Loading...
1987-02510-Minutes for Meeting January 26,1987 Recorded 2/5/1987KEYPUN- - - • 8'7- 2510 f Eg 198~0~ 811-UE 594 ` DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS tA~ % DOG CONTROL HEARING raj JANUARY 26, 1987 Chair Prante called the hearing to order ate 1-0, ai:m. Commissioners Throop and Maudlin were in attendance. Rick Isham, Legal Counsel, was also present. Chair Prante asked for testimony from the dog owners. Nancy Mura, 4648 NE Vaughn, Terrebonne, stated that on January 15, she came home from work and found a note on her door. (This was submitted to the Board.) She stated that when her husband came home, he discovered their dog covered with blood, and found blood on the front and back porches to their home. She further stated that they could find no wound on the dog, but knew it was from him because he was in pain. She stated that she called her vet and brought the dog to him. Mrs. Mura then stated that upon inspection two bullet holes were found in the abdomen and the vet asked her what she wanted to do. She replied that she wanted to try to save the dog because he belonged to their child. She stated that the vet took the dog to Redmond to operate and that the operation went well. She then stated that the vet asked her if she wanted to have the dog neutered while he was under the anesthetic, and she decided to go ahead and have it done. Mrs. Mura then stated that the next day when she came home from work, she was supposed to contact the dog control officer, but the officer was out. Mrs. Mura then stated that the animal control officer returned her call and told her that she was coming to pick up the dog and destroy him because he had been chasing livestock. Mrs. Mura stated that she wasn't told about her right to a hearing at this time. She then stated that she told the animal control officer that she would not release the dog until she had more information on the incident. She further stated that it was an accident that the dog was loose on this particular day and that the dog is usually restrained. Mrs. Mura went on to state that the animal control officer would not listen to her and kept insisting that she was coming to get the dog. She then stated that the animal control officer hung up on her. Mrs. Mura stated that the animal control officer called back that evening to talk to her husband because she couldn't reason with her, but her husband was not home at the time.. Mrs. Mura stated that the animal control officer still went on about having to have the dog put down. Mrs. Mura stated that at this point she asked what the dog had done, and the animal control officer told her that he had bitten a neighbor's horse and that he had been shot while in the process of attacking the horse. She then stated that she asked how much damage was done to the horse, and the animal control officer replied that the situation with the horse happened a couple of weeks ago and that the owner of the horse had not called the vet. Mrs. Mura then stated that if her horse had been hurt, she would BOCC DOG CONTROL HEARING JANUARY 26, 1987 PAGE 1 VOL 81PAGE 595 have called the vet right away. She stated that the animal control officer told her that the horses legs were still swollen. Mrs. Mura asked what her options were and was told that the dog would have to be impounded and put to sleep. Mrs. Mura stated that at this point her husband came home and talked to the animal control officer and was told that at the time the dog was injured, he was chasing the horse. Mrs. Mura stated that the animal control officer changed her story three times by saying that the dog had been chasing a horse, then sheep, and now a horse again. She stated that the animal control officer told her that she would be out in the morning to speak to her, but that she would not pick up the dog at that time. Mrs. Mura stated that it was at this time that the animal control officer told her husband about the right to a hearing. She then stated that she had picked the dog up on Friday from the vet and it still had open wounds. She stated that she was concerned about infection if the dog was impounded by the County, so she called the vet, Dr. Steve Myrin, and asked if the dog could be kept there. Mrs. Mura then stated that the vet told her that if the animal control officer had a warrant, he would have to let the dog go, but that he would try to keep him there. She then stated that the animal control officer came out and talked to her husband while she was gone and had checked with her vet to make sure the dog was there. She stated that she checked on her dog at the vet this morning and that he was ill with a virus. She then submitted statements indicating that the horse involved was not a race horse, which is what she had previously been told. Chair Prante asked Mrs. Mura if she was aware that the only issue to be determined at a hearing is whether or not the dog in question is indeed chasing or damaging livestock. She replied that she was aware of that. Chair Prante then asked her if she was aware that if the dog was chasing livestock even playfully that the law gives no option but to have the dog destroyed. She stated that she has been told