Pierce County revises dangerous dog ordinance

New ordinance will target bad owners, not bad dogs

Susan Schell

of the Gateway

After hearing public input and gathering information on how to protect people and their property from dog attacks, the Pierce County Council unanimously approved changes to an existing dangerous dog ordinance on April 15.

The ordinance just needs the signature of County Executive John Ladenberg.

“I don’t expect there will be any question that he’ll sign it,” said Terry Lee, the Pierce County councilman who represents Gig Harbor and the Key Peninsula.

The ordinance increases the registration fee for owning a dangerous animal — one that has severely injured a human or domestic animal without provocation — or one whose owner has previously been cited for the animal’s dangerous behavior.

Dangerous animal owners must have liability insurance and adhere to strict measures on keeping the dog contained, including a muzzle at all times when it’s outside its enclosure.

The new ordinance also makes it a gross misdemeanor to bring an animal into Pierce County that has been declared dangerous in another county.

Pierce County’s ordinance differs from some counties in that it does not label specific breeds of dogs as dangerous. Lee said the “bad apple” ordinance states that pet owners with two or more convictions of animal-related crimes are prohibited from owning animals for 10 years.

“With ‘bad apple,’ we’re trying to provide incentives for pet owners to be more responsible,” he said. “Some jurisdictions have been breed-specific about animals, but that is not the intent of this council.”

Lisa Woods, veterinarian and owner of Brookside Animal Hospital on the Key Peninsula, was present at two public meetings regarding the ordinance in Tacoma. Last February, two neighborhood dogs breached Woods’ property, killing one of her goats and a goose, and severely injuring a second goat.

Woods spoke at both meetings and felt her presence was a factor in the wording of the new ordinance. One of the issues at hand in Woods’ case was whether her animals were considered livestock or pets.

“I was glad I went, because there was a lot of discussion about livestock,” she said. “They changed it so that if the situation happens like what happened to me, the pet owners will have to pay. In order for you to continue to have that dog, you’re going to have to pay to keep that dog.”

Lee agreed that Woods’ presence at the meetings and the recent incidents of dog attacks on the Key Peninsula and problems in Graham held weight in the drafting of the new ordinance.

“They were referenced by our animal control folks and the public in their testimony as reasons for trying to hold pet owners accountable,” Lee said. “What happened on the Key Peninsula was very much a part of that.”

Right now, Lee said the ordinance is still a “work in progress.”

“We thought it was important to get something in place, given these recent incidents,” Lee said. “But this is something we plan to revisit and make amendments as necessary.”

Reach reporter Susan Schell at 253-853-9240 or by e-mail at susan.schell@gateline.com.