PRPSC PKT 03-13-2006
.
.
~.
City of Federal W 4Y
CJTY COUNCIL
PARKS, RECHEATION, AND J~UBLlC SAFETY COMMITTEE
Monday, March] 3,2006 City Hall
6:00p.m. 11yJebosConfcrence Room
L CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBIJC FORUM
3. COMMISSJON COMMENTS
4. APPROV AL OF FEBRUARY] 3,2006 SUMMAI{Y
5. COMMITrEE BUSJNESS
A. Community Center 2% for ArL Program Presentation Faber
B. Community Centcr Update Jnformation Demming
C. West llylebos Wetlands Park: Boardwalk 85% Design Action Sanders
l). Dangerous Dogs Ordinance Action Richardson
Ii MOl) with the Friends of the ]]ylebos for the Invasive Weed
Removal Program Action Wang
F. Policc Officcr "Over-hiring" Program Action Wang
G. Interlocal Agrecment between the City of Federal Way and
Federa] Way School District No.2] 0 for School Rcsource Officers Action Kirkpatrick
6. PENDING ITEMS
. Community Center/Update on Business Plan - April
. Park Naming Policy/Thompson Property
7. NEXT MEETING - April 1 0,2006 6:00pm .- Hylebos Conference Room
8. AI).JOlJRNMJ~N'J'
.. .-----------.---------....
2006 Committee Members: Staff:
.Jeanne lJurbidge, Chair Donna Hanson, Director
Deputy Mayor Jim Ferrell Mary Jaenicke, Administrative Assistant JJ
Linda Kochmar 253-835-6901
-
"
.
City of Federal Way
City Council
PARKS, RECREATION, & PlJULIC SAFETY COUNCIL COMMrlTEE
Monday February 13, 2006
6:00 p.rn.
SUMMARY
In attendance: Council CommiLlcc mcmbcrs Chair Jeanne Burbidge, DepuLy Mayor Jim Ferrell, Linda Kochmar,
Dcrek Matheson, Intcrim City Manager, Anne Kirkpatrick, Director of Public Safety, Amy Jo Pearsall, Assistant
City Attorncy, Donna Hanson, Director PRCS, B Sanders Park Planner, Mary Jaenicke, Administrative Assistant.
Guests: Charlie Demming, Hcery International, Ed MacLcod & Laurcn Perry, Mac! ,eod Reckord; Barbara Reid,H.
David Kaplan; Citizens,
Chair Burbidge called the meeting to order at 6:06p.m.
]'UBLIC FORUM
H. David Kaplan: Mr. Kaplan stated that he is appalled at the condition of French Lake Park. The garbage cans are
full, the grass is gonc, and there are branches all over the park. Mr. Kaplan said it looks as if we want the dog park
to fail. French Lake Park needs a lot of attention now. Mr. Kaplan has met with Deputy Mayor Ferrell, and Intcrim
City Manager Derek Matheson regarding thc Banncrs that wcrc hanging at Celebration Park. The Historical Society
now has thc banners. Barbara Reid, Bob Kellogg and Mr. Kaplan each kept a banner. He sLated that Mr. Matheson
would look for funding to make ncw banners to bc placcd insidc Lhc ncw Community Center.
Barbara Reid: Ms. Rcid statcd that she was opposed to French Lake Park becoming an offlcash dog park. But
when it was voted in, she chose to support it, because she supports parks. Simple fixes that should have becn madc
last summer were not done. The condition of the park is a serious problem. The City has a commitment and hasn't
.. honored it. Donna Hanson, PRCS Director stated that she has been working with a dog owncr committee, and stated
that they are working on a work plan. It is too early in the season for thc grass to be re~seeded. Ms. Hanson staled
that they were hcsitant to make big changes to the park since the long-term plan for the park is unknown. She did say
that if French Lake Park becomes a permanent off leash Dog Park, then changes would bc done. She also stated that
shc would look into why the garbage is not being taken care of. Mr. Kaplan emphasized that this type of information
needs to be provided to the public. Thc public needs to know that issues aL Frcnch Lake Park are being worked on.
COMMISSlON COMMKNT
NOlle
API~nOV AL OF SUMMARY
Council mcmbers Ferrell and Kochmar moved to accept the January meeting minutes as written. Motion
passed.
BlJSINESS ITEMS
Community Ccnter lJpdate
.- .. Mr. Demming prescnLed the Community Status report for January 2006. The change orders to date to Absher
construction are $150,869_00. The change order amount includes the kitchen equipment and installation. The soft
costs have not changed since last month. The schedule has progressed, and the majority of the planned work has
been completed. The gymnasium slab has been poured_ The community wing is 60% complete. The slab on the "
bottom of the lap pool has been poured. Thc pool piping is completc. They havc dealt with thc pool piping
installation, and have increased attention in that area to ensure that the project is done correctly. They have
negotiated with Absher on cost relatcd issues. Absher is on their third project managcr for the Community Center.
Mr. Dcmming stated that it is unusual to have that many changes for a project this size. The new manager has been
catching up on all of the past issues relating to the project, and they are dealintt'with the cost issues at this time. The
scheduled inspection for the steel in Canada has been resolved. Thcy are hiring an inspector trom Canada that will
inspcct thc steel, test the sLcel and the coating that will go on the steel for the nataLorium area. The projeet team has
also selected thc climbing wa II contractor. Mr. Demming stated that he would be available to give tours of the site
on Tucsday and Thursday aftcrnoons.
I'ARKS, REClU~ATION, & PUBLIC SAFETY COUNCIL COMMITTEE .
Monday February 13, 2006 Summar)'
)>a~e 2
Lakota and Sacaiawea Parks Master Plan
Ms. Sanders stated that staff hired the firm of MacLeod Reckord to prepare the master plans for the redevelopment
of Lakota and Sacajawca Parks. Several public meetings were held; the athletic organizations were encouraged to
attend these meetings. The consensus from these meetings was that we needed to starL over. Both sites have severe
problems with drainagc on the fields, and as a result of that they have gotten dangerous. Many different alternatives
were developed, and they have come up with plans that everybody is in agrcement on. Ms. Sanders introduced Ed
MacLeod and Lauren Perry from MacLeod Reckard. Mr. MacLeod presentcd the master plan for both parks_ Mr.
MacLeod stated that it has been a long process, but also a very valuable process. It allowed them to develop a plan
Lhat addresses most pcoples conccrn. The Parks Commission was very involved and very helpful throughout the
process. Most importantly they all had the sense that the necd is growing for these kinds of Parks in Federal Way. It
became very important to try and maximize the athletic facilities potcntial in each of them. This has led them to
plans that exceeded the expectations in terms of costs for the project, but in the long term the master plan is in the
direction that the community wants to go in. Some of the items that both plans inelude are: public gathering areas,
athletic events, a multi-use path system, parking, restrooms, children's play areas, basketball court. Sacajawea will
inelude tennis courts, and Lakota will include volleyball courts. It will feel like you're walking into a park setting.
Me MacLeod stated that synthetic fields arc now half the price of astro turf. Thc cost of maintaining the field in the
long run is less. W c will offseL Lhe cost in about 10 years. Ms. Sandcrs stated that the synthetic fields we currently
havc are groomed once a monLh, instead of every day that they're played on. The striping is repainted one to two
times per year instead of everyday. This is a big savings for our maintenance crew. The cost estimate for Lakota
Park is $12,644,417.00, and Lhc cost estimate for Sacajawea Park is $11,041,994.00. Deputy Mayor Ferrell
movcd to adopt the Lakota and Sacajawea Park Master Plan as prepared and place this item before Council
on March 7, 2006. Council member Kochmar seeonded. Motion passed.
Proposed Ordinance to Criminalize Drue-Related Loiterine, Non-felony Counterfcitine, Non-felonv
Vehicular Assault and Hit and Run, Pedestrian
Ms. Pearsall reported that there have been several instances where a crime or an activity took place that wasn't really
a crime because it did not meet the standards for a felony. The Police Department were not able to contact
somebody, or the prosecutors were not able to charge a person because it did not meeL the element,> of a crime that
are currently on the books. This Ordinance is an attempt to create some code language so that activitics that should
be a crime will be covered. Council member Kochmar moved recommend approval of the proposed Ordinance
and forward to full Council for first reading at the February 21, 2006 City Council meeting. Ueputy Mayor
Ferrell seconded. Motion passed.
)'roposed Police Cadet and Reserve Officer })roerams
ChiefKirkpatTick, statcd that the issue at hand is the concept of being able to use volunteers in the police department
in one of two capacities: either through a Cadet Program or through a Reserve Officers program. The most
functional Police Cadet Program that thcy are aware of is out of Olympia Police Department. In the Cadet Program
they arc not commissioned officers. They are civilians, and they are like interns. Majority of the participants are
college kids, and young adults that are interestcd in a law enforcement career. They serve many functions; vacation
home checks, removing abandoned vehicles, picking up found property, assist in crime prevention and presentations.
The Olympia Police DepartrnenL Cadets are employees. They receive a salary between $11.00 and $14.00 per hour.
They arc part time and do not receive benefits. The Cadet Program would have a potential conflict with the City of
-- Federal Way Police Support Officers (PSO) staff members. Mi:my oflhe types of jobs that a Cadct would do, are
also the same types of jobs that the PSO's would do. The good thing about a Police Cadet program is that they are
not commissioned and thcre is not any training or screening involved. It is a good field program for people to sce if
Lhcy really want to become Law EnforcemenL Officers. In the Reserve Program, the Reservists are Commissioned "
Officers. They become fully Commissioned Officers when they are called into service. They have full Police
powers, but only when they corne in to work. Regular Officers always have full Police power. The current local
departments that have Reserve programs are: Seattle, King County, Des Moines, Fife, Milton and Tumwater. Chief
Kirkpatrick has had personal experience of a Reserve Officer Program when she was the Chief of Police in
Ellensburg. They have a very long-standing program there. She stated you cOlfld find thriving reserve programs in
smaller departments. The good thing about Rescrve Programs is that you have a fully Commissioned Officer that is
out in the field in a complimcntary role to the other commissioned staff. The negative is when you cross into
supplanting police. This is where you will draw your unfair labor practices A Police Officer goes through thc police
academy and they receive approximately 770 hours of training. Reserve Officers have to go through a training
course required by state law of 224 hours of training_ The negativc associated with that is we don't send the reserve
officer to the academy for thaL training, we have to do the 224 hours of training_ This causes paying overtime, or
taking officers of the sLrect to put on an academy. There are times when agencies will pull together and puL on an
.
}> ARKS, RECRKA TJON, &PUBUC SAFETY COUNCIL COMMJTTEE
Monday February 13, 2006 Summary
J)age 3
academy. Once the Reserve Officers are trained, they bccome commissioned in a limited eapacity -thcy eannot ride
by themselves. Whcn a training officer or reserve officer is put with another officer, they view that as one officer
unit. Chief Kirkpatrick sLated that she likes both programs, and thinks thaL both can be successful, but the timing is
not right at this time. She would like to stabilize her staffing. When that is stahle Council can choose which
direction they would likc her to go. The Rescrve Officcrs arc volunteers, and arc not paid. The cost to us is
managing the program, which is brokcn down as follows: $ 1,08 1.00 per person for the testing application process,
$1,100.00 for thc equipment, and the total background investigation cost is $1,735.40 and then a Lieutenant will
ovcrsee the wholc program so therc is a cost for that.
PENDING ITEMS
Dangerous Dogs.
ANNOIJNCli:MJ~NTS - Council member Burbidgc encouraged people to complete the Parks, Recreation and Open
Space Plan Survey
Ms. Pearsall will look into thc issue of the tidelands and allowing people to walk across them.
NEXT MEETING - March 13,20066:00 p.m. in the HyJcbos Conference Room
ADJOURNMENT - MCeling adjourned at 7:35p.m.
,
.
.
. 5.L-
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
)) ARKS, RECREA'I'ION ANI> CULTlJRAL SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
Datc: March 7, 2006
To: PRHSPS Council Committee
From: I3 Sanders, Park Phuming& Development Coordinator ~
Via: Derek Matheson, Interim City Mana~
Subject: Wcst lIylcbosWetJands Park: Boardwalk 85% Design
-Ib..-... /o.tl..i. ...........1>. .....A....., b.~j t. U " j .to I IHt.U A ~.....,.~.o....~.6...t.il.I>. .II.I..t..
Policy Question:
Should the 85% design of the boardwalk at West lIylebos Wetlands Park be accepted, and the
direction established continue to produce 100% design and construction documents'?"
Backeround:
Anchor Environmental was hired to perform an assessment of the existing boardwalk in 2004.
The boardwalk was approximately 12 years old at the time They found that although the
boardwalk decking is in fairly good condition, the foundation is inpoor condition, with sections
estimated to have a rernaining life of two to five yem's.
The City asked Anchor Environmental to design a new bom'dwalk with a longer life than the
existing one with wood foundation. Anchor, working with KJ>FF Engineers, has developed a
system with two different non-wood foundation types, suitable for different area...'> in the wetland_
All demolition and construction work will be pel-formed fi'om the existing boardwalk,
maintaining almost the same alignment, to minimize any environmental impacts.
The material proposed for the decking surface is Trex decking, a wood and recycled plastic
composite lumber product. This has a longer life expectancy than wood, and is more slip-
resistant.
Cost:
The cost to replace the entire boardwalk (approximately % mile) is almost $1.3 million. The
high cost can be attributed to several factors: the demolition and disposal of the existing
boardwalk and foundation, the specialized construction techniques needed to work in the
wetland, the unique foundation systems that do not use wood, and the composite decking
material.
I
Funding in plaee at this time includes:
$2S0,OOO----State appropriation/grant
$253,OOO---JAC
$ 72,000-U.S. appropriation/grant ".
We also will have City funds available from the Real Estate Excise Tax_ This money is
accumulating until we need it.
Schcdule:
Construction is planned II)r sumlner 2007, assuming sufficient funding is in place.
r _\
.
Olltions:
J. C:omplete design, with direction established by the 85% documents.
2. Request design revisions.
Staff Recommendation:
Accept the direction established in the 85% drawings and continue to seek additional funding.
Committee Recommendation:
Forward option __ to the full City Council for approval on April 4, 2006.
[I - .. ... .. ..
6:::~~~r CO~M~J~n;:o::::e:~~~~~lii;I~~I;j,it'~~!~~::~ful~:I;lilliii::I:;~'
-
'.
02-
- - - -
~~) ~
~ ---.,---".----~\-- /'--- ~ '"
..-/ * --------'--=---1J~ ~ >. -~ '
a.. 7... >- --,- OJ 0 CO ~ c:
o r'~ ,0: .- :::s. _ 0
en ~ CO '~-:6 ~ I g ~ E lD :> ~'~
c:::= N c<) 3 z <II
o CO .::; '- m _ om ",:Jl
,-.. 0.... IV Cl >- , v 0 ~
~ ~ ">. C /.0 >. ooQ) ~ 10... u g.
L E lU ..2: 0 ,,!! ~
Q) ,n - """ ..Q ..,:> _ <C lU tD QJ c:,~
- VJ -- 'v ro d. '" :> if) "> '- N ..,... '" r.
-- ~ '" ro --- u 0 eV\J I\I!UP!^ u - IV :> g IV _ '-' g- :i:-
......, '-J 1tV '- C C IV lU :> <0 . -0 0 ", <.:: ~
I c *C J.-- <J) :J 2 0 IV (f) :0 <C .- ~:2 ~ :: "'" 3 ~
'" - t5 <J) E 0 0 -c::J iti ~ E :;; S ,;, ~ v LL :.: 2-
+oJ \,V - "7"'t <J) > <J) 00 --1 0 ~ m u.. <0 x _ (') _~ ~ _'!! 0.
'"" ---. (/) ....... lU ...... 0 <<I 00 U 0. E
en +oJ ~ s:: 0 rn """ ex,(/), coo'" ill ~ ~'~' ,0, ~ '" -<Ii
/1\ /1\ 0 '- ..... 'v "-../ rn -- OJ Q. N .... (') 3: E
....., ....., <I> (L c:> W <D ~ I <f) lU ,c(') 0 u.., 3: __"'!
>:> m OJ I · "-'0 ," u ~og(L~~3: -:::/-1z '~~
> > <1>. ;'J <C__ \ I
- -' : i 1-" _ ~ _
S 3^V HJ.6 >- ~
-. '" 0::
3:u
-c:
.c~~
'"'<II""
---i?--- g ~ ;;;
~ UJ u.. a.. AWPU g (J)9
-.,---, 3 '~~ -~_______.._ _ _'_-__ ____..__ ____ __...
f- 0 :;", '"
VJ Q) :u
::I: :::... -g ~
f- ~:.J "t" ~_
~ ~.:2 tr) _~
.., 0 -, 'It: C> <lJ "t
----"T-- VJ ~ Q ~ -0\ Va
.l::: <u '0 Q:i4 ;u-
- .Ql ~ I..J <:> Q. l"\j -I'
Q """ '- - 0\ ~:~ _____
\1) ." l"\j l"\j,1ii ',';<lJ
~ Q} Q. <:> CJ_~J
(f) a l"\j
/
.f ~~/~UnOg {j)9
J- Ir~[f, .~ ~---
,--,--' ,~:!: i ~ ~ '-_____ _
:fU ~ ~ ~ } c
,~ ; ~ ,..... (Q -tJ -., ,~
'..- 0.:. '" ~ 0 ~ '---
.::: 0 * <:> ::J'~'~~--_
'" .. - 0\ 0 I^ a.. CO
',.,.. <II ' co VI ...
:~'. I..J "t" 0 CD _
",'I'll... '- c> ;z: .... ..a
":0 · ... ~ - -- - , E
"l:':: · ... a.:. l"\j \()
';j · · · · · 0\ ~-Gl---4L._ "
~'~ · · '" -::.. ::s =
h ~_ 'v
,"'" .,,- J: Cd u..
:.~ ::''';';''.'.",' , , ." , .t}',;
_u ...-~.. --,^-- AJepUfl09(f}9 ~--- "-~;:;(;;:;~)9------r
c ~
- QI en a..
E '" 0 CO
QI ->0 ..a a.. 0') /'--....
- ---ill' ~ '__,'--
I.1J OJ "" 0 ~___,
lJ ~ ~ en 'It:0\ _
t; ~ ~"tJ ~~
- a:; :>--, ... C ""0
::I: If) '-..a.. ~ ......
f- .- -tJ CO 0.: '"
ClO c:- ..., _ 0\ '_ _
I --. ~ g en..., f)l
(/) co CD CD '
-- ;z: => =>,
"--.,. >;. '>~
\() ," ' ' '''''''
- [~L___ ------ ------_____ ____ ~.:..o.:..____ ._________,
AJI!PU(lOfl (})9
-- C-3'
---- -- -r-r-T-- -- I
<Il
>.~
n OJ r
'O~OJ
OJ-- ~ <(
o OJ'O :s:
c ._ c: .
>wrn
z: e 0>C! W
0 <5
r= 0>' "'-eN ~
"''''' ~ mE '1
'-'> I-
ZlLJ -~ ~I
~-' ~e:s: :.:;(1)
-o:(l..o.J ~ 0:::
"'0 l'! o.
02'" OU" <(
t::J~, .0::( --u..~ D-
"'Zo- -51t~ (I) "<t
_....2'" on 0
>c::>:.... 0 0
~g~ Z::'::t> >-Ze> N
~ ~"":::; <(:)Z ';!. a:
-,"" y: :S:I-:>:: W
~ ----' u. rn
<5 2<2; <( 0 -'W.- 0 0
'" =r"L- ~~~
>< 15 , ,::=rL:4==,-!_-=--f. 3; W '<t I-
u 0 ..- U
g '" 0'::' II) WI-I: 0
co z <( 2 0 0<( .=-:
C> ~ 0 ill D- wj::Z W W
z '" 0 lL<(J W I-
w ~ ,---'--L-_ I m l-
e> /~/ 0:: "WQ I <(
~ >< ~--~- r/ C 0 U) D- ~ZU (I) 0
"> ..-. l >-
w
l ~-- ~ 1-- U)
C ~ a::: Z
0
0.- 0
0- t ~ Cl. i=
z <> ~ <(
~ ~ ., Ul
-- -- - -- 'j l(! 0
W2 Z
~ a:::
~ f=- ::J
0
<5 ----' LL
z y: <(
>< .:5~ I-
u ~ --' U
g <( <(
'" v. 3= 0_ 0
<5 ~~ >-
~ z ..-. C') 1-- ...J
>< ~~ I 0::: LL
'" 3 r-
::l 11::. <( I 0::
'" 0
co co "'", ill
m t--- n__ Z
E~ 0 a..
0 f=- a..
j:;';! .-' · 1 u 0
0::: " ~t on Ld I-
0 'j Ul
Cl_ ffi ag 5 I
0.- ... ~g ~ I-
.w ~
~ ~m
(f)
W )8f1lJlllllSl/ldIlS )l!IUJfllllSlIIlS Z
q:::v> 0
>--, .'; i=
z <(
I ----'
'" <( >
I U ill ::.::
r- 0:: ...J a:
~ >- ill <(
-EI> f- -.. ----- -- -~ 0 D-I-
g~ j~ru JIllllS~.ldIlS 3111UJfIlIl SOlIS ~~
Z
u I "" <( Z~
.... ...i I- :)w
C> '" 0>'1- Z
~~ z I:J~ tu~
<( ~~ ~ 00 y: 0 ci:i
f!" ffi . -, ----' _J i=
U. <( ~a.. II) ...,
~ "! ~5~ <.> i 0 II)w w U>
3= 0
.... .... ..~J h-< ~~OO Ii ill 00:: 0::: &
<( 0 0
f=- \ili~ _IS iil Q 0::: U) rn:.:: 0
.<<> 'j15 '_ <( W-.J ~
0:: ~ -'<( <(
<( i ~ l! ~;:'j ': .>: <.> 0 ...J fS .. Z
u.. OJ ~ o * Q ~.
0 I- a:: ill
h II) <( U ~(I):S:""
I ~ 0 Wo Z
.... U -,(/)
a::: 0:: ~rn ill w(ill)
0 <( Iii a: 9> W
0_ 0 W <(W'O::
0.- ~ U. WrOO
=:> m <( w CI-WO
Ull(! ...J Z a: (/)....u.<(
I- <(
~ wz 0
0::
--,,~.. ~ , j:.= a..
in
_J ~
<(
U
0.- W
>- -' 0:::
f- 4' W
--:o~ 0:::(1) z
I 1-1- :s:
z :.::z 'J, 0
-,w f:
0 <(2 N
t-:-" :s:W <0...,
..... a:
<---> :.:;> (ON W
~ LU 0:::0 ~~ a..
Ul <(0:: ...... _1- 0
Cr"~ g o a.. ....(') a::
ID~ ~b a.
::<
" ill I-
;,: -'-' Z
(I) W
0 2 0
a. J <(
a:: I- --,
:::> <( 0
D- O <(
~I HIS \ld~Vr fiMp'0!-LOlI<:l7.0~OILOII!l7.0~()\A\fM-l\f).j:'(n"- "()-. 11')-OOM....."nn~"" 41^.........~...,............ .............. '..... ....~~_ .~~ _~__
.
.,
>>"-
.D :Ii=
z vc91
o m-- ~
~~ y~~ <
~~ ~w~ ~
~w L..(J) - W
~ a~N ~
W~~ ~3~ ~
t{ !i: I- "3 UJ I;! w J-
~';jz co 53: oi ~U)
~ 2: ~ 0"- () ;;:- a... 1".- 0::'
~ '.-"):z: "{} ~aJ ~ ~
Cl;:JQ ..lL~ I-~ ---1 n...
~<-:i. ~lL5 ~o -c.( en-..t
~,"" OlLc: -d'j 3= 0 C)
<D~lS Z~m Cl 0
~~Lo- 0::: ~:?Cl I{) N
<( <(--1~ ~ (t
0- ci S:t--~ lL :=g
ill .- -,wu: 0 0
o <(5:0 I{) I-
~'" Cl W (t._ ~ 0
"' w en W I- >-
"f- 0 0<0- .. 0
oJ. ;;<; " n-:: lL wi==z tu Ui
~ ~ g ,l 0 0 lL <(:J W ~'
"-- l ffi Sl, >' 0._ (f) (t ZWO ",I", <(
::~ ~: ~ z lL _Z~_ ~~__ 0
~ 1'" V) 0
;> ~2u:: I-
"t w <{
-' ..'it .._~ 0
~ t ~...,' (L<n
~ " ':z: Z
:.,~g 0 ::J
- .', c' ~ 25 0
X ~D .2: u..
!>' ~; ~ 8 ~ <( cr
..... "- ...,,1 If! '" ~ W
- b <( 'll "",-,
g; ~ ~ ~ ~ :d Q
~ I -..... 0 ~ ---
~ ~, n:: 0 0
'" , <( (1 Z
g:: 7 0 >- 0
2:; r- m 0..- ---='"3 ~ ~
o Cl I <(
~ w
'" t- z 0
~ ~ I
t ---- t- I-
~ 1 ~ ~
~ ~
~ o~ Z
g tI) E5 ~~ Q
8 ' -~ I-
g ~ 0_ z JlIIU:J/llllSlfJ.lf1S JllIUJIUUSans ><{
<D Cl
~ Z W
~ 6 ~
~ ~~ ~ w
ili ,. ==" ~____q_ _____ 0 ~
7 'i' 0 JlIIUJOlll SH1dffi 11l1U:J/llUSans Z <(
r-..a, --' <{ lLl-
<( G) z enz
~. S::' ~ ~ << 0 Ow
0-- 0.... <!o lil'-l <= - _ z;:E
>- 0:- l'j~ ~ I- :)w
I- t I' -,j 1'8 a :os () I-~
fO ;:, fOlg "'- <( W W --1 ..
I ~ Ii ~ liG- ~ 3= if) 5:a. ~ g
Z el :q '" gg c> Cl ~ en ~ ~ C)
l.', <( m ., <..> ~ J 0::: .....J OLL LL'"
~ --' 1< so S' ~::; ~I' / <( <{ at ~ 0 OJ
<.5 0...... .'l .'l i!'1II DC / 0 > W ---' 0 <(
'" Q- / rn > ---'<( <(:>
S< r. --' // >-5: z:>
6>, .J ~ dr Cl 9 IO 'it: 0 ~
<> << f- -- -- J W LL I-(t UJ - <(
-. <>; 0:: - f- <{ en <( 0 I- ~
<< ::J :::;; <( r=-:3 0:: 0 UJo:z <(en <'>
l" iil ::> (). i! ::.. 0 ill 5:atW gUJ:i.~
<D b' I.'op.! i" 0.... ..,y > cr: UJ
N I ~ 'f fOo . g'" a. ~ W UJ ---' <( UJ (t
. ~ f "'''i15 .....\3 ~ <{ L: lL ~:r00
l.', ,.;;:; Jiill! Vl U <( W - I- wO
r= c> '" Jij ...'" z a: en"<tlL<(
. I- m l..-- ... -iU 0::: 0... ,-
2 ~ .:,~--~ ~~ 6::~ ~
51 ---...; /? 0 -..;. i
~ ~ _1 // 6
~ ~ // :E
3 ~ <( en
::> . ..,.. -= J Cl ---' (t
"",' /, -- =:J>' - UJ
.~ - <(
C ' ~ ,yw z
.,: " 23 I-~ ~
;5 ".... ~w "<t 0
~ ~g " ~ ;;i:?: ~ i:
F s>l:! ,1 f- ~W ';'''1 (t
z ~ '" ~> <0"" W
8 - ~ 92'" I 0::0 N"" n.