this, but does not understand it. Chair Prante asked if anyone else wished to speak on this issue. Steven Myrin, Veterinarian, Highland Vet Clinic in Redmond, stated that he has heard from several members of the community that the character of the person who shot the dog is questionable. Chair Prante stated that the character is not something that is delt with in these hearings and criticisms of character are not allowed. She stated that the purpose of this hearing is to determine one issue: was the dog in question chasing livestock? Dan Mura, 4648 NE Vaughn, Terrebonne,. stated that he is in the process of following the law. He stated that he and his wife were told that to come here, they had to prove the credibility of the gentleman that shot their dog. He further stated that those BOCC DOG CONTROL HEARING JANUARY 26, 1987 PAGE 2 VOL 81PAGE 596 were the exact words and that is what they did and have the letters to prove it. Chair Prante asked who had told him this. Mr. Mura replied Nancy (the animal control officer). Mr. Mura went on to state that his dog was shot and he doesn't deny that he was in the area. He stated that he owns livestock and that the dog has never bothered it. He also stated that he has a letter from a friend who kept his dog for the summer' who also owns livestock that states that his dog didn't bother their livestock at any time. He stated that this is the reason he questions whether his dog was chasing livestock. Mr. Mura stated that he doesn't deny that his dog was in the area. He further stated that he believes that the dog he was running with 'does chase animals because it had come after his horse in the past. At this point Mr. Mura started to criticize Mr. Klaus. Chair Prante reminded him that no criticisms would be allowed against anyone. Mr. Mura then asked why he was told to prove the credibility of Mr. Klaus. Chair Prante stated that she didn't know, but would find out. She also reiterated what the sole purpose of the hearing is for. Mr. Mura stated that this is quite a problem and restated that he questions whether his dog was chasing the livestock. Monty Klaus, 4411 Smith Rock Way, Terrebonne, stated that around the 8th of January, he and his wife were going to town and heard a commotion at the barn. He stated that they went out and saw two dogs, a little black and white one and the Autralian shepard. He went on to say that the black and white one was nipping at the horses heels, but that the shepard was putting it to his horse. He stated that the dogs ran off when they saw him, but didn't go far. Mr. Klaus went on to state that about one week later, his wife saw dogs at the barn. He stated that he got his 22 and went out; the little dog ran off but the other dog didn't see him at first, he shot the dog which ran away. He further stated that he called the animal control. (At this point Mr. Klaus submitted pictures of his horses legs). Mr. Klaus stated that the reason he didn't have a vet out for his horse is that he has a degree from Oregon State University on horses from the knee down. Rick Isham asked what Mr. Klaus meant by the phrase "putting it to the horse". Mr. Klaus replied that he was biting the horse, not just nipping at him like the black and white dog had. He further stated that he was quite vicious on the horse. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Klaus if he had seen the dog before. Mr. Klaus replied that he has seen the dog twice. Nancy Jernigan, PO Box 987, Redmond, stated that on the 15th of this month she was called by Monty Klaus at approximately 8:15 in BOCC DOG CONTROL HEARING JANUARY 26, 1987 PAGE 3 VOL 81PAGE 597 the morning stating that two dogs had been inside a corraled area chasing his sheep. She stated that he had seen these dogs approximately one week prior on the 8th and said that they were chasing his horse at that time, but that he was unable to get to them to take care of the problem. Ms. Jernigan stated that when she arrived, she went out to the corral to examine the horses legs and the injuries looked like they had happened a week or two prior. She further stated that the sheep were out at this time, the dogs had chased them through a fence. She stated that Mr. Klause told her that he had shot an Australian shepard in the stomach and that that a border collie has run off. She went on to state that Mr. Klaus asked her to help him track the dogs. (Ms. Jernigan had pictures showing where the dogs had come in and out under the fence and tracks in the snow.) She stated that she and Mr. Klaus followed the tracks behind the house, and that the owners of the dogs could not be found. She then stated that they walked up Vaughn Street and walked up around 47th, and went to a neighbors house where she stated she had seen the dog running before and thought the dogs belonged to the Mura's next door. She then stated that they went to that address but no one! was home. Ms. Jernigan stated that they started up 47th street) and saw the Australian shepard humped up and in a lot of pain. She then stated that she tried to get near the dog to impound him but he ran off. She stated that at this time no blood was seen at all. Ms. Jernigan then stated