Local News

<< Previous   of   Next >>   ADVERTISEMENT   Related Stories • Monroe may toughen rules for some dog breeds 11/16/08 • Cities differ on when to call dog a danger 11/16/08   CONTACT THE HERALD Robert Frank, City Editor frank@heraldnet.com   Published: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 Owners protest Monroe plan for 'potentially dangerous' dogs Many at a public hearing blame irresponsible owners for behavior problems. By Debra Smith Herald Writer MONROE -- Dog owners marched downtown to City Hall on Tuesday night to protest a proposal that would label certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. Traffic slowed on Main Street as drivers gawked at the hubbub and some cars honked in approval. Dozens of dog lovers walked about a mile from a pet store on Lewis Street to City Hall on Main Street chanting "we want responsibility" and waving signs. "We are being unjustly punished for the acts of just a few people," said Rita Morgan, a Monroe resident who helped organize the protest, before the meeting. "We are trying to raise awareness around this issue." Monroe, like most area cities, uses a two-strike approach. Dogs earn the label of potentially dangerous once they bite or act aggressively. If a second incident happens, the dogs are registered as dangerous. That forces owners to keep stricter control of their dogs. The City Council held a public hearing last night to consider eliminating that first warning for a dozen breeds, including pit bull, Akita and American Staffordshire terrier. The city doesn't want to ban the breeds. Officials contend that owners of these breeds would have to take no additional measures if their dog doesn't cause problems. The public hearing drew so many, people filled the council chambers and spilled outside. Singling out certain breeds didn't sit well with most of those at the hearing. Veterinarians, a shelter worker, a canine search and rescue trainer, and many Monroe dog owners stood at the podium to tell City Council members breed-specific legislation doesn't work. Most of those who spoke placed the blame on owners, not the dogs. Andre Brown said he considers his dogs like his children. He said as a dog owner, he's prepared to answer for any problems his dogs might cause. "If someone doesn't raise their children right, what are you going to do, ban children?" he said. Bill Brain of Monroe told the City Council that he didn't support signaling out certain breeds but the city needed to do more to deal with problem animals. He said he has called 911 a half-dozen times because of a pit bull that runs loose and has jumped over his 6-foot-high fence into his yard where his dog and children play. The City Council began considering this proposal after people living in a Chain Lake neighborhood demanded the city do something about several dogs involved in several incidents. One of the dogs bit three people and the owner opted to have it put down. The other two dogs, both pit bulls, were designated by the city as potentially dangerous after they attacked a neighbor's dog, which led to $400 in vet care. Matt Vandecasteele told the City Council he was the owners of those dogs. He said other dog owners shouldn't be punished because of the actions of his animals. The dog that bit other people was actually a lab mix and not a pit bull, he said. He characterized the incidents as minor and said his neighbors "blew it out of proportion." He said if the dogs were truly dangerous, he wouldn't let them around his 2-week-old son. He said he's never had a fenced yard for his dogs before now. "My pit bulls have never bit nobody," he said. "They sleep in my bed, they eat my food. Maybe it is the way I've raised them." Morgan, one of the organizers of the rally, said other municipalities have tried laws that focus on specific dog breeds and those laws are ineffective because they do nothing to get to the root of the problem -- irresponsible dog owners. She owns a rescued American pit bull named Kobe. People only tend to hear about pit bulls in the newspaper when something goes wrong, she said. The dogs are no more likely to attack or bite than any other type of dog. Pit bulls and other breeds such as Dobermans are often the dog of choice "for a lot of people who seem to create a lot of problems," she said. She said thugs and criminals have brought their propensity for violence to the breed. Rather than breed-specific legislation, the City Council should consider stiff leash and confinement laws, she said. "When you step in early and fine someone $100, $200, $300 -- that's going to get someone's attention," Morgan said. The city of Everett has a similar law on the books, signaling out pit bulls, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and mixes of these breeds as "potentially dangerous dogs." Potentially dangerous dogs are required to be registered, licensed and embedded with a microchip. Reporter Debra Smith: 425-339-3197 or dsmith@heraldnet.com. READER COMMENTS Log in or register to post new comment | Log out wow people!!! I am sorry but to hear everybody complain about pit bulls is really starting to get annoying.. I have heard of