The rest of the story...

...of a 'dangerous dog' and its victims

It was almost a year ago that a Washington Park pit bull (or pit bull mix) named 'Honey' attacked three women in the course of an afternoon, sending two of the victims to the emergency room.  'Honey' had escaped from her yard, attacked without provocation, and was eventually picked up by animal control officers. In due course she was declared a "dangerous animal" by the Director of the Seattle Animal Shelter, and it was ordered that she either be removed from Seattle or euthanized.

That appeared to be the end of the story until this spring, when we started seeing 'Honey' (or a dog that looked very much like her) being walked around the neighborhood (on leash) and playing at one of the waterfront road ends (off leash).  That's when we discovered that as a result of an appeals hearing in February, 'Honey' had been ruled not dangerous by the examiner.  According to press reports, the law on dangerous animals set a very high of a standard for what constituted dangerous behavior. In the opinion of the examiner, the injuries suffered by 'Honey's' victims was insufficient to warrant the "dangerous dog" designation.  

What was not reported, however, was the fact that none of Honey's victims was notified of the hearing or asked to testify about her injuries.  'Honey's' owner, meanwhile, hired an expert lawyer to represent him and to plead for the "dangerous animal" designation to be overturned.  An administrative hearing is not the same as a legal trial; and with regard to Seattle's dangerous animal ordinance, the victims are not a party to the case.  At the hearing, it is the City versus the dog owner, with the City Attorney's office arguing that a "dangerous animal" designation of the Seattle Animal Shelter Director should be sustained.  The City lost the case, and the victims are naturally upset that their testimony was not solicited by the City as a part of the hearing.

According to one of the victims, who is herself an attorney, the fact that she was not notified of the hearing is not surprising, but the outcome of the hearing is appalling: "Was the decision reasonable? Hell no!"  Furthermore, she says that although the City gave 'Honey's' owner the names and addresses of the victims as part of the pre-hearing process (and the victims were so notified), the owner has made no attempt to contact her regarding restitution or even to make an apology.  "This is extremely bad form," she told us. "This is a community and I am a neighbor."  She says she expected more.

Another of 'Honey's' victims says she is appalled at the process, the outcome, and the lack of justice for the victims.  She says that she continues to have unhealed nerve damage as a result of the dog attack.  She questions the examiner's decision since it appears that the extent of her injuries was not taken into consideration.  The City ordinance states that "'severe injury' means "any physical injury that results in broken bones or disfiguring lacerations requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery."  'Honey's' victim, who is a nurse, states that her wound required multiple sutures and took months to heal. That seems to fit the definition, and "severe injury" under the ordinance is sufficient to uphold a "dangerous animal" designation.

According to Colleen Lynn, who founded the non-profit organization dogsbite.org, the victims are often left out of the proceedings when it comes to deciding dog-bite cases.  She notes also that the City's hearing examiner in the 'Honey' case has a background primarily in land-use issues.  The examiner, Sue Tanner, apparently determined that the term "lacerations" in the existing City ordinance means "multiple" injuries.  One injury, no matter how many sutures it required, apparently was not sufficient.  One of the victims, at least, also had multiple puncture wounds from 'Honey's' teeth, though in the examiner's opinion this did not add up to "lacerations," as defined by the law.  It's not clear whether any previous examiner had ever made such a narrow interpretation of the long-existing ordinance; but probably not, since the official reaction to Tanner's decision was direct and decisive.

The outcome of the 'Honey' case and another serious pit bull injury case that Tanner recently decided in a similar manner prompted the City Council to take action to change the dangerous animal ordinance to make the law more inclusive concerning what is a "severe injury." As a result of a change to the ordinance enacted in June, the law now states that "severe injury" includes one or more broken bones; or one or more disfiguring lacerations, avulsions, cuts or puncture wounds, requiring medical attention including but not limited to one or more sutures, steri strips or staples; or permanent nerve damage.

It's a victory, perhaps, for those who will be severely bitten by dogs in the future, but it comes too late for 'Honey's' victims, since the law could not be made retroactive.  One of the victims told us, however, that civil action is still a possibility and that she has retained an attorney to represent her.  This is a story we will continue to follow.

