SENATE BILL REPORT

SB 6262

BYSenators Barr, Rasmussen and Nelson

Providing a hearing process to determine whether a dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous.

Senate Committee on Law & Justice

Senate Hearing Date(s):January 26, 1990; January 29, 1990

Majority Report:  That Substitute Senate Bill No. 6262 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass.

      Signed by Senators Nelson, Chairman; McCaslin, Vice Chairman; Madsen, Patrick, Rasmussen, Thorsness.

Senate Staff:Jon Carlson (786-7459)

                  February 2, 1990

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON LAW & JUSTICE, JANUARY 29, 1990

BACKGROUND:

In 1987, the Legislature enacted provisions that regulate dangerous dogs and allow local jurisdictions to regulate potentially dangerous dogs.  Local animal control authorities decide whether a dog is potentially dangerous or dangerous.  At present, there is no hearing process which allows the dog owner to challenge the determination of the animal control authority.

Classification of a dog as potentially dangerous or dangerous is based on the animal's behavior, not the breed.  Over the last few years, in response to community concern over attacks by dogs commonly referred to as pit bulls, municipalities have adopted ordinances that specifically ban pit bull terriers.  However, many dog owners feel that the pit bull terrier is being unfairly maligned and singled-out by these breed-specific ordinances.

Under current law, any person who enters a dog in a dog fight is guilty of a class C felony.

SUMMARY:

A hearing process is established to determine whether or not a dog is potentially dangerous or dangerous. 

The animal control authority must petition municipal or district court whenever there is probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or dangerous.  Notice of the hearing must be served upon the owner or keeper of the dog, either personally or by first-class mail.  The court may find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the dog is potentially dangerous or dangerous.  A city or county may establish an administrative hearing procedure to dispose of these petitions. 

If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or dangerous, the owner or keeper is required to comply with the current statutory provisions concerning the regulation of dangerous dogs.  The owner or keeper may appeal the finding, and the court hearing the appeal must conduct a hearing de novo to determine whether the dog is or is not a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog. 

The animal control officer may seize and impound the dog pending the hearing if, upon investigation, it is believed that the dog in question poses an immediate threat to public safety.

The state of Washington preempts the field with respect to the regulation of potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs.  Local jurisdictions may enact only those ordinances and penalties relating to potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs that are consistent with state law.  Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with state law are preempted and repealed. 

Dogfighting is raised from a class C to a class B felony.

EFFECT OF PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE:

The procedures with respect to appealing a court's determination that a dog is potentially dangerous or dangerous are deleted. 

The language whereby Washington preempts the field concerning the regulation of potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs is deleted.

Appropriation:    none

Revenue:    none

Fiscal Note:      requested January 19, 1990

Senate Committee - Testified: Joe Fulda, Responsible Dog Owners of WA (pro); Don McCulloch, Bull Terrier Club of America (pro); Susan Trout, Responsible Dog Owners of WA (pro); Kay Benoit, Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club (pro); Michael Weight, City of Everett (con); Diane Jessup, animal control officer, Olympia (pro); Lee Atwood, owner, Atwood's Pet Transport (pro); Peter Kram, attorney (pro); Cherie Graves, Responsible Dog Owners of WA (pro); Lynne Myall, Puget Sound Bull Terrier Club (pro); Tom Harrington, Nisqually Kennel Club (pro)