Council and Public Speak on Animal Control
January 11, 2010 Meeting...

     Pierce County has five officers in the field and a person who picks up confined animals twice a week. These officers cover all of unincorporated Pierce County which includes large areas outside of Gig Harbor, Fredrickson, most of South Hill, Graham along with Ashford and Elbe.
     One question asked of Anderson from the audience was about response time. Anderson said they  answer 911 calls usually within 12 minutes. A question was also posed about Anderson's statements concerning Eatonville being one of the county's busiest places.
     You may listen to Anderson on video Tim Anderson. Also on the video is Councilmember Gordon Bowman asking Eatonville Police Chief Jim Lewis if Eatonville's animal control officer is trained to handle aggressive dogs and  did the town have equipment for aggressive dogs. The chief answers that the town doesn't have an animal control officer. Then realizes he must answer and confirms that the animal control officer for 2009, Tera Pine, is trained, certified and the town does have the equipment.
 

Brief Update: Animal Control
First Meeting with "New" Council
Turn-out Remarkable

                                                                                                                                                                    (photo by Bob Walter)

    This sign greeted people as they entered the council meeting January 11. Ribbons were designed and made by Bob Walter, who also made the sign. A good number of citizens were more than happy to take a ribbon and wear it at the meeting. There was a lot of "color" in the audience of over 50 concerned area residents who attended the first meeting of the year.

Hot Issue Tabled Until January 25...

    by Dixie A. Walter
     My View
     January 12, 2010

     Over 50 concerned citizens attended the January 11 meeting of the Eatonville Town Council in a show of solidarity to keep animal control local. This the largest audience seen at a council meeting in recent memory, which underlines the fact people in the area do not consider this a subject to be taken lightly, or rushed into by a determined administration. Resolution 2010-B dealing with animal control (AC) was tabled until the next meeting, Monday, January 25, at the Community Center. One reason given was so the Pierce County contract could be gone over and tweaked. Meaning the issue is not resolved yet.
    Many individuals in the audience spoke, on the record, in favor of keeping this vital program in town. It's a successful department which works very well and  is desperately needed in our community. Many times the room burst into applause to support speakers. This is something else that only rarely happens.
    Even more rare is the audience applauding council members. Yet applaud they did. Jim Valentine and Bob Schaub earned support for their comments, and feelings, about keeping animal control. The men were adamant about the issue.
    Brenden Pierce later took the mic and said he had been rather neutral about the situation; however, upon listening to all the comments, and seeing so many people who felt so strongly about animal control, Pierce told us he was inclined not to go with a Pierce County Animal Control (PCAC) contract, and keep the department in the community. Pierce added that one of the things he likes about Eatonville is that "it's not Pierce County." Pierce also got a round of applause for his statements.
    It was pointed out by several citizens that money couldn't be the issue as a large number of area folks have volunteered to help fix the kennel. The Dispatch has committed to raising $20,000 to repair the kennels and maintain the animal control van. The kennels aren't in the dire condition described during the last meeting of 2009 on December 14. You can see for yourself at Eatonville Kennel.  A question asked but not answered, "Why has nothing been done in the past to repair the kennels?"
    A group of staff from Pack Forest with the University of Washington's Conservation Canines also attended the meeting, the first time any of them had experienced our small town's government in action. These kind people offered to help work on the town kennels.
    Some of us heard about this generous offer after the meeting. These men and women have expertise with kennels. Bob Schaub, Mike Jeffries and Judith East all thanked them for offering to help out. These young men and women are highly qualified in kennel construction and maintenance. Their knowledge and offer to help is deeply appreciated. 

