By Kevin Hanson-The Courier-Herald

Dogs have suddenly become a hot topic in Buckley - at least in the office of City Administra-tor David Schmidt.

Twice in the last month, Schmidt has been forced to be the final arbitrator in “dangerous dog” discussions, making the decision whether someone’s pet can stay at home or must be relocated outside the city limits. Laws on the city books even allow Schmidt to rule than an animal must be euthanized, but he admits that’s unlikely to happen.

Having two dog cases land in his lap in such a brief period “is not very common at all,” Schmidt said. “I’ve only had six or seven in the seven years I’ve been here.”

Schmidt admits the city is strict when it comes to dogs that are viewed as a threat.

“Buckley ordinances are fairly strong over what they define as a dangerous dog,” he said, noting that some cities make provisions for risky animals; in some communities, dog owners can keep pets that have been deemed “dangerous” if they build stronger enclosures or carry higher-than-usual insurance policies.

Buckley isn’t so lenient. In fact, the tough stance is in keeping with the city’s history of dealing with animals perceived as aggressive. Schmidt said Buckley was the first city in the state to prohibit pit bulls in the city limits. Pit bulls are still off-limits, as are all dogs displaying a “tendency or disposition to attack without provocation,” according to Buckley Municipal Code.

Schmidt admits it’s tricky business acting as judge and jury in cases where dogs have been accused of anti-social behavior. Part of the reason, he said, is that dogs often are doing nothing more than following their instinct.

“Dogs are territorial,” he said, “and it usually isn’t the animal’s fault. The sad thing is, though, the human isn’t on trial, the dog is.”

During “dangerous dog” hearings, Schmidt is usually joined by a pet owner, someone who has complained about a dog and a representative of the Buckley Police Department. Witnesses can be asked to join the proceedings and letters are accepted from either side. At least once, Schmidt recalls, an attorney joined the action.

The first of Schmidt’s recent dog hearings involved the rottweiler that lived on Cottage Street, not far from police headquarters.

The dog had gotten out on several occasions and its owner admitted that a fence was in need of repair. Once, a man complained that the dog had charged into the street and knocked him from his bicycle; on another occasion, two teenage boys alleged that the dog chased them when they walked near the house. One of the boys fell and sustained minor injuries. It was never alleged that the dog bit someone.

The rottweiler’s owner disputed the complainants’ stories and offered testimony from others who vouched for the dog’s gentle nature.

Schmidt wasn’t swayed and ordered the dog removed from town. The owner advertised on Craigslist and found a new home for her pet.

Now, she hopes others can learn from her experience. She wants everyone to know that a dog doesn’t have to bite someone to be deemed dangerous. She believes the public hasn’t been adequately educated on the issue.

As of Friday, Schmidt had not ruled on the second case.

In that situation, a 76-year-old man stated he was walking his two toy poodles Aug. 9 when a large dog charged and bit one of his dogs. When he attempted to pull the dog from his poodle, the man sustained bites to his arm. The dog required treatment at a veterinary clinic and the man received treatment at Enumclaw Regional Hospital.

When contacted by police, the dog’s owner denied his animal had done anything wrong.

Reach Kevin Hanson at khanson@courierherald.com or 360-802-8205.