Tacoma, WA "Revised dang. dog ordinance

Discuss Breed Specific Legislation and local county laws on pit bull ownership.
User avatar
heather
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 8830
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:55 pm
Location: Geneva, NY

Tacoma, WA "Revised dang. dog ordinance

Postby heather » Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:31 pm

From BSL_Updates...
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:13 PM
Subject: alert in Tacoma, Wa. for new "revised" dangerous dog ordinance-Please post!


In Tacoma, Wa.- City council votes tonight on changes to the city's animal control ordinance on dangerous dogs. Included are the city and county coucil's email addresses and the article in todays edition of the Tacoma News Tribune:

Tacoma set to get tougher on dangerous dogs
JASON HAGEY; The News Tribune
Published: December 11th, 2007 01:00 AM
The Tacoma City Council is expected to vote tonight on changes to the city’s animal control ordinance that target dangerous dogs, problem pet owners, unlicensed mothers – and roosters.
City officials have been talking about and tweaking the proposed changes for about two years. If approved, they would:
• Expand the definition of dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. Unlike some jurisdictions, the rules don’t address a particular breed of dog, but list the types of behavior that could get a dog labeled dangerous. They include an unprovoked attack that inflicts “severe injury” or kills a person; an unprovoked attack that kills or injures a domestic animal badly enough that it’s euthanized; and keeping a dog for the purpose of fighting.
• Requires euthanasia or removal from the city for all dangerous dogs.
• Prohibits bringing a dog to Tacoma that has been declared dangerous or potentially dangerous in another jurisdiction.
• Creates the designation “problem pet owner.” A person who commits three or more animal control violations in a 24-month period could be declared a problem pet owner and forced to surrender all of their animals.
• Makes it a civil infraction to sell or give away puppies or kittens born to an unlicensed animal. Owners would be required to include the mother’s license number in any published advertisements of puppies or kittens.
• Enacts a complete ban on roosters in the city limits, a response to complaints about noise. Hens are allowed.
• Make it a violation to improperly license a pet (to license an unaltered animal as an altered pet.)
• Make it a crime to create or use counterfeit license tags.
• Make it a violation to leave animal waste on public or private property, unless authorized.
• Make anyone younger than 18 ineligible to license pets.
The most controversial elements of an earlier proposal are no longer being considered. Those included banning of livestock and requiring pet owners to buy a breeder’s license if they didn’t spay or neuter their animals.
Jason Hagey: 253-597-8542
jason.hagey@ thenewstribune. com
blogs.thenewstribun e.com/politics
County wants input about dangerous dogs
What should the county do about dangerous dogs? If you’ve got ideas, the Pierce County Auditor’s Office wants to hear them.
The office will host three public meetings to gather ideas for legislative, enforcement and administrative strategies on dangerous dogs.
The auditor is revisiting the county’s dangerous dog laws in light of several high-profile dog attacks this year, including the Aug. 21 mauling of Key Peninsula resident Sue Gorman in her home. Animal control officials say they need tougher laws to protect the public from dangerous animals.
Public meetings on the issue are schedule for:
• 7 p.m. today at the Graham Branch Library, 9202 224th St. E.
• 6:30 p.m. Wednesday at the Gig Harbor Civic Center, 3510 Grandview Drive, Gig Harbor.
• 7 p.m. on Jan. 7 at the Pierce County Fire Protection District #6-9 Training Room, 17210 110th Ave. E.
Stacey Mulick, The News Tribune

