Loading...
1995-09588-Minutes for Meeting January 13,1995 Recorded 3/29/1995r 95-09588 DOG HEARING JANUARY 13, 1995 9 a.m., Deschutes County Board 0138-0841 or -;,I Conference R00=411; r Chairman Slaughter called the meeting to order at 8:59 a.m -ABd4rd,- of County Commissioners present were Barry H. Slaughter, Nancy Pope'''' Schlangen, and Robert L. Nipper. Also present were Andy Crosby, Assistant Legal Counsel; Richard and Barbara Dale, owners of the livestock; Neil Martin and Barbara Martin, dog owners; and Officer Les Hamilton, Sheriff's Department Chairman Slaughter read a statement outlining the proceeding and explaining that a complaint had been signed by Barbara Dale, the owner of the livestock. He said in response to the complaint, this hearing was initiated pursuant to Chapter 6.12 of the Deschutes County Code. He also noted that the file on this case contained a police report filed by Deschutes County; a handwritten statement by the complainant, Mrs. Dale; a release form signed by the dog owner, Mrs. Martin; a packet of four photographs submitted by the complainant; and two complaint forms taken by Officer Hurley of the Sheriff's Department on prior days. Andy Crosby, Assistant Legal Counsel, explained the standards and procedures governing the hearing and stated the purpose of the hearing which was to determine if the subject dog engaged in the killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock while off the dog owner's property and out of the owner's control. Les Hamilton, investigating officer from the Sheriff's Department, testified that a call was received on December 19, 1994, at 12:10 p.m. from the Dales regarding a dog chasing a horse. Barbara Dale again contacted the Animal Control Division of the Sheriff's Department at 7:49 p.m. of the same day saying the dog was back chasing her horse. He contacted Mrs. Dale at 6245 Atkinson Drive, Deschutes County, on December 20, 1994, at 11 a.m. and was told the dog belonging to the Martins had been to her address and chased her horse on several occasions. Mrs. Dale explained to him that Deputy Hurley had taken another report regarding the same dog chasing livestock on November 30, 1994. He said that Mrs. Dale explained she had wanted the dog taken at that time but that Officer Hurley had misunderstood and thought she had reached an agreement between the two parties for the dog not to be taken. Officer Hamilton said another complaint was filed on November 7, 1994, stating the same dog was jumping over the fence into her livestock. Officer Hamilton said that on December 20 when he contacted Mrs. Dale, he advised her of the procedure in a livestock hearing. Mrs. Dale indicate that she wanted the dog removed from the property because of the long standing problem and that she had taken two photographs of the dog chasing her horse but they were undeveloped at that time. K CHET h am a E s�� 1995 91995 01.38-0842 Officer Hamilton then submitted the two photographs as evidence. Commissioner Nipper obtained a magnifying glass to better view the photos of the subject animal in the same field with the horse. Also at that time during the hearing copies of all information were distributed to all parties. The two photographs were entered into the record as exhibits 9417065 A & B, and two Humane Society photos were labeled C & D (subject dog impounded at Humane Society). Officer Hamilton said after contacting Mrs. Dale in her residence he then contacted Mrs. Martin at her residence. Mrs. Martin was advised of the problem and she stated that she knew what was going on and that the dog was presently inside her home. Officer Hamilton advised Mrs. Martin that the law required that he pick up the dog. Mrs. Martin became emotional and asked to talk with Mrs. Dale regarding the problem. Officer Hamilton explained that she could contact her neighbor but that she would first need to bring the dog to him to be impounded. Mrs. Martin submitted the dog in question and the dog was placed in the truck. Mrs. Martin asked if she could contact Mrs. Dale by telephone. He said a few minutes later Mrs. Martin submitted to him a piece of paper saying it was an agreement made between her and Mrs. Dale and asked him to witness and sign it. Officer Hamilton advised Mrs. Martin that he would need to talk with Mrs. Dale for verification. He did not sign the document. He then contacted Mrs. Dale at her residence and was told by Mrs. Dale that she had not made an agreement not to file a complaint but that Mrs. Martin had said to her that if it happened again she would personally have the dog put down. Mrs. Dale said she wanted the dog taken away as she did not want this to reoccur. Mrs. Martin came to the Dale residence and was