Shortening the leash on animal control

By Chris Fitzgerald, KP News

Pierce County Animal Control Officer Tim Anderson is one of only four enforcement people covering the 1,679 square miles in the second most populous county in Washington state (780,000 residents, according to Pierce County Councilman Terry Lee).

A recent hearing by the county council regarding stricter animal-control laws. Photo by Chris Fitzgerald

Although it can be argued that the animal control detachment (administered by the auditor’s office) only covers unincorporated areas, these individuals would be over 40 square miles of patrolling area per every 10-hour shift of every four-day week, if all four officers worked simultaneously. But they don’t. At any given time, only two are on duty, and some of that time is spent in-office, report writing in Tacoma.

Anderson appears to defend recent 911 action that resulted in individuals fending off two pit bulls having to wait over an hour before “help arrived” (see related story on page 22 of the printed edition or the complete PDF archive). By that time, they had essentially handled the situation themselves. “That call should have been dispatched to us,” Anderson told the KP News, adding in frustration, “Anytime we have a dangerous animal call, we get there as quickly as possible. I was in Federal Way.” To his credit, he called Dr. Lisa Woods, whose animals had been attacked, saying he was an hour out and was responding.

Asked if there was enough need to have a full-time animal control officer west of the Narrows, Anderson said, “No one would be opposed to having a regular Peninsula animal control officer. There is enough there that we could respond to or generate (licensure, off-leash, etc.).” It all boils down to money. Anderson said the detachment had recently gone before the county council asking for more funds and officers. They got no funds for patrol officers; approval was gained to hire a supervisor, who will most likely split time between paper shuffling and fieldwork.

Anderson acknowledged the difficulty of his job. “Ideally, we want to have a fast response time anywhere in the county,” he said.

In response to the same question, Lee replied, “Apparently a manager is more important to the auditor than more officers in the field.” Lee said budget decisions were revenue-driven, and deep cuts were made in 2008. “We don’t have enough deputies, corrections officers, fire district personnel; cuts were made across the board.” He foresees no way to stop more cuts in 2009, and said the county is hurting financially in all areas, with no end in sight.

On March 3, a Pierce County Council committee held a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Pierce County Code, Auditor’s Animal Control Division at its conference room in Tacoma. A variety of fees are proposed ranging from $50 to $500, in many scenarios where no fees currently exist.

Liability insurance/surety bonds are also likely, ranging from $250,000 for “potentially dangerous animals” to $500,000 for “dangerous animals.” Of significance is a change that includes formerly excluded animals — livestock. Sections 16.08.010 permit “liability for injury to stock by dogs.” And 16.08.020 reads, “Dogs injuring stock may be killed.” Under the amended ordinance, livestock are also protected against failure to provide adequate care, abandonment, and use of animals in illegal activity.

At the end of the hearing, the committee voted unanimously to send the proposed revisions to the full council with a “do pass” recommendation. It goes before the full council at an April 15 hearing. Lee expects the revised code to pass, after which time it will go to the county executive for signature. If that office has no revisions or objections and signs it within the 10-day period, Lee said it will most likely go into effect immediately, possibly by May 1.