Chicken owner charged after shooting dog.

[Buck Creek Chickens]

Quote:
Fault is the dog owner for not following the law, didn't it say the chickens were in a run not free range, how do we know the dog wasn't digging or trying to get in, or had been there before, the owner said the dog was out of site.
and they let the dog run with out leashes regularly

I am on the "shooters" side of this. I think you miss read my post.

I'm think your right some time my typing misses

this kind of thing upsets me becouse its alway seems the dog owner is in the right even if they don't follow the law

 

[cmjust0]

You guys...check it out...this story is even more ridiculous than I thought..

I googled "John Gapp Redmond, Or" and it returned his address.. Look at the map . Look how doggone far his little red pin is from the nearest point on SW 43rd street -- and we don't even know where exactly the chickens were located on SW 43rd! They could have been all the way at the north end of the road, for all we know!

Still...even if Mr. Harris was right at the bend toward the southern end of SW 43rd, you're still talking this dog roaming -- unattended -- hundreds and hundreds of yards from its home. It's at least a half mile!

Oh, and I just noticed...one of the flyers went to "[Desiree] Durbin, who lives across from Harris on 43rd"...

So, clearly, Mr. Gapp wasn't only interested in turning his own snotty neighbors against Mr. Harris, but actually went over to 43rd and dropped flyers in Harris's own neighborhood!

The nerve of this guy.... Just as soon as the charges are dropped, I'd collect a copy of that "warning flyer" and sue his hind end off for HARASSMENT.

Edited to add:

So...digging even deeper...if Desiree Durbin lives "across from Harris" and uses the same trails as Gapp to "exercise" her dog, it would stand to reason that she probably lives on the east side of the road.. Look closely at the map -- there are no houses on the east side of SW 43rd until you get about halfway up the street.. Even if she's in the very southernmost house on the east side, you're talking about that dog being a really, really, really long way from home when it entered Mr. Harris's property..

And something else I picked up on...this dog was a 3-year old retriever that they'd had for ONE MONTH.

ONE MONTH.

You've had a dog for ONE MONTH and you think you know it well enough to turn it loose in the middle of the woods?!!????

This Gapp guy gets dumber and dumber, the more I read...

 

[LittleMamaBigPapa]

I've read alot of the comments on here and re-read the article and one fact remains.....we have a one-side story and the accused is innocent until proven guilty....and that can only be after both sides are heard....

No one can truly say what they would do unless put in the same situation.

Why are all so quick to judge?

 

[Guinea Goonie]

You all know how I feel about a dog attack.

Losing chickens to a dog is unecessary. I am allowed to shoot a firearm at ANY time of the day OR night.

I do have livestock and if this man had any kind of a brain he would not have told the cops he was NOT protecting his chickens, but another animal.

When i see a dog on the property, I do NOT shoot. I throw rocks and and scream at the animals and they generally leave and never come back.

If I DO see a dog going after my chickens, it is lights out and the coyotes get a meal that night.

However, I NEVER would admit to killing a dog because of my chickens. We have week old miniature horses in the pasture and that would be my excuse. THANK YOU.

 

[tadkerson]

I posted this on the site.

I have had dogs come into my yard and kill two of my chickens and almost kill two other chickens. I had to dress their wounds and patch them up. I could see where the dogs had almost caved in the welded wire fencing trying to get to the chickens inside the fence. The dogs got the roosters that flew outside the fence in my yard. Dogs have killed my chickens not once but on three seperate occasions.

I went to the owner about the killing of my chickens. The dogs owner said it was not fair that he had to keep his dogs penned because of the incident. I told him I did not want to see the dogs in my yard again. I will shoot the dogs in the head the next time they enter my yard. It will not be with a pellet gun either.

Dogs that come near my chicken fence are shot with a BB gun. The man did not mean business. If he did, he would have shot the dog with a 30-30 or at the least a 22 in the head. The man has a right to protect his property. If you do not want your dog being shot, keep the dog on a leash.


If his chickens came into your yard and killed your dog, I am sure the next time the blood thirsty chickens approached your property you would do something to prevent the death of your other dogs. Calling the authorities would not work because the chickens would have killed another dog by the time the police arrive. You could approach the chickens and maybe they would attack you.


Chicken Lover

 

[Mom2Cool]

Ok I think these people with these dogs are nuts. 1st the guy said he'd fallen to his knees to cry & then finally got up & picked up the dog & took it back to the car.... does that mean he had gone back to his house to get his car??? His dog was on it's own long enough that he'd gotten his car & drove over to the other side?? I didn't think I understood that part correctly. 2nd of all "walking a dog" is when we have them on leash. yes we do have to exercise a dog but a nice brisk walk (on leash) will exercise the dog & us.... Not to mention the fact this is a golden retriever & so all he has to do to "exercise him" is to take a ball & toss it & let the dog retrieve it. that's what they do..... And so now he's had a dog killed & he's not sure he'll do anything different when he takes his dog walks???? I think he should be fined for that.... It's dangerous to have a dog off leash & not just because of them getting into other peoples yards... What's that saying "stupid is as stupid does."?