***Not to downplay truly dangerous dogs or vicious attacks, they are quite unfortunate and need to be addressed. BUT, this takes away any owner's rights to defend and fight for their dogs very life in court, mediation or otherwise and gives animal control total and complete control over their euthanasia, which I assure you they will go for as I have seen it over and over here! Its horrible. I refer to an earlier article from the same paper:
.Actually, here's the > entire article: > City might restrict pet owners in Tacoma to soon consider overhaul of > animal laws JASON HAGEY; The News Tribune Published: October 17th, > 2007 01:00 AM > Pet owners who commit three or more animal control violations in a 24- > month period could be declared "problem pet owners" and forced to > surrender all of their animals under a sweeping update of Tacoma's > animal control ordinance. > The overhaul also would expand the definition of dangerous and > potentially dangerous dogs, enact a complete ban on roosters in the > city limits, and make it a civil infraction to sell or give away > puppies or kittens born to an unlicensed animal. Owners
> would be > required to include the mother's license number in any published > advertisements of puppies or kittens. > Tacoma City Council members heard about the proposed changes Tuesday > during a staff report outlining the latest plan. It's been in the > works for about two years. > An ordinance is expected to come before the City Council sometime > soon, though a date hasn't been set. > The most controversial elements of an earlier proposal were dropped: > A ban on livestock that included chickens, cows and horses; limiting > the number of unaltered dogs and cats a resident could own at two > each; a requirement that pet owners spay or neuter their animals, or > buy a breeder's license even if they don't intend to breed them; and > a plan to spay or neuter any animal picked up by an animal control > officer. Under the current proposal, an owner could reclaim an >
> unaltered animal as long as it's properly licensed. > Councilwoman Julie Anderson said she believes the proposal achieves > what council members set out to accomplish: It stiffens the rules > regarding dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs, and it will lead > to a reduction in pet overpopulation. > "It's not as stringent as I would like, but it's a good compromise," > Anderson said. > Mayor Bill Baarsma asked for an amendment making it possible to > declare an animal a "dangerous dog" if it attacks a service animal > and renders it unusable, even if the service animal isn't killed or > euthanized as a result of the attack. > Other changes being proposed include: > • Making it a violation to leave animal waste on public or private > property, unless authorized. > • Making anyone younger than 18 ineligible to license pets. > • Making it a violation to improperly
> license a pet (to license an > unaltered animal as an altered pet). > • Making it a crime to create or use counterfeit license tags. > • Adopting state law regarding poisoning of animals. Unlike the > current city code, which makes it a misdemeanor to poison an animal, > the state law includes exceptions for poisoning rodents and slugs. > The new rules would not change the cost of a license or change the > limit on the number of dogs and cats a resident may own, which is six. > Tacoma's rules regarding dangerous dogs don't address a particular > breed of dog, unlike some jurisdictions. Rather, they list the types > of behavior that could get a dog labeled dangerous. They include an > unprovoked attack that inflicts "severe injury" or kills a person; an > unprovoked attack that kills or injures a domestic animal badly > enough that it's euthanized; and keeping a dog for the purpose of
> dog > fighting.
Email foir county gov:
bgelman@co.pierce. wa.us

cgoing1@co.pierce. wa.us
Lisa Drury [Edit]
EDRURY@co.pierce. wa.us, 253-798-2118 (h), 253-798-2118 (w)
Kevin Benton (Chief, District Court Div, Pierce Cty Prosecutors Office)

pcauditor@co.pierce.wa.us

pcethics@co. pierce.wa.us

pcexecutive@co.pierce.wa.us

pcprosatty@co.pierce.wa.us

pcriskmgmt@co.pierce.wa.us

rbush@co.pierce.wa.us

sbunney@co.pierce.wa.us

slong@co.pierce.wa.us

terry.lee@co.pierce.wa.us

tfarrel@co.pierce.wa.us




Sorry about the format but please pass on and ask people from all over to express the concern for dog owners right being taken away! Thanks. City councils email addresses will be forthcoming. Thanks.

User avatar
karladaune
Bully Ambassador
Posts: 2226
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Auburn, WA
Contact:

Postby karladaune » Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:32 pm

anybody know the outcome of this vote?

User avatar
MikeInTacoma
Moderator
Posts: 3421
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:27 am
Location: Tacoma, WA, USA
Contact:

Postby MikeInTacoma » Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:42 am

From http://www.tacomaweekly.com/article/1447:

There is an expanded definition of dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. No specific breed is singled out. Instead, dogs will be labeled dangerous based on behavior such as an unprovoked attack that kills or causes severe injury to a person or domestic animal. Dogs in the city of Tacoma tagged with the dangerous label will have to be euthanized, or housed outside the city limits.

In addition, people can be labeled a problem pet owner if they receive three animal control violations within 24 months. They would be prohibited from owning pets.

...Councilmember Julie Anderson said ... she is glad they did not let the council get distracted on the topic of specific breeds, such as trying to ban pit bulls.


The revised animal care and control law does not yet seem to be on the City of Tacoma's website (http://www.tacoma.org/); I didn't find it there, at any rate.

Edit: I forgot to say, it passed, though with some amendments I think (if I understood the radio news blurb correctly).

User avatar
karladaune
Bully Ambassador
Posts: 2226
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Auburn, WA
Contact:

Postby karladaune » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:50 pm

thanks for the update...i looked on the city site and couldnt find an update either. Like the councilwoman, i am grateful they didnt target specific breeds and went after dangerous dogs in general.


Return to “Laws”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests