What it is, attempts to change it, and who stopped it from being changed
A portion of Oregon Statute ORS 609.155(3) states:
"The county governing body shall determine whether the dog has been engaged in killing, wounding, injuring, or chasing livestock. If the county governing body determines that the dog has been so engaged, the dog shall be killed in a humane manner."
Robert Babcock, attorney for Sean Roach, argued before the Oregon Court of Appeals that the legislature intended that the word "chasing" be considered in context with the other actions that indicate damage to livestock, since the other actions assume predatory intent. However, the court refused to consider this.
In the last legislative session, Oregon Senate Bill 434, which would have amended the statute to permit a "second chance" for dogs found near livestock, and was passed overwhelmingly by the state Senate, failed due to a last minute parliamentary maneuver by House Majority Leader Lynn Snodgrass as the session was about to adjourn. By quietly moving the bill back to committee it died on July 5, 1997.
A county has the right to pass a local ordinance to override this statute at its option. Deschutes County did this earlier this year, however Jackson County has refused to do so.
Be sure to contact Rep. Snodgrass and tell her what you think of her legislative maneuvering to keep such a cruel law on the books. You can send her mail at Snodgrass.REP@state.or.us or call her at (503) 986-1400. Tell her you will not forget about this at election time.
The Oregon livestock industry's insistence that dogs who chase livestock be executed reflects both an "eye for an eye" mentality and a conscious disregard of the other remedies which Oregon law provides livestock owners. To anyone familiar with the uncommon rights already possessed by those whose livestock is harmed by dogs, it is clear that the only justification for the industry's focus upon death is vengeance.
Current laws grant owners of livestock "killed, wounded, injured, or chased" by dogs two remedies-- the opportunities to sue the dog owner for double the actual economic loss or to recover the actual loss without suit from the county "dog fund"-- and two retributive rights --the right to shoot the offending dog on sight or, for the more faint-hearted, the right to demand that the county take on that chore. Only the right to sue for double damages requires proof of owner fault; all other options exist without regard to the circumstances or causes of the incident. In contrast, the families of people injured or killed in the surprisingly frequent automobile accidents caused by "livestock at large" must prove owner fault and have neither license to kill the offending animal nor right to demand capital punishment.
The livestock industry's demand for death when there are other ways to assure responsiblility reflects an arrogant indifference to American democratic values. The claim to entitlement to vengeance because of the sentimental costs of possible harm to livestock destined for the butcher is hypocritical in the extreme. Under Oregon's laws, both dogs and livestock are "property." The owners of both deserve to be treated equally.
Livestock owners should be required to content themselves with recovery of their commercial losses. The livestock industry has no need for and should not possess the summary right to kill. If the Legislature lacks the will to stand up to industry pressures, it is time for a boycott of Oregon meat and an initiative that will assure the welfare of companion animals throughout Oregon. Let's see if the livestock industry really believes that the deaths of a few dogs are worth the cost.