~ ~ ~ 'j~ <(g: .-.:-r,: 0
>- "<5 g i:'i'" ~ S!::;: ~Clz ~
..:c ~~ ffi _ ~.I ............... 1.1-1_...... ~
::> ~IS ~ l'.4:::'lg F: .. <(0 I-
~'" .::~ <:: >'1m a C) w ---'" ---' Z
~ W w
_:-5 C 5 (/1 0:;; ~
~ .- & ?: ~
:J <( 0
lL 0 <(
CI I U~ \/.......H\'r flMn.~tl-1 /\007("I'f,O\ I n007f\hl)\ I \IAA .'-1'1...1'\.1-""". 1- 1"""-' . J~'" .....................L......' ....................., -~. . .~~~.. ~~~ _.._~~. . ~ _ ~~~~ .~.~. ........
~
w
0 I--
W "Z ~
I-- Zo '::JI:.en
e::: 0- 0:
0 -I-- <(
a.. 1-0 a..
..J a....J <{W en ;3
<{ ~~ :::>- Oe::: 0 0
W W~ 0- E >-Ze,::l N
.....10
c::: 1-1-- e:::1- IO .. Lu ::J <(:')z ';2 0:
<t: e:::~ !:!!~ ~ ~ .!2 ~ 5:1--52 w
z 0.....1 o..z -'w.. 11. lD
I 0..<( o.......l <!<{ (3 ~ ~::J E 0 ~~~ 0 0
0 o<! 0::_ I--
i= o..~ e>a:: w 1tI E::J W .... U
=>0 z~ a.. U 13 Em en WI--I: 0
<{ 00 OW 0 0<( .:..:
I- We::: ~e::: t-m -.J W li:: Q)::J.S: a.. wj::z w ill
W W<t: <!<! o~ .....Ie> j:: g..-c (.) 0 11.<(::> W I--
e> Q:;o -0 r:::> ~ ~ <: (/) ~ .~ 0: ..wo I <(
W I-m om a..z a.. ?;zo en 0
> e>~ Lu ::J ~ ~
v W I I zg <3 .g 0 ~
e:::
0 -/ z...J CI) 0: Q <::I;
Z U :)~
I- o..w w >-
Zr ::2 a::: z
W 01- <( a::: a::: w
en ;::11. Z W W -l
Z ..Z <X:o Z CO lL a..
Ww !lil- 0 a 0 <(
wl-
I Or .. e> ~ ::2 ::2 0::: :E
a..e> ~~z :E -low
e:::_
~~ 0 owO 8 <( 3: ~
Z '<t
0 ze:::o (J) (J) >
i= I- m
<( en Q)
I-- . LL
en S
Q)
lij
0
UJ
0
'::JI:.
0:
<(
0.1--
enz
Ow
Z:2:
<(w
-'u
tu:') en
5:0. U) M
U)W W ~
00: 0: <0
lD'::JI:. 0 (J)
w-, 0 ~
-'<( <(
f:S: .. Z "
o 'It Q ?:(
I-- a:: w
en <( 0 ~(f):S:M
Wo z
:s: III w ow~~
ill 0: g> w
w w<(wO:
:2: 11. I--IOO
<( W -I--WO
Z 0: (f)"<tu.<(
,
en
-' a::
~en W
Z
1--1-- :s:
'::JI:.Z '$ 0
-,w i:
<(~ N
:s:w 10M 0:
"<t .
'::JI:.> <oN W
0:0 C'!~ a..
<(0: ...... .1. 0
00. "<te,::l 0:
lD~ ,.z a..
W 5g I--
Z
U) W
0 ~ u
C-b a.. ::> <(
0: I-- ...,
:J <( 0
a.. 0 <(
IlHS Vd~vr fiMp'u. W99WPOU099l0\70\A VM -1~3a3:1~ :10- A..U:J"99l0PO\SQOI,\=)l uOSpl"epo wew:o~ !iDOl'Of: Jel"l
.
. ~.D
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 3, 2006
TO: Parks, Recreation and Public Safety Committee
VIA: Derek Mathcson, Interim City Manage~
FROM: Patricia A. Richardson, City Attorney prrr-
SUBJECT: Dangcrous Dogs Ordinance
----......--,~.__.~-,--~,._-_. _...'~_JW',~_._
PolicV Issues: Should the Council modify Federal Way City Codc, Chapter 4, Article IV
in regards to dangerous dogs?
Back2round: The enforcement mechanism rcgarding dangerous dogs was recently
brought to Couneil's attention as a result of an incident involving pit bulls. Council
directed Interim City Manager Matheson to provide a report and some options for
modifying the City Code. The attached Staff Report compares the enforcement methods
under State law, in the City and in other jurisdictions.
Olltions:
Option Qne. Direct Staff to prepare an ordinance modifying the City Code to increase the
fines and penalties for violations of the existing dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous
dogs definitions.
Option Two. Direct Staff to prepare an ordinance identifying certain breeds as dangerous
dogs or potentially dangerous dogs.
Option Thre~. Direct Staff to prepare an ordinance banning certain breeds of dogs and
grand fathering those dogs currently within the City.
Option Four. Do not modify the City Code.
Staff Recommendation:
Follow Council direction_ '.
~-\
----
,
Committee Recommendation:
Modify Federal Way City Code Chapter 4, Article IV according with option _' and
direct Staff to present the proposed modiiication at the April 10, 2006 Parks, Recreation
and Public Safety Council Committee Meeting; OR
Do not modify Federal Way City Code.
II APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE ACTION: II
.Jeanne Burbidge Deputy Mayor Ferrell Jack Dovey
Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member
K :\agndaitem\prps\2006\dangerous dogs 031306
-"
"
'D-'L
,
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Memorandum
DATE: March 2, 2006
TO: Parks, Recreation and Public Safety Committee
FROM: Patricia A. Richardson, City Attorney prtr
Jennifer Snell, City Staff Attorney ~
SUBJECT: Breed specific dangerous dog ordinances
~.,..~--
Council requested information to determine whether the City should consider modifying Federal
Way City Code ("FWCC"), Chapter IV to be more restrictive.
DISCUSSION
I. State Statute - Dangerous Dogs.
A. Definitions
1. Dangerous Dogs are any dog that:
a. Inflicts severe injury on a human being without provocation on public
or private property;
b. Kills a domestic animal without provocation while the dog is off the
owner's property; or
c- Has been previously found to be potentially dangerous.
2. Potentially dangerous dog classification requires three events:
a. Injury inflicted on a human;
b. The owner received notice of such; and
c. The dog again aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of
humans.
3. Exception to classifications:
a. Threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person who, at the time
was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises
occupied by the owner ofthe dog; or
b. Person was tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or has, in th~
past, been observed or reported to have tormented, abused, or assaulted
the dog;
c. Person was committing or attempting!o commit a crime.
R Owner requirements for possessing dangerous dogs:
l. Certificate of registration issued only if owner provides proof of:
a. Proper enclosure to confine a dangerous dog;
b. Post warning sign that there is a dangerous dog on the
property; ~-5
,
c. Conspicuously display a sign with a warning symbol
that informs children of the presence of a dangerous
dog;
d. Provide proof of either:
I) Surety bond issued by a surety insurer...in the
sum of at least two hundred fi fly thousand dollars,
payable to any person injured by the dangerous
dog; or
2) Policy ofliability insurance...in the amount of at
least two hundred fifty thousand dollars, insuring
the owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the
dangerous dog.
2. Restraint requirements for dangerous dogs when off the owner's property:
a. Muzzle; and
b. Restrained by a substantial chain or leash; and
c. Under physical restraint of a responsible person.
3. Potentially dangerous dogs are subject to control as with all breeds (control)
C. The jurisdiction must provide notice 0 f the classification and requirements.
D. The owner may appeal the classification.
E. Penalties for violations:
1. Animal control must immediately confiscate the dangerous dog if:
a. The dog is not validly registered:
b. The owner does not post bond or secure the liability insurance coverage
required;
c. The dog is not maintained in the proper enclosure; or
d. The dog is outside ofthe dwelling ofthe owner, or outside ofthe proper
enclosure and not under physical restraint of the responsible person.
2. The owner must pay the costs of confinement and control;
3. Destroy the dog if the deficiencies for which the dog was confiscated are not
corrected within twenty days; and
4. Criminal penalties against the owners
a. Gross misdemeanor for first violation as noted above.
b. Class C felony if prior conviction regarding the dog.
c. Class C felony iOhe dog aggressively attacks and severely injures or
kills a person (no prior classification required.
F. Local jurisdictions may adopt more restrictive requirements on the owners/dogs, charge
an additional annual fee, and may ban dangerous dogs completely.
II. Federal WavCity Code (FWCC)
A. Follows state law in defining, registering, and owner requirements in regards to
dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs.
,
2
1:J-~
.
B. Docs not require a muzzle when off the property.
C. Violation is a misdemeanor.
Ill. Other iurisdictions
Most jurisdictions have used the state statute as a basis and focused on behavior to define and
regulate dangerous dogs.
A Behavior based regulation
Cities such as Seattle, Olympia, Kent, Renton, and Tacoma havc all adopted ordinances which
follow dangerous dog regulation based upon dog behavior. The City of Seattle Municipal Code even
states that the dog's breed will not be a factor in the desib1J1ation of dangerous dog. Each of those
cities allows dangerous dogs within the city limits, but subject to stringent registration rcquirements
similar to the state statute. Failure to follow those requirements will subject the dog to confiscation
and the owner to criminal penalties.
B. Breed Specific Ref,'lllation
L Breed Specific Restriction Plus Additional Requirements
a. Kirkland - Pit bullsl are defined as "dangerous dogs"
1) Must be 18 years or older to own a pit bull; and
2) The dog must be neutered.
b. SeaTac - Pit bulls, wolves and wolf hybrids are defined as "dangerous
dogs"
c. Everett -Pit bulls are definc~ as "potentially dangerous dogs"
d. Auburn -'- Akita, Pit bull (including, American Pit Bull, American
Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire
Bull Terrier or Tosa Inu), Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Dogue de
Bordeaux, Kuvasz, and Presa Canario are defined as "potentially
dangerous dogs"
I) $100 annual registration fee;
2) An identifying microchip implantcd at the dog owner's expense;
and
_n_ .. 3) No one under the age of 16-years may walk the dog outside the
proper enclosure.
4) Auburn recently received a claim for damages for $1 million as a
result of the recent modification. ,
e. Everett - Pit bulls are defined as "potentially dangerous dogs"
IFor the purpose of this section, unless otherwise noted, reference to "pit bull" i~cludes those dogs known as
American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or American Staffordshire Terrier
3
b~
C. Breed Specific Bans
1. Yakima. Since 1987
a. Breeds:
1) Bull Terricr
2) American Pit Bull Terrier
3) Staffordshire Bull Tcrrier
4) Any dogs which might be identifiable as a pit bull mix
b. Grandfathered existing animals with registration requirements
2. Enumclaw. Since 1990
a. Breeds:
1) Bull Terrier
2) American Pit Bull Terrier
3) Staffordshire Bull Terrier
4) any dogs which might be identifiable as a pit bull mix.
b. Grandfathered existing animals with registration requirements.
3. Denver, Colorado. Since 1989. A detailed history of Denver's experiences is
attached in an article from the July/August 2005 Municipal Lawyer magazine titled
One City's Experience- Why Pit Bulls Are More Dangerous and Breed-Specific
Legislation is Justified.
N. Animal Control
For the legislation to be effective, it must be enforced. Many of the area cities contract with their
respective counties for animal control services. For example, King County Animal Control is the
enforcement agency for Auburn, but since King County does not have such strict guidelines, whether
King County Animal Control will be able to increase the level of service to the increased regulation
is unclear.
In November 2005, the City of Tacoma considered whether to enact a breed specific ordinance.
According to the November 16, 2005 meeting minutes, council committee members heard from a
number of area animal specialists, including Jim Dugan, who acts as hearing examiner ofpotentially
, dangerous and dangerous dog appeals for the Humane Society for Tacoma and Pierce County. Mr.
Dugan testified that the largest number of appeals heard regarded pit bulls and pit bull mix dogs,
., ' which might give the impression that pit bulls were more dangerous. However, in every onc ofthe
cases, Mr. Dugan indicated the problem was the owner, not the dog. Another representative of the
Humane Society testified that of I 000 cases, only two occurred where the dogs were on leashes. The
overall consensus reached by the conunittee was that the major problem was irresponsible owners
and that legislation addressing irresponsible owners was the best target.
'.
4
D-~
V. Points to consider with rcgard to breed specific legislation
a. Emergency calls
In Federal Way between February 26, 2005 and February II, 2006, there were 180 emergency caUs
to 911 regarding dogs. All ofthc calls involved dogs acting aggressively and many included attacks
either on humans or domcstic pets. Ninety-two of thosc 180 calls purportedly involved pit bulls.
Leashed dogs accounted for less than three of those 180 calls to 911.
H is unclear from those numbers how many calls are related to the samc aggressive animal and how
accurate the 911 caUer's breed description was.
b. Breed identification
Even experts disagree on the breed of a particular dog. The closest to an objective standard for
conclusively identifYing a dog's breed would be a combination of pedigree analysis and DNA
testing, both of which are time~consuming and expensive. Vet Med Today: Special Report, Breeds
of dogs involved infatal human attacks in the United States between /979 and 1998, JA VMA, Vol.
217, No.6, September 15,2000.
Many municipalities try to address the issue by including a description of the breed; however, relying
on vague, subjective visual observations could easily subject more dogs than those ofthe specified
breed being restricted by the ordinance. [d.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Attached, please find:
1. Steve Maynard, Auburn plan aims to collar dog attacks, The News Tribune (Feb. 21,
2006)
2. Lisa Wogan, Pit bulls: Most dangerous of dogs or least understood? The Seattle Times
(Feb. 19,2006)
3. Malcolm Gladwell, Troublemakers: What pit bulls can teach us about profiling, The
New Yorker (Feb. 2, 2006)
4. Kory A. Nelson, One City's Experience: Why Pit Bulls Are More Dangerous and Breed-
Specific Legislation is Justified. Municipal Lawyer, VoL 46, No.6 (July/August 2005).
5. Minutcs from City of Tacoma November 16, 2005 Public Safety and Human Services
Committee meeting.
6. Vet Med Today: Special Report. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the
United States between 1979 and 1998, JA VMA, VoL 217, No.6 (Sept. 15,2000). "
7. Pit bulls: Responsible breeding, ownership are the keys, The Seattle Times (Mar. I,
2006).
8_ Seth Bynum, Let's consider both sides of the pit bull ban debate, The Seattle Times (Mar.
I, 20(6).
9. City of Aubum Claim for Damages Form.
5
~-l
Auburn plan aims to collar dog attacks I TheNewsTribune.com I Tacoma, W A Page I of 4
" ------ .----- -.---- --.. ----.------- -...-----... -----.- .......---....
~l:tJ
t-
""
'"
'~
'"
..
n_____ -. ... __no ..___u ---- ._..on____ ------
@ Acjvertise @ Aboutll~ (j) Contact'
I.. ',"^..,....,...._,-....,_,....,..,....,
HOME . _ . SPORTS . BUSINESS . OP-ED . PHOTOS . A&E . SOUND LIFE . ADVENTURE . HEALTH . ell
OBITUARIES
local . Crime . NationlWorld . Northwest . Elections ., Government. Militaryllraq . Education . Obituaries . Vitals . Weird
LOCAL NEWS A
Tacoma, WA.. February 21,2006
.
~,.< ~ ~:~
Welcome, Guest AA BiggeLIE;!xt AA$m911er text BE-mail this1;tQI)' ~ printJhi~~t9ry ~ Texlonly 1
log in I $igrLlIP! New: ~ Add or view comments to this story; Gomments{1Jl
\?:7.
Auburn plan aims to collar dog attacks u>
Trades
The first bite might no longer be free in Auburn_ After five attacks in less than a year, the City "Weide
pr hr" 1
Council considers a law that would require owners of certain dog breeds to register. . View
~
STEVE MAYNARD; The News Tribune
Published: February 20th, 200602:30 AM Trades
A progr
Auburn resident Alexis Scholz was on her daily walk millwor
with her 44-pound German shepherd mix, Chiya, AOVJ;;IHtStNG . View
near her lea Hill house Jan. 4. .... ...... ~.~~-
She noticed another dog a ways off playing with kids .... .... Trades
on bicycles. Atlas C
",.v, the steo
. View
Moments later, she said, it happened. JO'I, ... ~
"It was like a freight train," Scholz said. "That dog just .....' Trades
took my dog down. It was really horrible." AUTOM
BRAKE
. View
Fifteen-year-old Chiya, who Scholz raised since she
was a puppy, died later at a veterinarian's office. -
- Trades
Since then, Scholz said she's heard of several more CARPEl
dog attacks in the Puget Sound area. District
. Yiew
"Thattells me there is some kind of problem," she
said. ''I'm waiting to hear if the city is going to take any action."
Trades
Scholz still waits for justice for Chiya, but she might see Auburn take another kind of action. Ideal M
for; IT.
" . View
A City Council committee Tuesday night will consider an ordinance automatically branding pit bulls and several
other breeds as potentially dangerous dogs. ~
Owners of those breeds would be required to register with the city, T)-~ Vie
L L ._ I
Auburn plan aims to collar dog attacks I TheNewsTribune.com I Tacoma, W A Page 2 0[4
Council member Gene Cerino said he's pushing the law because the current ordinance, adopted a few years
ago, isn't working.
"These dogs have attacked and we can't do anything about it," Cerino said.
That's because dogs aren't branded as potentially dangerous until they've bitten once. Only if they attack a
second time are they declared dangerous and put under strict physical controls.
"What you're giving them is the first bite free," Cerino said. "If you allow a first bite, it's a fatal situation."
Auburn first considered tightening its rules after a pit bull killed a poodle-terrier named Fritz two years ago. The
City Council proposed targeting pit bulls, and then all dogs of more than 30 pounds.
Breeders and dog owners howled. The council relented, passing less-restrictive measures.
But the dog attacks - usually by pit bulls - persisted.
Just this month, police shot a pit bull that menaced a neighbor and attempted to bite the officer. They also shot
and killed the pit bull that killed Scholz's dog last month.
Auburn police have shot at attacking pit bulls five times since May, including the two shootings so far this year,
said Sgl. Jamie Sidell.
Public Safety Chief Jim Kelly said he's been surprised by the number of times pOlice have needed to use lethal
force to defend themselves against dogs.
He said the proposed changes - especially requiring owners to register pit bulls - could help. Police could
inform residents when their neighbors have potentially dangerous dogs, Kelly said. And officers would know
about those pets before going out on calls to those areas.
A few cities, such as Buckley, ban all pit bulls ~ including American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire
terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers. Other cities regulate them as dangerous dogs.
And others, such as Tacoma, control dangerous dogs without naming a breed.
Cerino said the breeds he's proposing to target as potentially dangerous - from the American Kennel Club -
were originally bred to fight and kill.
The City Council could vote on the proposed tougher restrictions Tuesday night if two council committees
approve the revisions.
"It's going to take some willingness to take flak to pass this ordinance," Cerino said. "We know we're going to
get beat up by dog owners."
..The pit bull lobby has proved to be a strong force. Algona dropped its ban on pit bulls after 180 people signed
petitions objecting to the law.
Renee Teichmer, who raises pit bulls, fought Auburn's initial breed-specific proposal two years ago. She still
opposes any such regulation.
Dangerous dogs are the result of owners who raise their dogs irresponsibly, she said.
"Any breed c;an be dangerous," said Teichmer, who lives in the Maple Valley area.. "If an irresponsible owner
allowed a springer spaniel to run free, that dog could become dangerous"
She and Cerino agree on this much: Owners should be held responsible for their dogs. And the Auburn
councilman says that's really what this ordinance would require.
G-,
Aubum plan aims to collar dog attacks I TheNewsTribunc.com I Tacoma, W ^ Page 3 of 4
"We're not targeting the breeds," Cerino said. .We're targeting the owners of the breeds."
'Potentially dangerous' breeds proposed in Auburn
. Akita
. American pit bull terrier
. American Staffordshire terrier
. Bull terrier
. Cane Corso
. Dogo Argentino
. Dogue de Bordeaux
. Kuvasz
. Pit bull terrier
. Presa canario
. Tosa Inu
. Staffordshire bull terrier
Any dog with an element of those breeds or appearing to look like those breeds also would be classified as
potentially dangerous. More details about the plan,
WHAT:
Auburn City Council members will consider Tuesday branding several breeds as "potentially dangerous" dogs.
WHEN AND WHERE: The council's Municipal Services Committee will consider the proposal at 5 p.m.
Tuesday in Conference Room NO.3 in City Hall, 25 W. Main SI. The City Council will meet at 7:30 p.m.
Tuesday in the City Hall Council Chambers.
HOW IT WOULD WORK: Owners would have to register all animals belonging to specific breeds. After their
dogs attack once, the city could crack down on owners. Their dogs then would be declared "dangerous" and
owners would have to:
-,,' Confine the dog to an enclosure with a warning sign.
. Muzzle and leash the dog when outside the enclosure.
,
. Have at least $250,000 in insurance or $250,000 in a bond payable to anyone injured by the dog.
. Pay $100 per year to register the animal.
. Have a microchip implanted by a veterinarian for identification .
WHAT IF SOMEONE VIOLATES THESE TERMS?: They could be fined up to $5,000 and sentenced to a year
in jail. King County Animal Control has the prerogative to put the dog down.
D-lb
Auburn plan aims to collar dog attacks I TheNewsTribune.com I Tacoma, W A Page 4 of 4
New; ~ Add or View comments to this story: C9rnrnl:!l'lls (13)
+ Re_?cJrnQre,,~9c;:?Lhe;;icJlines CE:\J E:rnail thisslqry ~ Print 'higglory
~ Privacy Policy I UserAgreernenl1 Conll:lcllJs I AOQlJtlJs I $ileM;;iP I Jobs@TheTNTI R$$
_ ' ' 1950 South State Street, Tacoma, Washington 98405253-597-8742
- ,. @Cqpyri9htZQQ6Tacoma News,lnc;:, A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company ./b...
.~.'"
".
~-l\
OOJe SeaUlemntes
"""""~~___u__'__
'~"ltleU"'''$.eom
Sunday, February 19,2006. ]2:00 AM
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The S'eattle
Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail IT,iahz...@deal1letimcs.,rOfl'! with your request.
Information in this article, originally published February 19, was clarified
February 21. A previous version of this story on pit bulls cited local
communities that have banned the breeds. Pit bulls are prohibited in
Buckley, not all of Pierce County.
Pit bulls:' Most dangerous of dogs or least
understood?
By Lisa Wogan
Special to The Seattle Times
In early January, Sarah Smith went walking in her leafy North Seattle JIM I LOTT PHOTO CELLS"', u,:CSSOf'J
PHOTO ILLLJS mATION' I rn:: SLAf fLE
neighborhood. Not far from her house, she saw two of her neighbor's pit TIMFS
bulls running loose. Before she could do anything the dogs rushed her,
attacking her small terrier.
"I was screaming. I was out of my mind," says Smith, who asked that her
real name not be used for fear of retaliation by the dogs' owner. "I was
tangled in my leash, and I closed my eyes because I didn't want to see my
dog ripped up."
The dog's owner and neighbors helped break up the attack. It wasn't until
Smith got home that she discovered bloody puncture wounds in her own
arm.
While she and her dog are on the mend physically, Smith is still
emotionally shaky.
"It's kind of consumed my life," she says. "I can't work."
Smith -works in a dog-friendly office that includes a pit bull. Yet despite the Vi\: fR11': PILTZ
attack, she disagrees with those who would ban the breeds. "Pit bull" is a Elvie Arnobit and her American
catch-all used to describe American Staffordshire terriers and Staffordshire terrier pit bull Harvey,
terriers, American pit-bull terriers and any mixes involving these breeds.
"I am afraid of pit bulls now," she says, "but I see this as an owner problem." b-IL
.
Still, anything involving pit bulls has a way of taking on a political life of its own, fueled by news accounts of attacks
and public disagreement that spills into town halls and Internet forums.
In the debate over banning, the questions persist: Are these dogs vicious by nature or victims of irresponsible owners
and breeders? Or is their strained place anlOng us, as some have argued, a combination orgenetics and circumstance?
'rhe recent history of the pit bulls has been tough. ^ fter decades as an all-American favorite (from Stubby the World
War I hero to Pete in "Our Gang"), the pit bull was embraced for its more ~_.". ,~._ .,_. ._.__... __ _..._.. __n-.-.._........... ~_" ..,.. _."'~
l'mtpt'rntllt'fl1 Jf1JOf1 t'illrd
pugnacious qualities. r~,...;nlwH'''' ~..%~. k-l ,s.)cfI.' I~~~~~:i:,..u!'.... if,,:t'"i,' n ~11t:.-,~I~
~11"'l).NA",t.. .,..~ t(~, '~;M ""~ ~~ {W; #0.\ (oM ~',~Ib<<
o:;'I'9t'~iII'"d.l.99~"'''''"';.>>~, a",_~.uJlJ'''I')riiI, ~1lI~..w: ~1<"lr". 1:"'"
'lhiNl ",:r"....M~ Ur.>Pf" ll.l~~ ~ ~ .u~~l.
.~;iI:."~..........~
It happens all the time: A strong dog becomes widely popular for its ability ~~f~lt~
..~I.' I
to intimidate. In the past several decades, Dobcnnans, Akitas, Rottweilers, ,,*I.t~~~
German shepherds and even shaggy S1. Bemards developed short-term 1M ~t H,n;, :I.II~
reputations as a public menace. .
-I....
n=~:=I?' " "I ....~"'
Unfortunately, unlike fads of the past, the pit-bull craze has endurcd for
'nearly three decades, putting enormous stress on the various breeds that are ~.:.:n
..""""I..
called pit bulls and keeping them constantly in the headlines. Adding to the ~~ ~ilf""'r'''''''''''~~~'*<~,~~ 11"1. II00nu n~t,
cost of popularity is the pit bulls' tendency to attract owners drawn not by ..,~.".,~..._,_,...,,~.~....,_, '_."~_._"_ un.. ."", _
its historic family-dog role but by its reputation as the premier fighting dog.
"It's the dog of choice for drug dealers and young males 12 to 23," says Don Jordan, executive director of the Seattle
Animal Shelter.
At best, these owners are too young to take responsibility for such a demanding breed. At worst, they campaign them
in dog fights and abandon losers. They often leave their dogs tethered in the backyard, neglect and abuse them and
fail to socialize them - all of which can contribute to aggressiveness.
Changing temperaments
While American pit bulls have historically done well in temperament testing (see table), current circumstances may
be taking a toll.
"When we first got pit bulls in, thcy wcrc always friendly. They wcre always nice dogs," says Dianc Jessup, a former
animal-control officer in Olympia. Jessup has raiscd many pit bulls and written several books about them. "I will say
now,in the last five ycars, 50 percent of the dogs are fearful, fear-biters with horribly unsound temperaments."
The number of pit bulls coming into Seattle Animal Shelter continues to increase --- from 362 in 2001 to 559 in
2004. Given their reputations, these dogs are difficult to place. More than 1,000 were euthanized during this same
period.
Five years ago, Web-site designer Carol Chapman adopted a black-and-tan brindle American pit bull named
Sampson through the Pit Bull Project, one of three local rescue organizations that helps place abandoned dogs in
homes and improve their public image.
Sampson was among many dogs used as a stud in a home-breeding opcration in Bremerton. When his owners were
arrested on drug charges, it was a month before animal controlleamed that 20 pit bulls had been abandoned on the
property. By the time officials arrived, 10 dogs were dead and five were so sick they had to be euthanized. Sampson
was among the five who survived on trash in the house.
,
The experience did not min Sanlpson_ "I Ie's really mild-mannered and kind of a coward," says Chapman. "He breaks
up cat fights. He's kind oflike a peacekeeper."
That gentleness, as well as a certain goofy charm, are overlooked aspects ofthe pit-bull personality, say owners, and
among the traits that endear them to these breeds.
Elvie Amobit, a sales representative from Redmond, didn't know mllch about pit bulls' darker reputation when she
fell in love with an American pit-bull puppy named Marauder-lvie League's Harvard - Harvey, for short.
With soulful eyes and a sweet disposition, she says, "I had 10 have him" 'C) - 1-3
At 70 pounds, a white-and-red fawn coat and a giant dog tag that proclaims "Lick Monster," Harvey perches human-
style on a chair next to Amobit as she scrolls through a slideshow: Harvey dressed as a king, as a poodle and in a
tu:-;edo with a cigar in his mouth. As she describes his silliness, Harvey offers her his leash - repeatedly.
Under Amobit's constant care, Harvey became a United Kennel Club confinnation champion, with an agility title,
therapy-dog certification, an obedience title and his own Web site, kinghafY~y.com. He high-fives for treats, punches
the automatic door openers at handicapped entrances and he's a favorite at Paws-Abilities, a dog-training facility in
Tukwila.
Controlled cattle
Still, a docile dog is not the breed ideal. According to the United Kennel Club, which registers American pit-bull
terriers, the dog should embody the virtues of a warrior: "strength, indomitable courage and gentleness with loved
ones."
Pit bulls descend from bulldog-terrier mixes that were first bred in Elizabethan England. They were known as the
Butcher's Dog because they controlled cattle by biting and holding the nose of wayward cows heading for the
market.
This evolved into a sport where bulls were tormented by the dogs in contests of strength. When "bull-baiting" was
outlawed in the early 1800s, these contests were moved to clandestine pits between dogs. Today, fighting is illegal in
all 50 states, hut is still widespread.
"It's not sensible to get an animal bred for bringing a 2,OOO-pound bull to its knees and say I'm going to treat this like
a soft-mouth Labrador," says Jessup, the fonner animal-control officer. She blames novice owners, as much as actual
eriminals, for bringing the breed into disrepute. "It's a capable animal, and it's got to be treated as such."
Jessup does not believe the solution to the pit-bull attacks is to dilute the dogs' core character. Training her [our dogs
in obedience, tracking and Schutzhund (an obedience, tracking and protection sport originally developed for Gennan
shepherds) is one way she channels their energies.
For some, thc issues of owner responsibility and the dog's stellar qualities don't complete the picture.
Kory Nelson avoids the debate over whether pit bulls are more aggressive than other dogs. As an assistant city
attorney for Denver, Nelson has successfully defended repeated challenges to the city's 16-year-old pit-bull ban, one
of the oldest big-city bans in the country.
He concedes that there is no definitive proof that pit bulls bite or attack more often than other dogs or even that they
are fundamentally more aggressive.
Statistics about fatal bite attacks, though widely reported in stories about pit bulls, are generally considered
unreliable or incomplete.
Instead, Nelson has successfully argued that pit-bull attacks arc more severe and more likely to be fatal than other
dog attacks because pit bulls bite into deep muscles, and hold and shake, ripping tissue. The dogs are also less likely
to retreaL in a fight and can strike without warning.
Nelson uses this analogy: Other breeds are to firecrackers as pit bulls are to hand gren.ades_
"They may have the seune equal chances of going off accidentally," he says. "But we can agrce that a hand grenadc
would cause more damage should that event take place." 1)-- J ~
Some Washington communities agree. Buckley, Pierce County, Enumclaw and Yakima have banned pit bulls_ At
l'p'.:)C'f f"'~/-Jht ........t~"\.t:--...- ,.\!......l...;...-;.,""tn..... ~.....:.......-J:,...,:,'~..~,..... 1...............-., ~:,. 1~..11 ~___....~:r:.. __ .'."__:_..-_ .__ '.__f r . ,
or neutering, muzzles in public, and sometimes owners are required to post a bond.
In this environment, responsible pit-bull owners find themselves in the hot seat. One owner with children said she'd
been called an unfit mother for having the dogs. Others are used to seeing pedestrians cross the street to avoid them.
"As an owner you realize you can never make a mistake. Regardless of the situation, it's always going to be your
dog's fault," says Jamie Samans, a spokesman for the Pit Bull Project.
When it comes to pit bulls, he says, "there is no room for error."
Lisa Wogan is a Sealtle-basedfreelance writer: viet9Ip@msn,com. Got a comment? Write to
ta lktous@seattleti nlQ~I:Qm.
kQP~Tjg!!.tD_lf2!).(! I!lL\~~Jl!~ T i"lC.$,,('~InNny
,--
'.
8-15
The Seattle Times: Search Results Page I of 1
Pit-bull myths
Where there are pit bulls, there are misconceptions_ Here are a few
common ones:
The locking jaw. The pit bull's ability to grab hold of a target and not let go
dates back to its role as a Butcher's Dog controlling cattle by grabbing cows
by the nose. This talent gave rise to the myth that these dogs have a
specially engineered jaw structure that "locks" onto an object. There is no
scientific evidence that pit bulls have greater bite power than many other
large-breed dogs.
Fighters make good guards. If a menacing reputation can help keep a
person safe, then pit bulls are a shoo-in. But historically they've been bred
as human-friendly and aggressive to cows and other dogs.
Unfortunately, backyard breeding and hybridizing of pit bulls with large
guardian breeds such as bull mastiffs and Rhodesian Ridgebacks may
result in oversized dogs with the fighting skills of a pit bull and the
aggressiveness of a guard dog.
Bad to the bone. There is no evidence that pit pulls are any more vicious
than any other breed. In fact, in temperament tests on pit bulls for
unprovoked aggression administered by the American Temperament Test
Association pit bulls passed 83 percent of the time, which is above
average.
A Jekyll-Hyde gene. When Seattle resident Heather Bauer was looking to
adopt a dog last year, she was warned that a pit bull can "turn bad" at
around 2 years old. Bauer decided on a Boston terrier. like many myths,
the warning is half-true.
"Most dogs begin to challenge for social position" at around 2 years old,
says Dr. James Ha, an associate research professor in animal behavior at
the University of Washington. "If behavioral challenges are anticipated and
dealt with appropriately from the beginning, the dog quickly figures out their
position and relationships and settles right down."
Lisa Wogan
-
;
".
D'-)~
The Seattle Times: Search Results Page 1 of 1
Fatal Attacks: understanding the numbers
In making the case for pit bulls' inherent "dangerousness," many supporters
of breed bans cite a 2000 study done by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention. It found that pit-bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were
involved in more than half of the 238 fatalities that occurred in the United
States between 1979 and 1998.
A Colorado court, however, decided that bite statistics do not prove pit
bulls are more likely to attack.
Instead, it ruled that numbers aren't a reliable measure due to inaccurate
reporting, including a tendency to attribute dog bites to particular breeds,
and because certain dog breeds are owned disproportionately by
irresponsible dog owners.
For Karen Delise, author of "Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the
Statistics, II breed is just one of many factors.
She examined as much evidence as she could find surrounding 431 fatal
dog attacks from 1965 to 2001 and determined that three critical factors are
determinants in dog bite-related fatalities: the function of the dog; the
owner's level of responsibility; and the gender and reproductive status of
the dog.
For example, Delise discovered that of fatal dog attacks attributed to pit
bulls and pit-bull mixes (21 percent), an "overwhelming majority" involved
unneutered males.
Seventy-nine percent of the attacks were on children younger than 12.
Interestingly in evidence presented in a Denver breed-ban case, no bull
terrier registered with the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club has
ever been involved in a fatal attack.
- Lisa Wogan
.
b~'l
. The New Yorker: PRINTABLES Page 1 of7
4
THE NEW YORKER
FACT
ANNAL5 OF PU8LIC POLfCY
TROUBLEMAKERS
by MALCOLM GLADWELL
What pit bulls can teach us about profiling.
Issue of 2006-02-06
Posted 2006-01 ~30
One afternoon last February, Guy Clairoux picked up his two-and-a half-year-old son, layden, from
day care and walked him back to their house in the west end of Ottawa, Ontario. They were almost
home. laydcn was straggling behind, and, as his father's back was turned, a pit bulljumpcd over a bac
yard fence and lunged at layden. "Thc dog had his head in its mouth and started to do this shake,"
Clairoux's wife, loAnn Hartley, said later. As she watched in horror, two more pit bulls jumped over t
fcnce, joining in thc assault. She and Clairoux came running, and he punched the first of the dogs in th
head, until it dropped layden, and then he threw the boy toward his mother. Hartleyfell on her son,
protecting him with her body. "loAnn!" Clairoux cried out, as all three dogs descended on his wife.
"Cover your neck, cover your neck." A neighbor, sitting by her window, screamed for help. Her partne
and a friend, Mario Gauthier, ran outside. A neighborhood boy grabbed his hockey stick and threw it t
Gauthier. He began hitting one of the dogs over the head, until the stick brokc. "They wouldn't stop,"
Gauthier said. "As soon as you'd stop, they'd attack again. I've never seen a dog go so crazy. They we
like Tasmanian devils." The police came. The dogs were pulled away, and the Clairouxes and one of t
rescuers were taken to the hospital. Five days later, the Ontario legislature banned the ownership of pit
bulls. "Just as we wouldn't let a great white shark in a swimming pool," the province's attorney genera
Michael Bryant, had said, "maybe we shouldn't have these animals on the civilized streets."
Pit bulls, descendants of the bulldogs used in the nineteenth century for bull baiting and dogfighting,
have been bred for "gameness," and thus a lowered inhibition to aggression. Most dogs fight as a last
resort, when staring and growling fail. A pit bull is willing to fight with little or no provocation. Pit bu
seem to have a high tolerance for pain, making it possible for them to fight to the point of exhaustion.
Whereas guard dogs like German shepherds usually attempt to restrain those they perceive to be threat
by biting and holding, pit bulls try to inflict the maximum amount of damage on an opponent. They bi
hold, shake, and tear. They don't growl or assume an aggressive facial expression as warning. They ju
attack. "They are often inscnsitive to behaviors that usually stop aggression," one scientific review of
the breed states. "For example, dogs not bred for fighting usually display defeat in combat by rolling
over and exposing a light underside. On several occasions, pit bulls have been reported to disembowel
..,. dogs offering this signal of submission." In epidemiological studies of dog bites, the pit bull is
overrepresented among dogs known to have seriously injured or killed human beings, and, as a result,
pit bulls have been banned or restricted in several Western European countries, China, and numerous
cities and municipalities across North America. Pit bulls are dangerous. ,
Of course, not all pit bulls are dangerous. Most don't bite anyone. Meanwhile, Dobennans and Great
Danes and German shepherds and Rottweilers are frequent biters as well, and the dog that recently
mauled a Frenchwoman so badly that she was given the world's fiFst face transplant was, of all things,
Labrador retriever. Whcn we say that pit bulls are dangcrous, we are making a generalization, just as
insurance companies usc generalizations when they charge young men more for car insurance than the
rest of us (even though many young men are perfectly good drivers), and doctors use generalizations
when they tell overweight middle-aged men to get their cholestcr.ol checked (even though many
overweight middle-agcd men won't experience heart trouble). Because we don't know which dog will
\:)-}~
The New Yorkcr: PRINTABLES Page 2 of7
bite someone or who will have a hcart attack or which drivers will get in an accident, we can
make predictions only by generalizing. As the legal scholar Frederick Schauer has observed,
"painting with abroad brush" is "an often inevitable and frequently desirable dimension of our
decision-making lives."
Another word for generalization, though, is "stereotype," and stereotypes are usually not
considered desirable dimensions of our decision-making lives. The process of moving from the
specific to the general is both necessary and perilous. A doctor could, with some statistical
support, generalize about men of a certain age and weight. But what if generalizing from other
traits-such as high blood pressure, family history, and smoking-saved more lives? Behind each
generalization is a choice of what factors to leave in and what factors to leave out, and those
choices can prove surprisingly complicated. After the attack on Jayden Clairoux, the Ontario
government chose to make a generalization about pit bulls. But it could also have chosen to
generalize about powerful dogs, or about the kinds of people who own powerful dogs, or about
small children, or about back-yard fences--or, indeed, about any number of other things to do
with dogs and people and places. How do we know when we've made the right generalization?
In July oflast year, following the transit bombings in London, the New York City Police
Department 3Illlounced that it would send officers into the subways to conduct random searches
of passengers' bags. On the face of it, doing random searches in the hunt for terrorists-as
opposed to being guided by generalizations-seems like a silly idea. As a columnist in New York
wrote at the time, "Not just 'most' but nearly every jihadi who has attacked a Western European
or American target is a young Arab or Pakistani man. In other words, you can predict with a fair
degree of certainty what an Al Qaeda terrorist looks like. Just as we have always known what
Mafiosi look like--even as we understand that only an infinitesimal fraction ofItalian-Americans
are members of the mob."
But wait: do we really know what mafiosi look like? In "The Godfather," where most of us get
our knowledge of the Mafia, the male members of the Corleone family were played by Marlon
Brando, who was ofIrish and French ancestry, James Caan, who is Jewish, and two Italian-
Americans, Al Pacino and John Cazale. To go by "The Godfather," mafiosi look like white men
of European descent, which, as generalizations go, isn't terribly helpful. Figuring out what an
Islamic terrorist looks like isn't any easier. Muslims are not like the Amish: they don't come
dressed in identifiable costumes. And they don't look like basketball players; they don't come in
predictable shapes and sizes. Islam is a religion that spans the globe.
"We have a policy against racial profiling," Raymond Kelly, New York City's police
commissioner, told me. "I put it in here in March of the first year I was here. It's the wrong thing
to do, and it's also ineffective. If you look at the London bombings, you have three British
-- ,. citizens of Pakistani descent. You have Gernlaine Lindsay, who is Jamaican. You have the next
crew, on July 21 st, who are East African. You have a Chechen woman in Moscow in early 2004
who blows herself up in the subway station. So whom do you profile? Look at New York City.
Forty per cent of New Yorkers are born outside the country. Look at the diversity here. Who am r
supposed to profile?"
Kelly was pointing out what might be called profiling's "category problem." Generalizations
involve matching a category of people to a behavior or trait--overweight middle-aged men to
heart-attack risk, young men to bad driving. But, for that process to work, you have to be able
both to define and to identifY the category you are generalizing about. "You think that terrorists
aren't aware of how easy it is to be characterized by ethnicity?" Kelly went on. "Look at the 9/11
hijackers. They came here. They shaved. They went to topless bars. They wanted to blend in.
They wanted to look like they were part of the American dream. These are not dumb people.
~-,~
The New Y orkcr: PRlNT ABLES Page 3 0[7
Could a terrorist dress up as a Hasidic Jew and walk into the subway, and not be profiled? Yes. I
think profiling is just nuts."
Pit-bull bans involve a catcgory problem, too, because pit bulls, as it happens, arcn't a singlc
breed. The name refers to dogs belonging to a number of related brccds, such as the American
Staffordshire tenier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, and the American pit bull terrier-all of which
share a square and muscular body, a short snout, and a sleek, short-haired coat. Thus the Ontario
ban prohibits not only these three breeds but any "dog that has an appearance and physical
characteristics that are substantially similar" to theirs; the term of art is "pit bull-type" dogs. But
what does that mean? Is a cross between an American pit bull tcrrier and a golden retriever a pit
bull-type dog or a golden retriever-type dog? Ifthinking about muscular terriers as pit bulls is a
generalization, then thinking about dangerous dogs as anything substantially similar to a pit bull '
is a generalization about a generalization. "The way a lot of these laws are written, pit bulls are
whatever they say they are," Lora Brashears, a kennel manager in Pennsylvania, says. "And for
most people it just means big, nasty, scary dog that bites."
The goal of pit-bull bans, obviously, isn't to prohibit dogs that look like pit bulls. The pit-bull
appearance is a proxy for the pit-bull temperament-for some trait that these dogs share. But "pit
bullness" turns out to be elusive as well. The supposedly troublesome characteristics of the pit-
bull type-its gameness, its determination, its insensitivity to pain-are chiefly directed toward
other dogs. Pit bulls were not bred to fight humans. On the contrary: a dog that went after
spectators, or its handler, or the trainer, or any of the other people involved in making a
dogfighting dog a good dogfighter was usually put down. (The rule in the pit-bull world was
"Man-eaters die.")
A Georgia-based group called the American Temperament Test Society has put twenty-five
thousand dogs through a ten-part standardized drill designed to assess a dog's stability, shyness,
aggressiveness, and friendliness in the company of people. A handler takes a dog on a six-foot
lead and judges its reaction to stimuli such as gunshots, an umbrella opening, and a weirdly
dressed stranger approaching in a threatening way. Eighty-four per cent of the pit bulls that have
been given the test have passed, which ranks pit bulls ahead of beagles, Airedales, bearded
collies, and all but one variety of dachshund. "We have tested somewhere around a thousand pit-
bull-type dogs," Carl Herkstroeter, the president of the A.T.T.S., says. "I've tested half of them.
And of the number I've tested I have disqualified one pit bull because of aggressive tendencies.
They have done extremely well. They have a good temperament. They are very good with
children." It can even be argued that the same traits that make the pit bull so aggressive toward
other dogs are what make it so nice to humans. "There area lot of pit bulls these days who are
licensed therapy dogs," the writer Vicki Hearne points out. "Their stability and resoluteness make
them excellent for work with pcople who might not like a more bouncy, flibbertigibbet sort of
u' dog. When pit bulls set out to provide comfort, they are as resolute as they are when they fight,
but what they are resolute about is being gentle. And, because they are fearless, they can be
gentle with anybody." ,
Then which are the pit bulls that get into trouble? "The ones that the legislation is geared toward
have aggressive tendencies that are either bred in by the breeder, trained in by the trainer, or
reinforced in by the owner," I-Ierkstroeter says. A mean pit bull is a dog that has been turned
mean, by selective breeding, by being cross-bred with a bigger, human-aggressive breed like
German shepherds or Rottweilers, or by being conditioned in such a way that it begins to express
hostility to human beings. A pit bull is dangerous to people, then, not to the extcnt that it
expresses its essential pit bullncss but to the extent that it deviates from it. A pit-bull ban is a
generalization about a generalization about a trait that is not, in fact, general. That's a category
b ...2-U
The New Yorker: PRINT ABLES Page 4 of7
problem.
One of the puzzling things about New York City is that, after the enonnous and well-publicized
reductions in crime in the mid-nineteen-nineties, the crime rate has continued to faIL In the past
two years, for instance, murder in New York has declined by almost ten per cent, rape by twelve
per cent, and burglary by more than eighteen per cent. Just in the last year, auto theft went down
11.8 per cent. On a list of two hundred and forty cities in the United States with a population of a
hundred thousand or more, New York City now ranks two hundred-and-twenty-second in crime,
down near the bottom with Fontana, California, and Port St. Lucie, Florida. In the nineteen-
nineties, the crime decrease was attributed to big obvious changes in city life and govemment-
the decline of the drug trade, the gentrification of Brooklyn, the successful implementation of
"broken windows" policing. But all those big changes happened a decade ago. Why is crime still
falling?
The explanation may have to do with a shift in police tactics. The N.Y.P.D. has a computerized
map showing, in real time, precisely where serious crimes are being reported, and at any moment
the map typically shows a few dozen constantly shifting high-crime hot spots, some as small as
two or three blocks square. What the N.Y.P.D. has done, under Commissioner Kelly, is to use the
map to establish "impact zones," and to direct newly graduated officers-who used to be
distributed proportionally to precincts across the city-to these zones, in some cases doubling the
number of officers in the immediate neighborhood. "We took two-thirds of our graduating class
and linked them with experienced officers, and focussed on those areas," Kelly said. "Well, what
has happened is that over time we have averaged about a thirty-five-per-cent crime reduction in
impact zones."
For years, experts have maintained that the incidence of violent crime is "inelastic" relative to
police presence-that people commit serious crimes because of poverty and psychopathology and
cultural dysfunction, along with spontaneous motives and opportunities. The presence of a few
extra officers down the block, it was thought, wouldn't make much difference. But the N.Y.P.D.
experience suggests otherwise. More police means that some crimes are prevented, others are
more easily solved, and still others are displaced-pushed out of the troubled neighborhood-
which Kelly says is a good thing, because it disrupts the patterns and practices and social
networks that serve as the basis for lawbreaking. In other words, the relation between New York
City (a category) and criminality (a trait) is unstable, and this kind of instability is another way in
which our generalizations can be derailed.
Why, for instance, is it a useful rule of thumb that Kenyans are good distance runners? It's not
just that it's statistically supportable today. It's that it has been true for almost halfa century, and
that in Kenya the tradition of distance running is sufficiently rooted that something cataclysmic
_.' would have to happen to dislodge it. By contrast, the generalization that New York City is a
crime-ridden place was once true and now, manifestly, isn't. People who moved to sunny
retirement communities like Port S1. Lucie because they thought they were much safer than New
York are suddenly in the position of having made the wrong bet.
The instability issue is a problem for profiling in law enforcement as welL The law professor
David Cole once tallied up some ofthc traits that Drug Enforcement Administration agents have
used over the years in making generalizations about suspected smugglers. Here is a sample:
Arrived late at night; arrived early in the morning; arrived in afternoon; one of the first to deplane; one of the
last to deplane: deplaned in the middle; purchased ticket at the airport; made reservation on short notice;
bought coach ticket; bought first-class ticket; used one-way ticket; used round-trip ticket; paid for ticket with
cash; paid for ticket with small denomination currency; paid for ticket with large denomination currency; made
local telephone calls after deplaning; made long distance telephone call after deplaning; pretended to make
b ~L...\
The New Yorker: PRINT ABLES Page 5 of7
telephone call; traveled from New York to Los Angeles; traveled to Houston; carried no luggage; carried brand-
new luggage; carried a small bag; carried a medium-sized bag; carried two bulky garment bags; carried two
heavy suitcases; carried four pieces of luggage; overly protective of luggage; disassociated self from luggage;
traveled alone; traveled with a companion; acted too nervous; acted too calm; made eye contact with officer;
avoided making eye contact with officer; wore expensive clothing and jewelry; dressed casually; went to
restroom after deplaning; walked rapidly through airport; walked slowly through airport; walked aimlessly
through airport; left airport by taxi; left airport by limousine; left airport by private car; left airport by hotel
courtesy van.
Some of these reasons for suspicion are plainly absurd, suggesting that there's no particular
rationale to the generalizations used by D.E.A. agents in stopping suspected drug smugglers. A
way of making sense of the list, though, is to think of it as a catalogue of unstable traits.
Smugglers may once have tended to buy one-way tickets in cash and carry two bulky suitcases.
But they don't have to. They can easily switch to round-trip tickets bought with a credit card, or a
single carry-on bag, without losing their capacity to smuggle. There's a second kind of instability
here as well. Maybe the reason some ofthem switched from one-way tickets and two bulky
suitcases was that law enforcement got wise to those habits, so the smugglers did the equivalent
of what the jihadis seemed to have done in London, when they switched to East Africans because
the scrutiny of young Arab and Pakistani men grew too intense. It doesn't work to generalize
about a relationship between a category and a trait when that relationship isn't stable--or when
the act of generalizing may itself change the basis ofthe generalization.
Before Kelly became the New York police commissioner, he served as the head of the U.S.
Customs Service, and while he was there he overhauled the criteria that border-control officers
use to identify and search suspected smugglers. There h,ad been a list of forty-three suspicious
traits. He replaced it with a list of six broad criteria. Is there something suspicious about their
physical appearance? Are they nervous? Is there specific intelligence targeting this person? Does
the drug-sniffing dog raise an alarm? Is there something amiss in their paperwork or
eXplanations? Has contraband been found that implicates this person?
You'll find nothing here about race or gender or ethnicity, and nothing here about expensive
jewelry or deplaning at the middle or the end, or walking briskly or walking aimlessly. Kelly
removed all the unstable generalizations, forcing customs officers to make generalizations about
things that don't change from one day or one month to the next. Some percentage of smugglers
will always be nervous, will always get their story wrong, and will always be caught by the dogs.
That's why those kinds of inferences are more reliable than the ones based on whether smugglers
are white or black, or carry one bag or two. After Kelly's reforms, the nwnber of searches
conducted by the Customs Service dropped by about seventy-five per cent, but the number of
successful seizures improved by twenty-five per cent. The officers went from making fairly lousy
decisions about smugglers to making pretty good ones. "We made them more efficient and more
effective at what they were doing," Kelly said.
--
Does the notion of a pit-bull menace rest on a stable or an unstable generalization? The best
data we have on breed dangerousness are fatal dog bites, which serve as a useful indicator of just,
how much havoc certain kinds of dogs are causing. Between the late nineteen-seventies and the
late nineteen-nineties, more than twenty-five breeds were involved in fatal attacks in the United
States. Pit-bull breeds led the pack, but the variability from year to year is considerable. For
instance, in the period from 1981 to 1982 fatalities were caused by. five pit bulls, three mixed
breeds, two St. Bernards, two German-shepherd mixes, a pure-bred German shepherd, a husky
type, a Doberman, a Chow Chow, a Great Dane, a wolf-dog hybrid, a husky mix, and a pit-bull
mix-but no Rottweilers. In 1995 and 1996, the list included ten Rottweilers, four pit bulls, two
German shepherds, two huskies, two Chow Chows, two wolf-dog hybrids, two shepherd mixes, a
Rottweiler mix, a mixed breed, a Chow Chow mix, and a Great Dane. The kinds of dogs that kill
't'J.-22-
The New Yorker: PRINT ABLES Page 6 of7
people change over time, because the popularity of certain breeds changes over time. The one
thing that doesn't change is the total number of the people killed by dogs. When we have more
problems with pit bulls, it's not necessarily a sign that pit bulls are morc dangerous than other
dogs. It could just be a sign that pit bulls have become more numerous.
'Tve seen virtually every breed involved in fatalities, including Pomeranians and everything else,
except a beagle or a basset hound," Randall Lockwood, a senior vice-president of the A.S.P.C.A.
and one of the country's leading dogbite expcrts, told me. "And there's always one or two deaths
attributable to malamutes or huskies, although you never hear pcople clamoring for a ban on
those breeds. When I first started looking at fatal dog attacks, they largely involved dogs like
German shepherds and shepherd mixes and St. Bernards-which is probably why Stephen King
chose to make Cujo a St. Bernard, not a pit bull. I haven't seen a fatality involving a Doberman
for decades, whereas in the nineteen-seventies'they were quite common. If you wanted a mean
dog, back then, you got a Doberman. I don't think I even saw my first pit-bull case until the
middle to late nineteen-eighties, and I didn't start seeing Rottweilers until I'd already looked at a
few hundred fatal dog attacks. Now those dogs make up the preponderance of fatalities. The point
is that it changes over time. It's a reflection of what the dog of choice is among people who want
to own an aggressive dog."
There is no shortage of more stable generalizations about dangerous dogs, though. A 1991 study
in Denver, for example, compared a hundred and seventy-eight dogs with a history of biting
people with a random sample of a hundred and seventy-eight dogs with no history of biting. The
breeds were scattered: German shepherds, Akitas, and Chow Chows were among those most
heavily represented. (There were no pit bulls among the biting dogs in the study, because Denver
banned pit bulls in 1989.) But a number of other, more stable factors stand out. The biters were
6.2 times as likely to be male than female, and 2.6 times as likely to be intact than neutered. The
Denver study also fuund that biters were 2.8 times as likely to be chained as unchained. "About
twenty per cent of the dogs involved in fatalities were chained at the time, and had a history of
long-term chaining," Lockwood said. "Now, are they chained because they are aggressive or
aggressive because they are chained? It's a bit of both. These are animals that have not had an
opportunity to become socialized to people. They don't necessarily even know that children are
small human beings. They tend to see them as prey."
In many cases, vicious dogs are hungry or in need of medical attention. Often, the dogs had a
history of aggressive incidents, and, overwhelmingly, dog-bite victims were children (particularly
small boys) who were physically vulnerable to attack and may also have unwittingly done things
to provoke the dog, like teasing it, or bothering it while it was eating. The strongest connection of
all, though, is between the trait of dog viciousness and certain kinds of dog owners. In about a
quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dog owners were previously involved in illegal fighting. The
dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated because their owners are socially
,~-' isolated, and they are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog. The junk-yard
German shepherd-which looks as if it would rip your throat out-and the Gennan-shepherd
guide dog are the same breed. But they are not the same dog, because they have owners with
different intentions.
"A fatal dog attack is not just a dog bite by a big or aggressive dog," Lockwood went on. "It is
usually a perfect stonn of bad human-canine interactions-the wrong dog, the wrong
background, the wrong history in the hands of the wrong person in. the wrong environmental
situation. I've been involved in many legal cases involving fatal dog attacks, and, certainly, it's
my impression that these are generally cases where everyone is to blame. You've got the
unsupervised three-year-old child wandering in the neighborhood killed by a starved, abused dog
owned by the dogfighting boyfriend of some woman who doesn't know where her child is. It's
not old Shep sleeping by the fire who suddenly goes bonkers. Usually there are all kinds of other
U-2-S
The New Yorker: PRlNTABLES Page 70f7
warning signs."
J ayden Clairoux was attacked by Jada, a pit-bull terrier, and her two pit-bull-bullmastiff
puppies, Agua and Akasha. The dogs were owned by a twenty-one-year-old man named Shridev
Cafe, who worked in construction and did odd jobs. Five weeks before the Clairoux attack,
Cafe's three dogs got loose and attacked a sixteen-year-old boy and his four-year-old half brother
while they were ice skating. The boys beat back the animals with a snow shovel and escaped into
a neighbor's house. Cafe was fined, and he moved the dogs to his seventeen-year-old girlfriend's
house. This was not the first time that he ran into trouble last year; a few months later, he was
charged with domestic assault, and, in.another incident, involving a street brawl, with aggravated
assault. "Shridev has personal issues," Cheryl Smith, a canine-behavior specialist who consulted
on the case, says. "He's certainly not a very mature person." Agua and Akasha were now about
seven months old. The court order in the wake of the first attack required that they be muzzled
when they were outside the home and kept in an enclosed yard. But Cafe did not muzzle them,
because, he said later, he couldn't afford muzzles, and apparently no one from the city ever came
by to force him to comply. A few times, he talked about taking his dogs to obedience classes, but
never did. The subject of neutering them also came up--particularly Agua, the male-but
neutering cost a hundred dollars, which he evidently thought was too much money, and when the
city temporarily confiscated his animals after the first attack it did not neuter them, either,
because Ottawa does not have a policy of preemptively neutering dogs that bite people.
On the day of the second attack, according to some accounts, a visitor came by the house of
Cafe's girlfriend, and the dogs got wound up. They were put outside, where the snowbanks were
high enough so that the back-yard fence could be readily jwnped. Jayden Clairoux stopped and
stared at the dogs, saying, "Puppies, puppies." His mother called out to his father. His father
came running, which is the kind of thing that will rile up an aggressive dog. The dogsjwnped the
fence, and Agua took Jayden's head in his mouth and started to shake. It was a textbook dog-
biting case: unneutered, ill-trained, charged-up dogs, with a history of aggression and an
irresponsible owner, somehow get loose, and set upon a small child. The dogs had already passed
through the animal bureaucracy of Ottawa, and the city could easily have prevented the second
attack with the right kind of generalization-a generalization based not on breed but on the
known and meaningful connection between dangerous dogs and negligent owners. But that would
have required someone to track down Shridev Cafe, and check to see whether he had bought
muzzles, and someone to send the dogs to be neutered after the first attack, and an animal-control
law that insured that those whose dogs attack small children forfeit their right to have a dog. It
would have required, that is, a more exacting set of generalizations to be more exactingly applied.
It's always easier just to ban the breed. +
,
"
~-LJ
In A",i12005. the la,,,, I;,"",,;on c1uded three-year-old Fernando Salazar,
over breed-spec ific legislation - by J(ory A. Nelson - fatally mauled in 1986, and 58-year-
(BSL) concluded in Denver, Colo- old Reverend Wilber Billingsley, at-
rado. The state Legislature had previ- tacked by H pit bull in the alley behind
ously passed H.B. 04-1279, which pro- his home.9 As a result, the local COlll-
hibited local governments from regulat- 1991 ruling in Colorado Dog Fanciers, munity called for increased regulations
ing dangerous dogs by specific breeds. I Inc. v. City and County of Denver.7 On and bans on pit bulls.lO Accordingly, in
The City and County of Denver filed a April 7, 2005, Judge Egelhoff issued an 1989, the Denver City Council enacted
civil action1 seeking a ruling that the oral ruling from the bench on the State's an ordinance making it unlawful to own,
State Constitution's pwvisions for mu- affirmative defense, finding that the possess, keep, exercise control over,
nicipal home rule authority! allowed State failed to provide any new evidence maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any
Denvees pit bull ban ordinance4 to su- to undermine the original findings in pit bull within the city. II Several orga-
percede H.B. 04-1279. In late 2004, Colorado Dog Fan-cien; that the city h,Jd nizations and individual dog owners
Denver District Court Judge Martin provided new evidence to provide ad- immediately filed suit challenging the
Egelhoff, ruling on cross-motions for ditional support for Judge Rothenberg's ordinance as unconstitutiona\.ll The
summary judgment, held that the regu- findings; and upholding the ordinance litigation concluded in 1991 with the
lal'ion of dangerous dogs was a mutter of as constitutional.s This article will pro- Colorado Supreme Court's decision in
purely local concern, and that, pursu- vide a review of the developments in Colorado Dog Fanciers, upholding the
ant to the Colorado Constitution, the field of ethology~the study of ani- trial court's ruling thm Denver's ordi-
Denver's home rule authority super- mal behavior-in relation to pit bull nance was constitutionulY While
ceded H.B. 04-1279.5 However, the dogs, review the 1990 factual findings the decision followed prior decisions
court allowed the State's affirmative of the trial court in Colorado Dog Fanci- by other state courts reviewing similar
defense6 to continue to trial, ullowing ers, and outline the evidence relied on ordinances, 14 the decision focused on
the Colorado Attorney General's Office by the city in the most recent case. procedural issues and glossed over the
to argue that the ordinance no longer "noteworthy and extensive factual find-
had u rational relationship to its legiti- Colorado Dog Fanciers ings made by the trial court as to the
mate government interest in public Between 1984 and 1989, pit bulls at- difference~ between pit bulls and other
safety, and asking the trial court to re- tacked and seriously injured more than dogs, which provided a r;ltiOI\;l1 rda-
verse the Colorado Supreme Court's 20 people in Colorado. The victims in- tionship berween the differential treat-
-
12 Munici(Jal Lawyer D-25
ment of pit bulls and the legitimate The justification is based on other dogs, the evidence showed
interest of protecting public safety. that, when a pit bull attacked,
the clear evidence that, as it would not retreat, even when con-
Not Like Other Dogs a group, pit bulls, compared to siderable pain was inflicted on
To fully appreciate pit bulls as being dif- the dog.
ferent than other breeds, one must ex- other breeds, generally have · Manner of attack. The city proved
amine the history and purposes of the that pit bulls inflicted more serious
intentional selective breeding of dogs a higher propensity to exhibit wounds than other breeds because
and why the unique pit bull breed unique behavioral traits they tend to attack the deep muscles,
was developed. The phenotypes of to hold on, to shake, and to cause rip-
dogs that share the common definition during an attack. ping of tissues. Pit bull attacks were
of "pit bull" derive their heritage compared to shark attacks.
from "the Butcher's Dog"IS developed · Strength. Pit bulls are extremely mus-
through the sport of bull-baiting in cular and unusually strong for their Recent Developments
England.16 These dogs were intention- size, generally stronger than many in Ethology
ally bred to result in better, stronger, other dogs. Since 1990, there have been few devel-
and bolder dogs, more inclined to en- · Manageability and temperament. opments in ethology that directly relate
gage in the dangerous behaviors likely While pit bulls are one of many ag- to the behavior of pit bulls and the jus-
to win in the ring. By 1835, bull- gressive types of dogs, their tempera- tification for BSL, but one updated study
baiting was banned. Rather than give ment varies in the same manner as and one new article published by a rec-
up their gambling and dog-fighting other dogs and they can make gentle ognized expert in the field were thor-
exploits, the owners took their pets. Proper handling, including early oughly discussed before Judge Egelhoff
dog fighting underground-,-Iiterally. socialization to humans, is very im- in the most recent case.
The coal-mining communities in portant. Even their most ardent ad- A study published in 2000 by Sacks,
Staffordshire County, England, brought mirers, however, agree that these Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab, and lock-
their dogs to coal pits to fight. The breed dogs are not for everyone and they wood involved a statistical review of dog
was manipulated to be better at fight- require special attention and disci- bites resulting in fatalities (DBRF), bro-
ing other dogs than bulls; the dogs pline. The court cited one study ken down by the breed reported to have
needed to be quicker and more agile, which reported that over thirteen been involved.22 (A previous version of
and not signal their intentions through percent of pit bulls attacked their the study was introduced into evidence
their body posture, as most dogs do.17 owners, as compared with just over before the Colorado Dog Fanciers trial
This eventually resulted in smaller, te- two percent of other dogs. 21 court; the updated 2000 study provided
nacious terriers-the similar pheno- · Unpredictability of Aggression. Pit an additional ten years of data.) The
types known as the American Pit Bull bull dogs, unlike other dogs, often State of Colorado thought this study was
Terrier, the American Staffordshire Ter- give no warning signals before they significant because, during the last six
rier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.IB attack. years studied, there were more DBRF
The most significant point about · Tenacity. Pit bulls trained for fight- involving dogs reported to be Rottweil-
the justification for bans or restrictions ing are valued for "gameness"-the ers than involving dogs reported to be
of pit bulls is that these are not depen- tenacious refusal to give up a fight. pit bulls. The State argued that because
dent upon a claim that every pit bull 111e court found that pit bulls trained pit bulls were no longer the national
has a higher than average propensity for for fighting had this attribute, and leader in DBRF, there was no longer a
attacking humans. The justification is that credible testimony also proved rational basis for Denver's pit bull ban.
based on the clear evidence that, as a that, when a pit bull beg,lI1 to fight, Judge Egelhoff disagreed and accepted
group, pit bulls, compared to other it would often not retreat. the city's argument on this issue-
breeds, generally have a higher propen- · Pain tolerance. Although there was namely, that the Colorado Dog Fanciers
.,,' sity to exhibit unique behnvioral traits no scientific evidence that pit bulls decision WHS clearly not based on a
during an attack. These behaviors have had a greater tolerance of pain than continued on page 14
a higher likelihood of causing more se- --
vere injuries or death. The Colorado
Dog Fanciers trial court made this clear, Kory A. Nelson is a Senior Assistant City Attorney in the PrQse-
stating that, while it could not be cution Section for the City & County of Denver, Colorado. He has
proven that pit bulls bite more than prosecuted a variety of cases in Denver County Court for over
other dogs, there was "credible evidence 15 years. He is an instructor with the Denver Sheriffs Training
that Pit Bull dog attacks are more se- Academy and various municipal inspection agencies. He is a graduate
vere and more likely to result in fatali- of Arizona State University's College of Law. has a B.S. in Criminal
ties."19 The court, in great detail, noted Justice from ASU.. and is a Us. Army veteran. He is the owner of
fourteen separate areas of differences, Heidi. a German Shepherd.
including: 1O
-
U-L-~ ]uly/Augu,ll 2005 Vol. 46, No.6 13
PIT BULLS continued from page 13 part of the problem with the 'Pit frequency distribution curve, the prob-
Bull' controversy is that the lin- lem is that any specific dog's location
determination that pit bulls were more eages of fighting and non-fight- on the curve cannot be determined
likely to bite or attack than other breeds, ing animals [within] the fight- merely by looking at it, since it shares
so the ten years of additional data did ing breeds have been separated the same phenotype or physical char-
not undermine the original findings. n for many generations, but have acteristics as other, more dangerous pit
In fact, Judge Egelhoff specifically shown relatively little physical bulls. However, as the entire breed's
found problems with the use of the divergence. As a result, an selective breeding has caused its fre-
DBRF statistics, similar to those noted American Pit Bull terrier from quency distribution curve to be shifted
by the original trial court. H These in- recent fighting stock may be higher, creating a reliable higher prob-
c1uded that: (a) the accuracy of the "re- physically indistinguishable ability of higher frequencies of sueh clan-
ported breed". of dog involved was un- from an American or English gerous behavior(such as the bite, hold,
known; (b) the study included only re- Staffordshire (bull) terrier 50 and shake behavior despite the inflic-
ported cases resulting in fatalities, but generations removed from the tion of greater levels of injury and pain),
not injury short of death; (c) the im- fighting pits, yet the two animals Dr. Borchelt testified there is a ration-
possibility of determining a bite/attack could be behaviorally very al basis to differentiate pit bulls from
ratio for each breed because the num- different.29 other breeds of dogs.3z
ber of dogs in the U.S. as a total and
per breed was unknown; and (d) the Expert Testimony Effect of Multiple Pit Bulls. Dr. Borchelt
last six years was too short and too During the 2004 trial, the City of Den- has unique qualifications on this issue,
speculative a time frame on which to ver presented the expert testimony of having co-authored the only expert
base a conclusionY However, over the Dr. Peter L. Borchelt, a certified applied paper on "pack attacks" on humans
entire 20 years of the study, pit bulls animal behaviorist,30 who testified on a and having conducted several reviews
were still involved in 67 percent of the number of relevant subtopics, summa- of individual cases of multiple dog
DBRF, while Rottweilers accounted rized here. maulings resulting in death and near-
for only 16 percent. Z6 fatal injuries.3J This included meeting
The second development is an Aggressiveness Towards Humans: Dr. with crime-scene investigators dealing
article by Randall LockwoodY AI- Borchelt rebutted the oft-cited argu- with the gruesome death, from a sus-
though the article should be read by ment that pit bulls were bred to not be tained mauling by three pit bulls, ofJO-
anyone interested in this issue, given aggressive to humans. While breeding year-old Jennifer Brooke.34 On the ef-
Lockwood's connection to the Humane to suppress the behavioral tendencies for fect of increasing the number of pit
Society of the United States, many of "diverted aggression" towards humans bulls involved in an attack upon a
his conclusions appear to be softened, may have occurred in the distant past, human and the likelihood of serious in-
as the implications of his findings could the increased demand for the breed juries or death, Dr. Borchelt testified
be written in much more straightforward means some hreeders no longer have the that, rather than a simple multiplying
conclusions. For example, in his terms, incentive to cull "human-aggressive" effect (i.e., the mathematical pattern of
Lockwood affirms that fighting dogs dogs. Such dogs may, instead, he sold to x, x + x = 2x, 2x + x = 3x) present with
have a more exaggerated "decrease in the unwary public and bred, further di- other breeds, the effect would be closer
the latency to show intra-specific ag- luting the suppression of this behaviQr. J\ to an exponential effect (i.e., I = xl, 2
gression," a much higher tolerance of = xz, .3 = X3).35
pain, suppressed or eliminated accurate Shifted Higher Frequency Distribution
communication of aggressive motiva- Patterns of Dangerous Behavior. Fight- Judge Egelhoff's Ruling
tion or intent through postural Hnd fa- ing dog breeders artificially selected and At the conclusion of the evidence,
cial signals, and reduced termination or hred towards dangerous behaviors in Judge Egelhoff, in an oral ruling, found
withdrawal from combat upon either order to intensify the frequency of the that the State had failed to provide
t!:c. opponent's withdrawal or display of behavior. This caused these breeds to new evidence to undermine Judge
submissive behavior.zR 111is can be more have the frequency of these dangerous Rothenberg's original 1990 findings re-
clearly summarized as: A pjt bull will be behavioral traits still represented statis- garding the differences between pit bulls
more likely not to display its aggressive tically in a distribution pattern similar and other dogs; moreover, he ruled the
intent, be more likely to initiate an at- to the traditional bell curve, but shifted city had shown additional evidence in
t,lCk, and continue on with a furious towards higher levels of the dangerous support of Judge Rothenberg's findings.
attack with its great strength, regardless behavior, compared to other breeds. Since Judge Rothenberg's 1990 decision
of what behavior the victim exhibits, Moreover, these behavioral traits CHn- was not based upon the claim that pit
and despite having great levels of p,lin not be,artifici,llly shifted back to lower, .bulls had a higher propensity to bite or
or injury inflicted on it. Morcover, it normal frequency distribution pattern attack humans, the new Sacks study and
can't he predicted which individual pit levels. Although the actual tendencies Lockwood artide Wl~re not relevant on
bull will engage in this behavior. To of an individual dog of these fighting the narrow issues presented in that de-
quote Lockwood: breeds could be anywhere along the cision. The State had failed to establish
-
14 Municipal WWYCT D-LI
that no rational basis for the ordinance's tain dogs in Telluride, farm dogs in Lamar, and 14. See. e _g., Hearn v. City of Overland Park,
pit bull ban existed; accordingly, putSU- urban dogs in Denver 10 be subject to the same 77Z P.Zd 758 (Kan. 1989); Garcia v_ Village of
ant to the nile of starc decisis, the Colo- kinds of laws and resrriclions_. .local control Tijeras, 767 P.Zd 355 (N.M. Cr. App. 1988).
rado Supreme Court's ruling in C%- of breeds means flexibil ity in crafting locally- 15. A subrype of Molossian dogs known as
rado Dog Fancicrs-that Denver's ordi- acceprable solutions 10 the problems created "Bullenbeissers" were valued for their ability
by dogs. As lhe largesr and most populous to control unruly cattle, earning their keep as
nance was constitutional-remained metropolitan area in Colorado, Denver faces butcher's dogs. These dogs had to carch and
valid and, therefore, the CUITent ordi- unique challenges in ensuring that dogs en- grip escaping or uncooperative bulls on their
nance was still constitutionaf.36 hance the lives of citizens [ather than threaten way to marker. The dog would hang on the
their safety." The court did grant the Stare's bull's nose without lerring go until rhe butcher
Conclusion morion for partial summary judgment, finding could regain contro\' As with all people who
A municipality that is experiencing a rhat the imerjurisdicrional rrallSponarion of a depend upon rheir dogs, butchers were proud
problem with pit bull attacks needs to pit bull through Denver was a marrer of mixed of their besr "bulldogs" and anxious to prove
consider for itself the best course of ac- local and state concern, and struck the Ian- them better rhan the neighboring village's
tion to protect its citizens, especially guage of Denver's ordinance rhat required a burcher's dog. D. CAROLINE COILE, PIT BULLS
those most likely to be unable to defend pre-approved travel permit for such trans- KlR DuMMIES 9 (Wiley Publishing,lne. Zool).
themselves from the tenacious and sus- p.:marion. Id. at 4. 16. The British placed high value on contesrs
tained attack of a pit bull, who will likely 6. The court never made clear the legal au- that featured animals fighting 10 the death.
thority for an affirmative defense of unconsti- The spectacle of a dog killing a bull was the
bite, hold, and tear at its victim despite tutionalitydue to a lack of a rational relation- highest entertainment rhat most small villages
efforts to stop it. However, given the ship in an acrion for declaratory judgment could offer lheir poor inhabitants. ld. at 8.
clear rational evidence, breed-specific on a home rule issue. 17. Dogs exhibit characteristic postures rhat
legislation is still a legally viable option. 7.820 1'. 2d644 (Colo. 1991). reveal rheir stares of mind. Fighting dogs were
There is no new evidence that under- 8. City and County of Denver, er al. v. State of bred and trained not to display behavioralsig-
mines the holdings of Colorado Dog Fan- Colorado, No. 04CVJ756 (Denver Disr. Ct., nals of their inrentions, to give these dogs an
cien, only new relevant evidence that April 7, ZOOS). advantage in the ring. The pit bull dog is fre-
adds additional support for BSL, as the 9. Jitu Kirskey, Pil BuU mauls Denver man, 58: quently known to attack "without warning"
differential treatment of pit bulls is Neighbor kilh dog afler 70 bites, 100 sritches, 2 for this reason. Lockwood, Randall, The ethol-
based upon logical, rational evidence broken legs, DENVER POST, May 9, 1989 at page ogy and epidemiology of canine aggression, THE
I B. The dog's allack was sustained over a long OOMESTIC DOG: ITS EVOLUTION, BEHAVIOUR, AND
from the scientific field of ethology. period and a neighbor, Norman Cable, at- INTERACTIONS WITH PEOPLE, at 133 (James
Notes tempred to stop rhe dog by hitting it with a 2 Scrpell, ed- Cambridge Universiry Press,I995);
x 4. This had no effecr and Cable was able to republished in ANIMAL LAW AND DoG BEIIAV-
I. H.B. 04-1279, concerning liability regard- stop the dog only by shooting it. The victim lOR at 289 (David Favre and Peter L Borchelt,
ing the behavior of dogs, was codified as COLO. . suffered serious injuries from over 70 bires, Ph.D., ed~. 1999) (hereinafter "Lockwood").
REV. STAT. ~ 18-9-204.5 (2004) and became wirh both of his legs being broken. 18. PIT BULLS FOR DuMMIES, supra nore 15 ar
effective on April 21, 2004. 10. Editorial, Let's outlaw killer dogs, DENVER 7-12.
2. The city's complaint was filed on May 13, POST, June 12, 1989, at page 4B; Editotial, 19. Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. Ciry and
2004 in the matter of City and Counl)' of Den- Tougher rules and stronger enforcement on Pit County of Denver, No. 89CVI2348 at Para.
ver, et al. v. State ofColurado, Denver Districr Bulls, RocKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, May 12, 1989 27 (Denver Ois!. Ct., June Z8, 1990)
Court Case No. 04CV3756. ar page 8Z. (Rothenberg, J.).
3. The Colorado Constitution grants home rule ] I. DENVER, COLO. REV. tAu * 8-55 (a) (2) ZOo Aggressiveness, athletic ability, biting,
status to municipalities with a population over (1989). A "Pit Bull" is defined as an Ameri- catch instinct, destructiveness, fighting abil-
2,000 thar adopt home nile charters. CoLO. can Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire ity and killing instinct, frenzy, gameness, health
REV. STAT. ('..onst. Art. XX, ~ 6 (West 2004). Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog status, manageabiliry, strength, temperament,
4. DENVER, COLO. REV. CODE ~ 8-55 (1989) displaying rhe majority of physical traits of tolerance to pain, unpredictability. Id. at
prohibits pit bull dogs. anyone or tuore of rhe above breeds, or any Para. 28.
5. Order in City and Counry of Denver v. State dog exhibiting those distinguishing character- 21.Id. ar para. 28(;), p. 7.
of Colorado, No. 04CV3 756 (Denver Disl. Ct., is tics which substantially conform to rhe 22. Sacks, Sinclair, Gilchrisr, Golab, and
Dee. 9, 2004) (Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Sum- standards established by the American Ken- Lockwood, Breeds of dogs involved in fatal
mary Judgment and Defendant's Cross-Motion nel Club or United Kennel Club for any of human attacks In lhe United Slates belween
for Partial Summary Judgment). "The Court the above breeds. The A.K.C. and UXc. 1979 and 1998, JAVMA, Vol. 217, No.6 (Sepr.
concludes that the issue of which dog breeds standards for the above breeds are on file in 15,2000).
are permitted, prohibited, or restricted wirhin the office of the clerk and recorder, ex officio 23. Judge Egelhoff determined the parameters
a ciry is a matter of purdy local concern. TIle clerk of rhe City and County of Denver, at of the rrial to be thar the Stare Attorney
State has not articulated, and the Court can- City Clerk Filing No. 89457. General's Office had the burden of proof ro
not conceive, a need for sratewide uniformity. 12. Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc., et al. v. establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that,
In fact, there seems to be a need for local con- City and CountyofDenver, No_ 89CV11714, since the time of Judge Rothenberg's original
nol in this area. Each community has irs own consolidared with Colorado Humane Societ}'; 1990 ruling, there had been sufficienr changes
attitudes and preferences with respect to dogs. Inc., er al. v. Ciry and County of Denver, in the facts or erhology (the study of
In each community. depending on culture and No. 89CVl2348 (Denver District Coun animal behavior) to prove that there was
demographics, dogs occupy a different role. It June Z8, 1990) (Rothenberg, J-). currently no rarional basis to jusrify the pit
would not make sense for the owners of moun- !l8Z0 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1991). continued on page 29
D--z8 -
July/Augu.~t 2005 Vol. 46, No_ 6 15
SUPREME COURT
continued from page 21
very b,lsis of Congress's power to enaer
RLlJIPA has been deferred. Justice Tho-
mas, in a concurrence, makes it clear
th,lt there arc serious reasons to doubt
whether Congress had the power to en-
act RLUIPA. The federal government
is a government of enumerated powers,
and RLUIPA's proponents must explain
how this law, a law governing state and
local governments for the sake of reli-
gious entities, is a valid exercise of fed-
eral power under the Spending or Com-
PIT BULLS continued from page 15 meree Cbuses,or Seer ion 5 of the Four-
bull ban, requiring the court to reverse the Colorado Dog Fanciers decision. City and County of teenth Amendment.
On this issue, we'll hear from the
Denver, et a!. v. State of Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., April 7, 2005). Sixth Circuit on the prison context be-
24. Id. The 1990 trial court noted: "It is difficult to accutately determine the breeds which
cause the most bites for several reasons: (a) It is difficult to identify a parriculat breed of dog, fore we hear from the Supreme Court.
especially with mixed breeds; (b) There is a tendency to ovet reporr dog bites attributed to a On the land use side, this question is an
particular breed; (c) Certain dog breeds are owned by a population of dog owners who are especially weighty one: Federalism con-
more likely to be irresponsible; and (d) There is inaccurate reponing of the total population of cems are at their height when a federal
particular breeds. Defendants' Exhibit LLL, Lockwood Report." Colorado Dog Fanciers. law interferes with what is the most in-
). Rothenberg, supra note 19 at Para. 26. herendy state and local issue; local land
25. City and County of Denver, No. 04CY37'56 (Denver Dist. Ct., April 7, 2005). use. So stay tuned, because there is
26.ld. much left to be decided with respect to
27. Lockwood, supra nore 17 at 113 and 289. RLlJIPA.
28.Id.
29. Id. at 133. Editor's Note: Mard Hamilton, at
3D. Dr. Borchelt had previously testified as an expert witness on the behavior of pit bulls in hamilton02@aol.com, is the Paul R.
litigation over Toledo, Ohio's pit bull ordinance, and had published several articles on dangerous Yerkuil Chair in Public Law at Ben-
dogs, including the only published book on this legal topic. Basic Behavioral Principles and jamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Ye-
Misunderstood Words, ANIMAl. LAW AND DOG BEHAVIOR (David Favre and Peter L. Borchelt, shiva University, where she specializes
eds_, 1999). in church/stare issues. She wrote an
31. Testimony of Dr. Peter L Borchelt, Denver v. Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct.. amicus brief on behalf of IMLA and om-
April 7, 2005). Lockwood also notes, "Dog fighters and advocates of fighting breeds note ers in the Cutter case, in order to bring
that, historically, fighting animals that showed aggression to people were generally removed to the Court's attention the issues in-
from the gene pool. either by being destroyed or being deemed unsuitable for breeding.... volving Congress's power to enact
However, there is no indication that the same selecrive pressures are in operation since there RLlJIPA. Her most recent publica-
is currently a market for even the most intractable animals in the guatd dog trade." Lockwood, tion is God vs. the Gavel: Religion and
supra note 17 at 133. the Rule of Law (Cambridge 2(05). A
32. Testimony of Dr. Borchelt, Denvet v. Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., Aptil 7.
2005). longer version of this column first
33. Dr. Borchelt co-authored the only known article in the field of ethology on the atrack of appeared on June 2, 2005 in Marci
packs of dogs on humans: Borchelt. Peter L, Ph.D., Lockwood, Randall, Ph.D., Beck, Alan M., Hamilton's bimonthly constitutional
&.0., VOith, Victoria L, DVM., Ph.D., Attacks by Packs of Dogs Involving Predation on Human law column posted at the Findlaw site,
Beings, ANIMAL LAW AND DOG BEHAVIOR (David Favre and Perer L. Borchelt, eds., 1999). www.findlaw.com. M.
34. Hector Gutierrez, Owner of Pit Bulls Headed for Prison: Woman rakes plea deal in faral atulCk
in Elbert County, RocKY MOLJN1AIN NEWS, Sept. 25. 2004 at http://www.rockymountainnews.com/
dnnn/state/article/O, I 299,DRMN_21_3208879,00.htmL See also, The DenverChanneLcom, Pit
Bull Owner Sentenced For Mauling Death, at hrrp://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3999446/
detail.html ("Many deputies said that Brooke's mauled body was one of the most gruesome things
they had ever seen. Eight firemen had to be counseled "fter they responded to the scene").
35. Tesrimony of Dr. Borchelr, Denver v. Colorado. No. 04CV3756 (Lknver Dist. Ct., April 7,
2005).
36. City and County of Denver, et al. v. Slate of Colorado. No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Cr.,
April 7, ZOOS). On Monday, May 9, 2005, lhe City and County resumed enforcement of ilS
Pit Bull ordinance. M.
~~2\ -
]uly/Augu5[ 2005 Vol. 46, No.6 29
PUBLIC SAJI'ETY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
November 16,2005,3:30 p.m,
Tacoma Municipal Building North, Room 16
PRESENT
Committee Members: Deputy Mayor Connie Ladenburg, Council Members Mike Lonergan
and Council Member Julie Anderson.
Staff: Captain Mike Miller representing Don Ramsdell, Police Chief, Police Department; Kim
Gerhardt, Legal Advisor, Police Department; John Briehl, Director, Human RightsIHuman
Services Department; Fire Chief Ron Stephens; and Randy Lewis, Governmental Relations.
Visitors: Louisa Beal, Janet Noble, Rebecca Giddings, Taj Melvin, Deanne Zitkovich, Jeff
Zitkovich, Jenni Barrett, James Ha, Kathy Sdao, Deanna Robison, Corey McLennan, Jim Arable,
Dorothy Turley, Suzanne Hostetter, Gail Hartley, Glen Bui, and Penny Brumond
Absent: Rick Talbert, Council Member; Assistant Police Chief Jim Howatson; and Assistant to
the Fire Chief, Michael Fitzgerald
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Deputy Mayor Ladenburg opened the meeting at 3:37 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
The minutes from the previous meeting were approved.
NEW BUSINESS
Dangerous Dogs
Handouts were provided regarding other city !community ordinances regarding dangerous dogs:
. Blue - Model Dog Ownership Ordinance/Responsible Dog Owner
. Salmon - Everett Dog Ordinance (classifies pit bulls as dangerous dogs)
. Lt. Green - Pasco (classifies pit bulls as potentially dangerous dogs but
allows for an exemption if the animal completes the American Kennel Club's
.., .. Canine Good Citizen Program)
. Pink - Auburn Dog Ordinance (allows for the owner to have the owner enroll
and complete the American Kennel Club's Canine Good Citizen Program or l!
comparable course or program after an incident or action that resulted in the'
dog being declared as dangerous)
Public Safety. and Human Services Committee Meeting
October 27, 2005
Page I of4
http://www_citvoftaCOIna.orfl/54CounciICommittee
u-30
,
. White ~, Seat/Ie (the breed of dog shall not be considered in the determination
of the dog as a dangerous dog)
. Yellow - Yakima (does not allow the ownership of pit bulls in the city)
. Dark Green - Tacoma
Invited Speaker Kathy Sdao, animal behaviorist and the owner/operator of Bright Spot Dog
Training.
Ms. Sdao was the first to speak. She advised she has trained animals for 20 years. She stated
she misunderstood the purpose of this meeting, believing that the City of Tacoma was looking to
create an ordinance similar to that of the city of Everett. The Committee advised her that this
was strictly an information gathering session.
Ms. Sdao stated that she believes it would be wrong to classify pit bulls as dangerous dogs based
strictly on their breed. Councilmember Anderson asked why profiling the breed would not work
Ms. Sdao stated that in her history as a trainer not many pit bulls have been brought to her as
aggressive dogs. Councilmember Lonergan asked if aggressive and dangerous were the same
thing, bringing up the issue of the locking jaws. Ms. Sdao stated that it is a myth regarding the
locking jaw, that the mechanism of the pit bull's jaw is no different from other breeds She
further explained that the strength of the jaw grip is based on the overall strength of the dog. She
further advised that the pit-bull breed was bred to be aggressive to other dogs, not to humans.
She further eXplained that behavior modification works in most cases of aggressive behavior,
although there are rare cases where it does not work, but this is true for any breed, not just the pit
bulls. Councilmember Lonergan as why she believed other cities enacted legislation against pit
bulls. Ms. Sdao's response was that she could not understand it because it is a behavior, not a
breed, and that it most likely is the result of the lack of accurate information being presented to
the public.
Councilmember Lonergan asked Ms. Sdao what legislation she would recommend. She advised
that much of Everett's ordinance was sound with the exception of classifying of one breed as
being dangerous.
Jim Dugan, President and Founder of Dugan Foundation. He also hears the potentially
dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs appeals as designee of the Executive Director of the
Humane Society for Tacoma and Pierce County.
~ Me. Dugan stated that he agrees with the Council's goal to ensure the public's right to safety, but
he also believes we need to ensure the animals' rights to a good quality life. He felt the
discussions should be directed away from breeds and towards owners.
"
Mr. Dugan stated that from 2002 to 2005 he heard appeals from throughout Pierce County,
Lakewood, Tacoma, etc. Of the 68 cases he heard, 20 were specific to Tacoma. Over an
approximately IS-month period he heard a total of 24 dangerous dog appeals. 42% were pit
Public Safety and Human Services Committee Meeting
October 27, 2005
htto:llwww .ei I yo flacoma. orf!/54Cou/leiI/Comm i ttee
Dr- 3 , Page2of5
,
bull/pit bull mix; 25% were Dobermans. The largest number of appeals heard were regarding pit
bulls and pit bull mix dogs, which might give the impression that pit bulls were more dangerous.
However, in everyone of those cases the problem was the owner, not the dog. He said a key
issue in these hearings was whether the incident was unprovoked. He also indicated that the
decisions in the hearings were basically easy, but the consequences were not stringent enough.
Mr. Dugan stated that he really couldn't determine what breeds were the more disposed to
dangerous behavior and recommended if a dog is determined to be a potentially dangerous dog,
the dog should be confiscated and the owner not allowed to have another dog. Councilmember
Anderson asked if Mr. Dugan knew of any ordinance within our state where an owner can be
prohibited from owning another dog. Legal Advisor Gerhardt stated she had concerns about
such a suggestion and about some of the ideas being advocated. Councilmember asked Ms.
Gerhardt what types of penalties came with the dangerous dog ordinance as it stands. Ms.
Gerhardt .advised that it is a gross misdemeanor for failing to contain a dog that has been
determined to be a dangerous dog.
Councilmember Anderson asked Captain Miller of the Tacoma Police Department to speak on
the Police Department's viewpoint. Captain Miller stated that the majority of the dogs that law
enforcement has problems with are the pit bull-type dogs.
Steve Pierce, Executive Director of the Humane Society stated the following:
. Out of over 1000 cases, only two occurred where a dog was on a leash. To adequately
enforce the leash law, however, there would need to be adequate animal control officers.
. The problems are basically owner issues. If there is a ban on pit bulls, responsible
owners will get rid oftheir pit bulls, but the problem or bad owners will not.
. We need to be able to confiscate and destroy a dog after a judge has made a decision that
the dog is a dangerous dog.
. In cases of cruelty, judges should be allowed to order owners not to own dogs again.
Should be part of the ordinance.
. There is a legal definition of cruelty, but not irresponsibility on the part of the owner.
There needs to be teeth in the City Ordinance; we can't rely on the State Ordinance since
it's not much more effective.
Councilmember Anderson asked Mr. Pierce to look at the "model dog owner" regulations,
which are a set of laws devised by dog owners for dog owners.
.-' The floor was then opened to the public for their comments:
Corey McLennan, an animal behaviorist specializing in aggression, stated that there are no bad,
breeds, only bad ownership. The problem is irresponsible ownership and that we should be
looking at the owners, not the dogs. She indicated she believed other ordinances were made out
of ignorance and based on fear. It's not newsworthy ifit's a breed like a dachshund or poodle
.
Public Safety and Human Scrvi<.:cs Committee Meeting
October 27, 2005
http://www.eilyotlacoma.orrJ54Council/Committee
Page 3 of5
D-37-
that's involved in a biting incident. She also asked how it would be determined to be a pit bull,
since pit bull is not a breed but rather a type. Her suggestion was that we work with the owners.
Jim Anable, Attorney.
He agreed with the general consensus that it is the people who are the problem, not the dogs. He
stated enforcing the leash law is important. He believes our laws are sufficient as they stand;
they are already broad enough.
Mr. Anable reported that most of his cases are the result of problems between people"i.e.,
neighbors who are using the dog laws to their advantage.
He also agreed with the opinion that if pit bulls are banned then only irresponsible owners will
have them because the responsible owners will abide by the law. Good owners will end up
paying the price and insurance eosts will be impacted.
Penny Brumond, ownerltrainer/breeder of American Staffordshire Terriers
Ms. Brumond stated she believes the law as it exists is already adequate if it is enforced. There
needs to be consequences that are enforced.
Ms. Brumond further stated that as a responsible dog owner, she doesn't want to lose her rights
because of irresponsible pet owners.
Glen Bui was the next speaker. He stated he has testified in Federal, State and local cases and
has drafted legislation. He believes we need stiffer penalties and agrees that irresponsible dog
owners should be held responsible.
Louisa Beal, Veterinarian
She agrees that banning a particular breed does not address the problem, that it is not a dog
problem but rather an owner problem. She believes there is information out there that proves
that breed bans do not work.
Ms. Beal also stated that she believes children should be taught the correct behavior for how to
treat dogs. Councilmember Lonergan asked about this education of children. Ms. Beal
indicated that bite prevention programs are out there but are not being used.
Janet Noble, retired police officer from California and a California certified expert
Ms. Noble stated that if we ban a breed of dog, bad owners will just move on to another breed,
making that breed the next target She believes we are reacting to the emotion of an attack.
".
Public Safety and Human ~crvices Committee Meeting
October 27, 2005
http://www_citvollacoma.org/54Council/Committee
Page 4 of 5
G-35
She stated the failure to enforce leash laws is the biggest problem.
Council member Lonergan expressed his thanks to everyone for their comments and advised that
everyone who signed the sign-in sheets will be put on a list for contact. He wanted everyone to
know that the committee was not looking at batming a particular breed, but simply was looking
for information since the City is now taking over animal control.
NEXT MEETING
December 16, 2005,10:00 a.m.
Agenda Item - Joint Meeting: County Council Public Safety Committee - Strategy for
Influenza Pandemic (Ralph Johns)
Weapons Ordinance (Tom Orr)
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 5 :05 p.m.
Deputy Mayor Connie Ladenburg, Chair
Submitted by Sandra Manchester, Police Department
-.
,
Public Safety and Human $ervices Committee Meeting
October 27,2005
hllo:/ /www .~ityoftacoma.orgJ54Council/Committee
D--3, Page 5 of5
Embargoed for Release Until 8 AM, September 15, zooo
Special Report
Breeds of dogs involved In fatal human attacks
In the United States between 1979 and 1998
Jeffrey]. Sacks, MD, MPH; Leslie Sinclair, DVM; Julie Gilchrist, MD;
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM: Randall Lockwood, PhD
Objective- To summarize breeds of dogs involved in (DBRF) in the United States.'" Most victims were chil.
fatal human attacks during a 20-year period and to dren. Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were
assess policy implications, involved in approximately a third of human DBRF
Animals-Dogs for which breed was repOrted involved reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through
in attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 that 1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half
resulted in human dog bite.related Fatalities (DBRF), of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993
Procedure--.Data for human DBRF identified previ- through 1996. These data have caused some individu-
ously for the period of 1979 through 1996 were corn. als to infer that certain breeds of dogs are more likely
bined with human DBRF newly identified for 1997 to bile than others and should. therefore, be banned or
and 1998, Human DBRF were identified by searching regulated more stringently.4,5 The purposes of the study
news accounts and by use of The Humane Society of reported here were to summarize breeds associated
the United States' registry databank, with reported human DBRF during a ZO-year period
Results-During 1997 and 1998. at least 27 people and assess policy implications.
died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At Procedure
least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238
human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull. type We collected data from The Humane Society of the
dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of United States (HSUS) and media accounts related to
these deaths. Of 227 reports with relevant data, 55 dog bite attacks and fatalities, using methods from pre-
(24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs oFf vious studies. ',3 The HSUS maintains a registry of human
their owners' property, 133 (58%) involved unrestrained DBRE including date of death, age and sex of decedent,
dogs on their owners' property, 38 (17%) involved city and state of attack, number and breeds of dogs
restrained dogs on their owners' property, and 1 (< 1%)
involved a restrained dog ofF its owner's property. involved, and circumstances relating to the attack. To
supplement HSUS reports, as in the past, a database~ was
Conclusions-Although fatal attacks on humans searched for accounts of human DBRF that occurred in
appear to be a breed.specific problem (pit bull.type 1997 and 1998. Our search strategy involved scanning
dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and
cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties the text of newspapers and periodicals for certain words
inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty. and word combinations likely to represent human DBRF
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises con. followed by a review of articles containing those terms.
stitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent Data obtained from HSUS and news accounts were
a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, merged to maximize 'detection of human DBRF and
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving avoid duplicate reports. One new human DBRF from
public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practi- 1996 was identified in the 1997 and 1998 reports and
cal alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and was added to the existing data for 1996.
hold promise for prevention of dog bites (J Am Vet A human DBRF was defined as a human death
Med Assoc 2000;217:836-840) caused by trauma from a dog bite. In addition to
-
excluding 9 human deaths. as described in previous
From 1979 through 1996. dog attacks resulted in reports (eg, dying of rabies from a dog bite, strangling
more than 300 human dog bite-related fatalities on a leash or scarf pulled by a dog, dying from fire ant
._._~~'~,-~
Fmm the Division of Unintentional II~Ury Prevention, National Center for Injury pr;,venUon and Control, US Department of Health and
Human Services. US Public Heallh Service. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 4770 Buford Hwy NE (MS K-63). AlIanla. GA 30341
(Sacks. Gilchrist): The Humane Society of the United States. 2100 L Street, NW, Washington. DC 20037 (Sinclair, Lockwood): ,,,,d the
Division of Education and Research. American Veterinary Medical Association. 1931 N Meacham Rd. Ste 100, Schaumburg. IL 60173
(Golab).. Dr. Sacks' present address is the Nalional Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Ilealth Promotion. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevenlion, 4770 Buford Hwy NE (MS K-4S). Atlanta. CA 3034 L Dr. Sindair's present address is Shelter Veterinary Services, 9320 Jarrett
Ct. Montgomery Village. MD 20886.
Use of trade names ao<l commercial sOUl"es is for identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the authors or their affil;-
ated agencies_
'Ine .ulhors thank Dr. Su"a"'w Rinder for technical assista'":e,
--"_.- ---" ~.~.._-~
836 Vel Med Today: Special Reporl J^VMA. Vol 217, No, 6. Septernl)er 15, 2000
U--3~
bites after bcing pushed on a mound by a dog, or dying Results
from a motor vehicle or bicycle crash while being Fatalities during 1997 and 1998--During 1997
chased by a dog), for 1997 and 1998. we excluded 3 and 1998, at least 27 people died as the result of dog
additional dcaths: death resulting from infection sec- bite attacks (I8 people in 1997 and 9 in 1998). Of 27
ondary to a dog bite, death attributable to trauma from human DBRF. 19 (70%) were children (I was $ 30 days
being knocked over but not bitten, and death resulting old, 3 were between 7 and 11 months old, 9 were
from myocardial infarction, which was caused by an between I and 4 ycars old. and 6 were between 5 and
individual being chased but not bitten. For the 20~year 11 years old), and 8 were adults (ages 17,44,64.70.
study. wc excluded 4 human deaths from attacks by 73,75,75, and 87). Approximately half (n '" 15 [56%])
guard or police dogs "at work" and approximately 90 of the human DBRF were male.
deaths when breed information for the attacking dog Five (19%) deaths involved umcstrained dogs ofT
was unavailable: thus, this study included approxi~ the owners' property, 18 (67%) involved unrestrained
mately 72% of cases of human DBRF and is not dogs on the owners property, 3 (I 1%) involved
exhaustive. restrained dogs on .the owners' property. and 1 (4%)
We tallied data in 2 ways to provide alternatives involved a restrained dog ofT the owners property.
for breed data interpretation. First, we used a human Eighteen (67%) deaths involved 1 dog, 5 (19%)
death-based approach in which we courited whether a involved 2 dogs, and 4 (15%) involved 3 dogs_ Sixt~
particular breed was involved in a death. When multi- percent of attacks by unrestrained dogs ofT the owners
pie dogs of the same breed were involved in the same property involved more than I dog.
fatal episode, that breed was counted only once (eg, if Fatal attacks were reported from 17 states
10 Akitas attacked and killed a person, that breed was (California [4 deaths]: Georgia and North Carolina [3
counted once rather than 10 times). When crossbred each]; Kansas, Texas, and Wisconsin [2 each]; and
dogs were involved in a fatality, each suspected breed Alaska. Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky.
in the dog's lineage was counted once for that episode. Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York. South
Second. we tallied data by dog. When multiple dogs of Dakota, and Tennessee [I each]).
the same breed were involved in a single incident, each Some breed information was reported for all 27
dog was counted individually. We allocated crossbred attacks. As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most
dogs into separate breeds and counted them similarly commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, fol-
(eg, if 3 Great Dane-Rottweiler crossbreeds attacked a lowed by pit bull-type dogs (Table 1). Together, these
person, Great Dane was counted 3 times under cross- 2 breeds were involved in approximately 60% of
bred, and Rottweiler was counted 3 times under cross- human deaths.
bred). Data are presented separately for dogs identified
as pure~ and crossbred. Lastly. dogs were classified as to Twenty-year data~Some breed information was
whether they were on or ofT the owners' property and available for 238 human DBRE More than 25 breeds of
restrained (eg, chained or leashed) or unrestrained at dogs were involved in DBRF during the past 20 years
the time of the attack. (Table 2). Of 227 human DBRF for which data were
Table 1-8reeds of dogs involved in human dog bite. related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States. by 2-year periOd. between 1979 and
1998. Death-based approach of counting most frequent purebreds and crossbreds involved in 7 or more human DBRF
191t- 1981- 1983- 1985- 1981- 1989- 1991- 1993- 19!1S- 19!11-
Breed 1980 1982 1984 1986 1981 1990 19!12 1994 1996 1998 Total
Purebred
Pit bull-type 2 5 1/} 9 11. 8 6 5 4' 6 66
Roltweiler 0 0 1 1 3 1 3 10 10 10 39
German Shepherd Dog 2 1 4' 1 1 4' 2 0 2 0 17
Husky-type 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 15
Malamute 2 0 3 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 12
Doberman Pinscher 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 1 9
Chow Chow 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 8
Great Dane 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 7
Saint 8ernard 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7
Crossbred
Wolf-dog hybrid 0 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 2 0 14
,-" Mixed .breed 0 3 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 12
German Shepherd Dog 0 2 0 2 2 21 0 1 2 0 101
Pit bull-type 0 1 0 3 21 3 1 1 0 0 101
Husky-type 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 6
Roltweiler 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 1 1 2 51
Alaskan Malamute 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3
Chow Chow 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3
Doberman Pinscher 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Sainl Bernard 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Great Dane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 01
No, deaths for which 10 20 26. 24 22 34' 24 25 26' 27 238
breed was known "-
.Numbers differ from previous reports because police/guard dogs -at work- were excluded, and 1 new llBRF was identitied as occurring in 1996, IA purebred dog
and a crossbred dog of this breed were involved in a single fatality; therefore, that breed is counted only once in tho: lotal column.
... .-, -'._~~'~~._-'~ ..~--
--~- -"'.~--,..- .--
JAVMA. Vol 217, No, 6, September 15. 2000 Vet Med Today: Special Report 837
\)-3(0
Table 2-Breecls of clogs involvecl in human (log bite-relatecl fatalities between 1979 ancl 1998. using
clealll-based and dog-basecl approaches
De"th-b"sed "ppr""ch Dog-b"Sfld "ppro"ch
Breed Purebred Crossbred Total Purebred Crossbred Total
--~.
Pit bull-type 66 11" 76. 98 20 118
Ronweiler 39 6. 44' 60 7 67
German Shepherd Dog 17 11" 27. 24 17 41
Husky-type (includes at least 2 Siberian) 15 6 21 15 6 21
Malamute 12 3 15 13 3 16
Wolf -dog hybrid 0 14 14 0 15 15
Mixed-breed (NOS) 0 12 12 0 47 41
Chow Chow 8 3 11 8 13 21
Doberman 9 1 10 12 1 13
Saint Bernard 7 I 8 7 1 8
Great Dane I 1. 7" 11 2 13
Labr ador Retr ievCf 1 4 5 1 7 8
Akita 4 0 4 4 0 4
$led-type (NOS) 3 0 3 12 0 12
Bulldog 2 1 3 2 1 3
Mastiff 2 1 3 4 1 5
Boxer 2 1 3 4 1 5
Collie 0 3 3 0 6 6
Bullmastiff 1 1 2 1 1 2
Hound-type (NOS) 1 1 2 1 1 2
Retriever-type (NOS) 1 0 1 1 0 1
Chesapeake Bay Retriever 1 0 1 1 0 1
West Highland Terrier (NOS) 1 0 1 1 0 1
Terrier-type (NOS) 1 0 1 1 0 1
Japanese Hunting Dog (NOS) 1 0 1 1 0 1
Newfoundland 1 0 1 1 0 1
Coonhound 1 0 1 1 0 1
Sheepdog (NOS) 1 0 1 1 0 1
Australian Shepherd 0 1 1 0 3 3
Rhodesian Ridgeback 1 0 1 1 0 1
Cocker Spaniel 1 0 1 1 0 1
.A purebred dog and a crossbred dog of this breed were involved in a single fatality; therefore, that breed is counted onty
once in the total column.
NOS = Not otherwise specified.
available, 55 (2~%) deaths involved unrestrained dogs DBRF as well as an accurate determination of the
off the owners property, 133 (58%) involved unre- breeds involved. Numerator data may be biased for 4
strained dogs on the owners property, 38 (17%) reasons. First, the human DBRF reported Iwn: are like-
involved restrained dogs 011 the owners' property, and Iy underestimated; prior work suggests the apIJroach
1 (< 1%) involved a restrained dog off the owner's we lIsed identifies only 74% of actual cases," Second,
property. to the extent that attacks by I breed are more news-
Four hundred three dogs were responsible for worthy than those by other breeds, our methods may
these attacks. There were almost twice as many dogs have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities
involved in off-owner-property attacks, compared with by breed. Third, because identification of a dog',; brf'ed
attacks occurring on the owners' properties. In 160 may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the
human deaths, only I dog was involved; in 49 deaths. breed of a particular dog), DBRF may bc differentially
2 dogs were involved; and in 15 deaths, 3 dogs were ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression.
involved. Four and 7 dogs were involved in 3 deaths Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by cross-
each; 5. 6, and 10 dogs were involved in 2 deaths each: bred dogs. Ignoring thesc data underestimates breed
and II and 14 dogs were responsible for I death each. involvement (29% of attacking dogs were crossbred
dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to
Discussion be counted more than once. Thercfore, we have elect-
Ideally. brccd~specjfic bite rates would be calculat- ed to present data separately for purebred and cross'
ed to compare breeds and quantify the relative danger- bred dogs to demonstrate at least 2 alternative count-
ousness of each breed. For example, 10 fatal attacks by ing methods. Relative rankings do nut differ greatly
Breed X relative to a population of 10.000 X's (I/l.000) whether one focuses only on purebred dogs or includes
implies a greater risk than 100 attacks by Breed Y rela- crossbred dogs. The crossbreed issue is also problemat-
tive to a population of 1,000,000 V's (0_1/1.000) _ ic when estimating denominators (ie, breed-specific
Without conSideration of the population sizes, Breed Y population sizes).
would be perceived to be the more dangcrous brccd on The denominator of a dog breed-specific human
the basis of the number of fatalities. DBRF rate requires reliable breed-specific population
Considering only bites that resulted in fatalities. data. Unfortunately, such data arc not currently avail-
because they are more easily ascertained than nonfatal able. Considering Am'erican Kcnnel Club registration
bites. the numerator of a dog breed-specific human data' for Rottweilers in parallel with fatality data for
DBRF rate requires a complete accounting of human that breed indicates that as the breed has soared in pop-
~~~.,.~~ -".'-'~.-
838 Vet Mecl Today: Special Report JAVMA. VOl 211, No_ 6. September 15. 2000
D~31
ularity, so have Rottweiler-rcIated deaths (24,195 regis- DBRF have varied over timc. Pinckney and Kennedy"
trations from 1979 through 1982 and 0 deaths; 272.273 studied human DBRF from May 1975 through April
registrations from 1983 through 1990 and 6 deaths; and 1980 and listed the following breeds as responsible for
692,799 registrations from 1991 through 1998 and 33 the indicated number of deaths: Gennan Shepherd Dog
deaths)_ Howcver, official registration or Iiccnsing data (n = 16): Husky-type dog (9): Saint Bernard (8); Bull
are likely to be biased, as owners of certain dog brecds Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden
may be less likely than those owning other breeds to Retriever (3): Boxer (2); Dachshund (2): Doberman
registcr or license their dogs' and, thus, should not be Pinscher (2): Collie (2); Rottweiler (I); Basertji (I):
used to calculate these rates. Finally, it is imperative to Chow Chow (I); Labrador Retriever (I); Yorkshire
keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could Tcrrier (I): and mixcd and unknown breed (15). As
be accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner- ascertained from our data. betwcen 1979 and 1980,
relatcd issues. For example, less responsible owners or Great Danes caused the most reported human DBRF:
owners who want to fostcr aggression in their dogs may bctween 1997 and 1998, Rottweilers and pit bull-type
be drawn differentially to certain breeds. dogs were responsible for about 60% of human DBRE
Despite these limitations and concerns, the data Indeed, since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30
indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs breeds have been responsible for fatal attacks on people,
accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States including Dachshunds, a Yorkshire Terrier, and a
between 1997 and 1998. It Is extremely unlikely that Labrador Retriever.
they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the In addition to issues surrounding which breeds to
United States during that same period and. thus. there regulate, breed-specific ordinances raise several practi-
appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities. cal issues_ For optimal enforcement, there would need
Although the fatality data are concerning, one must to be an objective method of determining the breed of
broaden the context to consider both fatal and nonfatal a particular dog. Pedigree analysis (a potentially time-
bites when deciding on a course of action. Nonfatal dog consuming and complicated effort) combined with
bites continue to be a public hcalth problem in the DNA testing (also time-consuming and expensive) is
United Statcs. Although this and prior reports'" docu- the closest to an objective standard for conclusively
ment more than 330 DBRF during a 20-year period. identifying a dog's breed. Owners of mixed-breed or
these tragcdies represent only the most severe manifes- unregistered (ie, by a kennel club) dogs have no way of
tat ion of the problem_ In 1986, nonfatal dog bites result- knowing whether their dog is one of the types identi-
ed In an estimated 585,000 Injuries that required med~ fied and whether they are required to comply with
ical attention or restricted activIty_s By 1994, an estimat- breed-speCific ordinances. Thus, law enforcement per-
ed 4.7 milHon people (1.8% of the US population) sus- sonne I have few means for positively determinIng a
tained a dog bite: of these. approximately 800,000 (0.3% dogs breed and deciding whether owners are in com-
of the US population) sought medical care for the bite pliance or vIolation of laws.