...of a door-to-door scammer and the gullible

When we reported last month that a Madison Park resident had been duped out of some money by a personable black man with an at-first-blush-plausible story about being locked out of Scoop du Jour (where he supposedly worked), the modus operandi and the description of the perpetrator rang bells with several of our readers.  We got this from a Washington Park resident the following day:

"I live on 38th Ave. East and one day around 5 p.m. I was in a hurry and rushing out with my teenager and this man encountered my son first and asked if were Seattle Tennis Club members?  I was then coming out the door and looked at him wondering why he was asking this.  He looked up at me and said not to worry "that he was just a gay black guy" that got locked out of his car at lunch and didn't have enough money to pay for the locksmith.  He said he worked at the Seattle Tennis club as a janitor.  Since I was in a hurry I told my son to give him $5 and then he said he needed another $20. I looked at him and asked him who his boss was at the club and he proceeded to give me a name of someone I knew.  I had doubts, but I was in a hurry and he sounded very convincing.  O.K., so now I feel very silly for giving him money.  I called the club that night and they said they had no one with that description that worked there.  So I am surprised he's still up to his ploy!!"

It turns out that this "I need a locksmith" story is apparently part of a long-practiced and often-successful routine by this particular con artist, who is notorious for using the ruse to get money out of people all over town.  We immediately heard from a reader in Leschi who let us know that the perpetrator has become all too familiar in the Central Area and has been extensively covered by neighboring blog Central District News.  Indeed, we found multiple stories there of people being taken by "Patrick" and later admitting to a certain sheepish feeling about their gullibility (not to mention anger about being conned).

This soft-spoken scammer often says that he's a new neighbor and that he's locked out of his house.  Sometimes he even forgets that he's already targeted a certain residence and comes back with the same story (which doesn't work quite as well the second time around, apparently).  The guy (or a copycat scammer) has also been written about on both the Roosevelt Neighborhood blog and the Green Lake blog.

Now that we think of it, we must have been victims of this very scammer a couple of years ago in the  parking lot of the Safeway on Madison Street.  In that case, however, he had a very convincing story. It seems that he had borrowed his cousin's car but had locked himself out of it and needed to get a locksmith....

...of a spec house and a sad ending

When we reported last month that the neighborhood's most expensive speculative house had gone pending, we knew a bit more about the situation than we disclosed.  Because KING-TV made the story public last month, we feel comfortable in reporting a tragic side note to this potential house sale.  One of the three developers of this property, located in Washington Park on 34th Avenue E., was Wayne Boswell, founder and president of The Stratford Group, a real estate investment company.  With his real estate empire collapsing and bankruptcy looming, Boswell shot and killed himself in the garage of his Seattle condo on April 1.  The failure to sell his Washington Park spec house (which has been on the market for well over two years) was certainly not high among the reasons Boswell decided to end it all.  It now seems evident that Boswell had been mismanaging the funds entrusted to his company on behalf of investors in a vain attempt to remain solvent.  For those interested in the details, the KING-TV story is available here.

...of a lost bird and his new cat 'friend'

We queried our readers last month on this subject: "Anyone missing a parakeet?" No one responded, so finders keepers.  Madison Park residents Karen and Dick Lehman, who also put up "Lost Bird" posters at the hardware store and the vet's, have created a new home for the little green and yellow bird which suddenly appeared in their garden. And they've named him 'Hobo'.

They may need to get a bigger cage, according to Karen, since the family cat, 'Louis Prima', keeps moving the cage around with his paw. 'Hobo' may soon be getting a new cage-mate to keep him company (of the bird variety, that is).

[Photo of dangerous pit bull, at top, is not a picture of 'Honey', who has been declared not dangerous.  Photo of 'Hobo' courtesy of Karen and Dick Lehman.]

Pit Bull "Honey" not dangerous after all !

This is a shocking story of which we were unaware until it was pointed out to us today by an alert reader.  It seems that back in February, the Pit Bull that attacked and injured three women on a Madison Park sidewalk last summer was declared not dangerous. The dog is therefore allowed to live with its owner inside City limits without restriction. When we last reported on the situation in October, the dog, named Honey, had been declared dangerous by the Director of the Seattle Animal Shelter.  As a result of that decision, her owner was required to either euthanize Honey or remove her from Seattle and place her in a secure facility.

Didn't happen.

