Chicken owner charged after shooting dog.

[Wolf-Kim]

Quote:
I sent this e-mail to the Redmond Police Department

To Whom It May Concern:
I recently read a news article that stated that a Redmond resident was arrested after he shot a dog with a pellet gun. He was charged with discharging a firearm in the city limits. The news article stated that chickens weren't livestock, so he couldn't defend them. Oregon state law defines them as livestock, city code does not. However, I think your officer was mistaken about his right to protect his property. Your city code states:

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]

As you can see, the code states that he can protect his "property," not just livestock. Oregon State law is also very exact in its wording that a person can protect their livestock from a dog harassing them:

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

I own pet chickens. Yes, they can be pets. I know through experience that it can be very devastating to have dogs come and kill and/or injure them because some dog owners act in irresponsible ways. A dog doesn't have to be inside the coop to kill or injure them. It just has to be running around the coop acting like it wants to get in. This scares the birds and can often cause them to break their necks as they fly into the sides of their enclosure. That is why most state statues include the term “harassing.” It really doesn't matter if the dog is mean or not. Even if it just wants to play, playing with a dog will kill a chicken. The life of a dog does not take priority over the life any other type of pet.

I'm sending you this message because I hold police officers and departments in very high regard. There are a lot of poultry people in this country, and it is a growing trend. Having a golden retriever invading a yard and killing pet chickens is no different than having a pit bull come into a yard and killing a golden retriever. A pet is a pet. There is a lot of internet talk going on about this incident. Your officers and department will be under scrutiny to see if the actual laws and codes are upheld. Please don't let this injustice to Mr. Harris continue. I'm sure the man was desperate to stop the flow of stray dogs roaming onto his property and harassing his pets.

The article I read didn't mention if the dog owner was ticketed for having his dog roaming off leash. Was he? I know it may seem odd that somebody so far away would care about this, but chicken owners all over the country are following this. There are internet groups with as many as 35,000 members monitoring this situation.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this.

Thank You,
Jody

5,000 internet points for horsejody.

-Kim

 

[Q9]

If my last post didn't show who's side I was on (it was kinda vague), I am hands down on the chicken owner's side. The dog was on his property, and was a very obvious potential threat to his property. As for the shooting itself, he was using a FREAKING PELLET GUN! It's just a BB with a different shape. Also, was the dog wearing a collar? If not, how would the chicken guy know it belonged to anyone?

 

[Rillion]

Quote:
Absolutely!

 

[:D chicken]

This an extremely amusing article and i believe that it is sooooo byast! its really quite sad because you can tell that the author thought dogs were pets but not chickens and therefore was writing on the dog owners side not as an informational article to help you make an informed descision i believe that as some have said the dog owner wasnt very smart to have his dog off a leash in the woods and at only 3 months old the dog is still a puppy its untrained and that shouldve been a risk the owner was aware of and taken steps of putting on a leash! i cannot believe the chicken owner shot the dog still but he had the right and i believe we dont even know now if the dog caused an damage because it was written in the article! the man was in the right im sad for the dog owner but it is his own fault and he should listen to himself and his own advice if he is going to be handing out flyers

i am diussapointed with how this played out really and the publicity about it it is a discredit to chickens and chicken owners across the nation and i find it sad that people dont respect chickens like they do dogs

correct me if im wrong im just very dissapointed

 

[horsejody]

Quote:
That is not that uncommon. My neighbors have Rhodesian Ridgebacks. They killed 13 of my chickens one day. On previous occasions another neighbor had shot them repeatedly with a pumped up pellet gun. It didn't phase them and they always returned. Many dogs are not discouraged by BB guns, pellet guns, paintball guns, thrown rocks, waving arms, screaming, etc.

 

[Mom2Cool]

Quote:
LOL did they print online what the flier with the warning said??? So he's going to warn people that Harris is shooting dogs & yet not warn them to leash their dogs??? I mean if I was sending out such a warning (even if I didn't think I should have to leash a dog) I would be saying "I had my dog off leash & it was shot & killed when it got too close to the Harris' chicken coop. Please everyone keep a closer eye on your dog &/or leash them on walks from now on." & so he's sending out warnings & yet still not going to head his own warning & leash his own dog in the future??? What's the point of the warning if it's not to keep the dogs from running loose & therefore being shot?

I don't think he is trying to "warn" anyone. I think he is just trying to run the chicken owner down as a dog killer.

