OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO WASHINGTON SB 6315

January 17, 2008

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATESP.O. Box 1406  Newport, WA 99156Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows   E-mail  rdows@povn.comBlog https://rdows.wordpress.com  E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, rdowsdirectoratlarge@gmail.comHermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, hermine@endangeredspecies.comMary Schaeffer, Finance Director, finedogs@hotmail.comCalifornia Director, Jan Dykema bestuvall@sbcglobal.netIllinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard bpensgard@yahoo.comIndiana Director, Charles Coffman candkcoffman@comcast.netIowa Director, Leisa Boysen rdows_iowa@yahoo.comMississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield farmer1@telepak.netNevada Director, Ken Sondej 4winds@viawest.netOhio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky ohdirrdows@yahoo.comOklahoma Director, Jade Harris aadrlegislation@yahoo.comTennessee Director, Gina Cotton ginacotton@msn.comTexas Director, Alvin Crow crobx@austin.rr.com OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO WASHINGTON SB 6315 

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States was formed October 15, 1989 to protect the rights, and interests of dog owners. 

 Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States stands in opposition to SB 6315 – 2007-08  Including a wolf-hybrid in the definition of a “potentially dangerous wild animal.” Sponsored by Senator Bob Morton, R, Orient.  The Canine Genome Project proved with DNA testing that all domestic dog breeds are derivative of  Canis Lupis Familaris, a sub-species of the Gray Wolf. In other words, all dogs are wolf-hybrids.  SB 6315 has the potential of creating the unintended consequence of  causing all dogs to be considered “potentially dangerous wild animal”(s) in Washington state. Dog ownership has been archaeologically traced back more than thirty thousand years. Tradition gives animal owners legal standing to own dogs. All animals are the ancient property of human beings. Animal husbandry is among the most ancient of professions. We, the people expect our legislators to protect our rights, and our property, not to remove those rights, and that property. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States respectfully requests that Senator Bob Morton withdraw SB 6315 from consideration. 

Advertisements

3 Responses to “OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO WASHINGTON SB 6315”

  1. Snow Ulf said

    Please keep everyone posted on this horrible SB 6315. But even more important, why doesn’t someone who is familiar with the Legislative process begin posting information here that will help us to fight and kill this bill before it is enacted and hundreds of innocent pets are confiscated and destroyed?

    Why has there been no comments since Morton’s last meeting Jan 29 where his constituents agreedto move the bill ahead? Should we all just sit on our butts and wait until it is passed, then impotently try and react after they have already begun the witch-hunt for husky-mixes, malamutes and anything remotely appearing wolfy and begin wresting them from the arms of crying children and families for extermination as “dangerous animals?”

    I can’t believe there is no support of these animals here, and nothing more than an idle statement not likely read by anyone with power or influence to do something about it. Does anyone CARE?

  2. A. Schickelgruber said

    Senator Morton and some idiot named Rockefeller, along with Kretz are pushing this through. Why don’t you people take some action and contact all Husky, Malamute and similar so called
    “wolf-hybrids” clubs and organizations and get each other to email all the legislators involved in approving this ridiculous and impotent bill. Following the report below, you will find some numbers and people to start your contacts with to make your voices heard.