plently of there breeds of dog that have bit. I understand that yes if it pit bites it will do damage. But that is not the only dog that can do that. What are they going to make a law so that you cant own any big dogs that can be aggressive such as rots, german shepards, bull dogs, mastiff. I am sorry but all those dogs can do the same amount of damage as a pit bull if not more. I have to male pit bulls that are 3 almost 4 and they have never bit anyone and never showed aggresstion. It is all on how they are treated and trained. And I have proof of that. So you people can think whatever you want but if you really sit down and think about it its not all pit bulls so better just start making a list of breeds cause you will get certin people that will complain about anything. Jeezz Kendra Atkinson | Nov 22, 2008 9:43 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Tsk, tsk, Melwyn Melwyn, I deleted your posts, because they amounted to psychotic non-sequiturs about Nazism. When you have something appropriate to say, I'll allow them. C. Baldwin | Nov 22, 2008 2:22 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Still looking for my postings ???????????????????????????????? selwyn marock | Nov 21, 2008 12:53 pm | 1 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Read This, Suckahhhhs!!! To those of you who think there is absolutely no difference in fatality attack statistics related to the various breeds of dogs, check out this little morsel from the website dogbitelaw.com: In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers: "Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.) The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) So keep your sweet little pit bulls behind your fences, WHERE THEY BELONG!!!!! C. Baldwin | Nov 21, 2008 1:01 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal BSL does work! The previous poster made a seemingly coherent argument that Breed Specific Legislation is ineffective. According to his logic, we should not have laws because there are some people who occasionally break them. That argument is total BEEEE-ESSSS! If more stringent standards of responsibility were passed in Monroe, I believe the majority of pit bull owners would comply. Nobody's talking about banning any dogs here, just keeping a closer eye on certain breeds that have a proven track record of being extremely dangerous when loose. Will there be some people who ignore the law? There always are. That's why Washington has a concealed carry law. C. Baldwin | Nov 20, 2008 12:22 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal BSL doesn't work BSL (breed specific legislation) doesn't work. Case in point would be the recent attack of an elderly woman in Seatac by a pair of pit bulls. Not only were the dogs in question allowed to run loose on a regular basis, they had exhibited aggression and yet the owner had never been contacted despite multiple complaints made by neighbors. It’s well known that when it comes to animal complaints, rarely will anyone respond until something bad happens. Imagine if that same tactic were used by police when dealing with aggressive humans. “I’m sorry sir, I understand your neighbor who is known to act violently has threatened to get a gun and shoot you, but the police won’t be able to respond until he actually does it. Once he shoots you, let us know and we’ll send an officer out to help you then.” The owner of those pit bulls now faces felony charges because sadly, his dogs did finally seriously injure someone. Would BSL have stopped this horrible attack? Not likely. The dog's owner allowed his dogs to run loose despite leash laws, was never seen muzzling his dogs despite this requirement in the community where he lives, and on top of that, he is a convicted felon who was in possession of multiple firearms at the time of his arrest. This is a person that has proven he has no regard for the law or the potential damage to others thanks to his actions. Had lesser violations of the law been addressed sooner, perhaps things would’ve turned out differently. The only way to help curb these types of attacks is aggressive enforcement of existing laws against ALL irresponsible pet owners. Not breed specific legislation. Susan Burk | Nov 19, 2008 1:20 pm | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal

1. Next Air Force One: an Airbus A380?; Gates on weapons buying 2. Levees breached in Stanwood, Snohomish 3. Rescues under way for people stranded in Stanwood 4. NEW AT NOON: Get home soon, Highway 9 likely to be closed 5. Rising Stilly chases all to high ground 6. Highway 9 closed in Snohomish Valley 7. Waters rise, more flooding to come 8. NEW AT NOON: Dike on Stilly breaches 9. Rivers are expected to keep rising 10. No Beach? No problem 2 - Top 10 Stories Most Talked about 3 - Top 10 Stories Most Emailed

• Archbishop boys beat King's for first time in school history • Becoming 'a new person' • 20 vie for council vacancy • The poet speaks • Quieting the mind • Students of the Month • T-Wolves survive slow start, beat M-P • T-birds' Michaels on track for state titles • The senior center limbo • Edmonds surgeons on cutting edge of weight loss