Loading...
1991-28211-Minutes for Meeting August 28,1991 Recorded 9/24/1991MINUTES OAKLY DOG HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS August 28, 1991 Chairman Maudlin called the hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were Cynthia Komurka, Deschutes County Sheriffs Office; and Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel 0107 J5511) Cynthia Komurka testified that on August 16 at about 8 a.m., she received a phone call from Mr. Heath on Tekampe Road indicating that there had been an incident of a dog chasing his llamas the previous evening at about 6 p.m. Mr. Heath had the dog in custody and requested that she pick up the dog. When she arrived, she found that Mr. Heath had a young, male, siberian husky in his horse trailer. He told her that this dog had chased his llamas the previous evening. It started out with this dog and another dog just attempting to access his pasture. He was able to send the other dog home. Then there was another incident when this same dog went passed him into his field, however Mr. Heath was able to get him out of the field. When the dog returned for the third time, Mr. Heath confined him in his trailer. The dog didn't have any identification when she picked him up, and she transported him to the humane society. She requested that the shelter staff indicate that the dog had been chasing livestock and was not to be released to the owner. The other witness to the incident was not able to appear. While Officer Komurka was on vacation, Mr. Oakly, a neighbor of the Heaths, claimed to be the owner of the dog. He wasn't able to get full information from her because she was on vacation, however the Sheriff's secretary was able to "point him in the right direction" and he signed a request for a hearing on the 19th. Jeff Heath, 60652 Tekampe Road, Bend, testified that he and his wife raised llamas on a 20 -acre parcel which was twice as long as it was wide. The front pasture was two-thirds of the acreage and the back pasture was one-third. Every evening he called his llamas into the back pasture. They put braided pasture wire on their three rail post and pole fence to discourage dogs from entering. The evening of August 15 at about 6 p.m., he went out to call the llamas when a grey pickup came up the driveway. The driver, Mark Combs, said there were two dogs running up and down the front of his fence and trying to get into the pasutre where the llamas were. Just then a dog shot passed them still trying to get into the fenced pasture so they threw rocks at him, and he took off. He went back into the house, when he and his wife saw the dog run under his fence, into his pasture, and start chasing his llamas. He ran after the dog which finally ran under the fence and out of the pasture. Within a few minutes, they got into their pick to try and find out who owned the dog. He saw the dog at their e: i✓.iC_M_F1,J,4FD K�V PAGE 1 MINUTES: 8/28/91 ir,°, 0107 1551 door neighbors' house, but the neighbors said it wasn't theirs "but it's always over here." The dog ran to another house and went in the door, but they also said the dogs wasn't theirs but was always at their house. Mr. Heath said it was a young dog that seemed to be under very loose supervision and would continue to be a threat. They put the dog in the back of their pickup and returned to their home. They transferred him to their horse trailer with some water and called dog control the next morning. Chairman Maudlin asked if there were any pictures of the dog. Officer Komurka said there were but she had lost them in the wind on her was to this hearing. She did have the gate tag. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Heath if he saw the dog in the pasture chasing his llamas? Mr. Heath said that was correct. Mr. Heath continued that llamas commonly aborted their pregnancies a few days after being chased, and since they were trying to raise llamas, this action could damage them. Kayo Oakly, 60660 Tekampe Rd., said he lived a little to the west of the Heaths. He said his four-month old, husky puppy was purchased as a birthday present for his son this year. Huskies were roamers, and everyone in the neighborhood knew his dog because the dog had visited them. This dog had started to roam and they were considering having him "cut" to keep him from roaming as soon as he was old enough and to start training him. He felt it was important to determine whether the dog was chasing or playing with the llamas. They had a four-month old horse which the dog chased and which would, in turn, chase the dog. The dog enjoyed this activity had thought that it was okay. He felt that costs should be considered. His animals were pets not investments. He kept his investments in a safety deposit box. Concerning the chasing causing the llamas to lose a calf, he said they would run when he rode by on his bicycle. So he felt that llamas should not be kept Close to the road if they were that sensitive. He did not want to have a dog around that could harm a cat, another dog or a llama. He did not want the dog put to sleep, and if that were the only alternative, a man who worked for him who also raised huskies and had a dog sled team agreed to take the dog. The dog had never hurt anyone. Commissioner Schlangen pointed out to Mr. Oakly that once an animal was allowed to "play" with livestock, it would just encourage him to do it more. Mr. Oakly said they had cutting horses and they used the dog as a calf. Commissioner Throop said there was a state statute which said that if a dog chased, injured or killed livestock, the County was required to put that dog to sleep. So the only thing for the Board to determine was whether or not the dog chased, injured or killed livestock. If the dog had, the Board had to order the dog put to sleep. Therefore, the Board did not have the option of placing the PAGE 2 MINUTES: 8/28/91 0107 1552 dog with another owner. Mr. Oakly felt this was a bad law. He said Officer Komurka had told Mr. Heath that the dog would be allowed to go to another area. He felt he and his dog were the victims in the case because he had been trying to find out for twelve days what he could do about his dog, who to see, who had filed the complaint. Cynthia Komurka said that when she impounded the dog, she didn't know who the owner was, so she instructed the shelter to tell the dog's owner that the dog had been involved in a livestock incident. She also left the required form which the owner needed to sign to release the dog or request a hearing, which also included the information Commissioner Throop just outlined. Mr. Oakly had signed this form indicating he had read the information on the form and requested a hearing. Mr. Oakly said that he tried to find out who had filed the complaint, but since the report had not been filed, that information was not available to him. Mr. Heath said that what Officer Komurka had said was that "he won't be coming back to Tekampe." Officer Komurka said in livestock cases, she always indicates that the dog will not be returned to the owner unless the Commissioners find the dog had not been involved. Chairman Maudlin said Mr. Oakly called him on Monday of this week and asked if he could find out who had made the complaint, and he was able to give Mr. Oakly that information on Monday evening. He asked Mr. Oakly if he had a kennel or a fenced yard for his dog. Mr. Oakly said he had barns he had tied them up in before when trying to train them, but there were a lot of dogs who ran free in the area. Chairman Maudlin said there was an attempt to change this law in the last legislative session, but it was not passed. Will Wanless said he raised sled dogs and felt it was a shame to put this puppy down. The dog was trainable and would make a great sled dog. He had four siberian dogs on his 10 -dog team and they were all kenneled, licensed and had their shots. He would adopt the dog if it were possible. He had kennels and the dog would not be able to get loose. Commissioner Throop asked if there was any distinction in the law for puppies. Bruce White said that the ordinance referred to "any dog" and did not differentiate because of age. THROOP : Mr. Chair, I see no other option but to move to find that the dog was chasing the livestock and to order the remedy required by state law. SCHLANGEN: Second the motion. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 8/28/91 VOTE: THROOP: YES 0107 1553 SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Tom Nancy Pope�cv D' u in, BOCC:alb (mm 'ssiojne QJ hl gen, Commissione Chairman PAGE 4 MINUTES: 8/28/91