 

[horsejody]

AHA!! I found it!!! I have scanned the Redmond, OR city ordinances and the Oregon state statues.

There is no prohibition to keeping chickens or other livestock. There are just restrictions to the diposal of their bodies and manure. For example:

City Code:
E. Animal excrement from livestock may be accumulated for farm or agricultural
purposes as long as it does not produce odors on adjacent properties and
become a danger to health or safety.

To further prove chickens are OK, there is even a city code that declares dogs a nuisance if they bother them!

5.270 Animal Nuisances.
1. A dog or other animal is a nuisance and the owner of the animal shall be responsible, if
the animal:
A. Disturbs any person by frequent or prolonged noises.
B. Bites, injures or attacks a person.
C. Shows a propensity to bite persons, by placing a person in fear of imminent
physical injury, without provocation, said fear being reasonable under the
circumstances.
D. Chases any vehicle or person.
E. Damages property belonging to a person other than the owner of the animal.
F. Attacks, injures or kills an animal or fowl belonging to a person other than the
owner of the dog or animal.
G. Scatters garbage.

Yes, the city does consider a pellet gun a firearm. However, firearms can be discharged to protect your property!

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]

State law also allows the shooting of dogs harrassing poultry.

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

The city code doesn't list poultry in their list of livestock, but they don't prohibit them. Certainly they are defined as property. I hope that the chicken owner has a good lawyer and fights this injustice. Then I hope he sues the city and/or dog owner for his legal costs!

 

[Wolf-Kim]

Quote:
Case closed!

-Kim

 

[Whispering Winds]

Quote:
I have to agree with this too; we had an incident not far from where I live where the land owner shot two very $$$ dogs because the owner was a runner and she let them run along with her, unleashed (supposedly there is a county leash law, but no one knows about it to a large degree or its rarely if ever enforced) and he thought they were coming onto the land to attack his very high end chickens, and he killed one and the other had to have massive extensive surgery. He was found guilt of illegal discharge of a firearm, one for shooting close to the runner (not good I admit) and a couple of others, big fine and he had to pay for the vet bill on the dog plus reimburse the owners for the loss of the other dog. If that dog wasn't being dangerous, and those chickens were penned, the owner probably should have held on and called someone first. I feel sorry for him, though, because he did what he thought was best and I am sure that shot to the heart was just a fluke. We always aim for the butt, as that way it stings like the dickens, but does not real harm. I hope this is taken into their city council meetings about leashing the dogs, because it might not have been chickens, it could have been a young child caught in the middle of a dog fight . . .no leash, no control over an animal. . .bad deal for both parties, but the owner of the dog ought to be horse whipped for saying he didn't know if he would change the way he walked the other dog . . . what a moron to put his animals at possible danger again. . .

 

[Mom2Cool]

Quote:
I think a lot of peole here have been in this situation or a close to it situation. For me I have 2 golden retrievers. I too have had them in the woods off leash BUT the difference is I know my dogs and I keep them right with me.We know enough from the article that the dog owner only had his dog a month & then regardless of the "exercise" he was trying to get for his dogs he allowed his dog to get out of sight. A dog does have a lot of energy to expell & my girls often cirle me & hubby as we're moving through on a hike, but if they were ahead of me I'd call them back & they would listen. If I had a dog that didn't listen to me they would not have the priviledge of being off leash & if I saw other people or dogs on the trail I'd more than likely put them back on leashes. I've taken my girls off leash at a natural pond we've got up the street here, to allow them to swim out to retrieve a ball or dummy in the water too but if they didn't listen to me & would be just running off I'd have to use a real long retractable leash for that. We can't just let dogs run reckless abandon & then get ticked when someone reacts to them. If that guy was shooting to kill or even really hurt that dog he wouldn't be using a pellet guy. The dog owner is very irresponsible & those are the ones that make people unreasonable when it comes to any dog near them.... In the video when they spoke to the neighbor she had her dog on leash during the interview & so how horrible would it look if she'd had it off leash & the dog was jumping all over the news people or if it was caught on video running from one house to the next tearing up everything in sight? Her dog probably wouldn't be even that out of control & yet she used a leash for control when she needed to have control, yet when she hits those woods & wants to allow this dog to just run she'll do so without any leash & any control??? It's irresponsible... I think we know more than enough from the article.