told of Mrs. Dale's decision. Officer Hamilton said he again advised Mrs. Martin of the law , explained procedures, and fully discussed her options. Mrs. Martin signed the document to release the dog and the dog was transported to the Humane Society. After arriving at the Humane Society, Officer Hamilton discovered that Mr. Martin had telephoned the Humane Society and had requested a hearing. At that time two photographs of the dog in custody were taken. He said he also took the two photographs of the dog in custody to the Dale's for identification purposes. This completed Officer Hamilton's testimony. Officer Hamilton's testimony, which was part of the police report, was entered as Exhibit E. The form signed by Barbara Martin was entered into the record as Exhibit F. The previous complaint reports by officer Hurley were entered as Exhibits G & H, the handwritten complaint form written by Mrs. Barbara Dale Exhibit I, and the gate tag form from the Humane Society as Exhibit J. Dog Hearing, 1/13/95 The Board then reviewed the previous complaints. 0138-0843 Mrs. Barbara Dale and Mr. Richard Dale offered testimony. Mr. Dale said the testimony was true. Mrs. Dale said she did not like idea of having a dog put to sleep but she had spent much time fixing her fence because the dog came into their yard plus challenged her. She said she was upset that a hearing was necessary. She then viewed the photographs and identified the dog in the pictures as the one chasing the horse as reported to Officer Hamilton. Mr. Dale said that about a week prior to November 7, 1994, was the first that he had observed the dog chasing the horse and that he had chased the dog out of his yard. He said that on November 7, his wife notified him by telephone at his work that the dog was back and he directed her to call the Deschutes County Animal Control. The dog owner, Mrs. Barbara Martin, questioned the Board regarding prior complaints and if she should have received copies of such complaints. Andy Crosby explained that those were only relevant in so far as they showed that the dog had a tendency or habit of doing what was alleged to have occurred on December 19. He said that this hearing was to determine whether or not the dog was chasing livestock on the day that Officer Hamilton came out to the house, which was December 19. Mrs. Martin clarified her understanding that if an offense occurred one time that was all that was needed. She stated she had no direct contact regarding the first offense reported to the Sheriff's Department other than a message from Barbara Dale. Mrs. Martin read and distributed a written statement plus pictures of the fence which she had prepared regarding the history of the dog. She did not feel the photographs revealed the animal adequately. She explained the circumstances leading to the present hearing saying they had been neighbors with the Dales without conflict for 10 years. She said the second offense was due to a miscommunication between herself and her husband which allowed the dog out without him. They constructed a dog run after Officer Hurley contacted them. This last event was the result of their son not latching the door. She stated the latch problem was corrected plus they planned to immediately put up an escape -proof fence. She said they had attempted to correct all problems. Andy Crosby explained the nature of the law and that the Board would only consider evidence as to whether the dog did or did not chase livestock on the day in which the complaint was made. Mrs. Martin said her understanding of law was that it was also to help neighbors come together and come to a resolution. She then read a letter from Lehmschlog Kennels who suggested dog training to prevent the chasing of livestock and guaranteed success in 90 days. Dog Hearing, 1/13/95 01.38-0844 The trainer would board the dog. Mrs. Martin requested that the letters she read be submitted as evidence: Exhibit 1, letter by Barbara Martin; Exhibit 2, Chuck Brown letter; and Exhibit 3, five photographs from Martin's house of the subject dog and kennel/doors. Andy Crosby asked Mrs. Dale for her statement of what she saw on December 19, the day that Les Hamilton was called and when she used the camera. Mrs. Dale said the dog would come into the yard, but would leave when she would go out and that several attempts were made to take pictures. She was able to obtain pictures of the dog chasing her horse. She said the horse experienced emotional turmoil because the dog chased the pony into its shelter and that on the day in question she witnessed the dog in the pony's fenced area and in the shelter barking and nipping at the pony's heels. There was no further testimony. Andy Crosby asked the parties