HOUSE BILL REPORT

ESSB 5608

BYSenate Committee on Agriculture (originally sponsored by  Senators Kreidler and Hansen)

Strengthening the prohibitions against cruelty to animals.

House Committe on Agriculture & Rural Development

Majority Report:  Do pass with amendments.  (13)

      Signed by Representatives Rayburn, Chair; Kremen, Vice Chair; Baugher, Bristow, Brooks, Chandler, Doty, Grant, Holm, Jacobsen, McLean, Nealey and Rasmussen.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (1)

      Signed by Representative Moyer.

House Staff:Kenneth Hirst (786-7105)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

APRIL 3,  1987

BACKGROUND:

If a county sheriff finds that a domestic animal has been neglected by its owner, the sheriff may authorize the removal of the animal to a suitable place for feeding and restoring the animal to health.

The prevention of cruelty to animals statutes prohibit a domestic animal from being transported in a manner that will jeopardize the safety of the animal or the public.  The motor vehicle statutes prohibit an animal from being transported on the outside portion of a vehicle unless the animal is secured.

SUMMARY:

BILL AS AMENDED:  The prevention of cruelty to animals statutes are amended.  A law enforcement officer (not just a county sheriff, as under current law) may authorize the removal of an animal to a suitable place for feeding and restoring the animal to health in certain circumstances.

A law enforcement officer may authorize an examination by a veterinarian of an allegedly neglected animal if the officer has probable cause to believe that a violation of the prevention of cruelty to animals statutes has occurred.  The officer shall make a good faith effort to contact the animal's owner before removal unless the animal is in a life-threatening condition or the officer reasonably believes the owner would remove the animal from the jurisdiction.  The owner of a domestic animal that is so removed shall be given a written notice regarding the removal and remedies available to the owner.

If no criminal case is filed within 72 hours of the removal, the owner may petition the court for the return of the animal.  If a criminal action is filed after the petition is filed but before the animal is returned, the petition shall be joined with the criminal matter.  The burden is on the owner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the animal will not suffer future neglect and is not in need of being restored to health.  An authorized person treating or attempting to restore an animal to health under these statutes shall not be civilly or criminally liable for such action.

Sentences and probationary periods are established for violations. In addition to other penalties, the court shall order the forfeiture of all animals held by law enforcement authorities under those statutes if any one of the animals involved dies as a result of a violation of the statutes or if the defendant has a prior conviction under those statutes.

In other cases, the court may enter an order requiring the owner to forfeit the animal if the court deems the cruel treatment to have been severe and likely to reoccur.  If forfeiture is ordered, the owner shall be prohibited from owning or caring for any similar animals for two years.  If convicted, or in an agreement, the owner shall be liable for reasonable costs involved in the care of the animals.  If convicted, the owner shall also pay a civil penalty of $100 to the county to be used to prosecute offenses and to care for forfeited animals pending trial.

The prevention of cruelty to animals statutes shall not limit the right of a law enforcement officer to destroy an animal that has been seriously injured and would suffer.  Officers and veterinarians shall be immune from civil and criminal liability for actions taken under these statutes if reasonable prudence is exercised.

In no event shall it be considered cruelty, torture, torment, or neglect to transport a dog in the bed of a pick-up truck nor shall such activity be prohibited by rule or law.

AMENDED BILL COMPARED TO ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE:  The amendments revise a provision of the motor vehicle statutes regarding the transporting of animals to reflect the provisions of the engrossed substitute permitting a dog to be transported in the back of a pickup truck.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Pat Sutherland, Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney; George Steel, Thurston County Deputy Prosecutor; Michael Ware, Thurston County Sheriff's Office; Mary Cooper, Concern for Animals; Marlyta Deck, Washington Cattlemen's Association.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Roger Childress, Kitsap Humane Society; Shelley Russell-Diaz, The Humane Society, Inc.

House Committee - Testimony For:    (1) Prosecutors do not have trouble getting convictions for cases involving abused or neglected animals, but they do have trouble getting desired results.  The bill will permit the removal of animals, require their forfeiture in certain circumstances, and permit the destruction of badly injured animals without creating liability for the persons who must destroy it.  (2) Currently, after animals have been impounded to recover from abuse or neglect, they are returned to their owners.  (3) The bill limits enforcement authority to those who are knowledgeable.  (4) The agricultural community has long supported the transportation of farm dogs in the back of pickups.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      (1) The bill eliminates enforcement of its provisions by special deputies such as the peace officers of humane societies.  (2) Too many dogs are killed or injured from riding unsecured in the back of pickup trucks.  The practice should not be permitted.