Effective January 1st a piece of sweeping legislation was put into place in my state effecting everyone who owns 10 or more intact dogs. This is considered one of the most reaching dog bills in the nation. I tried to leave my thoughts out of most of these, come to your own conclusions.

You can read the whole bill here. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5651-S.PL.pdf It's commonly called the puppymill bill and there are some basic highlights like not being able to own more than 50 intact dogs, restricts exercise types, and puts minimum standards on enclosures.

There are some amendments and new laws up for vote this year that are receiving some attention.

HB 1936 would drop the legal number to 25 dogs, add provisions for fire detection and suppression, require maintained temps between 50 - 85 degrees, and specify flooring which may be used. It also puts very specific language on veterinary requirements and breeding practices. It would also bar docking, crops, dew claws, and all surgeries done by anyone other than practicing vets.
The hardest part of this bill is that it allows any public "official" from animal control to the health dept to do searches "upon their own motion." At any time, during daylight hours, for any reason including reviews of books which must be supplied by the breeder in full cooperation with the search.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1936.pdf

HB 2202 sets up standards of vaccination and worming required for dogs under 12 months old offered for sale unless there is a contract stating that minimum veterinary standards of care have not been provided for this puppy. Otherwise the seller is liable until that dog is 12 months old. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2202.pdf

HB 2387 is an anti tethering bill which also puts restrictions on the amount of time a dog can be in a kennel. Includes fines up to $500. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2387.pdf

SB 5063 allows you to be buried with your dog. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5063.pdf

SB 5329 puts a 3 cent a pound tax on dog food to cover the cost of low cost spay and neuter programs.http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5329.pdf

SB 5192 allows well behaved leashed dogs in any food establishment with a liquor license during business hours if the business owner wishes. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5192.pdf

Excuse my ignorance but exaclty what type of business would need more than 10 intact males? Aren't working dogs(police, drug etc) neutered? Is this targeting puppy mills? I just picture GSD's and can't imagine having 2 intact males let alone more than 10.

Ugh iUgh too small

Anything wrong with this legislation? I bet there are 100s of loopholes, just in case.

 Quote: melissa thom

well behaved leashed dogs in any food establishment

nice

 Quote: melissa thom

standards of vaccination

hmm on this one. Can you buy dogs from yourself? The whole litter? And sign a contract? And then resell them, like a dealership?

 Quote: melissa thom

hardest part of this bill

- "dogs are neither a commercial crop nor commodity" wow!

- "upon ... complaint or their own motion" - is this different from schools, restaurants etc.?

Does it have to be a business? Some responsible breeders may have more than 10 intact males (i.e. older dogs no longer used for breeding who are still intact, new, up & coming dogs that are intact, co-owned dogs who are staying at their place, etc.).

Whether or not working dogs are intact depends on a number of factors and it should not be up to the state or local government to decide whether or not they should be s/n.

There is no such thing as "targeting puppymills", though that is what some of these bills will be advertised as doing. When you "attack puppy mills," you hurt responsible breeders and eventually, responsible owners. Besides, if "puppy mill" owners are brazen enough to break the laws currently in place (in states which do have laws against them), what makes you think they will obey new ones? Putting limits on the number of dogs a person can have and the types of enclosures they can be kept in is NOT going to get rid of "puppymills".

 Quote: Ana Kozlowsky

Anything wrong with this legislation? I bet there are 100s of loopholes, just in case.

Anything wrong with this legislation? Heck yes! And pet owners in WA who wish to keep their right to own a pet and care for it as they see fit should be contacting their representatives about these bills. Also, loopholes can easily be closed.

What *is* wrong with it, exactly? I admit I didn't read the whole thing, but surely will. I understand the desire to protect the animals but have no idea about what's going on inside a good breeder's. I would hate to vote on the wrong side some day.

Loopholes are left for convenience, sometimes. I am sure they would have left plenty in this very hot bill.

I do not have any formed position on this one and am very interested to hear all sides. One thing I like, though - if people could bring their kids to a restaurant, I would like to bring my well-behaved dogs.

eta: I am planning to own an intact animal (for dog sport) in the future and I am planning to take care of it in the best way I see fit.

Melissa listed some of the issues with the bills. Just a few examples of things wrong with this legislation:

- There are provisions about what dogs puppies under the age of 12 weeks can and cannot be with (specifically, no adult dogs other than the "dam or foster dam")
- There are specific requirements about the type of exercise that must be provided to each animal (i.e. banning the use of treadmills unless you are given permission from a vet)
- There are specific vaccinations that will be REQUIRED for dogs under 12 months of age (what about those of us who have done the research and feel that the current "standards of care" are causing us to over-vaccinate our pets? Should we be required by law to follow a vaccination schedule which we and even some vets disagree with? Further, what keeps them from mandating the type of nutrition we provide our pets with?)

To assume that there are loopholes left in the bill would be a mistake. Do read the bills once you get a chance...none of them are very long at all. Many states are being hit with legislation like this...in TX and CA it was shut down last year but you can be sure it's not over yet.

What must also be kept in mind is that once this sort of legislation passes, it is very easy to change. For example, the intact dog limit may start out at 10, but could very easily become 5, then 2...or there might also be an overall limit imposed (i.e. no more than 4 dogs or cats or animals in general at any residence) as some other states have seen.

I also have an intact animal who I work, and plan to have more in the future. To say that I may only have X number of intact animals will not prevent another person who probably should not have any dogs or pets at all from mistreating his or animal - if that makes any sense.

When I originally wrote this piece it was purely informational. I didn't have much of an opinion on it at the time.

 Quote: michelle pociask

Excuse my ignorance but exaclty what type of business would need more than 10 intact males?

Intact dogs just refers to any animal over 6 months old that is not spayed or neutered. Has nothing to do with males.

 Quote: ana kozlowsky

- "upon ... complaint or their own motion" - is this different from schools, restaurants etc.?

Yes, if I have ten dogs at my private residence it allows anyone who is a public or pseudo public officials to enter my property to inspect my dogs and my records at any time during daylight hours just because they feel like it with no notice. I have huge issue with this and it is ripe for abuse.

When it gets down to the wood on this I care because you can't legislate animal husbandry to a micrometer and have it be effective. I would have been ok with minimum standards of care for dogs requiring clean environments, safe enclosures, air quality, and facility licensing for primary enclosures but the way this is written I am in violation for crating dogs while I'm at work, using a treadmill on a stormy day, having my house get over 80 degrees in summer, not being able to keep my dog outside below 55 degrees, or not taking my dog to the vet yearly if he needs to see a vet or not. This bill has great intentions but paints with far too wide of a brush IMO when the true problem lies with a very small number of people in this state.