The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-05-2004 ITEM II-C-1FAX COVER PAGE L'acu d�[Cta c� JAMES W. ANABLE . JR. 100 1 Four AvEwur I 424 din wwraaxm AvemwE Surrt 3200 SEATTLK,WA 08 1 22-2802 rrLK, A 98 154 0f 329-50 1 8 TELEPHONE: (206) 292-2217 F'AcsfmILIK: ( 0) 328-141 0 FTO# ban -Hi d From: James W. Anable, Jr. Fax Number: 2538043116 Total Numb r of Pages, lncludi�ngCover: 6 Date: 3116104 Time: 3:28:14 PM For 1nf hn ti n Call: 206428,45918 Subject : Proposed Animal, OrdinanceFax Number: X28 410 For hninediate de very to Gene Ceflnowith copies to Dain Held, Pete Lewis, Nancy Bacbas, Lynn Ido lel Pelota, Sue Singer, Roger Thordarson, arra Rich Wagner, Created using WinFax PRO 3.0 D Irina Technology Inc. r v{ s 1 JAMES WV, ANAB LE , JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW D 1 FOURTH AVENUE, , &M. 3200 SeATTLE, WA 98 154 TaMPHOWIC: (206) 202-2217 March 15, 2004 Councilrnernber Gene Cerino- 1 A FACSIMILE Dear Mr. Cerino: 1424 TWENTIM AVENUE SEAT U-0., WA 98 122-2802 �__ - m"� '31curpmoe:. (V 3 29-59 1 FA+CSIMPUK: (o) 3 2 IS -1 1 I enjoyed the opportunity to briefly discuss with you Aubum's proposed animal ordinance. i have reviewed the proposed ordinance, and l have a fear initial comments. My first Impression Is that this proposed OrdInance Is drafted In response to a fever Isolated problems caused by a few Iponsible dog owners. Good lava is rarely made in haste., or In response to isolated circumstances (such as time "pit bull" attack on the poodle). - The. recitations reference spedfle instances, then refer to certain suspect breeds,. presumably used on some sort of scent c research. Howeveri scientific and canine expert agrees that it Is impossible to oonclude that a ny breed of dog is more dangerous than'any ther breed. it Is also scientifically. I rrpossible-to determino whether any specific dog fails into the following proposed definition of potentially dangerous "an mix, of dog breeds which contains as an element of its breeding the breed of Proposed 6.35.010(l), in part. Any attempted scientifle analysis of potential risk from certain greeds Is flawed for many reasons. It Is nonsensical to look at the history -of any particular breed and cone%lode that since It was initially bred for purposes such as protection or fighting, It must be 8"potentially dangerous." I arra not only an Animal Laver attome , I art a life-long dog owner. I have owned Dobertaan Pinschers for more than'30 years, and have exhibited In AKc conforrnabon and obedience* The Doberman of today is not that dog that was or IgInally bred, This holds true not only for appearance, but also for sharpness of temperament, Today's Doberman is a stable fancily companion, and does not closely resemble -the dogs of Herr Doberrnann. Experts Ir' other breeds will tell you the same about their breeds. Any attempted scientific analysis of purported bite or attack surveys i also Ha sled for many reasons. _ Most notably, these figures do not aunt for the ge%neral pop la#fon of the breeds at the time that the data was collected. If you don't know how many dogs were In the general popula on, you cannot begin to assume the supposed risk pf any single example of that breed. Mash I So coun ilm mber Gone Cedno Page As I told you on the telephone, i know of Doberman Pinschers that are certlfled therapy dogs and servioe animals. Thway Dobermans accompany their owners for visits to places such as hospitals and nursing homes, to provide stimulus and companionship for sick children and the elderly. Service Dobermans a=mpany their owner to any location that is held open to the public, Is it fair that these same animals become "potentially dangerous" once they cross Aubuffs city limits, merely because they are Doberman? I'd like to present a hypothetical to further Illustrate problemOwlth the proposed ordinance. Let's assume that you pass the ordinance as proposed. Now, suppose that Mr. Smith lives in Auburn and owns a well natured Giant Schnauzer named Ficlo. Even though the dog is not in fact potentially dangerous, the .new ordinance would ray i Ire Mr. Smith to build a fence sufflclent to contain a potentially dangerous dog, Mr. Smith upgrades his fencing, at considerable expense. Now lets suppose that a mater kr reader, construction worker, child... falls to secure Mr. Smith's -gate* Fldo wanders out, and heads over to play with the neighbor children. Under the proposed ordinance, Fido Is now a dangerous dog,, merely because he is was unrestrained: Dangerous dog means... a potentially dangerous dog,'as defined in this Chapter, that has been found to or allowed to run free and/or un rests i ned Proposed A,35-010(2),, ire pari . Another problem Is evident in the proposed den ion of *dangerous," 6.35, 010 (2)(c), which provides. - (c) -*-is known or should