Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 5870 (Killing dogs running at large) [by foozer on May 25, 2009]All the removal of RCW 16.08.030 does is to relieve the powers that be from telling you that you have to kill the dog, to a choice of complying with 16.08.070 Dangerous dog with its associated BS or putting the animal down. The end remains the same for all but the foolish. Counties now dont even enforce 16.08.030 as the Dangerous Dog route gives them power to control your action. Meet there standards and perhaps you can keep the dog, perhaps. Pay the additional fees that a dangerous dog label will incure and you can keep the dog, perhaps. Pay the increased insurance fees and you can keep the dog, perhaps. If you find that the cost exceed your income you can always put Fido down, its now your choice isnt it, Oh and by the way, the county will want proof that the dog is dead. Counties have the authority to not allow a dangerous dog to even reside within the boundaries.
No, keep RCW 16.08.030 intact, as distatefull as it is, a dog that kills anothers livestock is going to be put down one way or another. Why should those that make and enforce the law be relieved of the dirty work in telling the 6 year old that the beloved pet must be killed. Unless perhaps, you desire to be the purveyor of bad news, perhaps.
Reply
This law does not make sense to me. What if my gardener leaves my gate open, my dogs get out, they kill a neighborhood cat. My dog does not deserve to be shot and killed by me or a sheriff. It is barbaric!!! No, No, No, this should not get passed.
Reply
No, it strikes out the part of the bill that makes sense. If a loose animal kills, it should be killed. It should not be killed just for existing without the state license racket metal tag!
Reply
View Full Conversation