(332,000 in emergency departments), and 6,000 were Some munIcipalities have attempted to address
hospitalized.s,,, This 36% increase in medIcally attended this classification issue of unregistered and mixed-
bUes from 1986 to 1994 draws attention to the need for breed dogs by including wIthIn their ordinances a
an effective response, including dog bUe prevention pro- description of the breed at which the ordinance is
grams_ Because (I) fatal bites constitute less than directed. Unfortunately. such descriptions are usually
0_0000 I % of all dog bites annually, (2) fatal bites have vague, rely on subjective visual observation, and result
remained relatively constant over tIme, whereas nonfatal in many more dogs than those of the specified breed
bites have been increasing, and (3) fatal bites are rare at being subject to the restrictions of the ordinance.
the usual politIcal level where bite regulations are pro- When a specific breed of dog has been selected for
mulgated and enforccd, we believe that fatal bites should stringent control, 2 constitutional qucstions concerning
not be thc primary factor driving public policy regarding dog owners' fourteenth amendment rights have been
dog bite prevention. raIsed: first, because all types of dogs may inflict injury
Several interacting factors affect a dog's propensity to pcople and property, ordinances addressing only I
to bite, including heredity, sex, early experience, breed of dog are argued to be underinclusIve and, there-
socialization and training, health (medical and behav- fore, vIolate owners' equal protection rights; and second,
ioral), reproductive status. qualIty of ownership and because identification of a dogs breed with the certainty
supervision, and victim behavior. For example, a study necessary to impose sanctions on the dog's owner is pro-
in Denver of medIcally-attended dog bites In 1991 sug- hibitively difficult. such ordinances have been argued as
gested that male dogs are 6.2 times more likely to bite unconstitutionally vague, and, therefore, violate due
than female dogs. sexually intact dogs are 2.6 times process. Despite such concerns. a number of breed.spe-
more likely to bIte than neutered dogs, and chained cific ordinances have been upheld by the courts" ,.
dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than unchained Another concern is that a ban on a specific brccd
dogs.'2 Communities have tried to address the dog bite might cause people who want a dangerous dog to sim-
problem by focusing on diffcrent factors related to bit- ply turn to another brced for the same qualities they
ing behavior. sought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggression
To dccrease the risk of dog bites, several communi- casily fostered). Breed-spccific legislation does not
ties have enacted hreed-specific rcstrictions or bans. In address the fact that a dog of any breed can become
general, thesc have focused on pit bull-typc dogs and dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive_ From
Rottweilers_ Howcver, brccds responsible for human a scientific point of view. we are unaware of any formal
-- .- _...~~
JAVMA. Vol 217. No, 6. Septemlwr 15. 2000 Vet Med Today: Special Report 839
b~38
.
cvaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legisla like breed-specific legislation, all these approaches
tion in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites. appear formally unevaluated for effectiveness_
An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to reg- Targeting and evaluation of prevention efforts
ulate individual dogs and owners on the basis of their requires improved surveillance for fatal and nonfatal
behavior_ Although. it is not systcmatically reported, our dog bites. Dog bites should be reported as requircd by
reading of the fatal bite reports indicates that problem local or state ordinances, and reports of such incidcnts
behaviors (of dogs and owners) have preceded attacks in should include information about the circumstances of
a great many cases and should be sufficient evidence for the bite. ownership, breed, sex, reproductive status of
preemptive action. Approaches to decreasing dangerous the dog, history of prior aggression, and the nature of
dog and owner behaviors are numerous_ The potential restraint prior to the bite incident. Collection of data
importance of strong animal control programs is ill us- on the entire dog population (eg, breed. age, sex)
trated by our data; from 1979 through 1998, 24% of would help resolve comparative risk issucs and may be
human DBRF were caused by owned dogs (typically accomplished by combining paperwork on mandatory
more than 1) that were roaming off the owners' proper- rabies immunizations with registration of breed and
ty. Some deaths might have been averted through more sex. Only with numerator and denominator data and
stringent animal control laws and enforcement (eg, leash with formal evaluations of the impacts of strategies
laws, fencing requirements). Although the bite preven- tried by various communities will we be able to make
tion effectiveness of such animal control ordinances and science-based recommendations for decreasing the
programs has not been systematically evaluated, free- number of dog bites. In the intcrim, adequate funding
roaming dogs and dogs with menacing behavior are for animal control agencies, enforcement of existing
problems that need to be addressed even if they do not animal control laws, and educational and policy strate-
bite (eg, causing bicycle or car crashes). gies to reduce inappropriate dog and owner behaviors
Generic nOlvbreed-specific, dangerous dog laws will likely result in benefits to communities and may
can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a well decrease thc number of dog bites that OCCUI.
dog's behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog's
breed. I' In particular. targeting chronically Irresponsi- References
ble dog owners may be effective. '8 If dog owners are 1. Sacks JJ, SaHin RW, Bonzo SE, Dog bite-related fataliUes in
required to assume legal liability for the behavior and the United Slates. 1979-1988. lAMA 1989;262:1489-1492,
actions of their pets, they may be encouraged to seck 2. Saeks 11. Lockwood R, lIornreich 1. et aL Falal dog attacks,
professional help in training and socializing their pets_ 19891994. Pediatrics 1996;97:891-895_
Othcr options include enforcing leash laws and laws 3_ Centers for Disease Control. Dog bite related fataHties-
United States. 1995-1996. Morbid Mortal Weekly ReI' 1997;46:463--467,
against dog fighting. We noticed in the fatal cases, that 4_ Lockwood R. Humane concerns about dangerous dog laws,
less than one half of 1 % of DBRF were caused by University oE Dayton Law Rev 1988; 13:267 -277_
leashed animals off the owners' property. Subdivisions 5. Lockwood R. Rindy K. Are .pll bulls. different? An ,maly-
and municipalities that outlaw fences or limit fences to sis of the pit bull terrier controversy_ Anthrozoos 1987: I :2-8_
heights insufficient for controlling large dogs may be 6. NEXIS-LEXIS [online database available at http://wwwlexis-
increasing the probability of children interacting with nexls.comllnccl_ Dayton, Ohio: Lexis-Nexis Group: J999.
7. American Kennel Club. Dog registration statistics. .Ion I.
unsupervised dogs. Scientific evaluations of the effects 1990-Dec 31. 1.998_ New York: American Kennel Club.
of such regulations arc important. 8, Sosin DM. Sacks 11, SaWn RW. Causes ofnollfalal i'liuries in
Education of dog owners can address several issues: the United States, 1986. Acdd Anal Prev 1992;24:685-687_
(I) understanding breed profiles '9,20 may assist owners in 9_ Sacks JJ. KreSl/OW M. Houston B. Dog bites: how big a prob-
selecting the appropriate dog for their lifestyle and train- lem? Injury Prev 1996;2:52-54.
ing abilities, (2) convincing owners to seriously consid- 10. Weiss HB. Friedman D. Coben JH. Incidence of dog bite
injuries treated in emergency departments. lAMA 1998;279:5,1-53.
er the sex and reproductive status of their dogs is impor- I\. Quinlan KP. Sacks J1. Hospitalizations for dog bite injuries_
tant because male and sexually intact dogs are more like- lAMA 1999:281:232,,233.
Iy to bitc than are female and neutered dogs," and (3) 12. Gershman KA. Sacks 11, Wright Jc. Which dogs bite? A
teaching owners about the importance of socialization case-conlroJ study of risk faclors. Pediatrics 1994:93:913,917.
and training may decrease their likelihood of owning a 13. Plnckiley LE. Kennedy LA. Traumatic deaths from dog
dog that will eventually bite. attacks in the United Stales_ Pediatrics_ 1982;69l:l93-196.
14. Pollock S_ Banning pit bulls in Ihe Dislrict of Columbia.
Veterinarians playa key role in educating pet own- Memorandum to the Washingtbn Humane Society from the Arnold
-- ers, but because many dogs that bite may not be seen and Porter Law Firm. Washington, DC. 1999.
by a veterinarian prior to the bite incident, programs 15. Burt MR. Canine legislation: can dogs get a fair shake in
that encourage responsible ownership must also be court? 1 Am Vet Med Assoc 1997:210: II 39-1142.
presented through other venues. Public education 16. Wapner M. Wilson JF Are laws prohibiting ownership of pit bull-
strategies should include school-based and adult edu- type dogs legally enfo=able? 1 Am \i>t Med As<;oc 2000;216:J552-1554.
17. Companion animals section and uivision of higher educa- ,
cational programs addressing bite prevention and basic lion programs. Guidelines for regulating dangerous or vicious dogs.
canine bchavior, care, and management. Programs Washinglon, DC: Humane Sodety of the United Slates, 1987.
should strive to cnsure that dogs receive proper social- 18. Lockwood R. Dangerous dogs revisited. The Humane Sodety
ization, exercise, and attention: that they are given ade- News 1992;37:20,22_
quate food, water. shelter, and veterinary care; that 19_ Han BI., Miller ME BehaVioral promes of dog hreeds. 1 Am
Vcr Med Assoc 1985;186:11'1-5..1180.
they are neutered if they are not maintained for legiti- 20. Hart BL. Hart LA_ Selecting pet dogs on the hasis of cluster
mate and responsible breeding purposes: and that they analysis of breed behavior profiles and gender. 1 Am Vet Med Assoc
aw trained humanely and confined safely. However, 1985;186:1181-1185_
-, '"~ -~~,~'~ ~.
840 Vet Med Today: Speci", Report JAVMA, Vol 217, No, 6, September 15, 2000
l),- 34
The Seattle Timcs: Pit bulls: Responsiblc breeding, ownership are the keys Page 1 of 3
.
tIllJe ieaUlemmes
~"--<.~-"<<~
iIil!aW"UmM.oom
Wednesday, March 1,2006.12:00 AM
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtainedfrom
The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resa/g@ygattletime_s.com. with your request.
Pit bulls: Responsible breeding,
ownership are the keys
We expected that our Sunday Northwest Life story on pit
bulls ("Nature vs. Nurture," Feb. 19) would generatc some
vigorous debate among readers. The breeds are, aftcr all,
controversial.
Instead, responscs were unifom1ly positive. Nearly all of the
letters were from - no surprise - pit-bull owners. Find PHOTO BY JIMI LOTT I PHOTO
more discussion on our pets forum, ILLUSTRATION BY CELESTE ERICSSON!
www.St::_<:tttletimes.com/liying. THE SEATTLE TIMES
- Seattle Times editors
Thank you
Thank you for printing the enlightening article by Lisa Wogan on pit bulls. I hope people will read it
and become a bit more informed about this issue.
As the companion of a male pit bull who was adopted from Scattle Animal Shelter, I welcome all
intelligent information on the breed and the problems associated with caring for a dog of this type.
- Brian Bothomley, Seattle
Bans just move the problem
__Hcre's the problem: There are numerous breeds that are far more capable of causing damage in the
event of a dog attack. Once one brecd is banned, abusive owners and irresponsible breeders simply
move onto another breed (or continue to breed and own pit bulls in defiance of the law). Where does it
end? "
The only way a dog ban can be effective in the long term is to ban all dogs. Rather than throwing out
the proverbial baby with the bath water, let's take smart, effective action. Enforce animal-cruelty laws;
create real penalties for people who don't license their dogs, or allow their pets off-leash where they
shouldn't be; require sterilization for dogs that arc not owned by legitimatc breeders; teach our
children how to behave around dogs.
In other words, let's do the multi-pronged, long-term work necessary to protect both of our species,
D-L(o
hltn. //"p}lttlptin,.." n\M"nllr('p "nr"" /"oi _hin /O..in. <;:..........., nl')r1.--.~..._, ,,_'. : -1-"'...."'0 ') C I "'''' D. _~ ,_~,: __ __ "l 11 Ir-tl'\f\f
The Seattle Times: Pit bulls: Responsible breeding, ownership arc the keys Page 20f3
rather than looking for a quick fix that victimizes humans and dogs alike.
- Eric Sparling, Waterdown, Ontario
I~oem for a pit bull
Sinuous white lines
Snippets of flesh
Missing
Battered babies
My fur people
Tattered skin and bone
Pungent smiles
Shame for my species
That lavish kisses
Can not assuage.
- Heather Ramsey, Seattle
"I thought they were vicious"
I was one of those people who thought these dogs were vicious and could never be a good pet. To be
honest I had no idea what a pit bull looked like until I saw Naya. My son bought her with money I had
given him from my mother's estate.
He tried to pass her off as a boxer but finally revealed the truth. It didn't mattcr by that point. It was
love at first sight. Then along came Cian, and the two are like sisters. They are a constant sourcc of
amusement with their hilarious antics.
-They both sleep with mc (under blankets) and are nevcr left outside unless we arc home and keeping
watch over them. They arc never allowed to run free. I feel that is our job as their family to keep them
safe, not thc reverse. They werc not brought into our home to protect us and have not bccn trained to
be aggressive. '
- Noreen Lara, Snohomish County
,
Ban backyard breeders
Breed-specific legislation is a temporary solution to a more serious problem: breeders trying to make
a quick buck and irresponsible owners who fight, abuse and neglect their dogs.
D-L[ ]
httn'!!sp:att!ptimp<: nU/<:nllrt'f-' ,.n.n/.-'oi_hin/Print<;:t""", .....I')rl",-.n......"'''t irl='){){)')Q'2 "I ')') .I'"~~~~,;~- ') 11 Vln/),~
The Seattle Times: Pit bulls: Responsible breeding, ownership are the keys Page 3 of3
Responsible breeders havc contracts that will not tolerate illegal activity or abandonment. They have
temperament and multiple health tests on both the parent dogs. And they require any pet-stock
puppies (those that are not show or breeding quality) to be spayed or ncutered.
Backyard breeders don't care about what happens to their own dogs, let alone the puppies that they
bring into this world. The only people a pit-bull ban would hurt would be the law-abiding citizens
who can provide loving homes for them.
- Tara Armendariz, Seattle
Buyers, get educated
Lisa Wogan writes that "hybridizing of pit bulls with large guardian breeds such as bull mastiffs and
Rhodesian Ridgebacks may result in oversized dogs with the fighting skills of a pit bull and the
aggressiveness of a guard dog."
Rhodesian Ridgebacks are no/primarily guard dogs - they are hounds. They were bred to be
versatile dogs, used for hunting, ranch work, companionship and guarding the fann and family. But
hunting was their primary function in South Africa, where they were developed.
I have placed a few pit bull/Rhodesian Ridgeback mixes over the years that were very nice dogs,
much loved by their owners.
We in rcscue get tired of dog breeds being slammed because some people who own them are not
loving, responsible dog owners. It is up to the public to do your research before you get a dog.
That cannot be overemphasized. Many dogs are given up for being the way their breed needs to be to
do the job they were designed to do. Talk to people who own the breed you are considering, and when
you are ready to get one, get a rescue dog or go to a good breeder.
And in these days of the Internet, poorly bred dogs cost as much or more than well-bred dogs -
without the health checks on the breeding stock, or the assurance the breeder will take the dog back if
you can't keep it.
Knowledge is the one thing that prevents a person from making a mistake that may cost a dog its life.
- Lorraine Pedersen,
-Ridgeback Rescue, Lake Stevens
<:::ppyright J.,1IQQ6 The Seattle.Time,<:::QIl) pany
,
D'-Lj 'L
httn.//~p~ttlpt;tn,::.c T\'H(.~r\o.....r".,.,",", I.........,.m/............; h.~_/D....;.........C.........-.. _Iq.....l..-...............~,....._. : "J_"t\{\,"lO,""C 1 r"'\...... o_~_____ _.L: ___ ,.., /1 I~r\r\/
CO>~I >~ vlu-.~-~vcl~.~~uE t-.~~ C~~--~~~~~
~\ v-v ~ ..c"O..c"'u'Ov~",l::ouu~u .~v '-o~-~'~~~'-u
~ ...L:r./'lC-cJro +-'~~~.J:::c-5~~8..c...c:1--4:""""...c: ^-......~ O~on;:j.- Cb1l>..~
.L...i :3: ~ ~ t: -; -;; l;.= '" :: '" ~ 0 ~ '" <:: f-< ] -d - ~ ~ "@;::uag m ~ 8 <t: .~ ':: oj
..... -0 .0 ~ .2 ;:j {/'} ~ > ;;:"'...c U ~ 0 ffJ. C ll) 2 8 c ~ 11) ho. co +-' v:; ~
= Q u '" ,- - 0. '" _ 0. ';;0 -;;,. .... _ Q - >-, '" u .!:) '" "0 :3 0 0 l:: _ l:: ...c......, 0
'"0 l\j, \.... ~ - -- ..... "t) (I) '-' s::: Q) "'0 11) ~ (.)...:e: 0 ?\ ::1 u'J ....... m
<u r K~~2~~~~~MC~~-gu~~~ ~3.~~~o~'~.~~~c8~
~ - u X _ eo 0 -- ~ -- _= i';::; <t: .... '" E :;l o. 0.... .!:) 0 - '0 <..> l:: ..c ..0 0 -;:;
u ~ ~~~~vu~ _ -D-~~ ~ 0 c~~ v
' ~ ; E v'~ 0. l:: 6 'o...c ..c ~ .g 0 oj E ~ ~ :::: IOl ~ <::: ] v ;::. '" '+-< 6 8 :';:: ~ - v
Q) 0. 6 2; > ~;:::: ~ ,- _ f-< ;>-, <..> .... >- ;:: ;;:; <2 0 .... ';;' ~ 0 -ti -~ '" .... ., ;:;: ::: 0 6 -~ 0.,:: ~ -S <J:i
~ I;";j: l;'O: 0.. - ........ 0 >- 1) ;:.. '"0 ~ V c: I-J' ........ ..0 ~ 0 ~ -- tI'l ............
",~;..c2S 20 cU6~~'Ou.98v~0..c8v:3oj;:l0."'0"'2;"'0~l::V-;
'C l:: 0 - 'f> V .;;; E '" ,- '" .... - 0 ..c - "'.!:) 0 8 - IOl 0 OJ)..c
o ~ f/). .......... __ c: iZI +-' 0 tZl U l-o _......... ro c [f} ..0 ~tn ~ 0.. 0 s::: A.~ .-. 10--.1
cnU) ..........~+-1p...-......ro+->~U10U1C_""OV~1-. ~~..........roctjO__ ._~ -~,.....
_ '0 V v - 0 ;:l <..> ..c .- v ..c V .- h ~ ..c :." '" . 0.- U .- OJ)"O..c :>.... '" 0.--
~~~~m~O~ cu-_ ~~~ ~~~oooooB O~~~OO~~v ~
..c :;l - <..> ,~.- <..> ;:l U .:: _ IOl '" ~ V 2;:l .9 V '+-< l:: d 1:1 oj V l:: 0 ..c l:: q _ 00 .... 0 d
= .... 0 :.;::: v ~ 0 ;.;::; - c 6v ;:l C -S '" .9 '" ;; '" "O.~ ;:l.;;; "0 ~ g -S ~ 0'- '" .;:; V .... ~
if] 0.. ~ 2. ..0 ~ u -...... ::s ~ '-' H ~ 0 J-i - Q) ~ ;;J 8 0 G) ...L:: u t d.- ::!> ~ Q ..r::: ~ -
---""r ro ......... _ u -- 0 ::::s -- .......... '4.1' Q) -..........:::.::: _ ........... ....... <,.\ot \V ...... tU ..0
OJ)0 00 -;::: "0 <:: .... f-< ;':> V ;:':' 0 bO 0. Il) ~ 'vt) --, t:: 8'- 9 Cl V eO. 8 ...... Il) (jj ~ :? ::P"'2 3' '+-< '0 0
~ ....1:1"'0 .-o..-o....O'u'+-<..c"'Ov._~- ..c 0 ..c~v-- '" ........
\t\ll "'0 ......... u'l ro () ~ 0 rn U ~ cd ro ~~ ~ +J __ ~.......... U) ~ .D +-' _..-i rI) ~;:-...... {) ~ ~ _ 0 0 ~
,J:J ocr.n>.. .ifJ-oot.- ~ O)'bO Va.i~~ ~v:<V~I])"Ov >-.l1JCl UOOO>-,
-- ~........... v- ....... 0 .........r ~ 0.. s::: :::...... - - Q.) ~..c:: Q) ..a c (i'} ...............r::: 0 .......::s ..0 -
~ ~~ u~ ~o~_...... u~2v >o~>......~o 3~~ ;O~.-
'" 2 OJ .:: <J:i 0. <..> ~ '" V ':;; ,~.';:; ..c.... 0"0 g ~ l:: ~ "0 >--. u <J:i '+-< 0. ..c 8 l:: E
'-" Q,) ....c:: bO ...... t'\) 1--.0 ""0 '"'d u .~ -........ 'l.I' G) ~ -..... _ ~ (1) s:;:: ~.
----' -ol\3~......o;:S.~~....... ...0...0 v ;;:::;~.....;>- --o.D(t) ro""droo.8~u ~>-'ro~
-- vB.!:)~,oo~....;:l _l::V ~...."'_ "''''~~'''~'O~ 8~ ~1Ol~v
..... _Si ~ v 0 _'" 0 ...... '0 -5 ~ ~ :5 g ~ _ '" ~ -1Ol ..c gr v..c ~,.C ~ 0 a E V 0. g ~
=, o...c -5 .2 Ci ~ ..;- ~ 8 "0 ~ V -- >--. g, '" ~ Oh o..!:) '" c: '+-< ~ .... 00 V ..c V >--. '0 ~
~~_~~~~~ '~~E.~ ~~~~ o~~~ouoo'~]=~ ~~~
..;,: ~ "0 ..c '..... .... ? V ..:> V > 2 - ~ "0 OJ 5 0 f-< ~ o..c' "O,~ '" Il)
~ ~ u 0 ~ OJ) 0 VJ- V > V '" s:: '" v 0 '" ;:l -;:: --"0 . - ..c .......... ...... ....:::: '" '"
.j.....Io cd - .- ..s::: .- 0 - ...... .D V: 00 - ~ V' ..t::.... Q):'= ... ""0 Q)
'" ...._..c"'g"'..c....'+-<8_ ....v 'Ov '" ~~g'+-<u]~..........c 1Ol;:l......c
o=~.... '+-<-0. ~~'Ov.... v..c~1l) 00~01:l8"'j1:l...."'8 v~of-<
g. _ q q v 0 \0 ;:::: .::: "0 --, '~..c 0 .~ '" 0. -S ~ U ~ '" ~ Il) 00' ,.0"0 ;>.. :v OJ)......
....", ' .... q 0 v -S '" ""' U Il) v Il) "'..... - .., ~ ::;;.... 00] s:: 0. 0 V O.S- 0. IOl ~ .... ~ IOl 00
o ~ -.;: E ~..j tU ("'") l"J'} ,...s:;::j a ~ G.) 0 _~ ~ ..s:::: ~ 'v +"'" .- ~ .; (f) "'d ~ ~ cIj en ~ -~ ~ ~
.~ ..coo.'~o..c'+-<~-o>--.-- ~]....~ 1:1"0;0 "'E"''''-......cIl)..c~1l)
~ f-<';; E ;;:; '" .... 0 Il) .... ..=l v "0 ;:j,] ..c 'iii = . ~ v 0 ~"O = V a -S ~ ~ ~ ;:j.~"O t;
. _ ~ 0. g l:: eV 1:1 0 ~ t: .;:: .... .... :u :s: ~ -5"'2 <J:i ~ -ti .;;: ~ .E :0 .~ .... ~ "0 ':>'8 ..c '+-<..c bJ)
..'" en'- C =:> ",""'" rn ",' bO (<;;J 0 ~- Q) ro '--J .- I ...... C
8 B .... 0 0 vOl:: '. -- OJ v ..c - 0 '" V 0 f-< .... v ~ <..> ..... ..c _ <t: >=: <..> f-<....._ '"
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...c -5 ~;j 2: -5 ~ Q) ~ ~- 15 ~ ~ 0: :: .5 -~ 0 ~ ;:1 _8 2 -~ ~ b!)
Q) '0 <<I .
..c 1Ol0~
. m ~ Q
oj 1:1 0
E >--..- .-
.... .... ....
o >-, oj
..c...."''''
.......... (n it) s::::
I!.L.-tI . :;: Il) OJ) Il)
........ '" ..c <<I '"
Q)~t:~
,..., C3 0. '" 0
..., q ~ -v ~
0'0- ~
'" V 0. ;:l
,,1\ ~ -ti g :0
Wtl 8 .~ 0 .(1)
~',\ '" '" ~ s
w ~ ~.9
..... -g .s"E ~
..., l::~CV
_~ 8 2 <E
CIJ vvoj.v "'0.'::::06'
s:: :::: bl) ~~ ~ . t]) 0 V +-no _.....:;
~ V.J:1q':'..c~S..cE",.t)
, OJ) ~._ IOl ~ V 0 ~ 00 ~ .~ -'
00 .... ~ ctc J...t o.~ bO 0 (\) .... t
. ,::::;:l:3:"O o.-..c l'l1:;l 00_;
...L.....J =o~.oll)v ;:1 ,::::-{
..... .... ._ V ...... ,:::: ;> :> '+-< 0 "d <<I V ..<
Q' ..... ~ o....!. ....._ ;> 0 >-, Il> .... <H .
.D ~ 1...:-....., ~ ......., t'IJ ....... I--l -
-1.-1 \U t 0 ~ 0 ...... 4-t -'"':"'I en 15) C
.';:; 6. 0. ~ '" bJ) u ~ 0 ~ C3 cc:
~ o.v....o",v,o_ '" ....0;
, .... 0 >>..c 1:1 .- ..c '" ;> .... '.... ..<
]0 :::......c:> ~Og~f
......:.:: ~~ ~ g bO~ V 1- Q) l-t ~
~ -0 ~.- , ..c 8 c..r:: o'iij ..;,: V C
11) :J :u c ~ -........~ rn ...0 'C bl) ~
~ ~~t;.~!Uo~a::"'O....t;;5:.!
