Senator Bryant originally had introduced a bill to overhaul the current law. However, apparently at the urging of the livestock industry, he withdrew the bill. Below is an activist's letter to Senator Bryant.
Gail R.
O'Connell-Babcock, Ph.D.
Cascade Head Ranch
2170 Old Ranch Rd.
Otis, Oregon 97368
March 4, l997
Senator Neil Bryant
S. 206, State Capitol
Salem, Oregon, 97310
Dear Senator Bryant:
I was enormously disappointed to learn of your capitulation to the livestock industry and your withdrawal of S. 434. It is both misguided and inhumane to condemn to death family pets who chase money on the hoof. And, as you well know, few County Commissions will demonstate more back-bone and stand up to the industry at a more local level. The plan to give local government a degree of discretionary authority is in reality a vote for the status quo.
It is unseemly to pander to the livestock industry's punitive need for vengeance when other rational remedies exist. It is wrong to sidestep the moral issues by resort to political pragmatism. There are times that an issue must be advanced even when the "votes aren't there." There are times when elected officials should lead, not simply echo or mirror their surroundings.
The statement of representatives of the livestock industry at your Committee's hearing were exaggerated and redolent of ignorance. Did you really find persuasive the claim that a dog who has once "tasted" the joys of chase cannot be later curbed? Were you really convinced by those who threatened more frequent resort to the current "shoot on sight" authorization that existing law affords? Do you really believe that any group of citizens should possess capital punishment powers whenever their property is perceived to be in danger? One of the industry spokesman - the one who focused so much on the "irresponsibility" of dog owners - was self-congratulatory about his own conduct whenever his cattle caused damage while "at large." He thought it appropriate to send flowers to his neighbor. Would he (or you) have thought it just for the neighbor to blow the cow away?
This was an opportunity for you and your committee to exert intelligent and moral leadership, to avoid the threats of special interests, and to stand up for justice, humanity, and compassion. Instead, you went for the lambchop and, once again, proved that in Oregon it is indeed a crime for a dog to be a dog. I trust that this was not your proudest political moment.
It is actions like this that force resort to the initiative process and buyers' boycotts. Tell the people at Livestock, Inc. that both are coming. Let them know that the pleasures of killing the dogs now on death rows in Deschutes and Jackson counties will come at a substantial price. To the 70% of voters with pets, mutts are worth more than mutton.
Sincerely,
Gail R. O'Connell-Babcock, Ph.D.
WATCHDOG, Volunteer Coordinator
cc. Governor Kitzhaber
The Oregonian