Update: Owner of shot pit bulls faces $1,000-plus in fines

| Pets | Safety | West Seattle news | Westwood

We just talked with Don Jordan, executive director of the Seattle Animal Shelter, to find out what will happen to the owner of the two pit bulls shot by police in Westwood last week, as well as what will happen to the one that survived. Jordan confirms the dogs’ owner has a history with animal-law enforcement, but not involving the same two dogs from this incident. At the very least, though, the owner will be given citations that Jordan says will total more than $1,000 in fines — for violations including allowing a dog to menace/bite, allowing a dog to roam, and expired tags (neither of the dogs had a current license). Once the city investigation is concluded within a week or so – Jordan says they have two witnesses left to interview – the case will be sent to prosecutors for review to see if any criminal charges are warranted. If not, Jordan says he still has an “administrative process” he can trigger to determine whether or not the surviving dog would have to be returned to the owner. (Previous coverage: Original report the night it happened; followup with more details from the police report; update last night from the man who was attacked, along with his Chihuahua.)

ALS March 3, 2008 (10:58 am)

Whether or not the surviving dog would be returned to the owner?! Are you kidding me? People like this should not be allowed to own dogs, as he has clearly demonstrated he is incapable of, or unwilling to care for them.

Loree March 3, 2008 (11:39 am)

I agree with ALS. This dog’s owner doesn’t sound like s/he has enough of a sense of personal responsibility to adequately care for a pet rock, let alone another life form.

SA March 3, 2008 (2:05 pm)

So more than $1000 for killing a dog, and only $500 for Rabbi Ephraim Schwartz’ killing of the pedestrian on Admiral? It is amazing how people value pets more than human life sometimes.

SageK March 3, 2008 (3:15 pm)

SA-
the pit bulls didn’t kill the dog.
The guy with his dog who was attack wrote in to WSB and said that other being sore his dog was fine.
.
So the fine has nothing to do with the guy allowing his dog to kill something. It was to do with him being an irresponsible owner.
.
But I’m with you ALS and Loree he shouldn’t get that dog back. If only there was a way to ban him from ever owning a pet again.

OP March 3, 2008 (3:44 pm)

SA, that’s a fair and reasonable comment. The Rabbi and the dog owner also have something in common: They’re repeat offenders who’ll likely repeat despite the fines. The real crime is how much the rest of us tolerate these fools.

Mikev2.0 March 3, 2008 (4:20 pm)

I believe Ephraim received more punishment than just financial penalties…

JoB March 3, 2008 (4:42 pm)

Maybe the dog owner should have to work in a dog shelter for the rest of his life… ok maybe not the rest of his life.. but a very long time or go to jail.

we really need to put some teeth in the pet laws…

and we need laws to keep repeat offenders from owning dogs…

and we need laws to shut down backyard puppy mills that feed fighting rings…

and we need….

i think i will go hug my dogs now:(

barmargia March 3, 2008 (5:06 pm)

The Rabbi only received a financial penalty, community service and loss of license for 2 years.

iloveapbt March 3, 2008 (6:54 pm)

This is what we need in all of the US:

Parliament passes law on dangerous dogs
Published: 22 Nov 07 17:58 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/9180/
.
The Swedish parliament has passed a new law giving police extended powers to crack down on dangerous dogs and their owners.
.
In extreme cases, police will be authorized to ban people deemed unsuitable from owning dogs.
.
Over the last year, Swedish authorities have received a total of 2,300 dog-related complaints. Around 65 percent of these concerned attacks by dogs on humans or animals.
.
Details of the new law were announced on Thursday by Agriculture Minister Eskil Erlandsson, who pointed out that the vast majority of Sweden’s 730,000 dogs were exceptionally well-behaved.
.
“But unfortunately there are some people who are incapable of bringing up their dogs properly, who use dogs as weapons and train them to be dangerous,” he said.
.
Under the new law police will be able to intervene at an early stage to remove dangerous dogs from their owners.
.
But the biggest change consisted of the news that any owners deemed inappropriate were to be barred from owning dogs in the future.
.
I contacted the Swedish government and they sent me a link. Unfortunately, the law hasn’t been translated into English yet and it may not be.
.
Here’s a link to the page about the new law:
.
http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/8023/a/84483
.
I have a friend who is Swedish and I asked her to translate some of the information from the committee discussions for me. I typed it while she talked over the ‘phone, so it’s a bit rustic but I think you’ll get the gist:
.
What is the reason for this proposition?

