You are on page 1of 7

Glenn and Carla Grytdal

5915 E. Woolard Road

Colbert, WA 99005
(509) 238-4969 – Home
(509) 701-5819 – Cell

Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services

Attention: Director Nancy Hill
2521 North Flora Road
Spokane Valley, WA 99216

October 16, 2010

Request for Administrative Appeal

Case #: 2010-0580 and Case #: 2010-0585

Director Hill,

With regards to your email of October 15, 2010: We disagree that this has ended; nor that it was with a
positive resolution. We are aware that you are friendly with Gordon and Linda Kirk and have a copy of
an email between the two parties, to offer as proof. We believe there is a potential confliction of
interests within this case.

We worked with Officer Carl Boyd and more specifically Officer Nicole Montano under great emotional
anguish, stress and worry. Officer Montano overruled Officer Boyd as his Lead Animal Protection
Officer. That was the beginning of the illegal seizure of our property/dog.

Officer Montano was especially difficult to talk to or try to reason with. And we have spent much more
time interacting with Officer Nicole Montano, in order to keep our property/dog safe.

As Spokane County and Washington State residents we have already been in contact with Attorney,
Adam Karp – Bellevue, WA, although we have not, as yet, retained him. We reserve the right to retain
him or another attorney in the future, if an amicable agreement cannot be reached. We are hoping
that we are able to speak to and/or reason with you directly. Originally we stated to Officer Boyd, that
we did not intend to take this issue to court, however, that has only led to S.C.R.A.P.S. Officers
blatantly proceeding in several arbitrary directions, outside their scope. We are now prepared to take
this further legally, if you require. However would prefer to see this settled amicable and legally,
without costly and lengthy court appearances, and save the tax-payers some money. It is your decision.

Since animals do not have constitutional or legal rights, your actions were initiated against us as the

property owners of 5915 E. Woolard Road, in Colbert, WA 99005 in an area of Spokane County that is

currently zoned for Agricultural use.

Officer Boyd; removed our personal property/dog from our property against our wishes, and in
violation of both Spokane County and Washington State code. Our Constitutional rights to “Due
Process,” have been denied to us by Officer Montano. Our property/dog was removed previous to our
understanding of our rights. Neither Officer Montano nor Officer Boyd was helpful or forthcoming in
explaining our rights to us. This seems as though it would/should be a minimum requirement for all
Spokane County employees, or county employees anywhere.

There were no witnesses to the beginning of the altercation between Gordon and Linda Kirks two dogs
and our dog. This is substantiated by the statement received and signed by: George Aaron Hartman,
the Kirks hired hand. He was witness to the altercation towards the end of it. You should have a copy
of this statement on record.

S.C.R.A.P.S. bears the burden of proof, that our property/dog was not provoked. S.C.R.A.P.S. cannot
assume anything other than fact. Officer Boyd received a statement from George Aaron Hartman
which proves that our dog is not an attack dog, since he states that was able to run directly at her and
yell while she was deeply involved in a protective action, and she did not turn on or attack him, but ran
away from him and back to her own fenced area. Therefore, Officer Boyd had no probable cause to
designate or remove our property as a “Dangerous Dog” or as a “Potentially Dangerous Dog.”

Our 16-year old daughter and 14-year old son witnessed the altercation prior to George Aaron
Hartman, in the middle of the road, but they wisely did not attempt to physically intervene in the
altercation. They also gave their statements to Officer Boyd; however, copies of their statements were
not given to me when I requested them, so I am unaware of where those reports are. Officer Boyd did
state that he would include them in his report. Linda Kirk was present when my children’s statements
were given. If Gordon Kirk was present, he was standing behind me, out of my vision. Officer Boyd
commended my children for not trying to physically break up the altercation between the three dogs.
Our Anatolian Shepherd was also bit by one, or both, of Gordon and Linda Kirks dogs; but not injured
because she has a super thick/protective coat and undercoat. There were obvious bite marks with
saliva on her haunches, ears and chest.

There are no witnesses to prove that the TWO dogs did not provoke my dog. There is only assumption.
The very fact that Gordon and Linda Kirk’s two dogs travelled more than 130 yards across open, and
unfenced, pasture land, to get to the position of the witnessed sight of the altercation, and my dog
traveled less than 3 yards, are also offered for consideration. Please see definitions of “At Large,”
“Dangerous Dog” and “Potentially Dangerous Dog” in Spokane County Code.

