Chicken owner charged after shooting dog.

[MoTownChickie]

Anybody see this?

http://www.ktvz.com/global/story.asp?s=10576548

I love animals, but if the dog owners had just followed the law and kept their pet on his lease, this wouldn't have happened.

Why can't humans be responsible?!?

 

[KellyHM]

It was kind of dumb for him to shoot the dog if he was with the owner, especially since the chickens were enclosed in a coop. If the dog was digging in or something that would be different, but just to shoot the dog while it was running by?

 

[insiderart]

Doesn't sound like the dog was with the owner. The owner had no idea where his dog was or what it was doing. Only that it didn't come when he called it at the "end" of the walk.

Sometimes there is no good or right answer, however the dog was in the chicken owner's yard. Could have been kittens, bunnies, kids, or someone's priceless vintage japanese paper lantern collection in there for all the dog owner knew....

 

[keystonepaul]

Funny they didn't mention anything about any hurt chickens or damage to the runs. Maybe we should rethink encouraging others on this board that shooting everything that has the misfortune of crossing our property lines is the way to go. Keystonepaul

 

[Rolsjo]

Well, we don't know what happened on the man's property because his lawyer advised him not to comment. Good lawyer! The article did state that it was a pellet gun, so perhaps he didn't mean to kill the dog.

I am not at all opposed to shooting predatory animals, including stray dogs or cats, that threaten my animals. Note I said threaten, not attack. We have no idea if this dog has been to this man's coop before. This whole case will come down to the actual laws on the books.

I let my dog off leash, but only on my own property and she has to stay within sight all the time. I've taught her a "With Me." command so she sticks close. If I am even going up the road, and we live way out in the country where there is almost no traffic, she is on a leash. That is the law and it is common sense.

 

[JennsPeeps]

Shouldn't the owner of the dogs also be prosecuted for breaking the leash laws?

Chicken are not livestock?

 

[Chicks_N_Horses]

Maybe it differs in areas. Here the law was called to my FIL for shooting a dog in the butt with bird shot. The deputy came out and asked why he shot it and my FIL told him because it was barking and wouldn't leave his yard and that his 3 yr. old grandbaby was terrified. So, out comes my little Gracie Belle and the officer asks her if she was scared of that ol dog and she said "YES" so...The officer said he did the right thing and the dog owners were pulling pellets out of their dogs rear as we speak and maybe they will make sure it stays in their yard this time.......

We do this to stray dogs wandering in our yards too. Usually they never come back after the first hit.

 

[Biddieacres]

chickens are not considered livestock??? How ridiculous! I really dislike how most of the worlds population say "they are only chickens" or "they are JUST chickens" . That makes me crazy.

 

[gocrow77]

I really dislike how most of the worlds population say "they are only chickens" or "they are JUST chickens" . That makes me crazy.

me too, like they don't count as livestock OR pets. If it was something as valuable money wise like a cow it would be taken more seriously. Raising chickens - like raising ANY animal properly - is not cheap. And, like raising any other animal from birth until death or sale, emotions can be involved. I feel the chicken owner did the right thing, who knows if those dogs choose to "visit" his flock everytime they go for a nice leashless uncontrolled "walk". It will never go away, dog owners have been doing this kind of thing since time began, and unfortunatley this story is not going to infuse many with intelligence and responsibility overnight.....

Sad for all concerned, the dog did not have to die if the owners had been properly excercising control over their animals. Hey, they can still "get excercise" on a LEASH! They have noone to blame for the death of their dog but themselves IMO.​

 

[citrusdreams]

From the article: "The law says you can protect your livestock from predators. But in this case, police say, chickens are not considered livestock, so Harris has been charged with animal abuse and shooting a firearm in the city limits."

The first thing is that we don't know what his state ordinances say. You need to KNOW your ordinances and animal laws. I'm sure we have all had to look them up at one time or another. Mine clearly lists chickens, and if yours does too, you're safe there. Mine also states that dogs at large can be shot if they are a threat to private property (so the chickens could be regarded as private property as well).

The second thing is that he was within the city limits, which changes the situation quite a bit if it's illegal for him to shoot there.

The third thing is, he hasn't gone to court yet. I will find it hard to believe that he will be prosecuted for protecting his property. But again, it depends on the law in his state.

This is why we should all know what are rights are according to the laws and ordinances in our counties.

I'm sure he will be found guilty of shooting a firearm in the city limits. But his lawyer might be able to prove that his chickens are livestock. And there might be another ordinance out there regarding pets. There should be something about protecting your private property too. He would be wise to file a counter-complaint about the dogs trespassing and not being contained.

Arrested does not mean "guilty". I hope someone follows it and gets back to us, the outcome will be interesting I'm sure.

Edited to add:
I don't know who posted this in the comments section of the article, but there is a referenced ordinance that may have the PD charged for false arrest. See (5):



599.205 Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Dairy cattle” includes the recognized breeds of bovine animals used primarily for the production of milk, such as, but not limited to, Jersey, Guernsey, Brown Swiss, Ayrshire, Milking Shorthorn, Holstein and Red Polled, whether or not such animals are purebred or grade, and crosses of such breeds, including crosses of such breeds with beef type animals.


(2) “Department” means the State Department of Agriculture of the State of Oregon.


(3) “Director” means the director of the department.


(4) “Licensee” means any person who operates a livestock auction market, either as owner or lessee, and who holds a license to conduct such market issued by the department pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.


(5) “Livestock” includes horses, mules, asses, cattle, sheep, swine, goats and poultry, including turkeys, of any age or sex.