The successful appeal by the owner of the Director's decision was reported by the Seattle PI this morning.  The website's story, actually, is not about Honey, but about another Pit Bull case involving a dog in Magnolia that  bit off the lip of its victim.  That dog, like Honey, was ordered banished from the City or killed, but the owner has appealed that ruling and apparently may win a reprieve.  The fact that Honey's owner was able to appeal and win is cited as a precedent for the Magnolia Pit Bull case.

According to the PI report, at issue is the City's dangerous-animal ordinance, which narrowly defines the term "dangerous."  Honey caused injuries to two of her three victims that were sufficient to send them to the Emergency Room.  Yet the examiner hearing Honey's appeal found that the injuries were not sufficiently serious to warrant a "dangerous animal" designation for Honey.   Hence she is free to be.

Last we heard, Honey was living in West Seattle.

[Upper photo:  Honey when captured by Animal Control officers in August.  Lower photo: injuries of one of the victim at three weeks after the attack.  More background on this story is available here.]

Short takes No. 10

Madison Park Conservatory: getting close

Since neighborhood favorite Sostanza went dark in July, many Madison Park gourmands have been waiting with eager anticipation for news about its replacement, Madison Park Conservatory. Co-owner Cormac Mahoney added to the buzz last week by making the rounds of Village shops and charming the owners—or at least several of the female ones. We heard all about it, of course, and that prompted us to go direct to the source and ask the really important questions: when is the place opening and what can we expect to see on the menu?

As to the when, Mahoney says he’s expecting a late November or early December start date for the new restaurant. As to the rest? Well, he promises to divulge all (or, more truthfully, he agreed to speak with us and tell us something) within the next couple of weeks. Construction is quite obviously underway (the dry wall was delivered last week); and Mahoney confirms that, indeed, the fireplace is now a thing of history. But that’s about all of the news we could get out of the guy. Except for one other, not insignificant, fact. He reports that he’s moved to Madison Park from his abode in Eastlake, thereby making him one of the very rare—four or five at best—local business owners who are also residents of the Park.

While we’ve still got hope for a meaningful future dialog with Mahoney, all we’re left with today is this teaser: “Please be satisfied,” he says, “with our current mantra: we will be a Seattle restaurant serving delicious plants and animals with a squeeze of lemon.”

Did we mention the bit about his being young and charming?


MLK sale to FAME approved

As expected, the Seattle School Board (technically, the Seattle School District Board of Directors) last night approved the sale of the Martin Luther King Elementary School site in Madison Valley to the First African Methodist Episcopal Church. The vote was 5 to 2. Based on the emails we’ve received, as well as on comments left in response to our blog posting on the subject, the School District’s action is highly controversial, both in our neighborhood and in Madison Valley. For whatever reason, we’ve not heard from First A.M.E. or from any of its supporters since the story broke.


‘Honey’ declared a dangerous animal

The Washington Park Pit Bull which allegedly attacked three women on one day in August, has officially been designated as a “dangerous animal” by the Director of the Seattle Animal Shelter. As a result, an administrative process will now begin during which the owner can appeal the decision. Unless the appeal is successful, Honey, the tan Pit Bull (or Pit Bull mix) will no longer be allowed within the City limits. She is reportedly now living in West Seattle.


Rejuvenation anyone?

Just next door to the new Madison Park Conservatory is Spa Del Lago, into which former Madison Park resident Dr. Teri Burnett recently moved her practice. Although a plastic surgeon with nine years of experience in using more-invasive procedures, Burnett is now specializing in some less-intrusive approaches to helping people look younger: Botox, dermal fillers, and wellness supplements. You can get the details on her no-surgery/no-pills program by checking out her Facebook page, Get Young MD. Spa Del Lago is located at 1929 43rd Avenue. E.


[Madison Park Conservatory is located at 1927 43rd Avenue E. Photo of Spa Del Lago courtesy of Get Young MD.]

Pit bull attack gets a reaction

This is Madison Park, a great walking neighborhood. A place, in fact, where residents and visitors expect to be able to stroll on a lovely summer’s day without fear or concern. So when an incident occurs that shows us our tranquil little community is not always as safe and comfortable as we’ve complacently believed, it’s a bit shocking. And it’s definitely a story.