We maintain that Quincy did not attack but was provoked into protecting our agricultural goats and
her human “herd” all within the normally closed, gated animal enclosure. The fact that the normally
closed and locked gate was accidentally left open is irrelevant, since she was guarding agricultural
animals, at the time of the altercation, from possible/potential threat. Please see Spokane County code
for definitions of “At Large” dogs, specifically dogs that are guarding agricultural animals.

The dogs owned by Gordon and Linda Kirk are a 14-year old white dog, bred unknown, gender
unknown named: Shadow. And, a 4-year old male Blue Heeler named: “Blue.” Blue Heelers are herding
dogs. They are bred to be naturally attracted to agricultural animals, in order to herd them. Linda Kirk
stated to Officer Boyd that Blue attempts to herd Shadow, “who is old and senile.”
Our dog, Quincy is a pure-bred, female “Guardian Protection Dog,” bred to protect agricultural
animals. We believe that the other two dogs were coming towards our property, “at large,” and posed
a perceived threat. We believe that she was protecting, not attacking. It is reasonable though it does
not address our sentimentality; or our sense of justice as humans; for “poor Blue” who was injured.
Again there were no witnesses to the initiation of the altercation, however, S.C.R.A.P.S. bear the
burden of proof.

Officer Boyd was shown the goats while he was here; one of which was tied up directly in front of
south-facing fence. I (Carla Grytdal) asked him to take pictures of the goats, but I do not remember
whether he did. I was told that it did not matter, and have since learned otherwise. The goats were
purchased within Spokane County and brought on sight, July 3, 2010; a full 3 months before this
altercation with the Kirks two dog occurred.

The goats are an initial, and successful, experiment with Boar Goats. And, we intend to have more Boar
goats in the future. There is a cultural market for Boar Goats. We require the services of a Guardian
Protection Animal in order to protect our investment from predators.

I (Carla Grytdal) attempted to explain this to Officer Montano during our phone conversation, which I
believe occurred Wednesday, October 13, 2010. Officer Montano asked me whether her purpose was
human protection OR animal protection. I stated that: “Anatolian Shepherds are bred for animal
protection; however, they will also accept humans as part of their “herd” and protect them.” “We got
her for both, since we have an ongoing issue with coyotes, other loose animals (dogs, horses, llamas;
an occasional moose; threat of mountain lions, etc.) and we have Boar goats, and most of the time

I also went into the reason we do not have chickens right now – because our chicken coop has
deteriorated to the point of being unusable, so we have not replaced our chickens, this year. I did state
that we missed our chickens and intended to replace them, after we could afford to replace the
chicken coop. Our chickens are free-ranged and are beneficial for insect control and for fresh eggs. This
particular property has a long history of chicken farming.

I explained to Officer Montano that we have two adopted children from the Washington State foster
care system. They are from two separate biological families in Spokane County. These particular
biological family members do not always make the wisest decisions and we wanted the added notice
(barking) that a Guardian Protection Dog would give, if one of them trespassed onto our property.

I have received, yet another, harassing email (dated October 8, 2010) from my adopted son’s biological
great-aunt. We will be filing an anti-harassment order against this great-aunt, as soon as we can afford
the $53.00 court fee to do so. I have a copy of that email available if you want/need to verify this.

I explained to Officer Montano that my husband worked for Spokane County Facilities Maintenance
and was a Spokane County budget cut in 2004. We lost $16,000 per year in income, and we are a
family of six. He was able to come back to Spokane County Facilities Maintenance after approx. 22
months of lesser pay work, to fill a position left open via attrition. I explained that he was a Spokane
County budget cut again in 2007, his was sent over to the Spokane County Sheriff’s Department to fill a
vacant position there, and currently works at Geiger Correctional in Facilities Maintenance. This is not

widely known, for Glenn and our family’s safety. He was required to attend specialized safety training,
through Spokane County which recommended that he not tell people where he worked so that
released inmates could not locate him and retaliate. Employees are taught how to talk to inmates, to
lessen their personal and family’s danger.

I also stated to Officer Montano during the same phone conversation: “The same neighbors, Gordon
and Linda Kirk, have invited released inmates to live on their property and work for them. They don’t
ever tell us where the inmates were incarcerated, or for what reason, and we are uncomfortable with
the arrangement. But we didn’t want to make a big deal out of it. We just wanted another level of
protection on our own property, and an Anatolian Shepherd will do both.”

At this answer, Officer Montano became more determined, and stated that the appeal was denied. I
responded: “Oh, My Gosh! Are you telling me that this was my appeal? I was just trying to explain!”
Officer Montano stated: “Yes it is.” Then went into the reasons why it was allowed telephonically and
that since Director Hill was unavailable, she was in charge. I was more confused because I was not
advised, by her, of this as our appeal previously during the conversation. I have since learned that we
absolutely do have additional appeals processes.

I asked whether there was anything more we could do, and she answered that there was nothing else
we could do, and if we didn’t comply with S.C.R.A.P.S. requirement that our property/dog be relocated
outside the State of Washington; that our property/dog could and would be destroyed after 14 days. I
asked her if it was fourteen days from the designation of Dangerous dog (10/07/2010) or Potentially
Dangerous (10/09/2010) and her response was Dangerous Dog, because we will revoke the Potentially
Dangerous dog if you refuse to comply, and quickly ended the phone call. At no time did we EVER
refuse to comply, even when we were aware that it was outside S.C.R.A.P.S. jurisdiction.

We have an animal containment (chain link) fence around approx. 1-1/2 to 2 acres of our 9.1 acre
property; with posted signs, which read “Beware of Dog.” It was professionally installed more than
three years ago (Quincy was whelped December 15, 2008 – she is 1-1/2 years old.) by “The Fenceman.”
The “Beware of Dog” signs were put up because we have walkers, and a runner who has thrown rocks
through the fence at Quincy, and we do not want people walking through our gates without invitation.
We have had religious groups who have continued to stop in to attempt to persuade me to their
beliefs, though I have been clear that I do not want them to do so, and have asked them multiple times
to cease. We also don’t want our dog antagonized/aggravated unnecessarily.

Gordon and Linda Kirk do not have any animal containment fence for their two dogs, at all. They have a
very broken down barb-wire fence, with huge gaps which we suppose was originally used for their
horses. We’ve never tried to tell them what to do with their property; however, they do have a
requirement to keep their animals contained.

The requirement to remove her “Outside the State of Washington, never to return” is outside
S.C.R.A.P.S. jurisdiction. S.C.R.A.P.S. jurisdiction ends at the Spokane County line. There is no State or
County code or statute that allows or requires personal property to be removed outside S.C.R.A.P.S.
jurisdiction. Officer Montano prevented us from placing our property into two separate homes outside
of Spokane County, but inside Washington State, within 48 hours (Saturday, October 09, 2010) of your
illegal seizure of our property.
Definitions from: Spokane County Code Title 5 – Animals

"At large" means a dog which is physically off the premises of the owner, handler, or keeper of the dog,
and which is not secured by a leash which is under the control of the owner, handler, or the keeper not
exceeding eight feet in length; provided, "at large" does not include dogs exhibited in dog shows, field
trials, obedience training or trials, or the training of dogs therefore; or the use of a dog under the
supervision of a person to hunt, to chase or tree predatory animals or game birds; or the use of a dog to
control or protect livestock or property or in other agricultural activities; or a dog when otherwise safely
and securely confined or completely controlled within or upon any vehicle; or under control in a designated
off-leash area; or dogs used by law enforcement agencies.”

"Dangerous dog" means any dog that: (a) inflicts severe injury on a human being without provocation on
public or private property, (b) inflicts severe injury on or kills an animal without provocation while the dog
is off the owner's or keeper's property, or (c) has previously been found to be potentially dangerous, the
owner or keeper having received notice of such and the dog again aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers
the safety of humans or animals. If two or more dogs jointly engage in any conduct described in this
subsection, thereby rendering proof of the individual dog that inflicted any particular injury difficult to
ascertain, then regardless of the degree of participation by the individual dog(s), all such dogs shall be
deemed dangerous dogs. A dog shall not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage was
sustained by a person who, at the time, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises
occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog, or was
committing or attempting to commit a crime.”

"Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that when unprovoked: (a) inflicts bites on a human or animal
either on public or private property, or (b) chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks or
any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, or (c) any dog with a known
propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or otherwise to threaten the
safety of humans or animals.”

