Groups clash over pet issue

OLYMPIA – It may well have been a dog’s day at the state Capitol on Tuesday.

Animal lovers, lawmakers and insurance companies clashed over legislation that would make it unlawful for insurance companies to deny, cancel or modify someone’s homeowner’s insurance because they own a certain breed of dog.

The bill, HB 1150, was heard in a public hearing by members of the Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee. Committee members heard testimony from veterinarians, dog owners and representatives from insurance companies regarding the legislation, which was proposed by Rep. Tom Campbell, R-Roy.

Current law prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against people with similar risk factors, but allows them to deny coverage to owners of any breed of dogs – typically larger breeds such as Doberman pinschers perceived to be more aggressive.

Insurance companies can also deny coverage to someone if their dog is considered dangerous under state law. A dangerous dog is a dog that attacks humans without provocation or aggressively bites, wounds or kills another animal without being provoked.

Suggesting that discrimination against any animal because of its breed is equal to “bigotry against dogs,” the theme for proponents of the bill was “a dog’s deeds, not its breed” should determine whether a homeowner is a higher-risk client for insurance companies.

Dog lovers took a stand for man’s best friend by appealing to committee members with multimedia presentations and startling testimony.

Lisa Christensen, a veterinarian from Tacoma, related a case involving a dachshund biting off a baby’s leg, explaining that it’s not just big dogs that are dangerous.

Jeffery Helsdon, legislative director of the Seattle Kennel Club, gave a slide show presentation about Doberman pinschers. One picture featured one of Helsdon’s two Dobermans, Kirby, in his living room near a painted portrait of a Doberman above the mantle. Another picture was of a pregnant dog licking a firefighter who rescued her.

“If we don’t protect the ability of people to own dogs through the use of homeowners insurance then we will have a situation where the insurance companies will do what animal rights activists have been unable to do in this country, and that is to attempt to take away our rights to own animals,” Helsdon said.

Last year, Rep. Steve Kirby, D-Tacoma, proposed a similar bill that was passed by the House 96-0 but died in a Senate committee.

He said the issue is about insurance companies making easy money.

“This is about collecting as much money as possible by controlling what is and isn’t high risk,” Kirby said.

Representatives from insurance companies statewide said if owning a certain breed of dog is a problem with a specific insurer, consumers can shop around and find a company that does not ask about dogs. They also said that if the bill is passed, rates for homeowners who do not own dogs would likely go up.

Advocates of the bill fired back, arguing that families could be forced to decide between getting rid of their beloved pet and getting rid of their insurance.

“Any dog has a potential to be a dangerous dog. It depends on how owners keep, socialize and raise their dogs,” said Nancy Hill, director of Spokane County Regional Animal Care and Protection Services.

Kirby, who owns a 1-year-old beagle-basset hound mixed breed named Frank, agreed with Hill.

“A dog is not born to be mean, it is taught to be mean,” he said.

Kirby, a co-sponsor of Campbell’s bill, has proposed a bill of his own that would amend the definition of dangerous dogs to include dog-wolf hybrids.

Hill said it is difficult to identify a dog-wolf hybrid because multiple variations of the breed exist and “if it’s not 100 percent wolf it is considered a dog in Spokane.”

In other canine-related news, a bill proposed by Sen. Mike Carrell, R-Lakewood, would make it illegal to sell or purchase a dog with the intent to use it for fighting. The bill is intended to close a loophole in one of the state’s animal cruelty laws.

It is illegal in the state to attend, host or participate in a dog fight, but it is not illegal to sell or purchase a dog with the intent to use it for fighting.

Hill said she could not recall any cases involving illegal dog fights in her 19 years working at SCRAPS.