Second chance fails; dog bites again; council backs decision to destroy it

WASHINGTON - The Washington City Council was given a hard decision Tuesday night.

Dog owner Zach Cotterman appealed the police chief's decision to destroy a dog due to a second dog bite, two months after being granted an appeal for a previous bite.

After hearing from the family, police and victim, the council members voted to uphold the police chief's decision. The vote was not made lightly. Council members shared disappointments in having to make the decision, some shedding tears.

The police had received a second dog bite report from Cotterman's dog on Dec. 23. After an investigation, Police Chief Jim Lester deemed the dog vicious and gave notice that the dog should be put down.

This is not the first time the family has been in this situation.

On Oct. 13, the dog named Oreo was determined to be a vicious animal after a bite led to nine stitches. The family appealed to the council to have the police chief's and City Administrator Brent Hinson's decision overturned to save the dog from being killed or removed from city limits.

On Nov. 3, the City Council voted to reverse the ruling, allowing the dog to stay.

The vote came with the expectations that the dog was to be put through proper professional training with proof sent to the City Council.

The council members came to this conclusion due to information presented from the family, such as the dog is affectionate but has triggers leading to aggression due to a former abusive home.

On Tuesday, the council first heard from the family.

The victim was visiting for a birthday celebration, Cotterman said. The family said the victim grabbed the dog's collar and began dragging it to the door to be put outside. The family asked the victim to stop and after the dog growled it bite her.

The victim said she had grabbed the dog's collar while a cake was brought in, but let go after it was set down, according to the police report. In the report, the victim states when the two female owners tried to move Oreo outside, the dog ran up and bit her arm. The bite left red marks on the victim's skin and did not bleed.

'This bite was minor,” Lester said. 'But it was still an attack.”

While reporting the recent dog bite, the victim said she had been previously bitten by Oreo around a month ago, according to the report.

Lester said the dog has presented aggressive behavior and caused damage to the pound.

The family asked that the dog be allowed to move to a farm outside of city limits.

In the first dog bite case, the family was given the opportunity to move the dog outside of city limits. City code states that if an animal has previously attack, allowing the family to remove the dog is not required.

After hearing the information, the council members shared comments. Council members Steve Gault and Brendan DeLong said they backed the family previously but were disappointed to see the biting happened again.

'You have went from a dog that bites to a dog that attacks,” Gault said.

The family said they bred the dog at the end of November, and she may be pregnant. Mayor Jaron Rosien said the gestation for dogs is 58 to 68 days, and she is currently not showing any signs. No ultrasound has been done, Cotterman said.

Council member Elaine Moore said it was very irresponsible breeding the dog, stating they have increased her chances of biting again.

'The motherly instincts do kick in,” Moore said. 'I'm very disappointed.”

Council member Danielle Pettit-Majewski said she felt it was the right decision to overturn the first ruling, but she was sad and disappointed that the dog was not put in a position to succeed.

'I would caution you to think about how you are going to proceed with animals in the future,” Pettit-Majewski said. 'As an animal lover I find this devastating. At the same time I am beyond frustrated that it has come to this.”

The council members voted on three criteria:

' Whether or not the animal is vicious.

' Whether or not the owner has failed to reasonably restrain the animal.

' Whether or not it is in the public's interest to humanely destroy the animal.

The council members voted unanimously on all three criteria, confirming Lester's decision to destroy the animal.

'I'm sorry it has come to this,” Rosien said.