Originally Posted By PCR-00:
I'm uncomfortable with the direction this can lead...
Auburn’s dog rule now carries more bite
STEVE MAYNARD; The News Tribune
Published: February 22nd, 2006 02:30 AM
The Auburn City Council on Tuesday night branded pit bulls and several other breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous and required owners of those breeds to register their dogs.
Despite an outcry from about two-dozen dog owners, council members voted 7-0 to amend the city’s dangerous dog ordinance to make it breed-specific.
Councilman Bill Peloza said the ordinance revision will save human and animal lives in the long run.
“We need to protect our citizens,” Peloza said before the vote.
Auburn police have shot at attacking pit bulls five times since May, including twice so far this year.
But several dog owners said the problem was with irresponsible owners, not specific breeds.
Auburn resident Victoria Wiley, who owns a pit bull, said, “I don’t feel, as a responsible dog owner, I should be punished because other people don’t know how to handle their dogs.”
The revised ordinance will take effect in about two weeks.
Under the existing ordinance, dogs aren’t branded “potentially dangerous” until they’ve bitten once. Only if they attack a second time are they declared “dangerous” and put under strict controls.
Under the new ordinance, those restrictions will take effect after breeds tagged as potentially dangerous automatically become “dangerous” by biting once.
The city first considered tightening its rules after a pit bull killed a poodle- terrier named Fritz two years ago. The City Council proposed targeting pit bulls, then all dogs of more than 30 pounds.
But after complaints from breeders and dog owners, the council approved the less-restrictive measures in effect today.
Debbie Barrett of Auburn said Tuesday night that she fully supports the revised ordinance. She said her 170-pound Great Dane was attacked and injured by two pit bulls in August.
But Glen Bui, of the Belfair-based American Canine Foundation, said Auburn’s new dog ordinance “does nothing to target irresponsible owners.”
Bui said the new law conflicts with state law by branding certain breeds as potentially dangerous. He said his nonprofit group will sue the city of Auburn over the revision.
“We’ll see you in court,” he told the council Tuesday night.
Dog owners at Tuesday’s meeting, most of them pit bull owners, expressed frustration over the law and said they felt they were being unfairly singled out.
Julia Jones of East Pierce County, who suffers from seizures, said she needs her American pit bull terrier to protect her and pleaded with the council to do something else.
“I need her. She’s my service dog,” Jones said with her dog, Miss Bailey, at her side.
But Peloza insisted that a breed-specific law was necessary to curtail the number of dangerous dog attacks.
“One, to me, as an elected official, is one too many,” Peloza said.
• American pit bull terrier
• American Staffordshire terrier
• Bull terrier
• Cane Corso
• Dogo Argentino
• Dogue de Bordeaux
• Pit bull terrier
• Presa canario
• Tosa Inu
• Staffordshire bull terrier
• Any dog with an element of those breeds or appearing to look like those breeds Dog ordinance requirements
Owners would have to register all animals belonging to these breeds, at no charge, as “potentially dangerous.” After an attack, the dogs would be declared “dangerous” and owners would have to:
• Confine the dog to an enclosure with a warning sign
• Muzzle and leash the dog when outside the enclosure
• Have at least $250,000 in insurance or $250,000 in a bond payable to anyone injured by the dog
• Pay $100 per year to register the animal
• Have a microchip implanted by a veterinarian for identification
What if someone violates these terms? If they fail to comply with the initial registration, they could be fined up to $1,000 and jailed up to 90 days. For other violations, they could face up to a $5,000 fine and a year in jail. King County Animal Control has the prerogative to put the dog down.
Exchange the word "dog" with "gun" Replace "Pit Bull" with ".50 caliber assault weapon".
"It was acceptable to do with dogs, why can't we register dangerous firearms?"
It looks like they came from the same rule book, you just insert/change the subject/items to be band.
What about expost-facto, would it apply so you would have pre and post-ban dogs.
Rotweiler(sp) isn't on the list, unless its listed under a different name. Maybe there was a side deal like Ruger did with the Mini-14 to keep it off the list.
This stinks of lots of bad stuff, I'm glad I live in the woodz.
I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy