10/11/2006: "CC Slowly Trots Toward New Dog Ord"

The County Council continues to move toward revising and updating animal control laws, and specifically those sections that address the problem of dogs attacking people and animals. For sometime now the County has been reviewing the existing laws and regulations, and under pressure by Counciman Bob Myhr, and by the call of local farmers for increased fines and restitutions payments for livestock killed or injured by dogs, the Prosecutor's office has presented a working draft document for Council review. On Tuesday the Council discussed the draft, and also took some informal public comment on observers in the audience.

County Prosecutor Gaylord told the Council that his review of the input from Council and members and the public has led him to classify the information as falling into four major areas of concern:

1. Dogs at large. Gaylord said there is no specific language in the existing ordinance that gives proper authority, or guidance to the Sheriff's office, on how to handle complains about dogs that are at large.

Gaylord suggest that including new language would help to solve the problem, and suggested that requiring that dogs be under the control of the owner, by voice commands for example, may solve the problem, without requiring that all dogs either be fenced or on a leash.

2. Dogs that attack livestock. The draft kept the current regulations, but added some clarification and expansion of definitions, and includes the chasing and/or attacking of deer.

3. Penalties. There has been a call for increased, and new fines and penalties for violations of the regulations; including the amount of money that would be paid to farmers that lost livestock to dog attacks.

4. Animal Control Officer. Some have suggested that a new county position be created that would have the responsibility and authority to manage animal controls and enforcement.

Bob Myer expressed concern that the issue of who gets the money, from fines, licensing and resiturion payments, and for what purpose, be carefully looked at, and he also questioned how the process will work if a dog is impounded; who pays for the cost of impoundment; who impounds the dog; and what happens to the dog once it is impounded; were all questions, he said, that needed to be addressed and spelled out in advance.

Gaylord responded by pointing out that collections and distribution of money generated by fines is controlled in part by existing state law, but the County does has some discretion, and more so on how money collected for county licensing is allocated and spent.

Jim Lawrence, a San Juan Island farmer, told the Council that he and other members of the Agricultural community believed that the draft did not go far enough in the areas of enforcement, and also asked for an increase in the amount of the fines and restitution amounts.

Lawrence also questioned why county roadway signs, that warned that dogs can be shot if they are attacking livestock, have been removed, and asked that they be replaced. He said that many members of the public are unaware of the longstanding regulation, and it was important that they understand that the County is serious about protecting livestock.

He also said that the County has to decide what it is going to become. If it wishes to retain the rural look of the county, and the open fields that produce feed for the sheep in those fields, that both residents and tourists alike say they enjoy looking at, then the County must be serious in helping farmers protect their investments,

The Prosecutor and the Council will continue to fine tune the draft, and then a public hearing will be scheduled to take testimony on the draft.