    SENATE BILL REPORT
    SB 6315
    As Reported By Senate Committee On:
    Natural Resources, Ocean & Recreation, January 28, 2008
    Title: An act relating to wolf-hybrids.
    Brief Description: Including a wolf-hybrid in the definition of a “potentially dangerous wild
    animal.”
    Sponsors: Senator Morton.
    Brief History:
    Committee Activity: Natural Resources, Ocean & Recreation:1/21/08, 1/28/08 [DP].
    SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, OCEAN & RECREATION
    Majority Report: Do pass.
    Signed by Senators Jacobsen, Chair; Hatfield, Vice Chair; Morton, Ranking Minority
    Member; Spanel, Stevens and Swecker.
    Staff: Karen Epps (786-7424)
    Background: A wolf-hybrid is the offspring of a wolf and a dog, a wolf and a hybrid, a dog
    and a hybrid, or two hybrids. A wolf-hybrid currently is excluded from the definition of a
    potentially dangerous wild animal.
    A person must not own, possess, keep, harbor, bring into the state, have custody or control, or
    breed a potentially dangerous wild animal. Exceptions to this requirement include: authorized
    institutions of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, zoos and aquariums,
    nonprofit animal organizations, veterinary hospitals, holders of wildlife sanctuaries, research
    facilities, circuses, persons transporting animals if the transit time is not more than 21 days and
    the animal is confined at all times, people displaying animals at fairs, game farms, and people
    who currently own potentially dangerous wild animals.
    Summary of Bill: Wolf-hybrids are included in the list of potentially dangerous wild animals.
    Thus, subject to the applicable exceptions, a person must not own, possess, keep, harbor, bring
    into the state, have custody or control, or breed wolf-hybrids.
    Appropriation: None.
    Fiscal Note: Not requested.
    Committee/Commission/Task Force Created: No.
    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.
    Senate Bill Report – 1 – SB 6315
    Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
    Staff Summary of Public Testimony: PRO: Wolf dogs present a greater danger to humans
    than wolves. Abandoned wolf dogs prey on livestock, as they are more comfortable being
    around humans than wolves. This bill is necessary because of the integration of grey wolves
    into Washington. By treating wolf hybrids as potentially dangerous wild animals, this will
    benefit the natural re-habitation of grey wolves. Although the DNA is very similar, there are
    other characteristics that differentiate a dog from a wolf. Morphology measurements and
    physical attributes can be used to show the differences between a dog and a wolf, although
    they are not totally accurate.
    CON: Once you cross a wolf with a dog, you have a domesticated animal. They are normal
    dogs and they have been socialized. When there are behavioral issues with a wolf dog, it is
    because the animal has not been properly trained. There are packs of dogs, including wolf
    dogs, that attack livestock when acting as part of the pack. The problem is with people not the
    animals. If the animals are confiscated under the potentially dangerous wild animal statutes,
    there are no sanctuaries in the state for wolf dogs. The public does not know what a wolf dog
    is because of the incredible amount of cross breeding between wolves and dogs. DNA cannot
    show how much wolf is in a dog and vice versa.
    Persons Testifying: PRO: Senator Morton, prime sponsor; Steve Pozzanghera, Department
    of Fish and Wildlife; Jack Field, Washington Cattleman’s Association; John Stuhlmiller,
    Washington Farm Bureau; Ed Owens, Hunter’s Heritage Council, Northwest Wildlife
    Council, Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management.
    CON: Dave Coleburn, Dan Overman, Predators of the Heart; Shelleen Matthews, Wild Felid
    Advocacy Center; Jeanne Hall, Steve Johnson, citizens.
    Senate Bill Report – 2 – SB 6315
    How a Bill Becomes a Law

    For more information, see: Legislative Process Overview, Reed’s Parliamentary Rules, and Students’ Page.
    A bill may be introduced in either the Senate or House of Representatives by a member.
    It is referred to a committee for a hearing. The committee studies the bill and may hold public hearings on it. It can then pass, reject or take no action on the bill.
    The committee report on the passed bill is read in open session of the House or Senate, and the bill is then referred to the Rules Committee.
    The Rules Committee can either place the bill on the second reading of the calendar for debate before the entire body, or take no action.
    At the second reading, a bill is subject to debate and amendment before being placed on the third reading calendar for final passage.
    After passing one house, the bill goes through the same procedure in the other house.
    If amendments are made, the other house must approve the changes.
    When the bill is accepted in both houses, it is signed by the respective leaders and sent to the governor.
    The governor signs the bill into law or may veto all or part of it. If the governor fails to act on the bill, it may become law without a signature.

    If you have questions about bills, legislative schedules, daily reports, and legislative history, or wish to contact a member:
    Legislative Information Center
    Gerry Sheehan, Coordinator
    106 Legislative Building
    Olympia, WA 98504-0600

    If you have questions or need information, send an e-mail message to support@leg.wa.gov or call 360.786.7573. The e-mail account cannot accept attachments.

    You may send a brief message to your district legislators through the in-state toll-free Hotline number: 800.562.6000.

    The Hearing Impaired can send a brief message to their district legislators through the in-state toll-free TTY Hotline number: 800.635-9993.

