Washington State House of Representatives Office of Program Research | BILL ANALYSIS |
Local Government & Housing Committee |
HB 1831
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent. |
Brief Description: Concerning the rights of pet and livestock owners residing in unincorporated areas subject to annexation by a city or town.
Sponsors: Representatives Short, Williams, Johnson, Campbell, Blake, Warnick, McCune, Kretz and Kristiansen.
Brief Summary of Bill |
|
Hearing Date: 2/11/09
Staff: Thamas Osborn (786-7129)
Background:
Possession of Potentially Dangerous Wild Animals.
In 2007, legislation was passed prohibiting the possession of specified types and classes of animals that are deemed to be "potentially dangerous wild animals." Such animals include rhinoceroses, crocodiles, bears, wolves, poisonous snakes, etc. State law allows an exemption for those persons who were in legal possession of such animals prior to July 22, 2007. Counties and cities are authorized to adopt ordinances governing the possession of potentially dangerous wild animals that are more restrictive than state law.
Municpal Regulation of Pets and Livestock.
State law gives counties, cities, and towns discretionary authority to pass local ordinances regulating the ownership and possession of pets and livestock. Some cities and towns, for example, regulate the number of dogs and/or cats that may live in a single residence and prohibit the possession of livestock within urban areas. The regulation of livestock ownership varies and is generally structured so as to be more restrictive in urban areas than in rural areas. State law does not require municipalities to regulate pet or livestock ownership.
Summary of Bill:
Subject to specified conditions, county residents subject to annexation by a city are entitled to retain possession of pets and livestock lawfully owned at the time of the annexation even if the annexing city has ordinances prohibiting the possession of such animals. However, the continued lawful possession of such animals must be consistent with the following requirements:
the possession of the pet or livestock was lawful under applicable county ordinances at the time of the annexation;
subsequent to annexation the possession of the pet or livestock continues to be in compliance with the applicable county ordinances in place at the time of annexation; and
the possession of the animal(s) does not violate the general prohibition against possession of potentially dangerous wild animals as set forth in state law.
In addition, the right to the possession of livestock within the annexed area continues for as long as the original property owner or his or her immediate family members retain ownership of the property. If the property owner is a business entity, the right to retain possession of livestock continues for as long as the property remains under the ownership of the same entity.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Not requested.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of the session in which the bill is passed.