Loading...
1997-17002-Minutes for Meeting March 12,1997 Recorded 5/19/199797-17002 MINUTES 0161-2604 Public Hearing DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONE March 12, 1997 V a � 9: Z3 LD Acting Chair Linda Swearingen called the meeting to odka� �.1 p.m. on Ordinance No. 97-011, relating to dog control in Deschutes County. County Commissioners present were Linda Swearingen and Robert L. Nipper. Also in attendance were Susan Brewster and Rick Isham. Commissioner Swearingen requested people to sign in and stated there would be a time limit on the testimony. She also reminded people that we would be taking testimony only on the ordinance.. Sue Brewster stated this ordinance was proposed to take effect on January 1, 1997. The criteria are number 1 through 5. Debbie Hurley was introduced by Commissioner Linda Swearingen. Debbie Hurley, Field Technician with the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office, testified as to the procedure regarding chasing of livestock. She investigates the telephone call received upset from a livestock owners. The livestock owner usually reports that their livestock has either been chased, injured or killed by a dog. She then tries to find out the extend of the injury and if the livestock owner knows the dog owner, if he/she witnessed the act and and if he/she wants to pursue this as a livestock case. Debbie reported that if she did not have a written signed form on the County letterhead, they did not handle it as a livestock case. This gives the owner of the livestock and the owner of the dog a way out, so that they may, if chosen by the livestock owner, to handle it civilly without the Sheriff's office being involved. Commissioner Swearingen asked how many calls Debbie received per week. Debbie Hurley responded to 2 to 3 calls per week. Commissioner Swearinger, asked how many calls were related to wounding, chasing or killing an animal. Debbie estimated about 1 out of 10 calls involved a severe injury. She stated that most of the calls involved chasing. Commissioner Swearingen asked Debbie asked how many calls fall into the chasing category per year. Debbie felt she probably talked to one dog owner per week. Commissioner Swearing asked how many actually sign a statement saying they want to pursue it. Debbie stated she had only taken about four cases before the Board of Supervisors in the last two years. The petty cases were not seen by the Board of Supervisors or the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Swearingen asked what kind of evidence needed to be KE`i PUNC= tiED i � 1997 J I 1! 1997 0161-2605 produced by the livestock owner. Debbie Hurley stated the it depended on the severity of the call. Debbie stated that in the instance of a chase, there would only be the word of the livestock owner or the witness because there would be no evidence at the scene other than perhaps the dog being at the scene. Commissioner Swearingen asked how often do you get calls from people saying their dog was not the offending animal and the burden of proof was on the dog owner. Debbie stated that a good amount of owners did not want to take responsibility for the dogs that were chasing. She felt almost in every case people felt that it was not their dog that did the chasing. Commissioner Swearingen asked Debbie if she had an opportunity to look at the ordinance. Commissioner Nipper asked if a dog was found to be chasing for the first time, was there the ability to record that. Debbie stated that if it was reported to the office, she would have done a log entry of the incident. She suggest a micro chip being put in a dog to the first time offender and if it was caught again, it would be easier to identify that dog. She felt this would be a good idea because some people have two or three of the same breed of dog and this would identify the chaser. Commissioner Swearingen asked a release to have a dog euthanized. She asked if Debbie approached a dog owner to report that there was evidence that their dog had chased livestock, did she offer the dog owners the option of signing the statement for their dog to be euthanized or the opportunity to go to a hearing. Debbie stated she asked the livestock owner to review both papers, reminded them that she knew this was an emotional issue for them, explains the evidence that had been found, explains whether the livestock owner was Ada about pursuing this and asks them to review both papers before they made a decision. When they pick one of the options, she requests that it be done in a timely fashion. She stated she tells owners of the dog that all costs are up to them while a dog is being contained at the Humane Society. Commissioner Swearingen asked Debbie what happened if there was conflicting testimony, such as the livestock owner testified these dogs chased and dog owner said that wasn't his/her dog and their do was at home. Commissioner Swearingen asked if that was left up to the Dog Control Board to decide who was correct. Debbie Hurley stated that she would have to investigate it further. She stated if she picked the dogs up on the property where the chasing occurred, then it was evident that those dogs had been involved. Commissioner Swearingen asked Debbie if she felt the $750 fine would help the dog owner keep their dog under control. Debbie stated she was always for upping the fines. She was concerned that more lenient laws would make the dog