(J.) -"00'0'-0"'0. 1:100 Of
;:l-<H00~"'0",<<I_-cJ'>
en ~ +-' - I-.i ~ C ...---' (;
~ ~ :u .g"E ~ c S -~:.a rn >-~:;
~ ;> -o..c . <<I 8 -"" .- '" u .... 'S' >
..., ~ -~ '-.c.... tI? :::s ~ CO "'.-4
'" 0...... 8 0 s:: -- E <U V C
~ ...t:::~C1) .....m > .0-..14--1 +
--.'
",.. C I h V v'l I 0 >.. '-C: '"'0' ':.!-t "0 "0 c.... I OJ I ~...... "'0 s::: 0 >-...........; '....s::: <Il~ Il) Q.) ~.~ bD c:
~ ._~~" ~tu~=~.~ c~Ovc_~~& .~~ ~ --o~3~"~ ~~ ~~~_5v
= ". ..c.- C.... ~ 6 "'0 :::! .... '" '" .:: ..c ~ '" bO..c '" oj;:: '" V - '0 ~ .:::$: po. 0 6 _ ..'<: ~
I .J..-.o. ~ 0 - V Vl ....... "-.......... -...... ~ (],) \.."I' \-, --"'"
D - ~ -~ <8 ;:1 E '" t: -~ <S :3 r; E r: .5:2 E ~ E:; "E <..>;; G :0 -~ ~ .::: 2:;' 0'0 <5 p.. e ~.s. ? ~
,. ~ ....... en m c: 2;. en ~ "0 -S I/) V ~ (1) 0.. 15 A <'d .j-I $....0 ~ l1) (l) -0 ~ 0.. CO. ~ 6 -0 1.." ~ ~ (.I)
,..., U '2. 0.... '0 0 '" '" V'+-<8 '" ..c l:: - ..c ~;:l <..> .~ 0. <J:i ~ '" 2 -;:: :::: '" 0 "0 ..;,: <t> OJ ~ q V '"
\wi ' U <l) c ~ ::l --- ;.. ........ ~ ~ ....0 ......,.:>- d) v'l U IZI - 0 ...... ..s:: 0) , u .J-..J rn 0.. 0,) 0 V
V > ~ c;: IZl ~ V OJ E 0 rfl m < ...r::: bIJ s:::: -- It) ...... 0. 0 :.::: 0 ..0 C ~ !lJ ~ [I'J 0... (;) ...c ........ -5 10-4
,. 1 '0 0 --.... -.;; <t> -. ..... ..c 0 blJ 0 ..c '+-< ~ q.- ., l::.,;J '" -~:t: c::: 8 .... 1:1 0.
""" ~ -~ V CI'J ] ~ u EOO ~ 0 ~". ~ .s "- ~ 0 -~ 01-' C ~ ~] .5 ~ ~. ro 8 -S -5 E ~ a: ~ go] V R Co ~
> ~.... -.... 0 ~ ~..... .... ~ l:: 0 ;:l V __ ~ -..... .... - __ .... -. ' 0 0 U 0 .... "',-; OJ
Qj 1..-. cd - Cd n.> .......... l1)'- rn l\3 .0 <IJ I!J ~ -5 tZl -........ ~...o bD IZI ....... - >... Co ~ ~ CU .;:... ~ fl) (,f}....... _ "'0 ~ 0 $::I u"J I
..rJ~_ ""0 Il) U)S--; ~o~....s:: >\...j l\3 o~
"... E 7: <t> v .n '" ~ .,; '5 8 <:: .~ "d e ~ g '" '=" >-. g. - '" V ::t_~'a U .- ...... .... Jj oS .~ ~ 8 >-'8 .... V 0 -;:; 0 <t> 0..
WJ :::s >- ~ ""0 0 4-' It) 0 ~ J--i (\) ..c ~ ~ -_ (/): "- s::: ~ t.t-.I... ...... -........ 0 _ ~ _...... il) (I) "'d ..J:::J
........ ;, ,<<I' ;:; v.';:; :r; ~ ~ ~ .:: Os 2 C _ ~.:: ~ M ~ ;. ~ ~ ~ gg ~ ] E ; ~ ~ ~ -: E ~ 5 .;;; 00 ~ .s ~,g -g E g
~~ ..co.", '0 uUv 0 -6 f-<...."'''' 8'+-<"''''S........ 0'::::00 . mu~
v.... '" V l:: ~ <:: ..c '" .... V V '" bI) '" .... V oj 0 l:: _~ 0 V -. V ~ 'Z; 0 V V :$ >-, E bIl
Q) ..c - ..c -.......c 0 .- .... .... V m l:: '" - 8 - '" 0 '" 0 - :;l 8 ...... -...... '" -
... '" .... IOl 0 ..c u..... OJ .... ~ 0 .... .n - '" '" ~ <H ;:; - U .... ~ 0 bJ) ..c 0 .!:) .~ '-8 :3: -:;; 1:1 "'.- I ....
Qi ~ ~ tr.I....... v....c C 0... V 'to) .-............ 0 ;...... ....c::: >-.""""" ,.....I .........; Vl en ~ ~ "'0 ....... '"'0 .f--i \.\.1 0 l.- - V
t~~ c=~~oo~u~~u ~ ~~..o~uv--~C~~~20u~~~o ~u~v~_u-=oo--
, ~. -0 .n V .... -. V '- ;.. 1:1 l:: V ~ '0 ,:::: - 0 ~ .........;,:" V .... - .... 0 .... l:: :;l - ....
........., ,.) dJ 0 ~.~ ~ < ~ :: ..J:: ~ -~ n 1J ___ (1) 0 _ IV ,,, 0 Cd. ~ -~ Z +-" +-> 2. <.'0 p.. 11) ~ U'"I (";I 0 (l ~ ~ r: ""'J.. ~ ~~ '"":::: 1..0
~ ~ ~ ~
'" ~ "-
<: -s S ~
--.. '" '" 3:
~.~~ Qo~
$O()>::...
__ ~:.;:; E:
~ f.J.l ~ ~
~ "<J~ "<J
~ -s.'" ~
t_ ... '" c:;
_-t::...
....... "<J <;j ""
E: 'S :;; -s
~~",]
~ <;j"S <::;
~-t::",l::'
.... <u <;j -
'S"S~lt
<>> ~ "<J::;
V) .., "- <;j
",,-'" ..,
..c:. >:: E; '"
c <.) .., ..,
"0 ~ "-l-S
4::~]"-
Q., .~ >:: <2,
Q <.) ..,
<;j t' E;
;:: .., ~
.., "t:i "" . ,
""""'""olI ....... 3.....
~ Q ~
~ . '"
;:! ~...
c >:: ;::
~ .., -
;::..... c
<;j <u c:..
... '" ......
'" ;t .
-. ~ .
~ t; ~ i
-<::>.5ll::'
~.....g
..... >:: ...
'" .., ..,
15 E; ,,-.
t:j 0 ~
S ~ EO .s
~ ;:! ~ c
2 ;:! ~
ti~o.o~
.... .~'.s c
~t;"t:iE;
,~ .~ ~ ....
.... "1;j .... <.)
U') C' if} ....... ;>"10 lJ) s:: ^ ~ (() , . v U')" v rn , r.n '""0 "':::'=:""'0' ~
- '" .... E ~ 0 ..r.: '" <l> .... .... .0 <l>..r.: . '" <l> 0.. - 0 0 <l>::> U
..<:: -::: :;:l , "<::..r.: E '" - _ <l> 0 ~ .~ ~ <l> -0 ......<:: 0 -:;._ '" .... 0 <<I
~">'OO - r-- ~~ -..<::; _ ..<::M....~....~<l>O ~
..<:: ~ '" -- <l> ~ ~ - I:j ~ ~ 0 ~ 6 '" ~ '0 0.. -1 ~ ;' 0...0 ::> - i:: ro
00 8",0",<l><<I00 N V) ,....." ~ "-- 1-'" E ::> >. ....~..o", 0
:;:l.....: ::>:0= '" - ..<:: 0 .....,....." '-I. ~ <<I '" ...... 0 "0 .0 0 ._ ._ . .....<:: ....
o_"'~ ...",~"O N '-I r--...... '-I .....0.."000;:1 oc: ......0.."O:::::,::~.....r:::
..<:: ;:I t: .':! bJ) .... ~ c: '-..I ,....." ~ r-- 0 "0'" c: '" '" "0 -= -5 ~ <l> ... "0 ~ ,-
~ .D 0 en t::: 0 ,- 0. 'V........"",. ~ m ~ tn Q) cu rJ'J t'U en...r:: (l) ._ __
<<I 'h -- P ~ 0 <<I ..... _ ,","',....." '" ~ ~ -- ..r.: '" :::: <l> "0 ..... 'v _ .... !3 0
-::: 1::; >, -;:::,.- >> - ..... '-..) t.o:l 'U '..J ?"-';::: ,; '" 0 _ ~ -0 -C..:o.:: <l> 0 :?n..:o.:: ",'" ...
. ::> ~ - ,-.... N - '"' - - ........ '''<:: '" ........ '0 ~.- > c: ....
>, 0.. '" 00 c: 0 ::> ;:: >, '..J,....." '-..I ....s:: ~ :: 0 <l) ~ ->> r-- U _ 0 c:.o ;:3 '<::' :::: 0.- :;:l
..c .- '" - '" '" ~ '..J ~ ~. ~ N ..0.... ~ ... ::l ..<:: 0.. """ ;:3 ....
0.. 00..<:: ..<:: "0 ..0 <l) - ..... , ......, ::i ", '" -0 '" <l> '" - _ P .0 0 00 .0 0 E '"
o ~ 00..:0.:: 0.. ' -- ...... 0 ::> >';:3 '" '" ._..<:: ~ 0 c:
;:3 "0 '0 U ~ - ....... ....s::........ -:::.. r , 0 ~ ... '" -... >. 00' -::: <l> -' .- '::: "0 0 ....
o<t>g<l>"'",~"" ~ 'U ''-l...-, '-' --"'","'3.0 "';:3" "';;J c: 0 "'.o..p....c
>. ~ +- -;:; P '" :2.% ~..... Cj 'U V) s:: eo >-,'- ~ ... ___ ~ 0.. ~ -:: '" ",.0 <l) ., '" 00 ...
-- ~ c -.... . .......... "' , '" C 0.. l-l.. . ~ u .... ~ -- ~ 0 s:: -
v_'R '" .... 1'0..:0.:: '" t>ll t_'-"" ~ ." r'\' 'U .... :::: 0 '" c ~ q 0 '" '" "'..<:: "0 " ..c '" __ _~
- 'V 0 0 .... 0 -J '..J ....................,. - - 1'0'" ~ '" _ .... _ ..c f- 0 0 I- ;:3 > >
.0 .... 8 ::r:: ..c 0 ,. "0 ............... -..... .......,. ~ ... - 0 o..r.: ... ...... ..0 .... -.... .... .0 __
' -0" ''-..I............ N ,....." ..."'0_.... "';:l 0 0-0)
~ "':'.!:: E U ..c - '0 ..... ....... '..l N . '..J ..<:: ... ,.c: > 0 .. Z q ~ 0)..0 Q) 'O.......;..c '" ..<::
o E '" ~ ;:l .... N ..... ~ '..l...... .Y: u ..... ~ 0.... u;>-. ... ._ ~ L..
.... - 0 ::> 0 0 '" ,'..l 'U ............ , -..... f-< -- -_ '" ... 0) >- 0 0).... d .... ::> 0 .... ... 0 r-
'O.~ ... 0.... .....::l ,..,- r '\ ..... .......- '" ..".. ... ..<:: VJ ..... "0 ._....... c .c ~ ..c _
'" "" ..c '..0 "- E ..0 3' eo -., ;:::.. "-...J C) ;::s ~ ~ t>ll ~ '-' l-l.. ",:0= 0.. "" 0) 1'0 ~ .->, ~ do
\j ~......,I:j
:: IT) Q) 0 "0 -'::: .Y: - -..s- -.....?'-, ~ - 0) ... '" _'::: ,:: '" >, ... co..!....:.. -0 E 0
I) ... ~q""'uC """-.>............ ~ ,....."..... "'..c; 0. <<1"'0.'" o-..c::02c 0"<::
~ -g oE :..::: IT) >. ~ ~ 'U t~ . ~ ~ ~ \j ~ :: g ..... '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u Eo'" ~ ~
'" '" - ,- ~ -J .... :;;;::.:::-, ~ ~ 0 '" .c -- ~ E '- '"
<l '" -;;:; ~ ~ '" ~ ....... '-. s::: -- ".0 ~ 00-7...::r:: 0 ;>-', c..c ~
~ ~ g u :..::: ~ ~ Cj ~ ~ ~ <0"'0 (l) ==:;1 -t: --::: en '"0 .5 i...... :J eo ;j 11)
~ ~ <0-. 0 ~ 00 0. C) r'\' & V:l ~ r-o,,, c ~ ~ l2;, ;:) 0 '" g -;:; ~ ~ ~ c C -e-o
J~ 0 ._~~C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ D~D_ m~~~~~ .~~
:J.. "'13 ~ '0 C vii -;;: ... \..) ~ 0'- - .....:;;:: 0 ~>>~ _::: 0 ~ ~ P.. ..<:: . 0 "'.... c;;:
'" IT) - 0 E N r........ ............ N ('\, - 0.. _ 0.. '" h ... '" '" 0 ~
0( (U >-\ U +-.lo ....s::::::...... t"'-...,j --- 1 '-J ~ '"0 :< _ ..r:::: c tf')....c;::. .......... f,f) ......... ::J _ IU c......
) .... - <I) 00,_ '::: '~ i1l 0 l""""'-I ....... ~ K " V '" 0 0 0 eo.... -:;; 'L: ~ - '- b/) 0
;U 0....<:: -!:: ~ o-.J..i . <+.. ~ ;.... ;.... v)......, V '" ~.. _~ -:2 .Q '" -" cO OJ ~ ;;; E 0 s
o - ~ c ......, r > r-.?> N t_ '" q ~ '" ~ '0 u 0. ;;J 0 ~ 0..
:>.. .", -, :.0 E ~ . 0 '0 N 'U '..l ::i '..l - J 0 ",13 0 -5 .... ~ .... C ... 0 VJ 0. .::: '0 -0;:1
~ 0 ~ ... q ~ ~ ~.;::: :;; '..l s:: .......,. ......, """-.> 0 b/) ~ bJ) >. 0..'0) ;;J ~ U >> 0 g. 0.. DO:::
" .... -;;; -; IT) .... E "0 ,~ _ ~ i-> ::i .......,. "'"'-" 0::; .g ..g ~,8 ~ ~ ~ -5 0 ~ ~ ... n. 0.. 0 E - 00
.0 C ... ... r- va.... .->, ~. -. r"\ ...,....,. ....... __ 0, ..c c 0 _..r::: C
0-0 -E....~uO ~ ~ ~ ~ ....~o..c~FE,o!:: P_~..c::"'-~OoIT)
I ;::: bfJ IT) 01) .,. ':"" u ~ ;;. C) \..) ...!:::J .g .n <l> ;:3 C ~ 0 ;;; r: ~ ;; IT) ,. : ~ 'U '" g OJ) 0)
o '" ", -<::: 0 .>-,0::; '0 E - f"f'\ C:l. 1\ 0 <<l ~ 13 0 00", - U .....<:: CD ",..c:: N'" ... 000)
" - v -......., \ '-ILl --Eo..;.> '" > - '"
;.> 0 <1' ..><: I-I.. - 0 '" . 0 U f- ::= f- _ "0 ;:) '0 ..... -0 0 '" -- .... 0 -l
~~~"O ~..r.:;1:~ ~ ,- p~ ()~:::c :jr~r ....('):::i........n1 ~
5.t;:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 6, 2006
To: Parks, Recreation and Public Safety Committee
From: lwen Wang, Management SeIVices Di~
Via: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manage '
Subject: Memorandum of Understanding with the Friends of Hylebos Wetlands for the
Invasive Weed Removal Program
POLICY OUESTION:
Should the City enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Friends of the Hylebos
Wetlands ("Friends") for the purpose of removing invasive weeds in the vicinity of the Hylebos and the
Historic Cabin Parks?
BACKGROUND:
The Friends approached the City to obtain resources to conduct work in 2006 to control invasive non-
native vegetation and to reestablish native vegetation in the West Hylebos Wetlands and at the Brooklake
Blueberry Farm. The total project cost is estimated to be around $19,000. The Friends have requested
that the City fund $10,000; the balance will be funded by a grant the Friends obtained from Banrock
Station Wetlands ConselVation Program. The City's costs will be funded within the current operations
budget by the Parks Department and Surface Water Management operations.
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft MOU, Exhibit A - Scope of Work, and project map.
OPTIONS:
1. Approve the attached MOU and authorize $10,000 as compensation for the proposed scope of
work.
2. Do not approve the attached MOU.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Option 1.
PRPS COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Committee authorizes forwarding Option _ to the April 4, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda.
ApPROVAL OF COMMITTEE AcnON:
Jeanne Burbidge, Chair .
Jim Ferrell Member Linda Kachmar Member
(;- \
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
FRIENDS OF THE HYLEBOS WETLANDS
AND
THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU'') is made this day of April 2006 by and
between the undersigned representatives of the City of Federal Way, a Washington Municipal Corporation, and
Friends of the Hylebos Wetlands, a Washington not-far-profit organization.
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, The Friends of the Hylebos is a Washington noHor-profit organization that protects and restores
the environmental quality of Hylebos Creek, the West Hylebos Wetlands, and surrounding watershed;
WHEREAS, The Friends of the Hylebos received grant funds from Banrock Station Wetlands Conservation
Program in the amount of Nine Thousand One Hundred Eighty-five Dollars ($9,185.00) for the removal of
invasive, non-native weed species, for a follow-up survey for the re-growth of invasive nonnative weed species,
and for re-vegetation;
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way owns the affected property subject to the removal of said weeds, follow-
up survey, and re-vegetation;
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way and The Friends of the Hylebos agree that it is in the best interest of
Federal Way citizens for The Friends of the Hylebos to remove invasive non-native weeds and to perform a
follow-up for re-growth and re-vegetation more particularly described in the attached Exhibit "A" - Scope of
Work;
WHEREAS, said grant from Banrock Station Wetlands Conservation Program is insufficient to compensate The
friends of the Hylebos for all of the identified work;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants contained herein and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which hereby are acknowledged, it is mutually
agreed and covenanted, by and between the parties to this Agreement, as follows:
1. Commitment of The Friends of the Hylebos
A. Perform the tasks as outlined in the attached Exhibit "A" - "Scope of Work for Invasive Weed Control
and Native Plant Re-establishment".
B. Complete said tasks no later than December 31,2006.
C. friends will invoice the City upon task completion in accordance with the estimated cost for each task
and work area contained in the Scope of Work.
,-' 2. Commitment of the City of Federal Way
A. The City of Federal Way agrees to contribute to the Friends of the Hylebos Wetlands Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000) for the purpose of supplementing the Banrock Station Wetlands Conservation Gral1t
for the work to be performed pursuant to Exhibit "A".
B. Upon City inspection and acceptance of completed work, the City shall pay Friends for such work
completed within 30 days.
3. Term and Termination. The terms of this MOU shall commence on the date written above and shall
continue until terminated on December 31, 2006 or the completion of the work, whichever comes sooner.
E-'Z-
4. Indemnification. The Friends of the Hylebos shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Federal Way
and its officers, boards, commissions, employees, agents, attorneys, and contractors from and against any
and all liability, damages, and claims, (including, without limitation, reasonable fees and expenses of
attorneys, expert witnesses and consultants), which may be asserted by reason of any act or omission of
The Friends of the Hylebos, its employees, agents, or contractors, which may arise out of this MOU.
5. Governing Law. This MOU shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of Washington (excepting any conflict of laws provisions which would serve to defeat application of
Washington substantive law).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Friends of the Hylebos and the City of Federal Way have executed this
Memorandum of Understanding as of the day and .year first written above by their duly authorized
representatives.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY FRIENDS OF THE HYLEBOS WETLANDS
Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager Chris Carrel, Executive Director
33325 Eighth Avenue South PO Box 24971
PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney, Patricia A Richardson
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Laura Hathaway, CMC
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss.
COUN1Y OF KING )
On this day personally appeared before me Chris Carrel, to me known to be the Executive Director of The
Friends of the Hylebos that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be
the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on
-- oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed, if any, is the
corporate seal of said corporation.
GIVEN my hand and official seal this day of . 2006;
(typed/printed name of notary)
Notary Public.in and for the State of Washington.
My commission expires
E-~
Exhibit A - Scope of Work
Pcoposed Scope of Wock foe Invasive Weed Control and Native Plant Re-estabJishment
at the T..Ve."t Hylebos Wetlands and Brooklake Blueberry Farm
Friends of the Hylebos Wetland,,>
February 15,2006
This scope of work is for Friends of the Hylebos Wetlands to conduct work in 2006 to
control the extent ofim.'a,,>ive nonnative '\'e-ed ">pecies in and adjacent to the \Vest
Hylebos \\letlands and at the B1"Ooklake Bluebeny Falm and to re-establish native
vegetation in these areas. This project will include: 1) removal afre-growth ofHimalayau
blackberry at the Brooklake Blueberry Farm in an area approximately 60,000 square feet
that has been fe-planted in previous years with native trees and shrubs; 2) a follow-up
survey of the We50t Hylebos Wetlands Park Boardwalk for re~gro\"1h of invasive
nonnative weeds and spot-removal and re-vegetation as needed, including an Eagle Scant
re-vegetation of the old eotflUlce trat!; and 3) removal of Himalayan blackberry over an
area of approximately 40,000 - 60,000 square feet at the Hi5otorical Cabin Park'West
HylebO!; \Vetlands entrance, site preparation foe future planting and re-\"egetation with
native plant,> of the ..Vest Hylebos Wetlands' historical "entrance trail."
This project is supported, in part, by 59,185 in grant funds fl..om the Bancock Station
Wetlands Conservation Program. The items described below are those proposed for the
city of Federal Way fund,,>.
1) Rewo".al ofHimaht~'all blackberry at the Brooklake Blut'bel'l)' Farm
Staffwill survey site for blackberry re-growth during Febmary.:1\'Iarch and determine
priority areas for invasi\'e cemovaL In March"April, Cfews will hand remove and mulch
on-site.
Costs:
2 crew days (Sl,OOO/day) for blackberry removal. 2 staff days Stream Team Coordinator
($203/day) for peojed supe:lvision and monitoring, 1 staff day Executive Director
($268!day) project management. ;\.{ileage reimbursement ($20)
2) 'Vest H}'Jebos \Vl'tlands Boardwalk lnnsin Managemellt
During 2005, The Friends initiated a new program to sunrey the West Hylebos Wetlands
for inva50ive weed species. Several transects were established and surveyed and the entice
boardwalk \....-a5 surveyed. Invasive !.pecie-s presence were located with a GPS receiver and
a map was created to record locations. All species were hand-removed.
In J\Ule/luly 2006, the Friends witl conduct a follow-up survey to identify re~gcov.1h and
new occurrences of invasives. All im"asi'\.'es will be hand-removed and mulched in an I
existing mulch lo<:,ation.
Additionally, the Friends \...-i11 !.upervise an Eagle Scout project to re.plant native
\'egetatioll at the West Hylebos T"Vetlands' historical "entrance traiL" TIllS trail was c1o,,>ed
several years ago and re~planted_ Continuing human usage and. poor soils have reduced
E-Lf
plant :,un'i,.al and an additional planting is required. Plallting will eccU1' in
October/November.
C05tS.'
1 ';otaff day Stream Team Coordinator (S203:'day) and 2 staff days Executive Director
($268/day) for project implementation and management. Native plants (S4-00)
'Volunteer Componelli:
The Eagle Scout Project is a yolunteer effolt that will include 3-5 volunteers who will
complete the plaming as well as additional park improvements.
3) Removal of Himalayan blackberJ")' at (he Hhtorical Cabin Park
An extensive infestation of Himalayan blackberry is established at the Historical Cabin
Park and In the West Hylebos Park along the entrance trail from the cabin park.
Treatment will follow the succes:.ful methods used at the Brooklake Blueberry Farm. In
late May/early June, Cre\l..s will machine remove blackberries where possible, and hand
remove where necessary to pl.esefye existing native .....egetation. Crews will cover the
treated area with thick landscape fabric, which will be secured in place for 2 gro\ving
seasons (e.g. the')ummers of 2006 and 2007) to kill the rootittock.
Future project plans entail removing the fabric and planting the area with native
vegetation to replace the blackbenies.
Costs:
4 crew days (5 I ,OOO:'day) for blackbeny removal and im;taUation of commercial grade
black landscaping fabric ($600).5 staff days Stream Team Coordinator ($10J/day) for
project implementation and monitoring. 2 staff day.. Executive Director ($168/day)
project management Mileage reimbur~ement ($ 10)
Volllnteer Component:
We plan one volunteer blackberry removal day as part oftrus project. \Ve estimate this
will include 25-45 volunteers, "....orking for 6 hour').
Project Expense~
Staff $ 2.970
Re~toration Crew $ 6.000
Equipment (tools, sU1>Dli~) $ 600
Plauu $ 400
Milealle S 30
TOTAL S 10,000
,
,
E-5
~ ]
i.... ..:0:: E
L. - oil
QJ U ~ a:: ~ Qi ;::
... ,... .- -0 ~ :; ... .., Ql ~
V"I ..::::li!.....- L. +-' ~ .... 5i "' g U. :! ci
o 10- QJ 0 Vl 0 :g .5 ~.~ 8 i~
..a (tJ :::J +oJ co -&i ~ ,~ ~ ..n 0 ~
<lJ a.. - va...::a:::..t:: ~ ... ~: ~ ~ E :z ...
"^ ,- L. +-' IV ~ ....-- :-">- -. ell a: 8 .li' ~
- 1.1..1 00 a.. 3ii '> ""-... IL. - >. :i}
~ va I ro -.!O 0 1..L...-- '0 !'J" j ~
, ..0 2 ' <( -e ~ 0 "'~
I '"0 Via "'')( a..::! ~ ~ <lI cc >- .~ ~ ~Ul ~ ~ Il-E.
C 'JU "f r- .'l,IJ<( U... "'011 Ell!
..a C 0)11 "d:J~, :,:.o'8j 8""
+-' (tJ E'- Vl .~ '.D E GI "? :g ~ ;.
VI .f-I QJ 'CI U] /II II) ~ ... ... Iii
<lJ <lJ - i......a - c;n ~ ~~~~.~ 0 Q.~
::> ~ >. ro ro - . ! [B ~ ~ f ...
:> :> I u.. U o::t ~ I dl?IA' ~'IUI:>I^ 0 ~a t!; ,,~z 11:g
_ ...J I ... "1-----__,\ ... IV
r:: -("
s.~
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 7, 2006
To: Parks, Recreation and Public Safety ~~
Fl"om: Iwen Wang, Management Services Dir 0
Via: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager
Subject: Police Officer "Over-hiring" Program
POLICY OUESTION:
Should the City Council allocate undesignated General Funds for a Police Officer "Over-hiring" Program?
BACKGROUND:
At the January 28th Retreat, Council reviewed and discussed the Public Safety Department's understaffing
issue caused by the higher than usual turnover rate and the recruiting challenges from market demands
for police officers. The issue is further exacerbated by the significant lag time to train/ready a new
recruit officer for actual officer duties and the impact of extended leaves (e.g. military leave). A
suggestion was raised by members of the Council to mitigate or offset this time lag by allowing an "over-
hire" program of police officers -------------------- -.-.,.-.----..."'. - ...--...--.".".-.
above the positions budgeted. 110 ... n.'.__~_,__ ~._--_._.",..,,--
These additional positions will
allow the City to start the
recruiting process earlier and
allow new recruits to be 105
readied for services before
vacancies occur, thereby
reducing the time to backfill
vacant positions. 100
The graph illustrates how the
over~hire program may work.
