Chicken owner charged after shooting dog.

[WalkingWolf]

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

State law supersedes city law, and federal law supersedes state. Under federal law chickens are livestock governed and regulated by the USDA.

 

[keystonepaul]

What does it matter if they are considered pets or livestock?

I do consider my chickens and ducks livestock and therefore have the right to protect my property.

it doesn't matter what we consider our chickens it matters what our state, county, township, etc consider our chickens and what the wording is in the law in regards to protecting our property and animals. Too many folks go about life with the "it's my property" mantra without knowing the law. We just can't reap the benifits of the society we live in and ignore what you don't like. Keystonepaul

 

[cmjust0]

Quote:
Sorry, but this is just incorrect.

You mention sidewalks, for example.. When I lived in town and had a sidewalk out front, I owned it -- not the city. I didn't ask for it, nor did I want it, but there was a right-of-way built into the deed and a city ordinance on the books requiring sidewalks. I couldn't legally rip it out.. I literally didn't have a choice but to keep it. To add insult to injury, I was also required to maintain it! This thing I disliked......I was legally required to keep it free of debris and ice and so forth, repair it if it cracked, yadda yadda...to make it inviting and safe for people to stroll on my property, even though I'd just as soon they didn't...

Point being, cities can and do make rules and regulations and apply them to private property within city limits all the time... I mean, just think about all the "rebels" on this forum who raise chickens in the city, even though the city specifically prohibits it.. If cities couldn't "take away property rights," no city could tell anyone that they can't raise chickens on their own property.....but they can, and they do.

 

[cmjust0]

Quote:
How convenient that you happen to leave out subsection (3), which just happens to be the one which specifically prohibits the killing of any chicken chasing dog in the corporate limits of any city..

I mean....if we get to pick and choose whatever laws we like and dislike, I'm pretty sure I could make almost anything legal.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:
How convenient that you happen to leave out subsection (3), which just happens to be the one which specifically prohibits the killing of any chicken chasing dog in the corporate limits of any city..

I mean....if we get to pick and choose whatever laws we like and dislike, I'm pretty sure I could make almost anything legal.

Mr. Harris has not been charged for having illegal chickens, he has been charged with cruelty to animals and unlawful discharge of a firearm. IMHO subsection 3 was to prevent people from killing dogs chasing free ranging chickens, which makes sense. The problem is what the JURY will decide, they may see it with common sense and they may see it not. That is what this thread is supposed to be about, by now most should realize that the rules of the predator thread are not about US judging the means that another person uses whether legal or not. The fact that most of us support Mr. Harris is not going to change because some keep throwing out the same section over and over again. Yea we saw it the first time, and I and others do not think it applies.

This turmoil is not about picking and choosing laws it is about some who disagree with the format of the predators and pests forum. It is what it is and one can either accept it or not post. I for one am here on this thread to show my support and offer any useful advice I can to a new member in need. Which is in the rules. Frankly I do not care if shooting the dog was against the state law as Mr. Harris has a constitutional right to protect his family and property. Even though I don't interpret it that way.

In all civility the whole of BYC is in support of protecting ones flock without regard to petty differences. Time to stop finding conflict and support the man and his rights.

 

[EweSheep]

When is Mr Harris' schedule for court hearing?

 

[horsejody]

Quote:
How convenient that you happen to leave out subsection (3), which just happens to be the one which specifically prohibits the killing of any chicken chasing dog in the corporate limits of any city..

I mean....if we get to pick and choose whatever laws we like and dislike, I'm pretty sure I could make almost anything legal.

Don't forget, turkeys were being attacked too.

 

[horsejody]

Quote:
July 13th

 

[tulie13]

Quote:
July 13th

 

[EweSheep]

oh boy, am I excited or what?

Thanks Jody!