By Harry Gatjens
The Edmonds City Council voted 5-2 Tuesday night not to reverse itself on a change in the animal control laws, approved two weeks ago, that essentially repealed a 2007 requirement that Edmonds cats be prohibited from roaming free.
Council President Strom Peterson said he was asked by Councilmember Diane Buckshnis to reconsider the June 5 vote the council took, because it made additional amendments to the 2007 ordinance that went beyond what she originally intended, which was to tighten rules for dogs at the off-leash Marina Beach dog park. The original ordinance made it against the law for pet owners to allow their animals “to run at large during any hours of the day or night,” and cats were included because they weren’t exempted from the law in the first place.
Buckshnis — one of the two votes opposing a proposal to maintain the change — said Tuesday night that she asked for reconsideration of the vote as she had been concentrating on the dog park provisions of the ordinance change and didn’t notice that the ordinance also would change the provisions on cats. Peterson, who also voted no, said he had not given proper weight to the decision the council had made on the issue in 2007.
Councilmember Joan Bloom challenged both of them on their statements, pointing out that there had been substantial discussion two weeks ago that specifically addressed removing cats from the “animals at large” ordinance
Several people also spoke to the issue during the public comment period, expressing concerns that groups of cats roaming the streets of Edmonds could cause harm to other animals, property and humans, and could also put the roaming cats themselves at risk of disease and being hit by cars. One veterinarian stated that cats allowed to roam freely probably had average life spans five years shorter than restricted cats.
In council statements, Bloom stated that she thought that there was little need for the law. An animal control officer present during the meeting said that only two citations had been issues during the past six years related to the roaming cats ordinance.
On the other side of the argument, Peterson contended that concerned pet owners should support the idea of ensuring their pets remain safe. Buckshnis said that if cats were exempt, people would take the law into their own hands and start shooting loose cats with pellet guns.
In other action at the council meeting:
– City Finance Director Shawn Hunstock made a preliminary presentation of the city’s 2011 financial statements and said that the state audit of those statements was going well. He reported that the city’s general fund showed a net surplus of over $700,00o for the year and the general fund balance was over $9,562,638. However, this number includes the city’s disaster reserve of $1.9 million and the public safety reserve of $1.3 million, so the actual general fund was closer to $6.1 million.
– Approved the city’s six-year Capital Improvement Plan, with Councilmember Lora Petso casting the only dissenting vote because the Five Corners roundabout was included in the plan. (Petso voted against the roundabout project last year.)
– Witnessed the swearing-in of Edmonds Police Corporal Mike Richardson to Sergeant, appointed new members to the Economic Development Commission and received a presentation on the environmental dangers posed by citizens washing their cars in their driveway.
Edmonds Ordinance 5.24.020: Aiming or discharging weapons (applicable section)
It is unlawful for any person to willfully:
B: Discharge any airgun or weapon other than a firearm,—-
Add this to a long list of WA state and federal laws and yes, it was an unfortunate and inflammatory gaffe made in the heat of argument over the ridiculous cat leash law that should not have been said. However, I know for a fact that such language is NOT typical of the hard working Diane Buckshnis and there is more background.
Further, our excellent police dept. is simply not going to be very tolerant of any nut that would intentionally injure pet animals.
Diane is a gardner who was offended by a neighbor’s cat (or cats) defecating in her well kept garden. She was considering complaining to Animal Control using the cat leash law. I suggested she should first contact and discuss her concerns with the neighbor. She later told me she had done exactly that and inferred that things would work out. Judging by the fact there has only been only 2 violations charged by the city in five years of cat leash law she had in practice followed the Edmonds way of resolving such conflicts, and that is talking to your offending neighbor first. And, anyone can still call animal control with such a problem and I understand they will still continue to respond and mediate as they have always done.
And who among us has not made outlandish statements or gaffes in the heat of battle and immediately wish you hadn’t done so? I certainly have.
As I watched and listened, I believe that her statement had zero effect on the outcome and I question why it would even be a part of a brief report. There were many other statements that were also illogical and counter to good common sense which also could have easily been included.
Finally, our City Council, in my opinion, did an excellent job of getting right down to the essential bare facts and acting decisively.
Cats 1, Dogs 0
Perhaps spend a little more time discussing job creation incentives?
Ray you told me your cat HAD in fact been shot with a pellet gun. Also, you are totally inaccurate in your account of my issue with my neighbors. You had no idea of how I handled the situation and it wasn’t my garden, it was right by my front door. So don’t put words in my mouth that are incorrect and make up stories that you advised me on anything.
I have been told today that one of Ray’s neighbors is going to walk along the fence and pee in his yard as cats now have more freedom than humans. It should be a property owners right who or who shouldn’t be allowed on their property (animals included) and just because there was only two citations, doesn’t mean the law was ineffective. I hope everyone has a chance to watch channel 21 to fully understand this issue as many folks spoke during audience comments as to why this was such a heated debate years ago. Some say it is a stupid law but animals running at large is a nationwide issue….not just an Edmonds problem.
I do not own a cat, and I don’t have any problems with cats. My only interest in this issue is to have the city council produce logical legislation. The stated rationale for the vote of 4 councilmembers last night was totally illogical! On the other hand, the comments by Council President Peterson and Councilmember Buckshnis apologizing for their improper votes two weeks ago, and explaining why they believe that cats should be included in the ordinance, were well reasoned and totally logical. Any doubters are encouraged to watch the TV tape of this item that starts about 2 hours 26 minutes into the meeting.
