Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Beware, cats of Edmonds. If you like to wander, your days may be numbered.
The Edmonds City Council will hold a public hearing at Tuesday night’s meeting on the topic of whether Edmonds Animal Control should be able to issue tickets for cats who are a nuisance. According to the council agenda, the Council’s Public Safety and Personnel Committee “has considered the topic and is split,” so the council decided to bring the matter to the public.
– A swearing-in ceremony for Police Sgt Josh McClure.
– Authorization for the Mayor to sign agreements with the State of Washington Department of Ecology for stormwater and retrofit/LID project grants.
– A discussion on 2014 budget approaches and a council code of ethics.
– Consideration of a proposal to rescind an interim zoning ordinance to amend the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance, to allow development within legally established impervious areas and within buffer areas “that are physically separated and functionally isolated from an associated critical area.”
The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 5th Ave. N., Edmonds. You can see the complete agenda here.
Leashing your cat? Silly. I always wondered why Edmonds is so animal-antagonistic….seems it is flooded with signs saying no dogs allowed (the dog beach is a saving grace). Now leashed cats. What,s next?
Suzanne
Are my cats allowed to roam In their own yard
The ordinance prohibits pets “running at-large,” which does not include the owner’s yard/property.
OPEN LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
Dear City Council:
1. Please do not vote for this abolished ordinance. As Citizens, we need to support our splendid police department, and most certainly, so do you. The police tell us that the CAT LEASH LAW IS UNENFORCABLE. So, please support our police.
2. During the several years of the rejected cat leash law only two tickets were issued. All other conflicts were resolved by the excellent efforts of Animal control and the citizens themselves.
3. 94th AV W, especially the north end of this street, has been largely the only small part of town affected, and that has been the result of one individual.
4. One family on 94th was harassed and annoyed by repeated phone calls to their home and places of employment. I do not want to see this type of nutty anti-social behavior return to 94th. It leaves a very sour taste to have neighbors hating neighbors to that extent. And there have been other unnecessary 94 AV cat leash law kerfuffles, which has been detrimental to good neighborly relationships.
5. During the cat leash periods I observed the Animal Control Officer “staked out” on 94th many times. It would take at least 10 more cat catchers to similarly patrol the whole city. So it is unenforceable and unfairly targets singly my neighborhood.
6. If you favor the new cat leash law, then you should vote for Ron Wambolt and Diane Buckshnis. Ron voted for the original ordinance and Diane is the Council member responsible for the current proposal.
7. Oh, and by the way, if enacted, the City Council Bldg. cat will have to be arrested and properly leashed, or otherwise exterminated.
8. The majority of Puget Sound Basin residents live quite well without a cat leash law.
Instead, why not simply give the Police a stronger hand in dealing with the very few individuals Ron and Diane are so concerned with. A bit more power to the animal control officers would quickly aid in resolving any potential problems. This can be done by adding stricter language, for instance a threat of citing for any potential violation. That will make a lot more sense to me; and would, I believe like a fence, make for better neighbors.
Very respectfully,
Ray Martin
18704 94th AV W (43 yrs.)
774 6092
I hope the council will not fall for the “it’s unenforceable” argument again. Stopping a roaming cat that is digging and defecating in it’s neighbors yard is no less enforceable than for a dog doing the same thing. Both will require a phone call from a neighbor if it can’t be resolved between the neighbors themselves.
Even if a cat is not a nuisance, there are many reasons that a responsible pet owner should not allow their cat roam. Hopefully the council will bring in a veterinarian that will discuss the dangers to the cat, to people, and other animals of allowing it to roam.
Good Grief. Leashing kitty cats? Yeh, right. Lets look at dog poop all over edmonds that the doggie people make no attempt to pick up. Edmonds has a poop scoop law/rule, but it doesn’t get very much attention paid to it. i’ve seen poop in the beautiful city flower beds and in the middle of sidewalks. i have even witnessed people taking dogs all over the water front area that have posted signs everywhere indicating “NO DOGS ON BEACH”. Those signs do not help.
So we could go ahead and make a law about putting cats on leash, but it likely wouldn’t be followed anyway. It’s not the pets, it’s the owners who have the problems. Don’t get me started.
Dont get me started!
You’re correct. Seems section 05.05.070 on animal waste is unenforceable so maybe it shouldn’t be on the books.
I am for the leash law . My cat was attacked on my front porch by two of my neighbors cats and severely injured. She had to be operated on .It is not only the nuisance issue but also the dangers they pose to other cats and animals. We dont allow dogs to run wild and invade peoples property why should cats be any different. I did contact animal control and was told since Edmonds has no law about cats the could do nothing about it.I have e mailed council and sent pictures and hope they will pass ordinance#1
Jim,
You are right that cats can be a problem, and that cat owners must be held responsible. The draft 2 proposal for the Council is an attempt to address your issue while not falling overboard again and back into an excessively punitive and impossibly extreme solution.
Draft 2 encourages reasonable compliance and should aid Animal control in the more difficult situations. Actually the fact that many citizens were never ever aware the old cat leash law even existed is a credit over the years to the effectiveness of animal control in dealing with a truly unenforceable (only a huge increase in cost would make it enforceable) issue.
I personally favor draft 2 which I believe will tend to reduce the very rare situations that occur. And Just maybe the Council has spent enough time on this somewhat minor subject.
Agree Draft 2 is better than total exemption from the control portion of the code, but appears to still allow cats to roam as long as they are neutered, vaccinated, and licensed. It just seems to be in conflict with other parts of the same ordinance, that list nuisances such as defecation, property damage, noise, etc. which occur because an animal is not under proper control. I guess the law enforcement officers are left with citing the owner with a nuisance violation, vice citing under the “no running at large” section of the code.
