Urge the Washington Senate Law & Justice Committee

to VOTE NO on HB1149

Unfortunately, WA HB1149 has passed both the House and

Senate and is heading to the Governor's desk with the language

in place that eliminates due process. 

Please email the Governor to request a VETO OF HB1149. 

CLICK HERE

HB1149/SB5376 is framed as an effort to prevent animal cruelty, its vague definitions and expanded enforcement powers create significant risks for animal owners, farmers, breeders, and pet-related businesses.

Without additional safeguards, it could lead to government overreach, weaponization by animal activists, and undue legal burdens on responsible owners.

Washington HB1149/SB5376 includes provisions that enhance the authority of law enforcement and animal control officers in cases of suspected animal cruelty. Specifically, the bill grants these officers the power to intervene and seize animals that are in "imminent danger."

Broad Discretion for Law Enforcement & Animal Control Officers

• The bill grants law enforcement and animal control officers expanded authority to determine what constitutes “imminent danger” for an animal.
• The lack of specific, objective criteria could lead to inconsistent enforcement or abuse of power, particularly if officers act on subjective interpretations rather than clear evidence.
• Without explicit checks and balances, there is a risk of overreach in cases where animal welfare concerns are exaggerated or misapplied.

Potential Erosion of Property Rights & Due Process

• The bill allows officers to enter private property and seize animals without a warrant if they claim to have probable cause.
• “Probable cause” is not clearly defined in the context of this bill, which could enable enforcement actions based on vague or unsubstantiated claims.
• This raises concerns about violations of the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Increased Regulatory Burden on Animal Owners

The bill imposes stricter care requirements, but the specific standards could be difficult for small breeders, farmers, and pet owners to comply.

Ambiguities in defining “adequate shelter,” “proper nutrition,” and “necessary medical care” could lead to excessive enforcement actions or penalties.

Well-meaning owners might be unfairly targeted if their practices don’t align with subjective enforcement interpretations.

Harsh Penalties That Could Harm Responsible Animal Owners

The bill increases penalties for animal cruelty offenses, which, while appropriate in cases of genuine abuse, could disproportionately impact individuals or businesses caught up in regulatory disputes.

Even minor infractions could result in severe legal consequences, making it easier for activists or overzealous authorities to weaponize enforcement against lawful businesses.

Activist-Driven Influence on Policy

• Given the growing influence of animal rights groups on state and local legislation, this bill could serve as a stepping stone for further restrictive measures.
• Similar laws in other states have been used to target responsible breeders, farmers, and pet businesses under the guise of animal welfare.

While HB1149/SB5376 is framed as an effort to prevent animal cruelty, its vague definitions and expanded enforcement powers create significant risks for animal owners, farmers, breeders, and pet-related businesses. Without additional safeguards, it could lead to government overreach, weaponization by activists, and undue legal burdens on responsible owners. This legislation should be carefully amended to ensure it truly protects animal welfare while respecting constitutional rights and property protections.

Be sure to make modifications to the boiler-plate letter to make it your own AND forward to the legislators listed below. 

Thank you for taking action!