that as soon as the shepard took off running, Monty spotted the border collie, and they proceeded to that residence on 47th Street and talked to Susanne Barkley, who was the owner and released the dog to the animal control officer stating that the dog had been involved in a previous incident of chasing livestock. Ms. Jernigan stated that the dog had been kicked in the face by what she assumes was a horse. She then stated that she picked up the dog and went back to the Mura's residence and saw blood on the porch, but at this time she wasn't sure that this is where the dog lived, so she left a note on their door. She then stated that the Mura's called in after she had left work and asked for her to call after 3 pm the next day. She stated that Mrs. Mura had called in the next afternoon, while she was on her way into the office and called her back shortly after 3 pm. Ms. Jernigan called and explained to Mrs. Mura what had happened, that she had been called in by Monty Klaus that one of her dogs had been seen chasing stock and had also been involved in another incident the week prior. She then explained what the situation was and what the ordinances were and at this time did not mention the option of a hearing. Ms. Jernigan stated that Mrs. Mura was very upset and she could not deal with her and told her she would call back that evening and talk to her husband. She then stated that when she called back her husband was still not home, but that she explained what the ordinances were and what the state statutes were and at this point Mrs. Mura's husband came home and Ms. Jernigan spoke to him. She then stated that the Mura's didn't understand the ordinances and she asked if she could make an appointment to see BOCC DOG CONTROL HEARING JANUARY 26, 1987 PAGE 4 VOL 8IPAGE 5% them the next day to explain them. She stated that she did meet with them the following day and showed them copies of the ordinances, but they would not release the dog stating that it belonged to their child and that they did not feel it was necessary. Ms. Jernigan then stated that she explained that the dog has to be impounded when caught in the act until a decision is made. She further stated that she told them she believed the dog could remain at the vet's since he was still under the vet's care. She then stated that she called Steve Myrin and talked to him stating that the dog could not be released, but in the period of time between talking to the Mura's and talking to Mr. Myrin, the dog had been taken home. She then stated that she went out the next day and talked to the Mura's and the dog had been taken back to the vet because it had started hemorrhaging. She then stated that she talked to Dan (Mr. Mura) because she needed either a release or a request for a hearing and Mr. Mura gave her a request for the hearing and she gave him a copy of both the state and the county ordinances and explained them to him. Ms. Jernigan then stated that Nancy (Mrs. Mura) called her Saturday night wanting to know what they needed for the hearing. She stated that she told them that the hearing was set up from the standpoint that the dog had to be found either guilty or not guilty. She then stated that Mrs. Mura asked her if she could get statements from neighbors and Ms. Jernigan told her to' get whatever she felt was necessary to protect her dog. Commissioner Maudlin asked where the dog was at the time it' was shot. Ms. Jernigan replied that it was in the corral at' Mr. Klaus' property on Smith Rock Way. Commissioner Throop asked Steve Myrin if the dog was released and returned. Mr. Myrin replied that it was as Ms. Jernigan had stated. He stated that she had asked if the dog was being treated there and he told he that it had been, but that nothing was mentioned at that time about it being impounded. He stated that he was told that the dog had bitten a horse. He then stated that when Ms. Jernigan called him back Friday night and asked where the dog was saying that she was going to impound it, he told her that it had gone home. He then stated that the Mura's called him the next day and were concerned about the dog's health and he told them to bring it back in and they stated that they would rather have the dog in his custody than in the County's. He then stated that Ms. Jernigan came in the next day and asked if he had the dog, he did, and the dog was left in his custody. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Myrin if he was aware that the dog was to be in protective custody. He replied that he found out late Friday night that the dog was to be impounded. He then stated that Ms. Jernigan had told him that she was going to get a warrant to take the dog. He stated that he wasn't aware of what happened after that until the Mura's called him the next morning, telling him that they wanted to bring the dog back. BOCC DOG CONTROL HEARING JANUARY 26, 1987 PAGE 5 VOL 8~~A~F 5 9 Chair Prante also asked Mr. Myrin if the Mura's had said that they wanted to bring the dog back for its health. Mr. Myrin replied that that was the case, the dog was on medication. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Myrin if he was aware of the state statute and county ordinances that require disposition of a' dog chasing livestock. Mr. Myrin replied that no, he was not aware of that. Commissioner Throop then asked that as a veterinarian, he was not aware of the state statute that requires the County to deal with a dog that chases livestock. Mr. Myrin replied no, but then stated that he has had cases in the past where dogs were chasing sheep and the clients had asked him about it, but he did not know the details behind the reason why the dogs were to be put to sleep. Steve Myrin asked the Board if this was the final hearing. Chair Prante said that this was the final hearing and asked Karen Green if this could be appealed. She stated that she believed there was an appeal process and asked Rick Isham if that were the case. Rick Isham stated that an appeal could be filed with the Circuit Court, and that the owner would have to get a restraining order against the County to prevent them from putting the dog to sleep. Steve Myrin then asked about the testimony process and asked if there was any proof an owner has to offer that a particular dog causes destruction. Chair Prante replied that a dog does not have to cause destruction, it only has to chase livestock and that the law if very clear on that fact. She explained that the owners are responsible to keep their pets confined and that the right to raise livestock takes precedent over the right to own pets. Chair Prante stated that the hearing before the Board looks at evidence to indicate that the wrong dog was involved. She stated that since the dog was on the premises with the livestock and shot there, it indicates that they dog was there and whether or not that dog did the damage to the horse or sheep is not the issue. She stated that the issue is if the dog chased the livestock. Steve Myrin asked where the burden of proof lies. Rick Isham replied that the burden of proof is on the County and the livestock owner to show that the dog was engaged in chasing, wounding, and injuring livestock. He then stated that once that that is proved by a preponderance of the evidence, then the burden to prove otherwise shifts to the dog owner. Steve Myrin then asked what defense a dog owner has if he is not able to question the testimony of one person and raise the issue of questionable character. Chair Prante asked if Mr. Myrin was implying that this person perhaps sought to entice the dog off the premises, track it down, and shoot it. He replied that no, he didn't say that at all. BOCC DOG CONTROL HEARING JANUARY 26, 1987 PAGE 6 VOL BJ16PAGE 6W Rick Isham replied that generally the rule is that character is not the issue unless it is part of what has to be proven in the proceedings, but if there is evidence that the person is lying, then it would be relevant as impeachable evidence. He then stated that if there is any character at issue, it may be the character of the dog which has already been testified to. Chair Prante asked Dr. Myrin if he had any more statements relating to this particular dog being on other's property and chasing sheep. He replied that no, he had no more information on that but wanted to speak on another subject. Chair Prante stated again that he has given testimony relating to the dog in custody. Mr. Myrin replied that he had more information relating to the dog, and Chair Prante asked him to be brief. Steve Myrin stated that the dog in his custody was basically allowed to run free in his clinic and never bothered any other animals that were there. He stated that the dog was neutered, which he believed would help keep him at home. Commissioner Throop asked that we provide a copy of the statute for Dr. Myrin, that he believes that there is no opportunity for mitigation for neutering a dog and hoping for different behavior. He then stated that he was surprised that a vet was not aware of the state statute. Dr. Myrin stated that he agrees with the statute when it is obvious that a crime has been commited. He then made a remark about a statement Monty Klaus had made about a degree from Oregon State. Chair Prante stated that she had heard that remark also, but that it is not relevent to this case. Chair Prante asked if he had any more remarks pertaining only to the issue at hand she would hear them, if not then she thanked him for his time. He replied that he had nothing further to say. Dan Mura then stated that the first notice from the animal control officer only said to contact her office. He stated that what the dog had done was not marked on it even though there was a place for it. He further stated that if he had known that the dog was chasing livestock, he would have questioned saving the dog because he was aware of some of the laws. Mr. Mura stated that he called the office at a quarter to five, but Ms. Jernigan had already left and he wasn't going to let the dog suffer until he was able to get ahold of her. Chair Prante stated that she agreed with him on this point. Mr. Mura then stated that he believed that Monty Klaus knew that the dog belonged to him, and then related an incident to that fact. He stated that he believed that Mr. Klaus could have contacted him about the horse incident. He then stated that he