We maintain that our Guardian Protection Animal was provoked to protect our agricultural goats; and
to leave our property lines and enter into the altercation with Gordon and Linda Kirks TWO dogs, which
were also outside the Kirk’s Property lines. And we have witnesses. S.C.R.A.P.S. has no witnesses with
which to offer proof otherwise.

Our dog was relocated outside the State of Washington, (replacement value of $1900) never to return,
at our discretion, and because we believe that she would have become an ongoing target for our
neighbors and S.C.R.A.P.S.; specifically Officer Montano; from this point forward. She is adjusting well,
and her new owners love her sweet nature and mild temperament. They are also owners of another, 3-
year old male Anatolian Shepherd, and have actual knowledge and understanding of their behavior.
We would not want to confuse and risk harming her further, by returning her to Spokane County, even
though we would be happier with her here. We have all been traumatized enough. We maintain that
she does have a sweet and mild temperament when unprovoked by other animals attempting to get at
her herd.

Officer Montano has proven that she is completely willing to adjust law and code to suit her own
interests/agenda. It is our experience that Officer Nicole Montano makes arbitrary decisions, and
covers her poor judgment with additional arbitrary decisions. It is our experience that Officer Nicole
Montano is a detriment to S.C.R.A.P.S. and an embarrassment to Spokane County in general. As a
lifetime resident of Spokane County, we are enraged that Officer Nicole Montano; as a representative

of S.C.R.A.P.S., a Spokane County tax-payer paid program; would presume to bully and lie to us in the
manner that she did. She has a responsibility to act in an unbiased manner. We find it improbable that
she was unaware of her atrocious actions.

We are giving you opportunity to settle this amicably and without further legal action. What do we
expect will happen, in order to prevent further legal recourse?

1. We expect that “Potentially Dangerous Dog” and “Dangerous Dog” designations will be
permanently removed and expunged from any/all records for our family, property address, and
our property; AND to our Anatolian Shepherd associated with this address and now relocated
to Orofino, ID; by the given name of “Quincy.” The allegations will be
“Unsubstantiated” AND “Unfounded.”

2. We expect that no further or separate charges will be brought against ourselves; and/or our
property and/or personal property/dog by S.C.R.A.P.S. pertaining to this incident.

3. We expect a full refund of the $95.00 for Impound and Boarding fees, which we paid in full and
in cash; receipt provided to us, for your illegal seizure of our Anatolian Shepherd, Quincy.

4. S.C.R.A.P.S. will absorb all costs incurred for Boarding and Impound, since S.C.R.A.P.S. was
acting outside their legal jurisdiction to Impound therefore Boarding is a mute point.
Additionally S.C.R.A.P.S.: prevented us from making two separate and appropriate placements
outside Spokane County, but within Washington State, the first offer within in a timely manner
of less than 48 hours (Saturday, October 9, 2010.)

We will absorb the costs to re-home our beloved Guardian Protection dog, and personal property,

A letter of apology from Officer Nicole Montano, and Officer Carl Boyd, for their improper actions
would be appreciated, but we do not have any reasonable belief or hope that they will willingly
comply, or that any S.C.R.A.P.S. officials will require this of them.

We reserve our constitutional rights to retain an attorney and to take further legal action, if a written
response, with an amicable agreement is not received or at minimum our Administrative Review
request be granted and administered in a fair and unbiased manner.

We further reserve our constitutional rights to retain an attorney and to take further legal action, if the
Administrative Review is not in compliance with the laws of the State of Washington and Spokane

A reasonable amount of time is understood to be no more than 10 business days from the date of this
letter’s receipt. We are sending this USPS return receipt, with signature receipt required, in order to
ensure S.C.R.A.P.S. timely compliance.


Glenn B. Grytdal ______________________________________________ Date: _____________


Carla T. Grytdal _______________________________________________ Date: ____________

I certify that a copy of the foregoing statements, and request for Administrative Review, was executed
truthfully and accurately to the best of my knowledge and a copy provided to Director, Nancy Hill, of
Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Agency, 2521 North Flora Road, Spokane Valley, WA

Glenn B. Grytdal ______________________________________________ Date: _____________

Carla T. Grytdal _______________________________________________ Date: ____________