The City Council's Dog Catching Dilemma
Seattle's municipal politics get messy as aldermen debate the ethics of canine control and the cost of public service.
Mayor Miller nominated J. P. Dowd as clerk of the municipal court after the delegates refused to confirm E. H. Bragg. The nomination was confirmed by six ayes. During the session, Alderman Sweeney advocated for the appointment of a salaried dog catcher. Under the current fee system, Sweeney argued that catchers were incentivized to seize valuable dogs for rewards, or hold stray curs for 60 cents before releasing them just to catch them again for another fee. Alderman Carle suggested a scalp bounty, while Alderman Jordan mocked the idea of uniformed policemen chasing dogs, noting that with one dedicated man, all dogs should be tagged or killed. The bill was ultimately referred to the police committee.
“Alderman Jordan laughed at the idea of policemen in full uniforms running after dogs. In a very short time, with one good man, all dogs should be tagged or killed.”
The 1893 Seattle City Council’s struggle with privatized, fee-based animal control echoes modern municipal debates over whether public services should be managed by the city or outsourced to for-profit entities. The bizarre notion of 'dog catchers' also highlights how quickly the city’s civic infrastructure has transformed from frontier-era administrative ad-hocism to a modern, centralized bureaucracy.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.