Chicken owner charged after shooting dog.

Quote:
First of all, it seems pretty clear to me that the people who have been posting in this thread are, for the most part, both dog lovers and chicken lovers. The question of who is at fault here has nothing to do with whether you like dogs or chickens more. So in one fell swoop, Ms. Mehlhalf just accused all of her readership of being biased! Good going, there.

Second of all, no they absolutely did not "just report the facts." The language used was unabashedly sympathetic toward the dog owner, and the fact that Ms. Mehlhalf can't see that is another sign that she apparently doesn't grasp what "bias" means. Bias-free reporting would refer to the owners as Mr. Gapp and Mr. Harris, or John Gapp and Ed Harris, throughout the story-- not "grieving owner" and "shooter." Bias-free reporting would simply state what happened and what Mr. Harris has been charged with, and leave it at that.

Third of all, so what if you got emails saying it was a balanced story? If you got emails saying the sky is green, would that make it so? Take some responsibility, Ms. Mehlhalf, rather than passing the buck.

Blegh.

Mr. Harris' arrainment date is not yet posted on the court calendar. However, it seems that the county prosecutor is Mike Dugan. I just talked to a helpful individual at his office. His e-mail is [email protected]. I told her that myself and possibly others would be sending messages in support of Mr. Harris. She didn't seem to think that was a problem. I'm off to write an e-mail.

Jody,

You posted the email response before I could! I got the same email from the reporter. I stand by my original words: it's disappointing. And just because he has a court date does not mean he is guilty.

Would you post a copy of the email you send to the prosecuter? I'd like to use it as a template for my own message.

Edited to state:
PLEASE DO NOT use info you may be able to find online to harrass Mr. Gapp, Mr. Harris, or any of the authorities involved. The purpose of this thread is to discuss relevant laws and to encourage everyone to learn the laws that apply to his/her unique situation before taking action that could be used against you in court.

Folks obviously some strong feelings here as in most dog/chicken interactions. That this one is in the media and courts makes it more interesting for sure as public perception and court president will be involved.

HOWEVER the rules of BYC still apply and we do not condone the posting of personal information on the accused of either side nor the harassment of these people.

This matter is before the courts. Your welcome to write to your political representative of choice, the Police, the Newspapers or even show up for the court date in a chicken costume if you feel up to it, but leave the people alone.

Thanks for your understanding.

April
Moderator, BYC

April - Thanks for editing the offending information and reposting this thread. When I originally posted it, I had no idea the tread would generate this much interest.
Obviously it is a topic that many of the BYC members are interested in and concerned about.

I hope we can keep it going and getting updated to see what happens with this case.

Kim

Quote:
Dear Mr. Dugan,

This email is in support of Ed Harris. Mr. Harris was recently charged with shooting a dog in Redmond for harassing his chickens. Backyard poultry keeping is a growing hobby. Chickens make great pets and are fun and interesting.

A dog owned by John Gapp was allowed to run loose and enter Mr. Harris' yard. A dog does not have to be in the coop to injure or kill a chicken. It just has to be running around the coop acting like it wants to get in. The birds panic and fly into the walls of the enclosure breaking their necks or causing other serious injuries. Since Mr. Gapp readily admitted to a newsreporter that he lets his dogs run in the area often, it is probably safe to assume that his dogs are repeat offenders. A person can only take having their pets threatened for so long before they have to stop the predator. Dogs are predators. Chickens are prey animals. They don't mix.

I have read the Oregon state statutes and the Redmond city codes. The laws appear to allow the shooting of a dog if it is killing your livestock. Under state law, poultry are livestock. Under city code they are not.