Only One Person Spoke Pro-County, Sort Of

     Only one person in the audience spoke almost pro county. This was former appointed mayor and councilmember Bruce Rath, who said he told his wife he wouldn't speak, but couldn't contain himself toward the end of the animal control discussion.
     He supported Police Chief Jim Lewis' 2010 animal control budget of $70,161 to keep animal control,  saying it did, indeed, cost about $70,000 annually to keep animal control. But that budget doesn't hold up under scrutiny as $30,000 can be removed right off the top. Animal control is under the umbrella of the Eatonville Police Department.
    A new van is not needed, take away $20,000. Kennel repair will be done by volunteers, take away another $10,000. And if you really get down to brass tacks and smaller amounts of money you remove another $5,000 or more. Note: The town has not paid for animal food in four years; food is always donated. An example of Small Town, Big Heart that we don't hear much about. See the animal control budget at AC 2010 Budget.
    However, Rath finally indicated that maybe people who are willing to help should be given a chance. Rath hinted about not be able to afford animal control, that it was set up when "times were good." He didn't get too far into that matter, as too many people in the audience know he was a mayor who spent until the town was almost broke. He didn't get applause.
    It was under Rath's administration that animal control was formed in town. However, it was not Rath who hired Animal Control Officer Tera Pine. In fact, no one was hired to fill the position during the Rath era. Although Tera did apply for the job early on, she wasn't hired until after Tom Smallwood became mayor in 2004.
    Hiring her was a smart and logical choice. Not only does she live in the area but she had five years of experience at the Tacoma Humane Society. Today she has four years of experience with our community. Tera knows where most of the animals live, what their names are, and she knows the families who own them. She's a valued asset to the town and she is highly praised by members of the community, often.
    Councilmember Gordon Bowman asked Police Chief Lewis if our animal control officer is trained in handling aggressive dogs, and do we have the equipment for this. Lewis answered, "Sir, we do not have an animal control officer." When pressed on the issue, Lewis stated that Officer Pine, who has been relieved of all animal control duties but still works in parks maintenance, was trained and certified, and that the town has all the equipment.

Eatonville Isn't Quite Mayberry...

    A lot of people like to say Eatonville is like Mayberry to them. They want to "keep the town like Mayberry." Of course Eatonville isn't like that idyllic, little TV town in most ways. But the personal touch Tera brings to sensitive issues regarding animals shouldn't be lost. That's a Mayberry touch. If we want to keep a Mayberry type atmosphere let's keep one of the parts of the community that really does resemble the fictional town.
    Tim Anderson, the lead officer for PCAC, attended the meeting and spoke twice. He's a good speaker and a friendly man who talks right to the audience. He paints a rosy picture of how well Eatonville would be covered by Pierce County. When asked about certain issues such as response time he is a terrific equivocator. Since the county has only four and a half other field officers, it's hard to pin down response time. But Anderson did assure us they would respond within 15 minutes. If Tera were on duty she could respond to an emergency in five minutes. Twenty minutes or so if she was at home during a call.
    He also equivocates when asked about situations where PCAC has been contacted and didn't show up for hours, or for two weeks in one case I asked him about. Anderson is a gregarious man who smiles a lot and works a room well. Let's say he's very good at PR. However, no one left the council meeting wanting to release animal control to the county.
    Mayor Ray Harper, conducting his first meeting as mayor, said he was, "Mayor in training." Harper appears to be stuck on the Eatonville Municipal Code's (EMC) dangerous dog statutes. At least from the way he has talked publicly regarding the AC issue. This is the subject he brings up as a reason to go with Pierce County. Outsourcing to Pierce County would mean switching Eatonville's animal code with the County Code.
    It seems he is against the breed specific part of the EMC and Pierce County's code is not breed-specific. A dangerous dog is a dangerous dog, regardless of the breed, period. That makes sense because all dangerous dogs are not pit bulls. Harper also said something about legal problems because of enforcing the "pit bull" section of the code. (See Title 6 - EMC Animals - Dangerous dog defined and dangerous dog statute below this article.)
   I have read the code more than once and asked the mayor, during the meeting, why this statute has only come up in the past months. It's been on the book since 2002. It was explained that a pit bull (or mix) had almost killed a small dog on Ridge Road. I heard about this terrible incident while the small dog was still fighting for its life at the vet clinic.
   The small dog, a beagle, was in its own yard when a neighbor's pit bull (or mix) got out of its fence, went in the yard and attacked the beagle. It was an awful case and the dog that attacked was euthanized. I believe the owners paid the vet bills, too.
   Evidently the Smallwood administration decided, at that time, to send our animal control officer out and enforce the code. What actually is happening to the town because of this remains vague, as no one has actually explained it to us.

