Animal report troubles panel, but managers aren't talking

Answers about why it usually takes more than a day for King County animal-control officers to respond to reports of the most serious animal bites won't be forthcoming today.

A County Council committee's plan to ask three managers about the lengthy response times and weak enforcement of animal-control laws, detailed in a Sunday Seattle Times report, was derailed at 5:30 p.m. Monday when the County Executive's Office informed the panel that the three were otherwise engaged.

The committee was told the managers were too busy preparing the 2010 budget and working on plans to move the Kent shelter, because of anticipated winter flooding, council spokesman Frank Abe said.

The head of King County Animal Care and Control, the deputy director of Records and Licensing Services and chief of staff to County Executive Kurt Triplett already were scheduled to appear before the Government Accountability and Oversight Committee to answer questions about proposed legislation that would speed the transfer of shelter animals to rescue groups, Abe said.

"Council members wanted to broaden the inquiry," he said. "I know the members are disappointed to hear the executive staff won't be made available to answer questions."

Still, the committee intends to discuss the newspaper's findings and how Animal Care and Control is managed at its meeting today, Abe said.

In a monthslong investigation, The Times found the animal-control agency was pulling officers out of the field to care for shelter animals as part of its effort to bring its euthanasia rate down to 20 percent, the target the council set in 2007.

Meanwhile, dog-attack victims were waiting days or weeks for help.

The Times found the median response time for the highest-priority animal-bite calls soared to nearly 28 hours in 2008, up from 18 in 2007. But the median response time for injured animals hardly changed — it remained about an hour. (The median is midpoint: Half the calls were answered in less time, and half took longer.)

Councilmember Julia Patterson, prime sponsor of that "no-kill" policy, said she and other council members weren't aware Animal Control was giving higher priority to animal care than to public safety.

"That was an internal decision on their part," Patterson said.

Nor was the council aware, she said, that the agency was so strapped that it was pulling into the shelter animal-control officers who otherwise could respond to calls of vicious dogs.

"While we were cutting every other budget out there," Patterson said, "we were giving more resources to the shelter."

On June 30, days after teenagers provoked a pit bull to attack two women in SeaTac, the council staff asked Carolyn Ableman, whose division oversees Animal Care and Control, about the agency's ability to respond to calls for aid, according to an e-mail provided to The Times by Patterson.

As of July 7, the agency had a backlog of 150 calls, "which is a bit higher than normal for this time of year," Ableman wrote back.

"She didn't say people's welfare or safety are at risk," Patterson said Monday. "She didn't say vicious dogs are roaming the streets because of staffing (issues)."

Nancy McKenney, interim manager of Animal Care and Control, said the agency has, indeed, asked for more funding to expand her staff.

"This organization and my predecessors have made it clear they needed more staffing than was given to do all the mandates and all the services," McKenney said. "In a sense, they had no choice but to pull" officers from the field.

A 2008 King County report estimated it would cost more than $8 million to turn Animal Care and Control into a model program. The agency's budget this year is a little more than $5.5 million.

Sanjay Bhatt: 206-464-3103 or sbhatt@seattletimes.com