| Author |
Message |
lildolphynlvr2
New member
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 1
Location: Gig Harbor , Washington
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:16 pm Post subject: Large dogs thought to be dangerous |
 |
|
 I dont know how many of you are from Washington State but they just tried to pass a law that any dog over 30 lbs would be concidered a threatful /visious.(sry about spelling)  dog and they were trying to get it to be LAW until 100 plus of us large dog and not so large dog owners showed up ,and thank god it didnt pass.  They wanted to get all the owners to get million dollar insurance policies on their dogs too,Can ya believe that garbage....[color=blue][/color] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bullylove1
Super Senior Member
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
Posts: 1075
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's so dumb. Good to know you guys won the fight, for now anyways. I would keep my eyes and ears open if I were you though. Once those dumb politicians get any idea in their head, they will continually alter the law until it is agreed upon and they still pretty mcuh get what they want. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to put a muzzle law up now.
Good luck!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
footsie
Member
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
Posts: 206
Location: WA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are you talking about house bill 2043? Thats the only thing I can find that is recent and close to what you are saying. If it is another bill, please let me know becuase I am interested.
2043 makes no qualifications based the the size or breed of the dog. It defines dangerous dogs as dogs who have a history of biting and injuring people or other animals and potentially dangerous dogs as dogs who approach people or animals in public places with a threatening posture. The required insurance is not $1 million.
For the complete bill:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/2025-2049/2043-s_e_03122003.txt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrbuddha
Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Posts: 29
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrbuddha
Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Posts: 29
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
footsie
Member
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
Posts: 206
Location: WA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2004 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for posting this. I'm in Vancouver, WA, so I get Portland news rather than Seattle news, so this wasn't covered at all. And the first poster had said this was going to be a state law, so I was looking at the state legislature. I just found this update while reading your links. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Dangerous%20Dogs&searchdiff=2&searchpagefrom=1.
To clarify, as the original post had some errors (I'm not for the law, but I think exagerating and not telling the truth about it does more harm than good): This was a proposed city ordanance, not a state law. It would only have been effective in Auburn city limits. The 30 pound limit was defining potentially dangerous, and the only part of the ordanace that was for potentially dangerous dogs is a leash law, which is nothing new. Dogs over 30 pounds who have attacked or threatened a person or animal while not restrained are considered dangerous. Dangerous dogs are where the much stricter and controvercial laws come into play, including that the owner need to have a $250,000 insurance policy (including homeowner's). Not a million.
Also, as lildolphynlvr2 said, the law didn't pass. But it is being rewritten and will be before the city council again, so the fight isn't over yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
- Resources for
Pet Owners World-Wide
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
