Cats, dogs now on equal legal footing

By Chris Fyall

The Beacon

            For years, Edmonds has forbidden dogs or any other animals — save one — from roaming free. Cats have had leeway to go where, when and how they pleased.

For months, the city has considered changing that law.

            Tuesday night it did, as the City Council slammed shut the loophole that had led to what Councilor Ron Wambolt called a “suffering silent majority.”

            “We are very pleased and we are very satisfied,” said Robert McCallum, a gardener and birder who pulled two dead finches from his yard Tuesday morning, and who helped force the issue on the city’s agenda. “I think that everybody will eventually be happy with this decision.”

            While some in Edmonds’ packed City Council chambers tried to paint the debate as one between cat lovers and cat haters, a different sort of logic carried the day: It was about property rights, a majority of the councilors said. The council approved the change 5-2.

But, the roaming law has been decided. It wasn’t immediately clear when the change would take effect. Police won’t proactively pursue cats, but will now be able to capture free roaming cats if people complain.

Nevertheless, the change was applauded by animal rights groups.

“This was an important and progressive step for Edmonds,” said Clare Bland, the director of Development and Community Relations for the Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS). “It was a really long and thoughtful process and that speaks to how close to everybody’s heart this issue is.”

Hours and hours of testimony have been heard by Edmonds’ City Council, and when the city published a packet of information it had collected on the topic — including memos and citizen e-mails — it was 90 pages long.

In the end, the roaming law became a property rights issue, said council president Peggy Pritchard Olson.

Currently, gardeners can’t ask the city for help if neighborhood cats are using their yards as litter boxes. Birders can’t stop cats from using their backyards as kill zones.

That needed to be fixed, she said.

“If it is your property, you should be able to do something if you are having a problem,” she said.

Even though the cat issue began as a dispute between the McCallum family and neighborhood cats, it quickly ballooned into an issue that the whole city cared about, Councilor Ron Wambolt said.

Cat owners did not want to confine their cats. They worried about rodent problems. They criticized the council’s priorities.

Proponents of the change worried about the health of the community, and the health of cats and other animals. About 13 percent of all injured wildlife treated by PAWS in 2006 had been maimed by free roaming cats, PAWS’s Clare Bland said.

But, if it is health that the council is worried about, the council missed its mark, critics charged.

“This will increase our health problems,” Councilor Michael Plunkett said. “If this ordinance is enacted, there are people who will kick their cats out.”

“So if health is the premise, and I agree with that premise, this accomplishes the complete opposite of that.”

There was no vote on cat licenses, despite nearly unanimous support from citizens and council members. Police officials said they needed more time to research the topic, and so the city will consider licenses — and their potential cost — in the near future, officials said.