Seattle Sun Newspaper - Vol. 7, Issue 6, June 2003

Copyright 2003 Seattle Sun. Please feel free to use the article and photos below in your research. Be sure to quote the Seattle Sun as your source.

Proposed tough new dog laws

have pet owners howling

By JAMES BUSH

Proposed new rules governing Seattle's dangerous dogs have produced much barking and growling.

But the noisemakers aren't the dogs themselves. Squaring off are a group of dog owners who say the City first encouraged, then ignored their suggestions, and City officials who argue that a tough law is necessary to protect public safety.

The expert panel assembled to review the law "was a good cross section and we were very happy with the recommendations they came up with," says North Seattle resident Carol Watts, president of the Dog Ordinance Group (DOG). "If that could have been enacted into law, it would be a tremendous improvement."

Instead, the object of City Council deliberations will be a far more narrow group of changes proposed by Council member Jan Drago, which will essentially add due process protections to the existing code.

Currently, animal control officers issue a warning letter to dog owners whose pooches have been the subject of complaints. A second incident can lead to the case being referred to the prosecutor's office for consideration of charges (either for negligent control of an animal or for owning a dangerous animal). The director of Seattle Animal Control has the authority to declare a dog dangerous and to have it euthanized or removed from the City by its owner.

The expert panel wanted to create a complex five-tiered system to classify errant dogs based on their degree of dangerousness and to eliminate the Animal Control director's discretionary power. Drago rejected this proposal, instead granting dog owners the right to appeal the original warning letter and giving minor tweaks to some other portions of the code.

Drago's decision was likely influenced by an April 10 memo from City Attorney Tom Carr. In it, he stated that provisions suggested by the expert review group would create a costly and complicated new review process, while making it extremely difficult for animal control officers to take action until a dog bites a person or other domestic animal.

Carr's opinion has made him public enemy No. 1 with many dog owners. "He writes the definitions so laxly and so loosely that normal dog behaviors fall into these categories," says Watts. "Carr just wants to be able to kill a bunch of dogs easily."

While DOG does include a series of horror stories on its Web site, most involve owners who were issued warning letters by animal control officers and were upset when they learned there was no process to challenge them.

At least one member of the expert panel wasn't overjoyed with its recommendations. Dr. William Callahan, a veterinarian in the Laurelhurst area for almost 30 years, says his fellow panel members were asked to give ideas to the City Council, not to completely rewrite Seattle's dog laws. He's backing Drago's proposal. "The end result is a pretty fair document," he says. "It's one that will protect the citizens of the city rather than give an inordinate amount of leverage to the dog owners."

Even under the existing law, the perhaps 100,000 dogs estimated to live within Seattle's city limits haven't been too unsafe. About 400 warnings were issued to dog owners last year due to unseemly canine behavior, reports Seattle Animal Control Director Don Jordan. Second contacts with animal control officers occurred in about 50 cases and perhaps five dogs were euthanized by the City.

This dogfight isn't over yet, though. In forwarding her proposed changes to the full council, Drago warned her colleagues to "be prepared for a heavy lobbying campaign" before the final vote on June 9.