offered to have a vet look at his horse. Mr. Mura started to state Mr. Klaus' reply, but was cut short by Chair Prante due to the colorful language involved. Chair Prante stated that the offer was made and refused and that BOCC DOG CONTROL HEARING JANUARY 26, 1987 PAGE 7 VOL SIME 601 is all that is necessary for the record. Commissioner Maudlin asked Mr. Mura if the notice he held was the notice he was talking about. Mr. Mura replied yes and restated what he would have done if it had been marked. Chair Prante asked Nancy Jernigan to speak again. Ms. Jernigan stated that the reason she didn't mark anything on the notice is that the dogs involved seen to disappear when a reason is written on the notice. She stated that this has been a big problem and has happened time and time again. Mrs. Mura stated that she questions whether the dog was chasing livestock and that Mr. Klaus has not proven to her that it was. She then stated that she has presented to the Board affidavits to the fact that Mr. Klaus shots dogs that are not on his property and that is why she questions whether her dog was on his property when he shot it. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Klaus and Ms. Jernigan to state their evidence again in response to Mrs. Mura's statement. Mr. Klaus stated that doesn't think the Mura's will ever believe him, but that his wife also saw what happened. He then stated that the first time the two dogs were in the corral with the horse and the week later, they were in the corral with the sheep. He stated that his wife saw both incidences. Commissioner Throop asked if he saw any blood on his property after he shot the dog. He replied no. He stated that he and Ms. Jernigan tracked the dog through the snow to his home, but there was no blood. Commissioner Throop then asked Nancy Jernigan to confirm this. She stated that they tracked the dog to the Mura's property where there were more tracks; the border collie lived next door. She then stated that the saw the dog standing on 47th and there! was still no blood, which she didn't understand. Ms. Jernigan stated that after she impounded the border collie, she went back to the Mura's and there was still no blood except on the porch. Commissioner Throop then restated what Ms. Jernigan had said about being able to see the tracks in and out of the corral and being able to track the dogs to their homes. She replied that the tracks were followed up to Vaughn where there were more tracks, so that she couldn't positively identify the tracks as belonging to one dog or the other. She stated that tracks are visible in the pictures submitted going under the fence. She also stated that Monty described the dogs to her over the phone and again when she got to his residence and identified the dogs when they were tracking them. She stated that he identified the dog he had shot before she was able to do so, and identified them to her. Commissioner Maudlin asked Ms. Jernigan if there was any question in her mind that this was the dog in the corral. She replied that she didn't see it happen, but that she did see the gunshot BOCC DOG CONTROL HEARING JANUARY 26, 1987 PAGE 8 _ VOL SlnGE 602 wound and that is what Mr. Klaus had told her when he called her. Steve Myrin stated that fact that the dog was bleeding on the porch but no blood in the snow Chair Prante interrupted at this point stated that Dr. Myrin was interpreting the case to the Board and that they already have this information. He went on to state that in his opinion as a vet, if a dog was shot there should be bleeding taking place. Commissioner Throop asked Dr. Myrin if he thought the dog was shot on the porch. He replied that he is not saying that he knows where the dog was shot, only that it should have bleed, and he questions the lack of blood with the tracks. Chair Prante closed the hearing. Commissioner Maudlin stated that the basis for this situation is lined out, and as a hunter for some years believes that it is possible for no blood to appear right away when an animal has been shot, and that we can ignore that last statement. He stated that he believes that dog was on the premises and that no matter what he was doing it is apparent that he was there. MOTION: MAUDLIN moved that on the basis of the THROOP: Second. we impound the dog and euthanize it county and state ordinances. VOTE: MAUDLIN: Yes THROOP: Yes PRANTE: Yes Mr. Mura asked how he goes about this process. Rick Isham stated that he will prepare an order on the destruction of the dog. Mr. Mura then asked how he can appeal this decision. Rick Isham replied that he has a period of 3 days to get a court order to restrain the County from destroying the dog until the appeal is over. Mr. Mura then asked how to get a restraining order was told by Commissioner Maudlin that an attorney may be necessary. At this point Mr. Mura became quite vocal about the outcome of the hearing and questioned again the character of Mr. Klaus. BOCC DOG CONTROL HEARING JANUARY 26, 1987 PAGE 9 a ~x V ~ a VOL 81plGE 603 DS COUNTY BOARD F COMMISSIONERS t Prante, Chair Tom Throop, Commissioner Dick Maudlin, Commissioner BOCC:prt 87-102 BOCC DOG CONTROL HEARING JANUARY 26, 1987 PAGE 10