Currently the City has 99 95.
authorized police officer
positions with the actual
staffing level fluctuating below
this limit. Over-hiring will 90
raise this bar. Assuming
_.' everything else stays the
same, theoretically it would
allow actual staffing levels to 85
be increased by the number of - - - Budgeted Position - - . OH Cap -Cost of OH 'l
over-hired positions. ....-,.-.-...--,.
Basically the program will allow the City to continue recruiting and hiring officers while exceeding the
budgeted positions as long as the total officer count stays below the maximum. The goal is to maintain
a steady stream of officers in the "pipe line" to fill vacancies as theV' occur while keeping the actual
operation staffing level as close to the budgeted positions as possible. The recruiting effort could be
suspended when the staffing level is near the maximum; when the staffing level stabilizes with no
anticipated separations in the near future; or, when the over-hiring funding is insufficient to sustain a
prolonged over staffing level. The actual average staffing level would vary depending on the level of
over-hire authorized by the Council; how fast the City can recruit enough qualified staff to fill all
~-I
vacancies; and future separation patterns. The illustration above assumes an over-hiring level based on
the maximum vacancy rate in a typical period. Under this scenario, there could be substantial over
staffing when the vacancy rate is lower than normal but understaffing may still occur when the vacancy
rate is higher than normal.
1. Level of Over-Hiring:
With the city's typical vacancy rate being around seven officer positions, this will suggest allowing
seven over-hire positions.
2. Type of Vacancies Where Over-Hiring May Help:
In addition to covering actual vacancies from employee separations, over-hiring can also be useful to
fill extended leaves. Military leave is one example. As staff briefed Council previously, during 2004
and 2005 the City lost more than two FTEs to extended military leave. While the City is not obligated
to pay these officers beyond the minimum period, the City needs to keep these positions vacant so
the officers can return at the end of their military tours. Therefore, we do, not consider these
positions to be "vacant" and do not attempt to hire additional officers to cover these slots. Over-
hiring would allow us to fill these slots with the added capacity and adjust through attrition when the
officers return.
Because of the cost and time it takes to hire and train officers, it would not make sense to use over-
hiring to cover short-term leaves. Therefore, staff recommends allowing over-hiring only for those
extended military leaves lasting more than a year.
3. Costs Associated with the Over-Hire Program.
After the initial ramp-up period is complete and a stable staffing level is established, on-going costs
will depend on how long the over-staffing condition persists and how quickly attrition occurs to allow
the staffing level to be lowered back to normal. Staff recommends funding to be provided at 50% of
the established over-hire rate initially, with monitoring and adjustments to the program as needed.
Using the seven FTEs as a base of cost estimate, it will require funding for salaries/wages and
equipment operations for 3.5 - 4 officers at an annual cost of $340,000. Additionally, required
equipment at startup would cost around $100,000 for two fully equipped patrol cars, radios,
uniforms, etc.
Staff contacted 12 area police departments. Only three practice over-hiring and most have problems
keeping the basic authorized positions filled to get to the over-hire stage. This means there aren't
good examples available to model after. Even if there were good examples, it is most likely the
experience will be different from city to city due to other factors such as compensation and normal
turn over rates. Therefore, staff believes it is important for the City to implement this program on a
trial basis to acquire our own experiences; and to monitor the actual staffing levels and costs
associated with the program and report back to council at a later date for potential modifications.
OPTIONS:
--'
1. Direct staff to move forward with the over-hire program on an trial basis:
a. With seven additional over-hire officer positions.
b. Allow the over-hiring program be used to cover both regular vacancies as well as extended
military leave.
c. Authorization for the use of up to $440,000 from the unallocated General Fund Balance for
the program.
d. Report back to Council after 6 - 9 months for program progress, results, and to recommend
potential modifications.
\=-2-
2. Direct staff to move forward with a over-hire program on an trial basis:
a. With additional over-hire officer positions.
b. Allow the over-hiring program be used to cover both regular vacancies as well as extended
military leave.
c. Authorization for the use of up to ___.,__ from unallocated General Fund Balance
for the program.
d. Report back to Council after months for program progress, results, and to
recommend potential modifications.
3. Direct staff to provide additional information and bring the program back for further
consideration.
4. Do not consider the over-hire program at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the April 4, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda.
PRPS COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Committee authorizes forwarding Option _ to the April 4,2006 City Council Consent Agenda.
ApPROVALQF CQMMITTEEACllON: -
Jim Ferrell, Member: limta Kachmar, Member
---
r:: \t!;~~~n(c\poH(o?\J ,U ..(y; (~Ye<,.h~r!";) .1)<.': .~'~ ~!:; ~:;; ;Y':.i.., ,j:y:
'.
Fr-S
'.
s. L'
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 13,2006
TO: Parks, Recreation, and Public ~l Committee
VIA: Derek Matheson, CIty Manage Q C // (
:? I 0 ..,
FROM: Anne Kirkpatrick, Chief of Police ~ ~
SUBJECT: lnterlocal Agreement between the City of Federal Way and Federal Way School
District No. 210 for School Resource Officers
Policy Ouestion
Should the City of Federal Way and the Federal Way School District No. 210 enter into a new
Interlocal Agreement for School Resource Officers?
Background
School Resource Officers are commissioned officers that provide law enforcement and security
services to the School District. They provide school campuses the opportunity to heighten safety,
to increase public awareness, and to increase outreach in the community.
The original SRO Agreement was set in August of 1999 and was continues through the 1 sl and
2nd Amendments. The term of this Agreement will be September 1, 2005 through August 31,
2008, for the initial three year period, thereafter, the Agreement shall automatically renew year to
year unless terminated pursuant to Section VII.
Options
]. Authorize the City Manager to execute the new Interlocal Agreement between the City of
Federal Way and Federal Way School District No. 21 for School Resource Officers
The benefit of accepting this Agreement is the added safety and law enforcement that
SRO's provide at each of our Federal Way High Schools. Also, this Agreement will
automatically renew on a year to year basis.
2. Not authorize the City Manager to accept this Agreement
Not accepting an SRO Agreement with the Federal Way School District would mean a
decline in the safety and law enforcement within our Schoots.
I
C,,\
Staff recommendation
Recommend option #1 to accept the Interlocal Agreemcnt between the City of Federal Way and
Federal Way School District No. 210 for School Resource Officers
Conunittee recommendation
Forward option #1 to the full City Council for approval on March 21, 2006
-'
.
G-'L-
2
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY AND FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 210
FOR SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS
This Agreement is dated effective September 1, 2005 and is made and entered into by and
between the City of Federal Way (hereinafter "City") and Federal Way School District No. 210
(hereinafter "District"), collectively "Parties".
1. The City and the District recognize commissioned police officers on the school
campuses provide the unique opportunity to heighten safety, to increase public awareness, and to
increase outreach in the community.
2. Chapter 39.34 (Intcrlocal Cooperation Act) pennits local governmental units to make
the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other entities to provide
services in a manner best serving the needs and development of local communities.
3. The Parties hereto desire and by this agreement enter into an Interlocal Cooperative
Agreement ("Agreement") wherein the City will provide fully commissioned police officers to serve
as School Resource Officers.
4. The Parties hereto desire to set forth their rights, duties and responsibilities with
respect to applicable laws, ordinances, procedures as established by the Parties hereto and the State
of Washington.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby covenanted and agreed to by and between the Parties
hereto as follows:
I. DEFINITIONS
The following definitions shall apply to this Agreement:
1.1 City - The City of FedcraJ Way.
1.2 District - Federal Way School District No. 210. "
1.3 School Resource Officer ("SRO") - A fully commissioncd police officer who is assigned by
the Department to provide law enforcement and security services to the District. The SRO
assigrunent at the school campuses is the equivalent of a .73'49 full time police officer with
- 1 -
G--5
the remainder .2651 to be assigned at the discretion of the Department. Adjustments to this
staffing allocation may be made if mutually agreed upon between the District and the City.
1.4 School Campus - The school building, all parking lots or outside common areas adjacent to
the school building, and all property within Yz mile..
1.5 Department - The Federal Way Police Department, City of Federal Way.
1.6 School Year - One hundred eighty one (181) days of official school days, one day before
and one day after for preparation, closing and staff meeting totaling one hundred eighty-
three (183) days between the months of August and June. The preparation day and the
closing day shall be mutually agreed upon betwecn the SRO and the building principal.
The District "in-service training day" for the Security Department at the beginning of each
school year is considered mandatory attendance for all SROs.
1.7 Annual Cost Letter ~ A letter outlining anticipated annual costs for services for the next
school year is to be submitted by the City to the District in the month of February prior to
the school year. The anticipated costs are based on the number of officers (FTEs) and are
calculated as follows; hours of work per calendar year total 2080 hours or 249 eight-hour
days and 183 contracted days per year. The work performed by a SRO represents a staff
equivalent of .7349 of a full-time position. The anticipated costs for services will be
calculated on the .7349 equivalent. Adjustments to this calculation may change based on
alternative officer assignments, e.g. Yz time officer deployment.
1.8 Extra-duty Assignments - Extra-duty assignments include, but are not limited to, athletic
games, dances, graduations and other events that occur outside the normal school day as
defined in Article V. Hours of Work.
1.9 Daily Routine - The daily routine includes assignment to various locations on/around the
school campus, or various events. The daily routine does not include policies, procedures,
guidelines or work rulcs.
1.10 Overtime - Overtime costs are calculated and paid in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Federal Way Police Officers Guild Contract. The District shall be
billed for only school related overtime, which includes but is not limited to incidents
involving juveniles and/or on the school campus.
1.11 Sister Schools - shall provide continuity of staffing during absences as described in Section
3.3. Federal Way and Thomas Jefferson SRO's will provide coverage for each other, as
will Decatur and Todd Beamer. Truman will be supported as needed by the nearest
available SRO.
.
- 2 -
G~L-l
.
1.12 School Campus Security. It is the intent of the Parties that City police officers provide
school campus security for the high schools. An SRO will be assigned to the following
high sehools: Todd Beamer, Decatur, Federal Way, and Thomas Jefferson for a total of
four (4) full time positions. In addition, a halftime SRO will be assigned to Truman High
School plus a full time SRO will be assigned to the District as a Relief SRO to cover for
any absences and assist with traffic patrol surrounding schools in the District as well as
other projects assigned.
1.13 Unscheduled absence. An unscheduled absence is defined as the Federal Way Police
pepartment being notified of an absence by an assigned SRO less than twenty-four (24)
hours prior to the scheduled shift.
II. PURPOSE
School Campus Security: It is the intent of the Parties that City police officers provide school
campus security for the high schools. An SRO will be assigned to the following high schools:
Decatur, Federal Way, Truman, Todd Beamer, and Thomas Jefferson. A Relief SRO will be
assigned to assist with SRO coverage at the High Schools and school zone enforcement around
Federal Way Schools.
III. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 SRO Assignment to the School Campus. Upon receipt of Notice from the District, the City
agrees to assign an SRO, as defined in Section 1.3, for a rotation of one school year. In the
event of operational needs or other unforseen circumstances, the City will assign the
replacement SRO.
3.2 Performance Evaluations; Discipline, Assignment, and Other Personnel Actions. The City
will continue to evaluate the performance of a SRO, to administer discipline, to investigate
allegations of misconduct, assign duties, and take any other personnel action in accordance
with applicable City policies, guidelines, and/or collective bargaining agreement. The City,
in its discretion, may utilize the District's performance comments/observations referenced
in Section 4.2.
3.3 Staffing.
,
A. Scheduled Absence. The City agrees to provide a full day replacement for each
day of scheduled absence with the following exceptions:
- 3 -
(,-5
.
a. The SRO shall attend designated training approved by the City and
with the agreement of the building principal. Training may be
provided by an outside ageney, the District, or the City.
b. The SRO shall attend one day of mandatory training provided by the
City per month, per school. The City shall maintain a minimum of
three (3) SROs in the District during school hours. Coverage during
training shall be provided under the "sister school" philosophy.
B. Unscheduled Absence. The City shall maintain a minimum of three (3) officers
assigned within the District during school hours except during exigent
eircumstances, which include but are not limited to natural disasters, riots, or
large-scale disturbances requiring Federal Way police officers response.
a. On the first day of an absence due to illness or emergency, coverage
will be provided by the Relief SRO.
b. In the event the Relief SRO is already assigned to cover a building,
the resulting coverage will be provided as described in the "sister
school" philosophy.
C. Absence for Other Duties and/or Training. The City agrees to provide a
replacement for the hours of absence in the event a SRO is absent more than four
(4) hours for Department duties and/or training.
3.4 Transport of Criminal Suspects. After an SRO arrests individuals or detains individuals
suspected of criminal activity, the SRO will normally remain on the school campus, and
additional police officers will be dispatched to transport said individuals. The City, in its
discretion, may require the SRO to leave the school campus and transport the individuals.
3.5 Invoices.
A. Regular SRO work. The City will submit two invoices during the school year,
one in January and one in June, for work performed. Each invoice represents
work for 91 days, which equates to one-half of the school year.
B. Extra-duty assignments. The City will submit an invoice monthly for all work as
a result of extra-duty assignments.
C. Overtime. The City will submit an invoice monthly for all overtime worked. The
City maintains responsibility to document overtime.
3.6 Annual Cost Letter. On or before February 1 SI of each year the City will provide the District
Security Manager an Annual Cost Letter estimating the anticipated annual costs for services
for the next school year. .
-4-
C,-to
3.7 Uniform and Equipment.
A. Uniforms. Normally a SRO will be attired in police uniform. However, either
upon the request of the building principal or, jf applicable, the Memorial Field
Coordinator, and approval by the City, other attire may be approved for specific
occasions. Dress down attire will maintain a professional image and may include
bike uniforms or other activity specific attire.
B. Transportation. The City, in its discretion, may provide vehicles or other means
of transportation for the SRO.
C. Radio Communications. The City will provide the SRO a radio capable of
routine and/or emergency interaction with dispatch operations, and integrated
with the regional public safety radio network. Cellular phones may be provided
at the City's discretion.
3.8 Extra-dutyassigrunents. The City agrees to attempt to assign the extra-duty work to the SRO
assigned to the particular school campus but will also attempt to reduce any overtime.
3.9 Minimum Benefits. Pursuant to RCW 28A.400.285, persons performing services under this
Agreement shall be provided health bencfits similar to those provided School District
employees who would otherwise perform the work, but in no case are such health benefits
required to be greater than the benefits provided for basic health care serviccs under chapter
70.47 RCW.
3.10 Record Check. Pursuant to RCW 28A.400.303, the City shall require a record check through
the Washington State Patrol criminal identification system under RCW 43.43.830 through
43.43.834, 10.97.030 and 10.97.050 and through the federal bureau of investigation before
hiring any employee who will have regularly scheduled unsupervised access to children in
the School District's schools. The record check shall include a fingerprint check using a
complete Washington state criminal identification fingerprint card. The City shall provide
a copy of the record report to thc applicant. When necessary, applicants may be employed
on a conditional basis pending completion of the investigation. If the applicant has had a
record check within the previous two years, the City may waive the requirement.
3.11 Crimes Against Children. Pursuant to RCW 28A.400.330, as now or hereafter amended, the
City shall prohibit any employee of the City from working at a puhlic school who has contact'
with children at a public school during the course ofhislher employment and who has pled
guilty to or been convicted 'of any felony crime involving the physical neglect of a child
under chapter 9A.42 RCW, the physical injury or death of a child under chapter 9A.32 or
9A.36 RCW (except motor vehicle violations under chapter 46.61 RCW), sexual exploitation
- 5 -
~ L, -- \
of a ehild under chapter 9.68A RCW, sexual offenscs under 9A.44 RCW wherc a minor is
a victim, promoting prostitution of a minor under chapter 9A.88 RCW, the sale or purchase
of a minor child under RCW 9A.64.030, or violation of simi lar laws or another jurisdiction.
Any failure to comply with this section shall be grounds for the School District to
immediately terminate this Agreement.
IV. DISTRICT'S RESPONSIBILITIES
4.1 District Request Removal of SRO. Thc District may request removal of a SRO for
unsatisfactory performance or for incompatibility. All requests for removal must be in
writing from the District's designee or the building principal of the school being served and
submitted to the Chief of Police.
4.2 Performance Conunents. The building principal and or the District's designee will provide
the City's SRO supervisor with performance comments and observations concerning the
SRO upon request (generally on an annual basis). The SRO supervisor is wholly responsible
for the SRO's performance appraisal; the building principal's conunents will not replace the
evaluation, but may be included in it.
4.3 Compensation. The rate for the SRO's will adjust annually in accordance with the Police
Department Guild Collecti ve Bargaining Agreement. Upon receipt of an invoice, the District
will reimburse the City within thirty (30) days, exclusive of overtime and extra duty
assignments costs.
^- Annual Negotiation of Costs. After February I st of each year, the District agrees to
negotiate the compensation based upon the anticipated costs of services as set forth in the
Annual Cost Letter in Section 3.6.
B. Extra-duty assignments. The District agrees to pay the prevailing hourly rate for each
extra duty hour worked by a police officer. In the event that overtime is incurred, the
District agrees to pay the overtime rate as defined in Section 1.10.
C. New Position(s). In the event the City and the District agree to establish additional SRO
.. position(s) during the school year, the District will pay the proportionate amount based
-- upon the actual days worked.
D. Overtime. The District agrees to pay any and all overtime costs in accordance with the,
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Guild Contract.
,
- 6 -
G-B
.
4.4 Office Space/Equipment.
A. The District will provide an office space, a desk, dedicated phone line, voice mail, district
and Internet based electronic mail, and a computer.
B. The District will provide access to private interview rooms.
e. Generally the school campus of the District will provide a site~based portable radio to
pernlit communications between staff and the SRO, and to enable monitoring of
staff/campus activities. In the event a site-based radio is not provided, it is the
responsibility of the site principal to ensure that acceptable alternative communication
protocols and methods are in place.
4.5 Extra Duty Assignments. The District reserves the right to negotiate with the City for "extra-
duty" police services as defined in Section 1.8. The District's first preference is that the SRO
assigned to the school would also be assigned to the extra duty assignments. When this is
not possible, the extra duty assignments shall be offered in the following order of priority;
first, to current SRO's in the District, second, to District security officers, and third to other
Department police officers.
4.6 Assignment of Daily Routine. The principal may assign the daily routine of the SRO
provided the assignment does not conflict with City policies, guidelines, protocols, work
rules and/or applicable collective bargaining agreement.
4.7 Transport Students. The District will maintain responsibility to transport students not
involved in criminal activity.
V. HOURS OF WORK
An SRO will work an eight-hour shift, inclusive of the lunch period. The SRO may be subject to call
during the lunch period. The actual hours worked will be determined by the needs of the school
principaL Generally, hours for high schools approximate 0645 (6:45 a.m.) to 1445 (2:45 p.m). The
Parties recognize that the SRO is subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and that overtime
j may occur. At the request of the District and with mutual agreement ofthe City, the Relief SRO
hours may be adjusted to meet the needs to the District.
SROs will attend weekly campus-based meetings with peer SROs and/or SRO supervisor. The'
weekly meeting will be rotated between campuses and will not exceed sixty (60) minutes.
The SROs are encouraged to attend the weekly South King County mu}ti-agency "breakfast meeting"
which is currently held within district boundaries.
- 7 -
L,-,\
.
VI. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be for an initial period of three years, from September 1, 2005
through August 31,2008. Thereafter, this Agreemcnt shall automatically renew year to year unless
terminatcd pursuant to Section VII hereof.
VII. TERMINATION
7.1 The District may terminate this Agrecment for ''just cause" provided that it has provided
ninety (90) days prior written notice to the City.
"Just Cause" shall mean the City's failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement
following notice from the District of such failure and after an opportunity for the City to cure
or satisfy such obligations.
7.2 Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause at the end of the school year
by ninety (90) days prior written notice to thc other party. For this paragraph, the school year
end date shall be June 30th of the current year.
VIII. INSURANCE
8.1 Amount. It is hereby understood and agreed that each Party to this Agreement shall obtain
and maintain public liability insurance in an amount not less than TWO MILLION AND
NOll 00 DOLLARS ($2,000,000) single limit liability.
8.2 Certificate. Each Party shall provide proof of insurance coverage to the other Party. The
City shall provide the District with a Certificate of insurance including a copy of the
endorsement naming the District as additional insured. The District shall provide the City
with an evidence of coverage letter from the Washington Schools Risk Management Pool.
Insurance coverage shall be maintained at all times.
IX. INDEMNIFICATION
9.1 The District. The District agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its elected officials,'
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, demands,
losses, actions and liabilities (including costs and all attorney fees) to Of by any and all
pcrsons Of entities, including, without limitation, their respective agents, licensees, or
representatives, arising from, resulting from, Of connected with this Agreement to the extent
- 8 -
G~-\O
.
eaused by the negligcnt acts, errors or omissions of the District, its partners, shareholders,
agents, employees, or by the District's breach of this Agrcemcnt.
9.2 The City. The City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the District, its elected officials,
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, demands,
losses, actions and liabilitics (including costs and all attorney fees) to or by any and all
persons or entities, including, without limitation, their respectivc agents, licensees, or
representatives, arising from, resulting from, or connected with this Agreement to thc extent
caused by the ncgligent acts, errors or omissions of the City, its partners, shareholders,
agents, employees, or by the City's breach of this Agreement.
9.3 Survival. The provisions of this article shall survive the expiration or termination of this
Agreement with respect to any event oeeuning prior to such expiration or termination.
X. GENERAL PROVISIONS
10.1 Administration and Notice. The responsibility for overseeing the compliance with the
provisions of this Agreement shall be handled jointly between the Parties, and no separate
legal or administrative entity shall be formed by the Parties for such purpose. The contract
representative for the City shall be the City Manager or his or her designee, 33325 8th Avenue
South, Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718. The contract administrator on behalf ofthe
District shall be the Superintendent or his or her designee, Federal Way Public Schools,
Administrative Office, 31405 18th South, Federal Way, Washington 98003.
10.2 Independent Contractor. It is the intention of the City and ofthe District that each SRO is a
City employee.
10.3 Confidentiality. Both the District and the City are governed by laws requiring confidentiality
for certain records and information contained therein. Pursuant to RCW 13.50.010(1 )(a) the
City and the School District are "juvenile justice and care" agencies which maintain records
(hereinafter ''juvenile records") as defined in RCW 13.50.01 O( 1)( c). Both Parties agree that
the juvenile records will only be released in accordance with RCW 13.50.050(4). The City
will not release copies of reports, investigations, or other documents which are not juvenile
records if such records are exempt from disclosure under either the Public Disclosure Act,
RCW Chapter 42.17, including future amendments or the Criminal Privacy Act, RCW
Chapter 10.97 et seq., including any future amendments.
Pursuant to the terms of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.c. S1232g
and regulations promulgated there-under, City personnel providing security services to the
School District may be provided access to student records in the course of their duties and
will be expected to maintain the confidentiality of sueh info~ination except as disclosure is
- 9 -
L,,-l \
.
.
pernlittcd by law. For the purposes of the foregoing statute, the City shall be rccognized as
an official law enforcement unit ofthc School District.
10.4 .Entire Agreement. This Agrcement contains all of the agreements of the Parties with respect
to any matter covered or mentioned in this Agreement and no prior agreements or
understandings pertaining to any such matters shall be effective for any purpose.
10.5 Modification. No provision of this Agreement may be amended or added to except by
af,'l"cement in writing signed by the Patties or their respective successors in interest.
10.6 Full Force and Effect. Any provision of this Agreement which is declared invalid, void, or
illegal shall in no way affect, impair, or invalidate any other provision hereof and such other
provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
10.7 Assignment. Neither the City nor the District shall have the right to transfer or assign, in
whole or in part, any or all of its obligations and rights hereunder without the prior written
consent ofthc other Party.
10.8 Attorney Fees. In the event the City or the District defaults on the performance of any terms
in this Agreement, and the District or City places the enforcement ofthe Agreement or any
part thereof, or the collection of any monies due, or to become due hereunder, or recovery of
possession of any belongings, in the hands of an attorney, or file suit upon the same, each
Party shall pay all its own attorney's fees, costs and expenses. The venue for any dispute
related to this Agreement shall be King County, Washington.
10.9 No Waiver. Failure of either Party to declare any breach or default inunediatety upon
occurrence thereof, or delay in taking any action in connection with, shall not waive such
breach or default, but either Party shall have the right to declare any such breach or default at
any time and take such actions that might be lawful or authorized hereunder either at law or
in equity. Failure of the either Party to declare one breach or default does not act as a waiver
of either Party's right to declare another breach or default.
10.10 Arbitration. Disagreement concerning the interpretation or application of the provisions of
this Agreement are subject to arbitration provided that the City Manager, or his or her
designee, and the District Superintendent, or his or her designee, have discussed and
attempted to settle the dispute. The Party desiring arbitration shall submit written notice of
the intent to arbitrate along with the basis for the dispute. Following receipt ofthe notice to
arbitrate, the other Party may request a meeting within fourteen (14) working days in attempt ,
to resolve the matter. Ifthe matter cannot be resolved, the Parties shall first attempt to select
an arbitrator. If no agreement can be reached on the selection of the arbitrator, the City and
the District agree to use the services of the American Arbitration Association for the
selection ofthe arbitrator. Each party shall be responsible fOflts own costs and fees incurred
- 10-
L '-I L
I
.
...
in preparing for and participating in the arbitration. The arbitrator fees along with any
administration fee shall be borne equally by the City and by the District. The arbitrator shall
detennine the controversy in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The
arbitrator's decision shall be binding upon both Parties.
10.11 Captions. The respective captions of the Sections of this Agreement are inserted for
convenience of reference only and shall not be deemed to modify or otherwise affect any of
the provisions of this Agreement.
10.12 Remedies Cumulative. Any remedies provided for under the tenns of this Agreement are not
intended to be exclusive, but shall be cumulative with all other remedies available at law, in
equity or by statute.
10.13 Equal Opportunity to Draft. The Parties have participated and had an equal opportunity to
participate in the drafting of this Agreement, and the Exhibits, if any, attached. No ambiguity
shall be construed against any party upon a claim that party drafted the ambiguous language.
10.14. Filing of Agreement. This Agreement shall be filed with the Secretary of the Board of
Directors of Federal Way School District No. 210, the City Clerk of the City of Federal Way,
and the King County Records and Elections Division.
10.15 Notices. Any notices required to be given by the Parties shall be delivered to the Parties at
the addresses set forth below.
10.16 Supplemental Security Officers. The District reserves the right to place a campus security
officer to assist the assigned SRO at any time.
IN WITNESS whereof the Parties have executed this Agreement the day and year set forth
below.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 210
-
By: ~._'_.~~~~ By: --~.,.._.~
Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager Thomas Murphy, Superintendent
33325 8th A venue South 31405 18th South
Federal Way, WA 98063 Federal Way, W A 98003
Date: Date: '.
- 11 -
Gr-l3
l
.
"41
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patricia A. Richardson Diana Seeley, C.P.M.
City Attorney Director of Risk Management & Purchasing
A TTEST this _ day of _.._. ,2006 ATTEST this _day of , 2006
~'.'-".
City Clerk, Laura Hathaway
K:\interlcl\ 7schoolsro, fin
-- "
'.
- 12 -
c,-l~ ///
~ /
-------