owners more lax in the care of their dog. 0161-2606 Commissioner Swearingen was hoping that with this heavy fine it would discourage the dog owner from allowing their animals to run free and there would be fewer incidents. Commissioner Nipper stated the dog -at -large fine would be increased to $250. Debbie stated she appreciated that. She stated since there had been this media coverage, she had received a lot of phone calls. She reported people calling stating they did not want to be a victim of death threats, etc. like Mr. Kays. Commissioner Swearingen stated the Board had taken hundreds of calls too. Commissioner Swearingen stated the Board was trying to address this issue in a way that was fair and equitable. She felt it was an educational process. She stated the dog fines would be used to go toward another animal control officer. Commissioner Nipper stated the people who were moving here were urbanites. He stated he was a strong supporter of the farmers. He felt the face of the community was changing. Debbie Hurley stated she would like to see the law changed that deals with a stray dog that goes over to someones property and kills the prized cat or dog. She felt something like this should be a harsher penalty. Sue Brewster asked if a dog had been caught chasing once and release, was this causing problems later on. Debbie felt this was a problem. Debbie Hurley stated that one thing that had been asked of her was if the dogs that were found chasing would be relocated. Commissioner Swearingen stated there would be a chance that if the dog owner was found irresponsible the Dog Board could make a decision to have the dog relocated. Debbie Hurley suggested that first time chasers be registered and the neighbors in the area of relocation be notified that a chaser has been transferred to their neighborhood. Commissioner Swearingen stated she hated to set up a dog probation. Chris Eck, attorney, and Lynn Stone, dog owner, testified in support of the proposed ordinance. He felt the present law was out of balance. The dog owner in this case was not a repeat offender. He felt the law was out of balance because of the death penalty to first time offenders. Chris Eck pointed out it does not change a livestock owner's right in shooting a dog, or any other rights of the livestock owner. The Dog Board still has the responsibility to determine if a dog would be killed. Chris Eck stated there was no evidence to prove that once dogs chase they will chase again. Chris Eck felt the ordinance would work. He felt the dog owner that paid $750 in fees would be more responsible next time they have a dog. Commissioner Swearingen stated the $750 would be placed in a fund so that it could be used for livestock owners to replace their livestock. 0161 - Commissioner Nipper stated one of the things that would happen as a result of the adoption of this ordinance was that more dogs at large would be shot by livestock owners. Lynn Stone stated she had no idea about this law prior to his incident. She stated that when tags were issued they should come with dog owner responsibilities. She felt that dogs coming into your yard should be addressed. She felt this ordinance should be passed. Chris Eck stated that once the livestock owner had made the complaint, it was almost impossible for the livestock owner to change their mind or withdraw their complaint. Debbie Hurley testified the space at the top of the witness statement form was there for a purpose. She testified that Lynn Stones dogs had been impounded prior to this incident and her dogs were not licenses. When she was given the license forms, the laws were attached. Stephanie Nutt, Humane Society, and Cynthia Cameron testified. Stephanie Nutt felt this ordinance could possibly satisfy both sides of the issue. She reported the Humane Society cared about all animals, not just cats and dogs, but expect all animal owners to be responsible. She suggested changes to the ordinance. She felt on the first offense the dog could be micro -chipped to indicate it had been chasing, at the owners expense. If there was a second offense, the dog would be euthanized. Cynthia Cameron, Manager of Humane Society of Central Oregon, testified that domestic cats and dogs should be protected from trespassing dogs. She felt responsible pet ownership would protect animals from being impounded, shot, hit by vehicles, killed by other animals and indescriminantly breeding. She stated she disagreed with the placement of animals in another home. She suggested that livestock chasing animals not be held longer than 10 days in the shelter. Further impoundment should be held at a private boarding kennel. She felt the dog should be returned to its owner and the owner held responsible. She emphasized that education was very important. Stephanie Nutt felt this proposed ordinance could encourage people to randomly shoot dogs. She felt this was not an animal problem but a people problem. Joanne Van Anterp testified in support of the ordinance. She felt the $750 fee was not a drop in the bucket. She stated she was a dog owner and the $750 would certainly encourage her to contain her dogs. She felt repeat offenders should be euthanized or possibly pay a higher fine. Commissioner Nipper felt if the dog had been found at large after receiving a $750 fine, the dog should be euthanized. Commissioner Swearingen felt this was going a bit too far. 0161-2608 Joanne felt domestic