Loading...
1989-12751-Minutes for Meeting May 15,1989 Recorded 5/30/1989ccl";R5 162 890.JLv51 - DOG HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMM"- TONERS May 15, 1989 L' Chair Prante called the meeting to order at 10.45 Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Lois Bristow Prante and Tom Throop. Also present was Rick Isham, County Legal Counsel. The purpose of the dog hearing was to obtain testimony regarding an alleged attach on some horses by two dogs. Cynthia Komurka, animal control officer for Deschutes County, stated that she responded to a call that dogs were chasing llamas at the Frick residence, 21721 Butler Market Rd. on April 25 at approximately 5:45 p.m. However, Mr. Frick had since refused to testify, therefore, there was no complainant on the initial impound of the dogs for chasing llamas. The Fricks had the dogs in custody and were adamant that the dogs not be returned to their owner. Mr. Frick stated that if the officer could not guarantee that the dogs would be euthanized, that he would shoot them. Office Komurka picked up the dogs from the Frick residence, photographed the dogs, and impounded them at the Humane Society. At that point, she did not know who owned the dogs. She said that Officer Hamilton contacted her stating that the Horton's had responded to the front desk stating they were the owners of the impounded dogs. Officer Komurka stated that Mrs. Horton had called her the previous day at 8:20 a.m. to say that her dogs were missing and had been missing since the previous day. She told Mrs. Horton she had gotten a report of dogs chasing horses around 27th Street near the canal, and advised her that if animal control staff found her dogs, they would have to impound them. Officer Komurka said she had received a teletype from 9-1-1 on Sunday, April 23, two days prior to the llama incident, stating Sergeant Hurita from Oregon State Police had observed two dogs harassing and chasing horses next door to him at 61680 NE 27th. Both dogs appeared to be malamute/wolf cross of very light color. In the teletype it stated that he shot at them with a pellet gun and that one ran off but the other was more stubborn. They both finally left southbound on 27th near where the canal crosses. Sergeant Hurita had never seen them in the area before. On the 4th of May, Sergeant Hurita met Officer Komurka at the Humane Society Shelter to look at the dogs she had impounded. She said Sergeant Hurita positively identified one of the dogs and gave her a written statement thereby becoming the reporting party of the dog incident. Officer Komurka passed around the picture that was taken of the dogs being held by Mr. Frick prior to being impounded. She said "Little Bear" was the lighter dog on the left in the picture. PAGE 1 DOG HEARING: 5/15/89 KF ' C.: -.ED e J x`95 16(33 Sergeant Hurita testified that on Sunday, April 23 he was alerted by his dog to the south side of his house. He looked out his window and saw a couple of light colored wolf/malamute cross dogs after his neighbor's horses. He said he looked at the dogs through binoculars to see if they were playing or being aggressive. The larger dog was being aggressive and his hair was standing up on his back and reminded him of a wolf. He said the horses were trapped in the corner of the barbed wire fence, and the dog would bite at the heels of the horses. He tried to call the owner but was unable to reach him. He knew the horses were older and "pets" of the owner, so he shot over the dogs heads with a pellet rifle. The smaller dog took off towards the canal but the larger dog stayed and continued to be aggressive, so he moved closer and shot again which scared both the dog and the horses. The horses ran toward the pond and back again with the big dog still at the horses heels. He said he came closer, approximately 125 feet from the dog, when the dog became aware of his presence and took off. He called 9-1-1 regarding the incident. He said he could not identify the small dog, but that he had a good look at the larger dog and could identify it. He said the dog in the left-hand side of the photograph was the same dog that he saw in the field. Officer Komurka indicated the she had previously received a call from one of the Horton's neighbors, Jerry Butts, on April 16 reporting that the Horton dogs had dug under the fence and killed some of their rabbits. Mr. Butts decided not to file a complaint. The Horton's attorney submitted written testimony from Jerry Butts stating that he had no evidence that the Horton's dogs killed his rabbits, and that he had not wanted to file a complaint with animal control. The Horton's attorney asked Sergeant Hurita if he was only shown the Horton's dogs for identification and he said yes. He was asked if he told the Horton's he could not be 100% certain that their dogs were the dogs he saw chasing the horses. Sergeant Hurita said he couldn't identify the smaller dog, but he felt he could identify the other dog to his satisfaction based upon his observation of the dog and the sum total of the evidence. However, he said he could not be certain beyond any doubt, since he wasn't able to get a dog tag or serial number. The Horton's raised the fact that Sergeant Hurita said in the teletype report that the dogs were light colored when in reality they had very dark markings. The Horton's submitted a number of pictures of Malamutes and Huskies indicating that at 150 feet it would be difficult to tell one Husky from another. Sergeant Hurita said he was not an expert on dogs. The Horton's attorney asked if anyone had spoken with the owner of the horses, Neil Roberts, and no one had. The Horton's attorney pointed out that the smaller dog resided with Mr. Horton Sr. in Clackamas County and was just visiting the area. He said that there was nothing in the testimony that indicated that the dogs were seen chasing the horses. Commissioner Maudlin asked PAGE 2 DOG HEARING: 5/15/89 C0 1 ~4 Sergeant Hurita if he felt the dogs were attacking the horses. He said that he felt they were attacking the horses, and if they had been his horses, he would have shot the dogs with a real rifle. Wesley Horton Sr., owner of the smaller/younger dog, testified that he felt the dogs were too clean when they saw them at the shelter to have been chasing animals through muddy pastures for a couple of days, and when he asked the people at the shelter if the dogs were clean when they first saw them, they said yes. Office Komurka stated the dogs were wet and smelled when she picked them up. Deputy Tori Chilen mentioned that the dogs had been at the shelter for 13 hours before any of the shelter staff had seen the dogs. Wesley Horton also complained that they