.com/feeds/3716752174132178556/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://animallawrights.blogspot.com/2009/11/revised-code-of-washington.html#comment-form' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4150094190944675304/posts/default/3716752174132178556'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4150094190944675304/posts/default/3716752174132178556'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://animallawrights.blogspot.com/2009/11/revised-code-of-washington.html' title='Revised Code of Washington'/><author><name>Brandon</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/13683322860232514504</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry></feed>