The recent report of multiple attacks by a neighborhood pit bull on unsuspecting passersby presents us with a jarring case in point. While the attacks themselves are certainly alarming, their possible cause and what’s happened (and what hasn’t happened) in their aftermath are proving to be additional sources of concern for victims, neighbors, and dog lovers alike.

The registered owner of Honey, the Pit Bull in question, has not provided us with any insights into his own thinking. Though his wife requested that we delay posting our story for 24 hours so she could provide us with a written statement, she did not do so. The owner’s son, however, has responded; and what he’s had to say about the case, as quoted in our original story and in comments he later posted to the blog, is controversial at best.

First, the issue of responsibility. The son, who was the caretaker for the dog while his parents were away on vacation, admits that both Honey and a companion dog were left on their own at the Washington Park house for at least a week, with only daily visits by him to check on their condition. He told us that Honey had been well secured but had dug a “seven feet by four feet” hole in order to escape from the fenced back yard.

One of Honey’s victims (we’ll call her Jane) has a problem with the owner’s assumption that a Pit Bull left on its own for an extended period would not pose a potential threat. “Dogs get out,” she told me, “and a Pit Bull is a risky type of animal.” Jane noted that Pit Bulls have been bred to fight. “It’s in their DNA to attack,” and an attack is a particular risk when the animal is frightened, she said. Given the dog’s history, “she was probably always scared in situations where she was uncontrolled. She seemed frightened, and she attacked.”

In spite of having been injured, Jane is somewhat sympathetic to the dog’s owner, who she believes certainly didn’t want this outcome. But she’s particularly sympathetic to the dog: “Her situation was created by a human who abused her in the first place and then by an owner who allowed her to get out and become frightened,” she said. “The dog is a victim here too.” She believes that Pit Bull owners have a responsibility to protect the public and says the City should impose special requirements for people who want to keep Pit Bulls.

The most seriously injured victim of the attacks, whom we are calling Carol, totally agrees with that last point. She thinks Honey’s owner acted irresponsibility and that the City compounded the problem by what happened after the attacks. "They should never have let that dog out," she told me. As we reported, the City returned Honey to the owner’s son ten days after having impounded her. According Seattle Animal Shelter supervisor Ann Graves, the City had to do so because there is no law allowing for a dog to be held while the Shelter’s “dangerous animal” assessment is underway. A ten-day quarantine period is required under the law in order to check for rabies, but that’s it.

In this case, the “dangerous animal” investigation was only completed last week, the recommendation that Honey be declared dangerous is still under review by the director of the Animal Shelter, and due process for the dog’s owner may take several more weeks to play out, according to Graves. In the meantime, Honey is somewhere in West Seattle and under no special restrictions resulting from the attacks. Carol’s response to all this: “I think the City screwed up. If that’s the law, the law needs to be changed.” She said she’s talked to people living near Honey’s house and they told her that the dog was loose on other occasions. Neighbors confirmed this when we asked, but noted it was unusual for Honey to be out unsupervised. What was usual, they said, was for Honey to be off leash whenever she was out with her family. One neighbor told us that “it was terrorizing” when it happened, so she and her kids avoided being in proximity to the dog.

The owner’s son, who says he now has the dog in his care fulltime, questioned why this is a story for the Madison Park Blogger, given that the dog is currently living with him in West Seattle and is no longer a danger to anyone in our neighborhood. From Carol’s perspective, that question totally misses the point. The issue now is whether people in West Seattle are safe, she says.

Ultimately, the City’s process will result in a decision in Honey’s case, likely one that will force her owner to either euthanize the dog or place her in a secure facility. “Owning a dangerous animal in the City is against the law,” says the Animal Shelter’s Graves, so once such a determination is made—assuming it is upheld if appealed—the dog can’t remain inside Seattle’s boundaries. Criminal charges are also a possibility, she noted.

In the meantime, we understand that some of the victims have approached the City to discuss changing current law. It’s possible, we’re told, that at least one member of the City Council may get involved in this case. Since the Pit Bull story broke, we’ve noticed a fair number of hits to our website coming from the “Seattle.gov” server, so someone in the City is apparently paying attention. “These attacks do raise a question for the community,” said Jane, Honey’s second victim. “This was a more frightening experience than I ever would have expected it to be,” she told us. “I feared for my life, and it affected me for days.”