could not prepare an adequate defense for the hearing because they couldn't get a copy of the complaint report until the original hearing date. He said from any distance it was easy to see that the smaller of the two dogs was black and was light only when he would roll over on his back. He said he could not tell his dog from hundreds of others from a distance of 150 ft. Sally Horton testified that on Easter they picked up their father's dog to stay with them for one month. She said while they were out shopping on April 23, the dogs got out of their pen. They called Mr. Butts, their neighbor, and he said the dogs had dug a hole under the fence, and that he saw the dogs in the neighborhood and sitting in the Horton's driveway. She said they couldn't find the dogs when they got home and looked for them until dark. On the 24th at 8:00 a.m. she called animal control to report the dogs missing. She said Cynthia Komurka told her about the teletype reporting dogs chasing horses and concluded that it was her dogs. Sally Horton said Officer Komurka told her she had better find her dogs because if animal control found them, they would be killed. Officer Komurka said she told Sally Horton that if animal control found the dogs, they would have to be impounded, not killed. Sally Horton said she left work after that call, and she, her husband and her mother searched for the dogs for four hours but were unable to locate them. On Wednesday April 26 at 7:30 a.m. she received a call from the Humane Society saying that they had their dogs which were impounded on livestock hold. She said her husband, John Horton, then called animal control to find out why the dogs were being held. She said Deputy Hamilton told them they would have to come there to sign a release form allowing the dogs to be destroyed or to have a hearing. She said Deputy Hamilton told them that Officer Komurka had told him she hadn't filed a report yet but that she had lots of witnesses from the llama incident and the state trooper witness from the horse chasing incident. She said they went on a short vacation after they made sure that the dogs would be well taken care of at the animal shelter. She said when they got back, a report still had not been filed. Sally Horton said she contacted Mrs. Frick and that the pregnant llama who might have been frighten by the dogs had had a healthy PAGE 3 DOG HEARING: 5/15/89 16, baby lamb. She said Mr. and Mrs. Frick told her they did not want to file a complaint, and that the Horton's were the first responsible pet owners they had ever met. On May 10, Sally said she and her husband met with Sergeant Hurita who told them he could not identify Ronan, and he did not have any proof that Little Bear was one of the light-colored dogs that he had seen with the horses. Wesley Horton recounted a conversation he had with County Legal Counsel Rick Isham, in which he said Mr. Isham offered as a possible explanation that when the dogs that were rounding up the llamas were threatened with a gun and by neighbors, they ran off. When the Horton dogs appeared about the same time, it was just a mistake in identification. Rick Isham explained that he did speak with Mr. Horton after asking if he had his attorney's permission to speak with Mr. Isham alone, and he indicated he had. Mr. Isham said Wesley Horton had offered an explanation of mistaken identify, and during that conversation, he paraphrased what Mr. Horton had said to him. He felt Mr. Horton had concluded that Mr. Isham was making a judgement or observation which he was not. Rick Isham also stated that because the original complainant, the Fricks, withdrew, and since it was difficult to gather the information necessary for the report while some of the parties were on vacation, Officer Komurka was unable to finalize the report in the normal time frame. The Horton's attorney said that the Fricks told him they found the dogs in the middle of the road, not in the field, and they were able to walk over to the dogs, put leases on them, and lead them back to their own house. He felt if they had been making vicious attacks on animals, they would not have been that easy to handle by strangers. Commissioner Maudlin questions Wesley Horton about making restitution to the Fricks. Wesley Horton indicated that he had taken the Fricks to his insurance adjustor's office to assure them that if there had been any damage to the unborn llama, his insurance would cover it. He then stated that Mr. Frick was satisfied that they were not running away from the problem. The Horton's attorney entered some letters into evidence for "character references" for the dogs from people who had kept the dogs. One was from people who had a llama farm where Konan had stayed for a week and had not bothered the animals. John Horton testified that they had lived next to horses before and their dogs had never chased or harassed the horses. Wesley Horton said his dog had been around horses with him and had always ignored the horses. John Horton said there had been an animal control officer, which he though was Cynthia, in the neighborhood a few PAGE 4 DOG HEARING: 5/15/89 weeks before the incident asking neighbors if the Horton's dogs had been a nuisance. Deputy Tori Chilen testified that she was the officer that canvassed the area because she had had a lot of complaints and was checking on dog licenses. Commissioner Maudlin said there was no question in his mind that there had not be a proper identification on the smaller, black dog, but that Sergeant Hurita, a trained professional, had identified the other dog. MAUDLIN: I would move that since there is not a positive identification on the smaller dog, that that dog be released, and since Sergeant Hurita has testified that in his opinion there was no question that this is the dog that was involved in his mind, that this dog be put to death as humanely as possible. Commission Throop said he could not second that motion. THROOP: I'll move that after the hearing, the findings are that there was not sufficient evidence to implicate the two dogs and that they be released to their owners after the fees have been paid. MAUDLIN: I'll second the motion for discussion. Commissioner Maudlin stated that he felt the eye-witness testimony of Sergeant Hurita was sufficient to identify one of the dogs. Commissioner Throop said he thought the odds were that these were the two dogs that were involved, but that he was not certain enough to support a motion to euthanize either of the two dogs based upon the evidence. VOTE: DESCHUTES Lois i PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: NO COUNTY OF COMMISSIONERS Tomf T rooP o issioner . j ick Maudlin, Commissioner PAGE 5 DOG HEARING: 5/15/89