animals should be included in this ordinance. R.L. Peterson testified in support of the ordinance changes. She reported she was from Klamath Falls and her home was entered because of a search warrant and she was forced to give up her dogs. She felt there should be some form that would need to be filed to prove there was factual evidence, not based on a personal vendetta. Commissioner Nipper asked if the issue could be addressed by the testing of the animal, and that the livestock owner pay for the testing if it was inaccurate. Wayne Wilkins testified in support of the ordinance. He felt part of the problems was the 20 acre ranches being located next to the large subdivisions. Hermos Zeliah stated he just moved and was proud to live here in Bend. He recently had phone calls from L.A. and San Francisco asking about the killing of innocent dogs. He testified in support of the ordinance. James Seano stated this was the first time he had seen the ordinance. There was considerable logic and rationale lacking in the present ordinances. Commissioner Nipper there are different laws for open range and closed range. Val Halton testified. She was a sheep owner. She disagree with the way the ordinance was right now. She lost 50% of her flock once. The dogs have since been fenced in and there have been no more problems, and she felt it wasn't a dog problem. She felt chasing was just as damaging to sheep as injury because sometimes sheep just lay down and die the next day. She felt the proposed penalties were good. She felt first time offenders should be given a chance because accidents do happen. If a person was a responsible owner, they would take care of their animals. Pam Mitchell, Grant and Connie Cyrus testified in opposition to the proposed ordinance. Pam stated she was a 4-H leader and had been one for 11 years. She had lambs killed and/or attacked. She felt the two week limitation was not enough time to see if there was damage to the livestock. She stated there was nothing addressing weight loss due to chasing. She questioned the economic discrimination because they can't afford to pay the fine and their dog would be euthanized. Commissioner Nipper asked what she thought of using part of the $750 fine to help a less fortunate person pay the fine and that person would have to do community service to pay for the fine. Pam Mitchell felt this would just open this up for more problems. 0161-2609 Commissioner Swearingen stated this would not be a miracle fix. She felt livestock owners need to contact the dog owner saying they need to be aware of what their dogs are doing. She felt neighbors need to talk with their neighbors to deal with some of these issues. Pam Mitchell felt that people needed to be aware that just because they live in the country, they cannot allow their dogs to run free. Grant Cyrus asked why one animal would be of more value than another animal. He stated the sheep are just as much of a pet as his dog. Commissioner Nipper didn't think the value of livestock was being diminished. He discussed the letters received from a teacher and classroom children regarding the livestock. Commissioner Swearingen stated the Boards hope was that there would be fewer incidents because of education and the media that has come about from this incident. Connie Cyrus asked about controlling dogs chasing deer out in front of cars. Myer Avedovich, not representing the Board of Supervisors, stated he was here because he had a concern about the ordinance. He had bred championship dogs and he was presently a livestock owner. Been there - done that. He felt this could all lead to a dog court, etc. which would mean full time work for attorneys. He expressed concerns about the proposed ordinance. He felt the ordinance was not well thought out and still had a number of glitches. The last draft of the ordinance was received about 2:30 p.m. this afternoon. He questioned the authority to make it retroactive. He was concerned with the lack of time. He felt this ordinance makes contact between the dog owner and livestock owner a requirement. He felt the approach between the two had to be handled carefully. Commissioner Swearingen felt, as a dog owner, she would want to discuss the issue with the livestock owner. She felt people wanted the opportunity to face the accuser. Myer Avedovich felt early contact between the pet owner and livestock owner would make escalation rather than resolution. Debbie Hurley stated she always ask if the livestock owner wanted contact with the dog owner. She felt the parties had the right to privacy. Myer Avedovich felt the provision regarding dog owners being allowed to choose the veterinarian should be changed. He reported in the last case of a dog chasing his llama, the llama did not abort until 3 J weeks later. 