I imagine so but even so in giving the facts his dog was off leash & out of sight. I mean it's not like the guy was walking the streets or roaming the woods looking for dogs off leash to shoot. I just think it's incredible that the guy STILL isn't going to do anything different & no one has said "Hey your dog should be on a leash."

 

[cmjust0]

chicken :

...the dog owner wasnt very smart to have his dog off a leash in the woods and at only 3 months old the dog is still a puppy its untrained and that shouldve been a risk the owner was aware of and taken steps of putting on a leash!

The dog was 3 years old...but they'd only had it for a month. My guess is they got it from a rescue.. Either a shelter or a rescue, since it was three...you don't buy three year old purebreds at the petstore or breeder.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet $20 they got it from a rescue, which brings up an interesting thought.....don't most rescue organizations require fenced yards and that the new owners sign agreements to do certain basic things in order to ensure the dog's safety?

We did, and we got ours from the humane society..

So............doesn't it stand to reason, then, that the rescue or humane society should have a bone to pick with Mr. Gapp?

Someone should find out where the dog came from and tell them that one of their dogs didn't last a month with this idiot because he totally disregarded all the things he agreed to do.

If they jumped in and chewed his hiney for his stupidity, public opinion would most likely begin to swing in the other direction.​

 

[MysticScorpio82]

Quote:
I sent this e-mail to the Redmond Police Department

To Whom It May Concern:
I recently read a news article that stated that a Redmond resident was arrested after he shot a dog with a pellet gun. He was charged with discharging a firearm in the city limits. The news article stated that chickens weren't livestock, so he couldn't defend them. Oregon state law defines them as livestock, city code does not. However, I think your officer was mistaken about his right to protect his property. Your city code states:

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]

As you can see, the code states that he can protect his "property," not just livestock. Oregon State law is also very exact in its wording that a person can protect their livestock from a dog harassing them:

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

I own pet chickens. Yes, they can be pets. I know through experience that it can be very devastating to have dogs come and kill and/or injure them because some dog owners act in irresponsible ways. A dog doesn't have to be inside the coop to kill or injure them. It just has to be running around the coop acting like it wants to get in. This scares the birds and can often cause them to break their necks as they fly into the sides of their enclosure. That is why most state statues include the term “harassing.” It really doesn't matter if the dog is mean or not. Even if it just wants to play, playing with a dog will kill a chicken. The life of a dog does not take priority over the life any other type of pet.

I'm sending you this message because I hold police officers and departments in very high regard. There are a lot of poultry people in this country, and it is a growing trend. Having a golden retriever invading a yard and killing pet chickens is no different than having a pit bull come into a yard and killing a golden retriever. A pet is a pet. There is a lot of internet talk going on about this incident. Your officers and department will be under scrutiny to see if the actual laws and codes are upheld. Please don't let this injustice to Mr. Harris continue. I'm sure the man was desperate to stop the flow of stray dogs roaming onto his property and harassing his pets.

The article I read didn't mention if the dog owner was ticketed for having his dog roaming off leash. Was he? I know it may seem odd that somebody so far away would care about this, but chicken owners all over the country are following this. There are internet groups with as many as 35,000 members monitoring this situation.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this.

Thank You,
Jody

That is very well researched and well written!

I think I am going to write a letter to the police dept also ( you have inspired me! lol ). As you stated, this is an injustice. The poor man is being harrassed by the dog owner, & falsey imprisoned because he chose to protect his property...which he has the legal right to do!! I already left a comment for the newspaper, it is pending approval.

 

[:D chicken]

Quote:
The dog was 3 years old...but they'd only had it for a month. My guess is they got it from a rescue.. Either a shelter or a rescue, since it was three...you don't buy three year old purebreds at the petstore or breeder.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet $20 they got it from a rescue, which brings up an interesting thought.....don't most rescue organizations require fenced yards and that the new owners sign agreements to do certain basic things in order to ensure the dog's safety?

We did, and we got ours from the humane society..

So............doesn't it stand to reason, then, that the rescue or humane society should have a bone to pick with Mr. Gapp?

Someone should find out where the dog came from and tell them that one of their dogs didn't last a month with this idiot because he totally disregarded all the things he agreed to do.

If they jumped in and chewed his hiney for his stupidity, public opinion would most likely begin to swing in the other direction.

hehe wasnt reading carefully but ya im gonna try to dig some stuff up on this... very suspicous if u ask me

 

[Brindlebtch]

OH MAN, HORSEJODY YOU ARE THE BEST!!!!!