The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) includes a chapter, Title 9, specifically dealing with animal populations within the city limits. Our analysis of Title 9 includes:
Highlights and observations of the most important developments in the title’s history and its current state.
Preliminary identification of possible gaps, modernization opportunities and equity implications.
Year by year analysis and description of the code’s evolution from its earliest active section codified in 1952 to the end of 2019; a total of sixty-seven years of animal welfare in Seattle.
Our Findings
Origin
The first sections of Title 9 were codified in 1952 and dealt with the management of rabies and rabies outbreaks within the city. Title 9 is not regularly reviewed and updated, instead updates are prompted by particularly egregious cases after the fact. There were no significant updates to these sections, until 1985, over 30 years later. The next major updates were another 3 decades later in 2019, and again in 2022 after the resolution of the State of Washington v. Matthew Hazelbrook case.
Animal Cruelty
Standards of control to address animal cruelty were not introduced until 1985. Cruelty acts were not defined as criminal, misdemeanor, or civil fines or forfeitures until 1991. Updates in 2011-2012 made the city’s criminal code conform with changes in State Law. The code lacks modern animal welfare language and doesn't reflect community beliefs.
Citizen Involvement
In 2003, the city's 11-person Animal Control Commission was abolished; instead, authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to establish an ad hoc advisory committee for matters pertaining to animal control and animal welfare. No such committee has been established to date.
Rules
City department directors have the authority to create and adopt rules that describe how their departments organize their work, or how and on what terms they provide services to the public. No rules for Title 9 that provide examples for how code sections are applied or how procedures are carried out were found.
Our Recommendations
Updated Language
The language in Title 9 is outdated. Examples include the term “poundmaster” instead of “Director” under SMC 9.12.010 (Quarantine of suspected animal) and the term “destroyed” instead of “humanely euthanized” in SMC 9.12.040 (Pasteur treatment for bitten animal). Modern language better reflects community values and understanding of the law.
Vaccination Requirements
SMC 9.12.050 (Proclamation requiring vaccination of animals) does not state what species of animals the clause applies to. There is no suitable rabies vaccination for many animals (including rabbits, guinea pigs, and snakes). Clear legal definitions are vital for public adherence and enforcement.
Equity Concerns
Under current Seattle City law (SMC 9.12.050), If an owner cannot afford to get a rabies vaccination within three months, then the animal has to be euthanized if caught. Pet owners may have access to no/low costs services that allow them to adhere to this law, without euthanizing their pet. The law should take this into consideration.
Invasive Species
Invasive species are currently sold in pet stores, but are not allowed to be pets. In fact, invasive animals such as Red-Eared Sliders must be euthanized by animal shelters upon intake. Invasive species should be banned from being sold in Seattle City Limits.
Clarify Defintions
What happens when a five-year-old pulls an animal’s tail with absent (or absent-minded) parents? This is currently undefined by State and City laws, yet the language dictates what outcomes an animal may face. Definitions and circumstances of language such as “unprovoked” needs to be expanded or clarified.