0161-2610 Myer Adevovich objected to #3 in the ordinance. He felt there were conflicting time lines within this ordinance regarding when the hearing would be held and where the dog was going to go until the hearing. Commissioner Nipper stated he had trouble with #3 also. Myer Avedovich felt the Board would have to be careful regarding first time offenders. He stated he did not think this ordinance was needed. He felt the current ordinance was appropriate. Myer Avedovich also stated he had advised his clients not to testify. Richard Russo, representing High Desert Wool Growers, testified that they have worked for the last 10 years to discourage the livestock owners from shooting the dog. He stated they have tried to reenforce the fact that there was a law in place by which they don't have to pick up a gun. He felt the last thing people should be encouraged to do was to pick a gun up to protect their valuable livestock. He was concerned that if an ordinance was adopted to allow people to shoot dogs, they would use this method. The law that was in place now was not a perfect law, but it had been in place for twenty-four years and was time tested. He also stated they have encouraged their people not to confront dog owners or go to their homes because the dog owner were in disbelief. He submitted written testimony. Richard Russo stated Jim and Judy Knopp were willing to provide 5,000 brochures, at no cost to the County, to distribute throughout Deschutes County for education. The livestock owners commend the large share of dog owners that take care of their dogs. He felt the proposed ordinance gave every dog one free shot. Heather Hull, Redmond FFA Chapter, raises sheep and owns dogs too. She asked if the Board had ever seen maiming of sheep. She felt this law had worked for 24 years and did not feel it should be changed. Louis Jones testified in opposition to the change in the ordinance. He felt the owner of animals had a debt to others to take care of their animals. He felt education was very important. He knew it wasn't safe to shoot dogs because of the close location of houses. Ann Snider, Regional Director for the Natural Colored Wool Growers Association, testified in opposition to changing the law. The people she represents generally have small flocks, live on small acreage, where it is not safe to shoot animals, and their last recourse was to call animal control. She stated that with fiber producing animal, a chasing can cause a stress fracture or break in the fleece which renders the fleece useless. Marlene, member of the Central Oregon Dairy Goat Association, testified in opposition to the proposed ordinance changes. She stated her 10 year old trained a goat and when the goat was chased it was never the same. 0161-2611 Barbara Lumin, from Hillsboro Oregon Animal Defenders Organization, testified she had been on both sides of the fence. She wished to testify regarding Chase and Jessie. Gladys Bigler testified in opposition of the changes in the ordinance. If the proposed ordinance was adopted, she requested the modified law be applied within the Urban Growth Boundary and the existing law be applied in the remaining area of Deschutes County. If livestock are chased during pregnancy, the current dog owner was responsible for all vet expenses until birth has taken place. The dog owner was held responsible until the time of the successful birth. If the dog was transfer, the new dog owner be required to complete successful dog obedience. She felt notification of neighbors where the dog was transferred should be mandatory. She felt that neighbors who were within a 1/4 mile when a dog moves in to the neighborhood should be notified. She suggested fines should be increased by $1,000 for each new occurrence. Sherry Morris testified regarding her role on the Dog Board of Supervisors. If Senate Bill 434 was adopted on a state level or if the ordinance was adopted at the County level, the Board would resign. She felt more dogs, not less, would be shot if this ordinance was put into effect. The main concern was keeping your animal on your own property. She felt dogs running loose revert back to their basic instinct of killing and chasing. The Board has been offered the 5,000 free brochures to help with educating dog owners. Kersten Warner, dog owner, livestock owner, and dog groomer, testified in opposition to changes in the proposed ordinance. She didn't feel the fine would control irresponsible dog owners. She felt it would be better to require the dog owner to put up a kennel or a fence to contain their dogs. Candy Bokem testified that she was a dog owner and a livestock owner. She expressed concerns regarding changing the laws even though the existing law was not perfect. She stated that every dog that killed animals first chased animals. She was concerned about the $1,000 fine not being affordable to everyone and the County should not be helping pay the fine if someone could not pay it even if it came from fines. Mary Engstrom testified in opposition to the change in the ordinance. She expressed concern as to how to define a first time offender because you can't always tell if this was a first time offense. She stated had fenced her yard and the dogs had still been in her yard. She felt the existing law was a good one. Adam Starnberg, Deschutes County Cattlemen, testified in opposition to the changes in the proposed ordinance. The Cattlemen voted unanimously to support the existing. He felt the existing law was not perfect but it worked. 0161-2612 Commissioner Nipper stated he learned a great deal from the testimony. He felt more work needed to be done on this ordinance. Gwen Lavine testified that not all dogs because of their size will chase livestock. She felt each animal needed to be looked at individually. Commissioner Swearingen stated that written testimony will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 17, 1997. DATED this 12th day of March, 1997, by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTE T: 7 Recording Secre ary 4 �e2L inda L. Swea ngen, ommission