Prevention of Animal Cruelty Bill Passes the Legislature

There are gaps, inconsistencies, and weaknesses in our state’s animal cruelty law, Chapter 16.52 RCW. It's time to address them.

Save Washington Pets (Washington Alliance for Humane Legislation) took a lead role in advocating for the passage of SSB 5065.  This bill passed the legislature on April 14, 2011 and was signed into law by Governor Gregoire on April 27, 2011.  The prime sponsor of the bill was Senator Mike Carrell.

SSB 5065 is available to download from the legislature's website.  Here is a flyer that summarizes the bill.

Following is a summary of the issues the bill addresses.

Problems with the Current Animal Cruelty Law:

• It’s easy to be a repeat offender. Because of a gap in the law, some people who are convicted of animal cruelty may be allowed to own or reside with any number of similar animals immediately after their conviction. That puts more animals at risk of being harmed, and creates an additional burden on animal control officers and the legal system to monitor and deal with repeat offenders.

• A person convicted of animal cruelty may be banned from owning similar animals. However, he or she has few incentives to comply with this ban because there are no civil or criminal penalties under the law for violating the ban.

• The law has inconsistent penalties for animal cruelty. Animal cruelty in the second degree can be charged when a person inflicts unnecessary pain and suffering on an animal; deprives an animal of necessary shelter, rest, sanitation, space, or medical attention that results in unnecessary pain and suffering; or abandons an animal leaving it to fend for itself. The law treats most of these crimes as simple misdemeanors while only animal abandonment is treated as a gross misdemeanor. Second degree animal cruelty is serious in all forms and should be punishable uniformly as a gross misdemeanor.

SSB 5065 makes FOUR key improvements to Chapter 16.52 RCW to fill the gaps, eliminate inconsistencies, and make compliance and enforcement easier for everyone.

Improvement ONE

Existing Law: Prohibits certain people convicted of animal cruelty from owning "similar" animals for a defined period of time. However the law defines "similar" animals as those in the same genus. That definition is too narrow to be protective of animals that common sense tells us are sufficiently similar, such as cats and dogs (both household pets).

Amendment: "Similar animals" are defined as animals in the same biological order (for mammals) or in the same biological class (non-mammals).

Improvement TWO

Existing Law: Prohibits a person convicted of animal cruelty from owning or caring for similar animals for a specified period, but ONLY if he or she had animals seized AND the court ordered those animals forfeited.

Amendment: Expands prohibition such that a person convicted of animal cruelty may not own or reside with similar animals for the specified period of time. Applies to persons convicted of animal cruelty, not just persons whose animals were subject to forfeiture.

Improvement THREE

Existing Law: Imposes no penalty for persons who are prohibited from owning similar animals who violate that prohibition.

Amendment: Imposes penalties for violating a prohibition on owning or residing with similar animals.

Improvement FOUR

Existing Law: Most forms of second degree animal cruelty carry a misdemeanor penalty, while one form of second degree animal cruelty carries a gross misdemeanor penalty.

Amendment: Standardizes the punishment for second degree animal cruelty at the level of gross misdemeanor.