if they had questions of each other. Mrs. Barbara Martin said the photographs did not show exactly what animal was chasing the pony. She said that in court cases there was room for extenuating circumstances and asked why not in dog hearings. Chair Slaughter explained that was how the law was written in Oregon. Commissioner Nipper said that with dogs it was a preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. Andy Crosby explained this was a state law. Chair Slaughter explained that the Legislature would need to be petitioned to make changes. Mrs. Martin said she had talked with Mrs. Dale on the day of the incident and Mrs. Dale had indicated that they could come to a resolution but that Mr. Hamilton said they could not make any future livestock complaint if nothing was done on that day. Mrs. Martin then asked if that was correct. Officer Hamilton said that the Sheriff's office asks the victims (reporting party) what occurred, where they stand regarding the case, they explain the hearings and outcome of the hearings, show and explain to both parties the Rights Form, and ask the victims if they want to be a complainant (as sometimes they come to hearing process and then wish to withdraw). He said that was why he explained several times the Rights of a Dog Owner form to Mrs. Martin prior to having the form signed. He stated he did his best to obtain full understanding from all parties. Dog Hearing, 1/13/95 w 0138-0845 Mrs. Barbara Dale interrupted saying that when Mrs. Martin called her on December 19, Mrs. Martin did "coerce and beg" her not to go forward. Mrs. Dale said she "had just broke down and gave in because she was really upset" before understanding all the information. Officer Hamilton agreed that it was hard for Mrs. Dale to come to her decision especially since Mrs. Martin was present. He said Mrs. Dale had told him several times what had occurred and that she wanted the incident handled and that was why he told Mrs. Dale that she had no more options, that he had the dog in custody, and that he was taking the dog. He said that was when he gave Mrs. Martin the Rights Form and explained her options. He further stated that he then asked Mrs. Martin to sign if she felt the dog was or was not guilty and at that time she signed to have the dog released. Neil Martin asked Officer Hamilton if he had stated on December 19 that if Mrs. Dale did not go through with the complaint that anytime the Dales called on dog control in the future, their call would not be honored by Animal Control. Officer Hamilton said that was not correct and that he could not advise such. He said he did not have the option to not honor complaints but that he did advise that in some cases with repeated complaints, additional complaints would not be handled as quickly as they would be taken by level of priority. Officer Hamilton said he had advised that if complaints were not followed through, they could possibly be put on the bottom of the list since the previous responses were not dealt with down the line. Being no further testimony, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Schlangen stated she was prepared to make a motion. SCHLANGEN: I move that the said dog be destroyed. I have a statement afterwards on this decision. NIPPER: I'll second. Under discussion, Commissioner Schlangen stated she believed the preponderance of evidence was that the said dog did chase and harass livestock, in this case the pony. She said there was no choice under state law other than to destroy the dog if the preponderance of evidence was that the dog was chasing harassing, or injuring. She explained that even though the pony was a pet, livestock was very expensive and often the livelihood of families. She said the law was made for very good reasons and even though it might not seem to be a fair law, it was if one were the owner. Commissioner Nipper said it was a terrible position to be put into with an 11 year old boy loosing his dog. He said there were ordinances instructing that an animal must be controlled and that Dog Hearing, 1/13/95 0138-0846 a dog run should have been constructed when the dog was adopted. He said Mrs. Dale had experienced pain from the position she had been placed in. He said the law was the law and that there was a preponderance of evidence. Chair Slaughter said that he did not like the law and the fact that the Board of County Commissioners had to hear these cases but that he understood the law. VOTE-: NIPPER: YES. SCHLANGEN: YES. SLAUGHTER: YES. DATED this /3A day of , 1995, by the Board of Commissioners of Deschutes Coiinty, Or on. 6Y94 Atl� 4 64 ATTEST: Rec rding Secretary Dog Hearing, 1/13/95 $$rry HJ 51-apughter, Nancy j4o d � ::2�. L. Nipper, , commis