  3. A. Schickelgruber said

    The more you read on this license for cruelty by government to your dogs, the uglier and more insiduous it gets. Under the fool’s guidelines originally introduced in the bill as well as the amendments, anybody can point their finger at any dog who might be a husky, malamute, german shepherd, american eskimo, samoyed mix, great pyrenees, any number of large animals crossed with anything with facial masking and have it taken and killed under the Salem witch trials basis of proof that the animal could be a hybrid. Basically, this bill is a license to call open season on all dogs not pedigreed and pure-bred, which will provide the idiots of society another means of abusing one another via their animals. It is a sham bill, being put forth by Greedy and desperate Morton and his tiny crowd of broke rednecks looking for federal handouts for their troubles. There are foxes in the henhouse, and If they had brains they’d be dangerous, fit this crowd of pencil pushing pussies wasting our tax dollars with abuse to us such as this.

    House Bill: 6315 AMS ROCK S5422.2
    SB 6315 – S AMD 116
    By Senator Rockefeller
    1 On page 2, after line 36, insert the following:
    2 “NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW
    3 to read as follows:
    4 Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife
    5 officers have the authority to lethally remove a wolf-hybrid if the
    6 wolf-hybrid poses a threat to human safety, domestic animals, or
    7 livestock.”
    SB 6315 – S AMD
    By Senator Rockefeller
    8 On page 1, line 1 of the title, after “wolf-hybrids;” strike “and
    9 amending RCW 16.30.010” and insert “amending RCW 16.30.010; and adding
    10 a new section to chapter 77.15 RCW”
    EFFECT: Establishes that fish and wildlife officers and ex
    officio fish and wildlife officers have the authority to kill a wolfhybrid
    if the wolf-hybrid poses a threat to a person, a domestic
    animal, or livestock.
    — END —
    Official Print – 1 6315 AMS ROCK S5422.2

    2nd amendment by Der Rockefeller:

    6315 AMS ROCK S5552.1
    SB 6315 – S AMD 117
    By Senator Rockefeller
    1 On page 2, after line 36, insert the following:
    2 “Sec. 2. RCW 16.30.040 and 2007 c 238 s 5 are each amended to read
    3 as follows:
    4 (1) The animal control authority or a law enforcement officer may
    5 immediately confiscate a potentially dangerous wild animal if:
    6 (a) The animal control authority or law enforcement officer has
    7 probable cause to believe that the animal was acquired after July 22,
    8 2007, in violation of RCW 16.30.030;
    9 (b) The animal poses a public safety or health risk;
    10 (c) The animal is in poor health and condition as a result of the
    11 possessor; or
    12 (d) The animal is being held in contravention of ((the [this]))
    13 this act.
    14 (2) A potentially dangerous wild animal that is confiscated under
    15 this section may be returned to the possessor only if the animal
    16 control authority or law enforcement officer establishes that the
    17 possessor had possession of the animal prior to July 22, 2007, and the
    18 return does not pose a public safety or health risk.
    19 (3) The animal control authority or law enforcement officer shall
    20 serve notice upon the possessor in person or by regular and certified
    21 mail, return receipt requested, notifying the possessor of the
    22 confiscation, that the possessor is responsible for payment of
    23 reasonable costs for caring and providing for the animal during the
    24 confiscation, and that the possessor must meet the requirements of
    25 subsection (2) of this section in order for the animal to be returned
    26 to the possessor.
    27 (4) If a potentially dangerous wild animal confiscated under this
    28 section is not returned to the possessor, the animal control authority
    29 or law enforcement officer may release the animal to a facility such as
    30 a wildlife sanctuary or a facility exempted pursuant to RCW 16.30.020.
    Official Print – 1 6315 AMS ROCK S5552.1
    1 If the animal control authority or law enforcement officer is unable to
    2 relocate the animal within a reasonable period of time, it may
    3 euthanize the animal.
    4 (5) An animal control authority or law enforcement officer may
    5 euthanize a potentially dangerous wild animal under this section only
    6 if all known reasonable placement options, including relocation to a
    7 wildlife sanctuary, are unavailable.
    8 (6) An animal control authority may not under any circumstances
    9 lethally remove a wolf-hybrid.
    10 (7) This section applies to animal confiscations on or after July
    11 22, 2007.”
    SB 6315 – S AMD
    By Senator Rockefeller
    12 On page 1, line 1 of the title, after “16.30.010” insert “and
    13 16.30.040”
    EFFECT: Establishes that an animal control officer cannot kill a
    wolf-hybrid under any circumstances.
    — END —
    Official Print – 2 6315 AMS ROCK S5552.1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: