PORT ANGELES — Clallam County commissioners Tuesday tabled a proposal that would tighten the county code for dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs.
Commissioners said they wanted more clarification from the Animal Issues Advisory Committee on the fee structure and how to deal with out-of-the-area dogs that have been declared dangerous in other jurisdictions.
The draft ordinance, which is available at www.clallam.net/bocc/drafts.html, has been vetted by the animal issues group and the Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.
Three citizens who spoke at a public hearing Tuesday raised concerns over parts of the ordinance for different reasons.
“I don’t think there is any question we need a potentially dangerous dog/dangerous dog ordinance,” Commissioner Steve Tharinger said.
“I don’t think that’s the issue. But it seems to me that if there are questions, a monthly meeting . . . that sort of reviews those questions and comes back to us has some value.”
The next Animal Issues Advisory Committee meeting is Thursday, June 16, at
6 p.m. in Room 160 of the Clallam County Courthouse in Port Angeles.
Under the proposal, Clallam County Animal Control Officer Tracey Kellas could declare a dog potentially dangerous if the dog bites or chases a human or another animal, as long as the person isn’t trespassing or provoking the dog.
Potentially dangerous
If a dog is declared potentially dangerous, the owner has to register the dog, pay an annual fee and keep it on a leash or enclosed within a fence.
Corby Somerville said he opposed a new section in the proposal that would allow the owner of a potentially dangerous dog to have the designation removed after two years.
Keeping a potentially dangerous dog restrained doesn’t prove the dog is no longer dangerous or that the dog’s temperament has changed, he said.
Kellas said the potentially dangerous designation is “basically in there for the 8-month-old Labrador retriever puppy that got out and chased the neighbor’s chickens, for the border collie that went across and chased the neighbor’s horses.”
“The dog may be declared potentially dangerous for these things,” Kellas added, “but if the owner of that dog has recognized it and taken steps to correct it and I’ve no issues with this dog for over two years, they can apply.
“And it is a case-by-case thing.
“It’s not not declaring them potentially dangerous; it’s relieving them of the $150 a year and the restraint requirement so that they can go ahead and be a dog for a while.
“If they re-offend, they’re probably going to be declared dangerous from there because they’re already potentially dangerous.”
Dangerous designation
A dangerous designation is reserved for a dog that inflicts “serious injury” on a person or domestic animal.
The owner must enclose the dog, keep it muzzled, pay a higher fee, get liability insurance, post warning signs on their property and abide by other rules.
A dangerous dog may be confiscated if deficiencies are not corrected within 20 days under the proposal.
“To be declared a dangerous animal, you have to have done severe injury,” Kellas said.
“That’s broken bones, requiring multiple stitches, requiring plastic surgery [or having] killed another animal. This is a high level that you have to get to.
“You have to have done something pretty severe to become a dangerous dog.”
Dangerous dogs cannot go back on the inactive list.
Kellas said most of the changes in the ordinance are minor.
A section that required the owner to spay or neuter his or her dog was removed because the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office said it was unconstitutional.
“They [dogs] are considered property in Washington state,” Kellas said.
“It is not deemed constitutional to irrevocably change someone’s property.”
Matthew Randazzo, a volunteer with the Northwest Raptor & Wildlife Center in Sequim and the chairman of the Clallam County Democratic Party, testified that the definition of dangerous dogs is “too broad.”
“I think there should be no dispute over what’s considered dangerous,” he said.
Steve Markwell, director of the Olympic Animal Sanctuary in Forks and a member of the annual issues committee, said the fee for a dangerous dog may prevent some owners from complying.
Can’t afford law
“One of the things that we see is that people simply cannot afford to be in compliance with the law,” Markwell said.
Tharinger said there would be “some advantage to looking at the fee structure.”
“If you have a fee that prevents people from doing the right thing, we should take a look at that and see where that balance is,” Tharinger said.
“And then, I think there needs to be some clarity on this section that talks about other jurisdictions.”
Kellas said the criteria for a dangerous dog is different in other counties.
“There are places here in Washington state, by virtue of breed, you are considered a dangerous dog,” she said.
“We don’t want to go there here.”
Commissioner Mike Doherty said dangerous dogs have been a contentious issue in Clallam County for years.
“I’ve seen them maul a child,” Doherty said. “I’ve seen them maul animals.
“I think we do have to weigh animals versus young human beings.
“In my mind, I would err on the side of younger human beings or the elderly or small, defenseless animals.”
________
Reporter Rob Ollikainen can be reached at 360-417-3537 or at rob.ollikainen@peninsuladailynews.com.