Reasonable people should be able to work out “cat issues” without making up silly laws or resorting to frivolous lawsuits.. This entire issue is a waste of the City Council’s time. How this trumped up controversy is handled will impact my upcoming vote.
Is it just me… or does putting cats on a leash seem crazy?…. Seems like the City Council has wasted time with this before..
I was reminded tonight that the ordinance itself says nothing about leashing cats but addresses the issue of roaming.
I said leashing, im sorry. Trying to “contain” outdoor cats just seems the same as leashing them to me. I think if people are worried about their cats getting injured, they should just keep them inside… Its not to tricky for me to wrap my mind around. Besides other “dangerous” cats; Edmond’s is also home to Raccoon’s and Coyotes. To me, if you let your cat out to roam… its at your own risk!
I never voted for a “cat leash” law. If there is such a law it must have been enacted after my time on city council. I did vote to make it illegal for cats to roam off of their owners’ properties. It would be nonsensical to require leashes for cats since, unlike dogs, people usually do not take their cats for walks.
The issue is about cat containment and it was enforceable as evidenced by a very detailed memo from Senior Officer Debbie Dawson. The law was enacted back in 2007 and it was rescinded without public comment last year. The only public comments have been sent to the Council via email and then through this media outlet. Mr. Martin was a huge opponent behind the cat containment and I am sure he will attempt to dispute anything I state here despite is being a factual account of recent actions.
Yes, I agree, why waste time, but due process and transparency occurred in 2007 with a public notice and public hearing; yet last year, it was rescinded without public transparency or comment as the rescission was added in during the enactment of the off-leash area laws. This also was also the first meeting of Council Member Johnson’s appointment so if anyone watches the meeting, it was very confusing. When we attempted to revert the law back to its present state the next week since “due process of a public hearing had occurred” and there is hundreds of documents to support the reasoning for the Council vote, two Council Members changed their vote from the week prior meaning a law was changed without due process and a public hearing.
While some say it cannot be enacted, it is and had been for over five years and many surrounding cities now have enacted similar laws. However, the point is: do you want a City Council to change laws without due process? There are many laws on the books that aren’t really enforceable, but does that mean we should remove them. One citizen cited about five different laws on the books which are public safety issues that may not be enforced and so think about it? I personally think every citizen has a right to have their voice heard and so yes, we do have to spend the time.
And this is why I live in Lynnwood!
Since Lynnwood already prohibits all domestic animals (including cats) from running at large, I assume this means you agree with changing the Edmonds code to be just like Lynnwood’s code.
Ron Wambolt on May 16, 2007 was among those who voted to pass a revision to the animal control ordnance “Running at large prohibited” which has been popularly known as ” the cat lease law”.
The council also voted to copy state law outlawing trapping of pet animals which was unfortunately occurring on a regular basis in the north end of 94th AV W. The city, probably at the Mayor’s direction refused to prosecute or even to thoroughly investigate this deplorable situation. Fortunately the trapping ceased.
So, for Ron to state he did not vote for the cat lease law is quite a bit south of a honest statement. That vote probably is why the citizens voted him out of office.
As for Diane Buckshnis, who has otherwise been an amazing asset to the city in many ways for the past 3-4 years. I clearly find her way off track on the cat leash subject. She has been terribly misled as to the real history of cats and dogs on the north end of 94th Av W. She has obviously been fed a large dose of one sided baloney and If she would listen I would be able to tell and show her, along with a ton of documents, what the real story Is. I doubt that she would appreciate if one of her dogs was trapped, his tags removed, and kept in a dark filthy dirt garage in a small cage suitable for beaver for an extended period of time, and with the dog and dognapper clearly hearing you call him. I can imagine quite a different attitude by Diane in that situation.
In conclusion, I repeat my support for the responsible “Draft 2”.
Very respectfully,
Ray Martin
Ray,I have to differ with you as I do not live on 94th and city ordnances are not for just one street and there never has been a cat leash law get your facts straight. Cudos to the council for doing the right thing
I would think that the council has many more important and pressing issues before them; this is just plain silly to pursue and I won’t be voting for either Ron Wambolt or Diane Buckshnis in the future. I really can’t believe this still is being discussed.
You’re right, it was just plain silly that it was brought up last year to put an exemption for cats back into the code. Which council-person brought it up in 2012 and diverted the council’s attention from more important issues in the first place?
Does anyone know what the fine or penality is for a violation of the leash law?
Chaptter 5.05 of the Edmonds City Code describes all of the city’s requirements (and penalties) for animal control. Here is a link to the specific ordinance: https://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds05/edmonds0505.html
Edmonds is turning into a very pushy, uptight little city. Keeping cats indoors is an example is government over-reach. Cmon folks, cats are not attacking anyone. Cats are not dogs (that really do need leashes. I’ve had both). I’m not sure I’ve ever been able to see a cat’s waste outdoors, in my life. They bury it.
What makes Edmonds a nice place to live is its relaxed nature. Any more of this kind of thing, and Edmonds will be seen as a laughingstock of the Northwest. It will be an interesting election for the next city council. I will be watching, along with others.
I agree. We are not cat owners, but this is an over-accommodation to a small vocal minority. Punishing the masses. Whatever happened to live and let live.
You can 1) teach your cat to sleep at night. This can be done 2) Roaming cats will kill practically anything that moves. This is not good, and I’m not just talking mice. I am neither a cat nor dog owner, but those people that are appear to feel entitled to let their animal(s) crap or pee on my property. Even if you bag it, the scent is stil;l there! I don’t like yellow spots on my lawn. The WILD indigenous populations are the ones, in a lot of cases that are crowded out by humans and their “domestic” pets!