State Law



609.125 Definition of “livestock.” As used in ORS 609.135 to 609.190, “livestock” means ratites, psittacines, horses, mules, jackasses, cattle, llamas, alpacas, sheep, goats, swine, domesticated fowl and any fur-bearing animal bred and maintained commercially or otherwise, within pens, cages and hutches. [1999 c.756 §11]



609.150 Right to kill dog that harms or chases livestock. (1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, any dog, whether licensed or not, which, while off the premises owned or under control of its owner, kills, wounds, or injures any livestock not belonging to the master of such dog, is a public nuisance and may be killed immediately by any person. However, nothing in this section applies to any dog acting under the direction of its master, or the agents or employees of such master.



Redmond city code



5.025 Discharge of Weapons.

1. No person other than an authorized peace officer or Airport personnel (designated by

the Airport Manager) controlling animals on the airport, or Public Works employee

(designated by the Public Works Director) exterminating burrowing animals at the

cemetery shall fire or discharge any gun or other weapon, including spring or airactuated

pellet guns, or a weapon which propels a projectile by use of a bow or sling,

explosives, or jet or rocket propulsion.

2. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit firing or discharging any

weapon by any person in the lawful defense or protection of his property, person or

family or at any duly licensed firing range.

3. A violation of this section is punishable as a Class A misdemeanor.

[Section 5.025 amended by Ord. #93-23 passed June 8, 1993]

[Section 5.025 amended by Ord. #98-10 passed January 27, 1998]



It would appear that city code allows for the discharging of a firearm within the city limits if it is in defense of your property. It doesn't say that the property has to be livestock. I think that it is a real shame that Mr. Harris is facing charges. He was protecting his property (as it appears the law allows). An irresponsible dog owner put Mr. Harris in the unfortunate position of having to decide whether his chickens lived or the dog lived. I don't see how it can be considered animal cruelty to shoot the dog but not be animal cruelty to allow the dog to cause the suffering of chickens breaking their necks in a panic. Having a golden retriever come into your yard and kill your birds is no different than having a pitbull come into your yard and kill your golden retriever. It is ridiculous that Mr. Harris was even charged.



There are thousands of poultry enthusiasts watching this across the country. There has been quite a bit of chat about it on the forums. One forum alone has over 35000 members. We are all watching to see how this comes out. I truly hope that the law recognizes that dogs kill poultry (yes, even nice dogs) and the laws have been carefully crafted over the years to allow people to deal with them when they are a threat. It also seems that the city code was written to allow people to discharge a firearm to defend their property. If the dog owner cared so little about his dog that he let it run wild, why should Mr. Harris have cared any more about it when it was threatening his chickens?



I don't live in your area, but this really hits home for me. Last year, my neighbor's dogs (whom they claim to love) got loose. They killed 13 of my pet chickens. It was heartbreaking. Most of them were rare and hard to replace breeds that I had raised from chicks. The monetary loss was over $1000. The grief was much greater. Yes, chickens can be pets, and they can be loved like other pets. I love dogs. I have a dog that I treat better than many people treat their kids. But it is disgusting when some dog owners expect to be able to use other people's property as if it was a public dog park. Doing so puts the dog, people and other people's pets at risk. Also, please don't think that it is always feasable or safe to get hold of a dog to stop a killing frenzy. I personally know of 2 occasions where a a person was injured trying to get hold of a dog that was after chickens. Regardless of the breed, it is never safe to grab a strange dog that is excited and exercising a strong prey drive. Dogs (especially poorly trained bird dogs) get so excited over poultry that it is very likely that they will bite a stranger that grabs them. Many otherwise friendly dogs are very dangerous around poultry. They view them as irresitable squeaky toys to tear to shreds. Loose dogs cannot be trusted. That's why we have leash laws.



Please, don't let the injustice against Mr. Harris continue. The whole country is watching.



Thank you for taking the time to read my message.



Sincerely,

Jody

I think we need to invite this guy to join BYC. What do you think? I think he would be impressed with the energy being produced by his story.

Horsejody I am positively squirming with delight! I will also work on composing an unusually civil email.

I think inviting Mr. Harris to join BYC would be a friendly and supportive gesture!