Dog Day
City may tie dogs' weight to label of 'dangerous'

By Nancy Bartley
Seattle Times staff reporter

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

In Auburn, they call it Fritz's Law — a proposed dog-control ordinance named in honor of a terrier-poodle mix killed by a neighbor's pit bull.

Designed to prevent further attacks by out-of-control dogs, if passed it could be the most restrictive measure of its kind in the state, declaring any dog weighing 30 pounds or more to be "potentially dangerous."

After an emotional debate, the controversial measure was passed out of committee yesterday afternoon, and the City Council took it up in the evening. More than 100 people turned out to oppose the measure, with more than 20 testifying against it. The council decided to return the measure to committee to review the 30-pound weight limit.

Unlike most dog-control ordinances, Auburn's proposal would not require a dog to do anything to be listed as "potentially dangerous" except weigh more than 30 pounds — the belief being that larger dogs are inherently more dangerous.

As written, the proposal would require any dog exceeding that weight to be kept on a leash or within a fenced yard or kennel.

Should a 30-pound-plus dog happen to get out of the yard, even inadvertently, its status would be upgraded to dangerous, and its owner would be required to take out a $250,000 insurance policy, available from only one company in the nation — a Florida firm that insures circus animals. Homeowners policies don't insure dogs labeled as dangerous.

Moreover, the owner also could be required to secure a special dangerous-animal permit from the city at a cost of $100.

While other cities also have enacted dangerous-animal ordinances, most focus on a dog's behavior — not its weight. Seattle's ordinance, for example, defines dangerous as an animal that attacks and injures a human or another animal without provocation.

Auburn Mayor Jim Lewis, a proponent of the proposed ordinance, said the city has experienced numerous dog attacks, including the one that killed the terrier-poodle in January and injured its 86-year-old owner.

"We're almost 50,000 people spread across two counties," Lewis said, referring to King and Pierce counties. "We need common-sense solutions for irresponsible owners. That's all we're looking for."
 
The ordinance has been in city committees for several months with little feedback from the public until it appeared several days ago on the council agenda for last night's meeting.

It was the subject of discussion on at least one talk-radio show yesterday.

The automatic "potentially dangerous" designation, say opponents, would likely result in many more dogs being euthanized as residents elected to give up their dogs rather than pay for high insurance premiums or risk liability.

Attorney Jim Anable, who specializes in animal-control legislation and was to testify last night, called the proposal "the worst example of a dangerous-dog law that I have ever seen" — one that would be disastrous to all dog owners and is the most restrictive in the state.

"When I saw this (ordinance) come out, I had to try to educate the Auburn City Council about what they are really doing here," he said.

While smaller dogs — those under 30 pounds — are not considered potentially dangerous, they, like their heavier counterparts, would be classified as dangerous if they got loose or threatened another pet or a person.

"Does that mean your dog is dangerous if it chases a cat across the back yard?" Anable asked.

The proposed ordinance is overbroad and unnecessary, he added, saying the city should simply enforce the animal-control ordinance that's already in effect. That law, the same as the county's animal-control law, requires dogs to be on a leash when not on one's own property.

The proposed ordinance is the result of angry protests to City Hall, police and King County Animal Control after an Auburn resident's longtime companion, Fritz, was attacked by a pit bull and killed Jan. 10.

Charles Crockett was on his front porch when the pit bull snatched Fritz and mauled him to death. Crockett tried to pry open the pit bull's jaws but also was dragged and bitten.

It was the second time the pit bull had attacked Fritz. After the first attack, in June 2003, Animal Control told the dog's owner to keep the dog locked up. But in December the pit bull attacked another dog.

An angry neighbor called police, Animal Control and the mayor, but the pit bull remained unleashed.

On Jan. 9, the neighbor called Animal Control again to say the pit bull was running loose and dangerous. And on Jan. 10, the dog killed Fritz and injured Crockett.

The pit bull was euthanized, and the owner, Janell Amber Roberts, is awaiting trial in King County Superior Court on a charge of owning a dangerous dog. She has pleaded not guilty.

Having a city ordinance to deal with dangerous dogs, instead of relying on the county's laws, would make it possible to hear cases in Auburn Municipal Court, rather than King County Superior Court, said Lewis, the mayor, adding that Auburn is dissatisfied with the way the county has handled cases.

The proposal would put more control over problem dogs in the city's hands, he said.

Crockett, who is heartbroken over the loss of Fritz, says he hopes the proposed ordinance would encourage dog owners to be more responsible.

Nancy Bartley: 206-464-8522 or nbartley@seattletimes.com Nguyen Huy Vu contributed to this story.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company