[Editorial aside: We promised we would be discussing both “breedism” and Pit Bull attack statistics in this posting. However, the son’s owner, in the “Comments” section of our last posting, seems to have retracted his earlier statement that the “fuss” over the attacks was because of the dog being a Pit Bull and not because of the severity of the attacks. So we’ll leave a discussion of “breedism” aside.

With regard to attack statistics, it appears that DogsBite.org has the most authoritative information available on the internet, although its information is based on media reports. The site states that in 2009 there were 32 fatal dog attacks in the U.S., with 44% of these being by Pit Bulls. The site notes that over 500 cities and other jurisdictions in the country ban Pit Bulls. “Unlike other dog breeds, Pit Bulls frequently fail to communicate intention prior to an attack. They possess a lethal bite style (hold and shake) and a ruinous manner of attack.” For the first six months of 2009, apparently the most recent statistics available, there were 318 Pit Bull attacks reported in the media, involving 388 victims. Of these, 64% suffered severe injuries, 4% having one or more body parts severed, and 2% being killed outright. Children under the age of 5 suffered 84% of the most severe injuries.

This is a quote from Farber Law Group, a local firm specializing in personal-injury work: “The data also show that 68% of the Pit Bulls that attacked were not on their owner’s property [and that] Pit Bulls escape their owner's property and bite people at a higher rate than other dog breeds.”]

Photos of the friendly and not-so-friendly Pit Bulls, above, are culled from the internet. The friendly-dog photo is courtesty of Missouri Pit Bull Rescue.

Madison Park Pit Bull attacks three women

but is returned by Animal Control to its owner

On the afternoon of August 21, on a quiet street in the Washington Park neighborhood of Madison Park, two women were attacked by an unleashed Pit Bull. Both of the women were bitten, one badly enough to require a trip to the emergency room. Later that afternoon, another woman, while walking with a friend on the same street, was viciously attacked by the same roving dog. She too ended up in the emergency room, injured so severely that she was unable to return to work for a full month.

Although Seattle Animal Control was able to capture the offending dog, it proceeded to release the Pit Bull back to its owner after just ten days, telling the victims that in spite of the dog’s multiple unprovoked attacks there was no legal basis for continuing to hold the animal. Today, more than six weeks since the attacks occurred, the City has still placed no special restrictions on the released Pit Bull, and no criminal charges have been filed as a result of the attacks.

That’s the broad outline of a story that is disturbing—at least to the victims—on many levels. But there’s yet another surprising aspect to this tale. Under Seattle ordinance an owner can be fined only $269 for allowing their dog to bite someone. Yet the maximum fine for allowing a dog to be on a City beach is $500. So while the Pit Bull’s caretaker is being cited for allowing the dog to bite three people, he apparently would have faced a potentially higher monetary penalty if he’d been cited instead for three trips with the dog to Madison Park Beach:

The August attacks occurred on 39th Avenue E., on the block between E. Prospect and E. Highland Streets (shown in top photo). The victim most seriously injured that day is a Montlake resident and trauma nurse at Harborview Medical Center. She prefers that her identity not be disclosed, so we’ll call her Carol. This is her description of the attack: She and a friend were walking along the sidewalk at about 5:30 in the afternoon when they came upon a dog lying in the grass. She said “Hi Doggie” as she walked past the dog, and the dog immediately attacked her. She was severely bitten on the lower right leg, causing her to bleed profusely (that’s her injured leg in the photo below, shown three weeks following the attack).

Carol states that the dog appeared ready to make another attack, but finally ran off when nearby homeowners came out to help her and her friend. According to medical records, she suffered a three-inch laceration and multiple puncture wounds and was treated at Harborview. Because of pain and a resulting infection, she was unable to return to her nursing job until recently. She reports suffering some nerve damage as a result of the bite.

Carol says that when the Seattle Police arrived at the scene on the day of the attack officers told her she was not the first person to be bitten at that location that day. Indeed, about an hour earlier two women walking along the same street were attacked by a dog that they later identified as the same tan Pit Bull that bit Carol. According to the report of one of the victims, the dog suddenly attacked her and bit her deeply on the right calf as she walked by a hedge. The dog then attacked her friend, though the friend was able to shake off the dog and was not as seriously injured. The bleeding victim was transported to the emergency room of the University of Washington Medical Center, where she was given several stitches.

