Chicken owner charged after shooting dog.

[keystonepaul]

This brings up an intersting point- can we have it both ways?- we want chickens to be livestock when our neighbors dogs attack them, but don't want them to be considered livestock to get them into many of our backyards in the first place. Keystonepaul

 

[rizq]

What does it matter if they are considered pets or livestock? Do we not have the right to defend our pets? Dang, that would be sad.

 

[fowltemptress]

Quote:
According to the Oregon Revised Statutes page -- and as near as I can tell -- that particular law was last amended in 1975.

Quote:
It is true, and it is troubling to say the least.

The really odd part is that it specifically prohibits "the killing of any dog" engaged in chasing, wounding, etc., within city limits.. It doesn't say "you can't shoot" -- it says you can't kill.. In other words, it's not even about firing a gun in city limits...it's about not killing a dog for chasing chickens in city limits.

I got to reading the rest of Oregon's dog laws, and lemme tell ya...they're really heavily biased toward giving dogs and owners lots and lots of "do-overs."

For instance, the dog owner gets a right to a hearing, even if the dog is caught red-handed. They even go so far as to mention fecal testing, to see if any "evidence" comes out (beaks, feathers, etc) in order to determine whether or not the dog actually killed something...even though they don't often actually eat what they kill. And, hey, if the dog owner doesn't like the results of the first hearing, they can appeal for another.

If, after all that, the dog is found to have been killing, wounding, or chasing livestock, a whole host of other factors are brought into play to determine what happens... Like did it chase, or did it wound/kill? Has it wounded/killed before? Blah blah blah..

In most cases, state law even says that a livestock killing dog should be re-homed to a place where it's not a threat to livestock..

Long and short -- Oregon's laws REEEEEEALLY favor dogs over livestock.

That is . . . well, that's just sick. I can't even find adequate words for that.

 

[neverbdone]

This is personal

I have three goldens and they have never chased a chicken since the first NO - or second at the most. In fact they will run right through my flock to chase off a YOTE. It is the owners responsibility to control the dog on a leash or not. By the way the "leash law" here states the dog must be under control (not necessarily on a leash).

I do consider my chickens and ducks livestock and therefore have the right to protect my property. But darn it, my dogs are property too. I would do anything possible to protect my dogs from a preditor to them if they were being attacked, as I would my birds.

If this dog was not attacking the birds this man was horribly wrong to kill this animal. And, I would guess probably overly defensive if he had previously lost a hen to another dog.

If the dog was attacking the birds he was right. I don't see the grey area in this.

 

[speckledhen]

Again, we are not debating whether Mr. Harris was right or wrong.It's not even really possible because we do not have ALL the facts in order to make a judgement call. This is a thread to follow a case and see how it pans out in the end. For that reason, we are trying like heck to keep this thread open, so please think before you post here in this thread!

 

[neverbdone]

My appologies Moderator !

 

[kagedgoddess]

Quote:
According to the Oregon Revised Statutes page -- and as near as I can tell -- that particular law was last amended in 1975.

Quote:
It is true, and it is troubling to say the least.

The really odd part is that it specifically prohibits "the killing of any dog" engaged in chasing, wounding, etc., within city limits.. It doesn't say "you can't shoot" -- it says you can't kill.. In other words, it's not even about firing a gun in city limits...it's about not killing a dog for chasing chickens in city limits.

I got to reading the rest of Oregon's dog laws, and lemme tell ya...they're really heavily biased toward giving dogs and owners lots and lots of "do-overs."

For instance, the dog owner gets a right to a hearing, even if the dog is caught red-handed. They even go so far as to mention fecal testing, to see if any "evidence" comes out (beaks, feathers, etc) in order to determine whether or not the dog actually killed something...even though they don't often actually eat what they kill. And, hey, if the dog owner doesn't like the results of the first hearing, they can appeal for another.

If, after all that, the dog is found to have been killing, wounding, or chasing livestock, a whole host of other factors are brought into play to determine what happens... Like did it chase, or did it wound/kill? Has it wounded/killed before? Blah blah blah..

In most cases, state law even says that a livestock killing dog should be re-homed to a place where it's not a threat to livestock..

Long and short -- Oregon's laws REEEEEEALLY favor dogs over livestock.

whats shocking to me about that is i lived in ashland oregon (best place on earth) back in '95 and you couldnt have your dog anywhere, North CA and ore had signs everywhere "NO DOGS!" even in grocery store parking lots.

and Mr. Harris i feel for ya! i like the idea of Suing the city for creating a hazard by not enforcing leash laws. whoever suggested that (cant rememeber) excellent idea! what did we learn from oj? if aquitted in criminal court, go to civil court... of coarse, i guess the dog owner could sue too for wrongful death? but since the Owner caused the death by not using a leash, counter sue on the dogs behalf LOL!

 

[WalkingWolf]

The law for shooting dogs chasing chickens is ONLY for PUBLIC owned property, which Mr. Harris's property is clearly private. Not sure why the law/ordinance but if the chickens are at large they are fair game for the at large dog.

 

[cmjust0]

Quote:
Sorry, but no.. The law says:

"...upon a public place, highway or within the corporate limits..."

Granted, if it read "...upon a public place or highway within the corporate limits..." you'd be spot on, but it's just not written that way.

Indeed, it seems to be written specifically to strip city-dwelling chicken owners of their right to defend their chickens from loose dogs and irresponsible dog owners.

I can't understand why, mind you...I'm just saying that it certainly does appear that way..

 

[WalkingWolf]

In the case of corporate the intent of the law is to establish property owned by the corporation(city). This would include parks, and sidewalks, and other property not mentioned by highways. This would also include private property not owned by the property owner. Cities can not take away property rights.