WA 5651 Passed both the Senate and House is now awaiting the Governor's signature. Here is the bill that will go into affect 1/1/2010 if the Governor signs:
History on the bill is here:
While most of this appears to be common sense there are still problems with the bill. No one disputes that dogs should be cared for in a humane manner and that humane deserves a definition, however dictating to someone how many dogs one can own based on sexual orientation is a breach of civil liberties. Dogs are private property and with that: One dog (1) or One Hundred (100) can be abused, denied humane treatment. So how do standards of care and numbers of dogs owned relate where laws should be concerned? Why does someone with 10 intact dogs need to require humane housing and someone with 1 or 9 does not? Why are those on this list exempt:
(4) This section does not apply to the following:
19 (a) A publicly operated animal control facility or animal shelter;
20 (b) A private, charitable not-for-profit humane society or animal
21 adoption organization;
22 (c) A veterinary facility;
23 (d) A retail pet store;
24 (e) A research institution;
25 (f) A boarding facility; or
26 (g) A grooming facility.
27 (5) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a commercial
28 dog breeder licensed, before the effective date of this act, by the
29 United States department of agriculture pursuant to the federal animal
30 welfare act (Title 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2131 et seq.).
If you live in WA state I urge you to write to Governor Gregoire ( http://www.governor.wa.gov/ ) and politely advise her that while you applaud the WA state legislators for their efforts, this bill needs to not be passed. It simply is flawed. The answers to the above questions as provided by the WA State Legislators in the form of WA5651 is insufficient, discriminatory, and possibly unconstitutional via civil liberty laws regarding personal property.
*who will not be affected by this in any way...