Bottom Line - Town Can Change Code

   However, the bottom line is: If Eatonville does not want a breed-specific animal ordinance, then change the code. There is no rational reason why the town has to turn over the entire animal control program to Pierce County to change one or more parts of the town code.
   The Eatonville Municipal Code is a mess in many areas; Title 6 - Animals is one of them. It's likely there are good laws in the County Code that could be applied in Eatonville. But those laws can be changed right here in Eatonville by the town council with public input.
   Mayor Harper did say he was going to form an animal control committee and  asked Councilmember Valentine if he wanted to serve on the committee. Valentine said he would be happy to serve but wanted to make it clear that he was against "outsourcing" animal control. Committees must be formed in January, as Brenden Pierce pointed out. So, the animal control committee will be formed at the January 25 meeting.
   There is also an animal welfare citizens' group forming that can communicate with government. I talked to many people after the meeting and they felt good about what had occured. Several said they finally felt like they were being listened to after so many years of being ignored. This is a good thing, and the new council members have already demonstrated, and said, they are there to represent the voters and the voters are the people.

   More about the council's actions on other matters coming soon.
  

Code Could be Changed by Town
Doesn't Need to be Changed by County...

Eatonville Municipal Code Title 6 – Animals

6.20.100 Dangerous dog. (Definition)

“Dangerous dog” means:

A. Any dog with a record or known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack without provocation, to cause injury to or otherwise endanger the safety of humans or other domestic animals; or

B. Any dog which attacks a human being or other domestic animal without provocation; or

C. Any dog over the age of six months known by the owner to be a pit bull terrier, which is defined as any American pit bull terrier or Staffordshire pit bull terrier or American Staffordshire terrier breed of dog or mixed breed of dog which contains as an element of its breeding the breed of American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire pit bull terrier or American Staffordshire terrier as to be identifiable as partially of the breed of American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier or American Staffordshire terrier. (Ord. 2001-12 § 1, 2002)(Emphasis added.)

Eatonville Municipal Code Title 6 – Animals

6.30.240 Dangerous dogs.

A. It is unlawful for an owner to have a dangerous dog in Eatonville without a certificate of registration issued under this section. This section shall not apply to police dogs as defined in RCW 4.24.410.

B. The owner of a dangerous dog as defined in this chapter shall not remove, permit or, by action

or inaction, allow such dog to go beyond the premises of such owner unless the dog is securely leashed and muzzled or otherwise securely restrained and muzzled.

C. The owner of any dangerous animal shall comply with the following:

1. Construct a proper enclosure to confine a dangerous dog and post the premises with a clearly visible warning sign that there is a dangerous dog on the property. In addition, the owner shall conspicuously

display a sign with a warning symbol that informs children of the presence of a dangerous dog, and comply with EMC 6.30.020;

2. Obtain and provide proof to the animal control authority of a surety bond issued by a surety insurer qualified under Chapter 48.28 RCW in a form acceptable to the animal control authority in the sum of at least $50,000, payable to any person injured by the vicious dog; Eatonville Municipal Code 6.40.040 6-13 (Revised 2/02)

D. The failure of an owner of a dangerous animal to comply with the provision of this section shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and, in addition, shall be subject to any other provision allowed by law or as allowed under RCW 16.08.100 and as amended. The animal shall further be declared a nuisance and subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.40 EMC. (Ord. 2001-12 § 1, 2002).