After the second biting incident, Seattle Police discovered the Pit Bull and followed it to its house, located just two blocks from the scene of the attacks. The dog was later identified by Animal Control as “Honey,” a three-year-old female Pit Bull (also designated in some documents as a Pit Bull mix).

The investigative report of the Seattle Animal Shelter (aka Animal Control) provides clues as to Honey’s behavior and that of another dog, a Rottweiler mix, staying at the same residence. The second dog was also off leash, but was not involved in the attacks. According to the report, this is what officers discovered at the house: “There were at least 20 piles of feces in the backyard, a dry and empty dog bowl, and an empty bag of dog food. The back door to the home was open. There was much clutter, debris, and flies near the back door to the home. There were no dog houses and no water available for the dogs.”

After police “cleared” the house, Animal Control officers entered and took photographs, reporting that “the inside of the house was very cluttered and there was a lot of debris and garbage everywhere, on all three floors plus the basement. There were two overflowing litter boxes…and the animals appear to be abandoned.” Photos included with the report show places in the house where animals appear to have dug up the carpeting. Officers eventually discovered some cat food and water in bowls in another part of the home. The officers felt that the Rottweiler was emaciated, so they impounded it, as well as Honey, and posted a “Cruelty Notice” at the residence. According to Ann Graves, an enforcement supervisor with the Seattle Animal Shelter, such a notice requires the animals’ owners to correct the deficiencies noted.

As required by Seattle animal-control ordinance, Honey was held in quarantine for ten days; and when evidence of her rabies vaccination was provided, she was released. Carol, the nurse most seriously injured by Honey, says she was outraged when she learned that such a dangerous dog has been allowed back into the community. But according to Graves, that’s how the system works when there is no previous record of an animal biting someone, as was the case here. The fact that three biting incidents may have occurred on the same day does not change the situation, she said. Administrative due process is still required before the offending dog can be taken from an owner.

The son of Honey’s owner contacted us to state that he had been taking care of the two dogs while his parents and sister were on vacation. He said he visited the Washington Park house once a day to water and feed the animals. He reported that Honey is now owned by him and is living with his family at their home in West Seattle. He added that he has not received any reports from Animal Control and was therefore unaware of the details of the alleged attacks. He admitted that Animal Control had issued citations to him because of the biting, but he said he intended to contest or mitigate the charges.

He told us that he didn’t understand how it was possible that the dog had bitten anyone, since Honey was generally afraid of strangers and would run the other direction if anyone approached her. This was a legacy, he said, of her time with her first owner, who used to beat her regularly. Honey was a rescue dog that had lived with the family in Washington Park since about February 2009, he told us. “She is a completely sweet dog who sleeps with me,” and “she doesn’t deserve to be destroyed.” He added that if people were attacked “it wasn’t a purposeful act or an expected result.”

In addition to the controversy over the City’s handling of this dangerous-dog situation, the owner’s son provides us with more food for thought by stating that in his opinion the “fuss“ by the victims and Animal Control over Honey’s alleged biting is really the result of “breedism” (which is apparently something akin to racism). He told us that if the dog involved had been anything other than a Pit Bull, “we wouldn’t be talking today.”

Meanwhile, the Shelter’s Ann Graves has confirmed to us that she will be recommending that Honey be declared a “dangerous animal.” An overview of the potential implications of that action, commentary by Honey’s victims, a report on Pitt Bull-attack statistics, and a discussion of “breedism” will be included in a related posting later this week.

[Editorial aside: The victims, whose names are not part of the public record, requested that their identities not be disclosed for purposes of this story. We honored their requests. The family of the attacking dog, Honey, also requested anonymity in this posting. Their names are part of the public record, so acceding to their request was a difficult call. In the end, we determined that our responsibility as a neighbor trumps our responsibility as a journalist, at least in this limited instance. Madison Park Blogger, after all, is a neighborhood blog—not a sensationalist rag. We do, however, reserve the right to change our mind on this “anonymity-for-guilty-neighbors” decision as the case moves forward.]

Photo of Honey from Seattle Animal Shelter investigative report.