Say Anything Blog

From the Volokh Conspiracy:

Washington state law criminally punishes people who "knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence" "[f]ail[] to provide [an animal in their care] with necessary food, water, shelter, rest, sanitation, ventilation, space, or medical attention and the animal suffers unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain as a result of the failure." Hey, I have two dogs; I certainly oppose letting them suffer "unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain." However, it turns out that Washington residents can be criminally prosecuted not just for letting pets suffer obvious serious pain but even for -- as a Washington Court of Appeals explicitly held -- allowing them to suffer even "mild discomfort." State v. Zawistowski, 2004 WL 57281 (Wash. App. Jan. 13).

So if you delay a visit to the vet to the point that the animal suffers even mild discomfort, or if you pen up your pets longer than strictly necessary and justifiable, to the point that they suffer mild discomfort, or if you put them on a diet that causes mild discomfort, and that a jury finds to be unnecessary or unjustifiable (and the jury concludes that you were criminally negligent in thinking that it was necessary or justifiable), you're a criminal.

With law enforcement being asked to expend more and more resources on protecting us from things like terrorists and drugs, isn't a little silly to pass a law that requires them to be this strict with pet owners? These pet-discomfort trials cost tax dollars that would undoubtedly be better spent elsewhere.

The way the law in Washington is written, pet owners who allow their pets to be uncomfortable are guilty of a crime. That means that my mother, who let her dog out briefly into the -60 degree temperatures this morning so that it could relieve itself, is guilty of a crime under Washington state law. What would the people who thought up this law have her do, let the dog go in the house?