The reason for this proposition is to protect people and reduce the problems that arise when dogs are not properly looked after.

The proposition has suggestions for a new law on how dogs and cats should be looked after in comparison to the existing law of 1943:459.

There was an addition to the law in 2000, no.537 regarding registration and identification (“marking”) of dogs.

It is unclear whether the existing law is working or not because the good owners will register and mark their dogs. Licensing compliance sits at 80%. The identification amendment is useful because if a dog gets involved in illegal or unpleasant activity the police can track the dog’s owner.

Someone under 15 years of age is not responsible for a dog and cannot be penalized under this new law.

The police are responsible for taking care of complaints and picking up stray dogs because they are on duty 24 hours per day and they’re trained to handle dogs.

One of the main features of the law is that the police have much more power to deal with dangerous dog owners..

Decisions about what to do with the owner in violation of the law are up to the police. This could involve prison, a fine, removal of the dog for a period of time or permanently.

If the police have seized a dog because the owner has abused their right to own one, the owner loses all rights to the dog. The owner has no contact with the dog and no information about where the dog stays, etc. It is entirely up to the police to sort things out and decide if the dog should be returned to the owner, sold, given away or destroyed.

To stop a dog that might be dangerous but hasn’t attacked anyone, if on talking with the owner the police decide a warning isn’t sufficient, then they are allowed to seize the dog.

The police mandate includes biting, attacking, or threatening people or pets. They also become involved when there is nuisance behaviour such as running at large.

How will this new law lead to fewer problems with dogs?

The police can now be involved earlier and penalties are much harsher than previously.

It is expected that dogs and cats will be looked after in such a way that it will prevent them from doing harm to people or animals. Most people are already doing this.

The police can act even if there has not been an attack. If the owner doesn’t comply with police instructions he/she can go to prison for up to one year or pay a fine.

Police also have the power to ban irresponsible owners from owning dogs for a period of time.

The purpose of expanding police power relative to dog owners is to save expensive legal proceedings and to save time so problems can be addressed promptly and effectively.

What is a dangerous dog?

A dangerous dog is usually a dog which attacks people or other animals. Even dogs that could possibly pose a danger to people and animals are included, although they may not have bitten or attacked anyone.

Does the government want to disallow certain races of dogs?

No, the government feels it is not possible to identify a dog of a particular race and say that this dog is automatically dangerous. However, it is important to do something so that people and animals are being more protected.

It is unacceptable that people should be afraid of being attacked by aggressive dogs.

Why do they not want to forbid certain races of dogs?

They could not possibly prove that a certain race of dog is dangerous. All races of dogs can be taught to behave badly and this can also come about because of irresponsible breeding problems. The government feels that the main reason for all of this bad behaviour from dogs is because the owner is not responsible enough to bring up a well behaved dog.

It is not believed that forbidding a certain race of dog will cut down on these problems because it is certain owners which are a problem, not races of dogs.

In many of the countries that have enacted restrictions on races of dogs, the bad owners have started to get other races and have raised them to be just as dangerous as the ones that are forbidden. In some countries because of this, they are forbidding more and more and more races of dogs. That’s why it’s a ridiculous idea.

Does the government want to start licences for dog owners?

No, because that means you need to have a card to own a dog and we don’t think that is appropriate. That is unfair to the majority of people who look after their dogs well and don’t cause any problems. If somone has been banned from owning a dog, it might be an idea if they qualify in future that they should maybe go through some training, etc at that time.

What is a fighting dog?

A fighting dog is a dog that has been acquired and trained, regardless of race, for only one purpose – that it will be successful in fights with other dogs.

What will happen now?

The government gave Proposition 2006/2007:126 to the governing body to check out and decide.

November 22, 2007 the government agreed with everything brought to them and decided that the law will go into force on January 1, 2008. The existing law will be in force until that date.