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.