reasonably be known by its owner to have aggressively bit attacked, or endangered the safety of humans or domestic animals; ... A dog that has "endangered the safety of humans or domestic-anirnalso is not -a ropriately laded =dangerous." A dangerous dog Is one that Inflicts severe Injury. ndang 4in ] the safety of humans or domestic animals" is just too vague of a deffnition when the consequences of the "dangerous" designation are so leve ma Include euthanasia). Such a vague law with severe consequences is subject to arbitrary application and unfair results. I can understand that the City of Auburn wants to provide for the public safety. However, 1n reality the problem is rarely the breed of dog, It Is the "bred of the owner." Certain dog breeds become the "dog de Jour' when It comes to portraying a macho Image, Where will arrays be Irresponsible owners. The lawshould mmaln focused on Irresponsible owner ,,trot the breeds of dog. Responsible owners should not,h ve to suffer for the acdons of gang members, drug dealers, or "macho types," just because those undesirables. happen to choose your breed of do i 1 would suggest that increased enfomernent of off leash violatons coupled with an educational program geared towards parents and small children would have a much better Impact on public safety. Statistics show that a high numb of severe Incidents happen when small children are felt unsupervised with dogs of any breed. Dachshunds and a Pomeranlan have been Involved in FATAL dog attacks. f +SAI . A bus 0 JR.,,, ATroRNry AT Man h i Ot 2004 oun member Gene Cedno Page The City of Auburn already has lavers In place that can be enforced to provide for the public safety. Today, if a dog in the City of Auburn Inflicts an injury requiring multiple sutures, under state lair, Auburn can already have that dog declared DANGEROUS, See; (2) "Dangerous dog" means any dog that (a) inflicts severe injury an a human being without provocation on.pubiic or private property, (b) kills a domestic animal without provocation while the dog is off the owner's property, or (c) has been previously found to be potentially dangerous because of injury. Inflicted on a human, the owner having received notice of such and the dog again aggressWy bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans, RCW 46 48.Q7U (2) Contrary to popular public perception, there simply I _no "one f e bite" ru eir it Is unfair and Illogical iegaffy and otherwise) to make stable, frier'dly dogs "potntially dangerous" merely because the dog belongs to any one breed. You have adequate laws on the books, they can be enforced to rationally and fairy protect the public safety. As an attorneys, i. can tell you that lags such as the one that you are - considering have been found unconstitutional In other Jurlsdictions. The proposed ordinance would open the possibility of similar actions against your city, I am aware that similar ordinances have been hold to be constituttonai In our state, but our courts have not looked at the arguments nts raised In recent cases in other JurisdicUons. Additionallyrf I'd like to point out the Rabon footnote that resulted from -the Amicus brief that Aaron Marplan nor general counsel for the Washingon ACLU and I submitted on behalf of my thea client, Mr. Korola' k: Amicus Korolak also contends that lack of uniformity In this area creates confusion and hardship for intercity t velers traveling with them- dogs, and suggests nonuniform dog laws are violative of the fundamental right to travel. This Is an due raised only by amicus and vire will not consider it. There are strong challenges that were not addressed in American DQg OwOeM y. YaSima. As a dog owner, I'm also puzzled that some rare breeds have been listed, whlie over breeds that appear high on the lists of fatal attacks are not listed. The list appears to be arbitrary in nature, based on Irrational fears and m1sperceptions. In the Interest of falrnes to dog owners that live In or travel through) your city, I Implore the Auburn City Attorney and City Council to talcs a long, hard second look at thl,- proposed ordinance. The current proposed ordinance Is not a good alternative. Increased enforcement of leash laves combined with education is the bast and most fair alternative. You already have adequate county ordinances that protect the publIc safe and the stricter state dangerous dog laver. Please do not hesitate to contact rine with any queslons. I look forward to the opportunity to meet with you (and other Auburn officials) in the near future to discuss this M rGh 1 , 200 ouncUrromber Gone CeAno Page - proposed ordinance In more de lie Very t I , 6 James W. Amble, Jr. Dan Held, Auburn City Attorney Fate Lie, Mayor of Auburn ,Nancy Backus Lynn Norman Bill Pelona Sue Singer Roger Thordaron . Rich Wagner Q