Councilmembers Bloom and Yamamoto explained that they would vote to exclude cats from the ordinance – which means that they would no longer be controlled from running at large – because in 5 years there had been only two citations issued. Seems like flawed thinking to me, because there was no consideration given to: 1)The number of citizen conflicts that were able to be mediated since there was the possibility of a citation. 2) The number of law-abiding citizens who were motivated by the ordinance to keep there cats under control. I conclude from the flawed thinking that we should abolish all laws that result in only a few prosecutions.
Councilmember Petso said she was voting against changing the ordinance because no public hearing has been held; the same reason she voted against it two weeks ago. Two weeks ago that rationale was logical, because cats should not be excluded from the ordinance without a public hearing since many public hearings had been held to include them 5 years ago. Now this week the vote was to remove the statement that excluded cats, as they have been included for the past 5 years; it is therefore illogical to insist on a public hearing on a proposal to return the ordinance back to where it was, as it relates to cats. It is illogical to require a public hearing on an ordinance for which no change is proposed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not attend the meeting, but she participated by telephone starting sometime after Audience Comments. Since Ms. Fraley-Monillas did not hear the citizen comments related to this issue, she should have abstained from voting on this ordinance.
It isn’t clear why Councilmember Johnson voted to exclude cats from the ordinance. Perhaps because there were only two citations, since she asked the question that provided that information.
Diane,
After reading your last email and comparing that to your above comments, there are several contradictions that I have noted that indicate to me i am simply not qualified to respond to you at his time. I’ll try to better understand and interpret what you have said.
Maybe we can talk a bit later. Or at least I hope so.
Diane,
After noting each of our involvements in the unpleasant history of the cat lease law and its precursors and the negative and in some cases severe impact on many of our neighbors I believe it is in the best interest of all concerned to allow all of us some healing time. So please, lets put this whole thing into the ancient history folder and move on.
However, in response to your attack on my personal integrity I am compelled to briefly respond. I must say I absolutely never told you that our cat had ever been shot with a pellet gun, and I am 99,9% certain I never even suggested the possibility that any such event had occurred. I have never been able to tie bb guns and cats together; You can bet if I did know such and could have proven so, the proper authories would also have known. There have been BB gun problems in the neighborhood and one police report. And one of our cats was injured, and didn’t come home until 2 AM one morning. The next day we received a call from the involved neighbor describing their version of what had happened to our cat. The cat limped and laid around for a couple of days and was fine after that and lived 22 years.
You say we refused to work with our neighbors; absolutely false. Marge handled that and did it well. When they first complained about Turbo they suggested putting a bell on him. Marge did that. They complained again and suggested two bells. Marge put two bells on him, (he sounded like jingle bells walking around). They complained a third time saying keep him off our property. Again we did so for about a week or two; then Turbo outsmarted me and got out, and began his tortured ordeal. They never warned their neighbors that they were trapping cats apparently with city approval. I learned later that they had had their beaver trap baited and had caught several other cats days or weeks before trapping Turbo. Yes, I did stop that repugnant practice, and yes, that encouraged the escalation to what became the onerous cat leash law.
I did learn shortly after Turbo was trapped that he was not the first cat trapped. and when I learned about that, you can believe I put a stop to that practice. The Mayor, the police chief, the city attorney, the city prosecutor and animal control officer were all very much aware of my efforts to stop that practice. My goal was soon achieved, and that is why I eventually didn’t seek further redress. Shortly after that the cat lease law dog and pony show developed.
Now, obviously I could come up with a few volumes of detail to fill in blanks. However, once again, lets forgedaboudit and move on, Lets count our blessing, which now includes a very good Mayor, Council including you and Strom, an outstanding police chief, a great city, etc, And you have been a persistent positive and sensitive force making strong contributions to our city including but not limited to your part in budget reform, transparency, senior center, parks, etc. Thank you for your positive contributions, and please keep doing it. The city needs you. .
Who are you and what did you do with Ray Martin. Ray, I’ve been following your posts the last few days and am impressed with your civility and thoughtfulness (I’m not be sarcastic…I am serious). Thank you and good job! Big pat on the back.
Thank you for your kind coment Priya.
Ray
i believe i am going to quit going outside if cats are allowed of leash.. they can be very intimidating!
Peter,
I hope you realize that the duties of your chosen profession is mostly plucking cats from trees.
Well, i wont have to worry about that if they are on a leash!
Add my name to the list of disgusted Edmonds residents constantly dealing with neighborhood cats. If dogs can’t roam unleashed why should cats be able to roam at leisure onto anyone’s property? There are 4-5 cats that make an appearance in my yard/garden daily. I tried to reduce easy access thru my wrought iron gates by attaching small sections of cheap garden fencing. Did that solve my problem? No, the smart, determined felines now just jump the fence to gain entry. Since I don’t know who the unconcerned, selfish owners are and can’t get close enough to the cat(s) to see if a license is visible I’d like to request anyone who supports unleashed cats to provide a solution for me to implement. If I called animal control each time cats made my yard a temporary home there would be an increase in reported violations well above the 2 cited in 5 years.