Dibrell 1

JD Dibrell WRI 122.01 Eric Rupert 12 June 2012 Is Animal Control in Control? To protect and serve our community through courteous education, professional enforcement and competent leadership.- Klamath County Animal Controls mission statement. But, are they truly living up to this? That depends, what expectations arise from this sentence? Unbiased, professionalism in the enforcement of all State, County & city animal control laws and statutes is the standard by which they profess themselves to be held to. Ok, fine, but a further investigation of the enforcement and violation information available states to the contrary. To begin with, there is a disproportionate enforcement in regards to licensing versus leash laws and dog bites in Klamath County. Statistically speaking, by its own published FY 2011 statistics Klamath County Animal Control went on 681 calls for service; of these 681 calls a mere 9 resulted in actual criminal incidents, meaning dog bites or attacks or animal abuse/cruelty. There were a total of 276 non-criminal citations issued, of these 154 were in regards to license issues, meaning that only 122 of these citations issued were in regards to nuisance animals, vicious animals and either cruelty, neglect, abandonment or non-restrained animals. According to Ty Beaver of the Herald and News in his August 2011 article: Barks and bites: Dog incidents up, Klamath County Animal Controls chief control officer, Mike Horton:

Dibrell 2

[Our office] receives between three and five calls a week about dogs attacking other animals or people. If this is the case, then how does Animal Control explain the deficit in the number of citations and criminal incidents resultant from these calls versus its own published statistics? Perhaps the answer lies in reviewing the information contained in the Klamath County Animal Control FY2012 Proposed Budget. This document explains that Major revenue sources for Animal Control are dog license fees, late license fees, court fines and impoundment fees. The bulk of the revenue is generated by license fees and late fees. Further it states the Major expenditures for the Animal Control office come in two parts: 1. The enforcement of dog control laws [specifically personnel] & 2. Care of impounded and/or stray dogs [via contract with the Klamath Humane Society]. In my own case, I have a dog that is current on his shots, has a secure fence, is welltrained & never leaves the yard without a leash. My thanks for this by Animal Control is to demand I license my dog with it. Meanwhile, across the street and two houses down from me is a dog that, almost literally, barks 24 hours a day. My wife and I have made numerous calls to Animal Control to no avail, even providing the address, the color and breed, and the hours the dog barks, yet still it continues to bark unabated. Apparently, because they can harass me by mail rather than send an officer to my door regarding licensing it is a higher priority because it requires less effort but contributes to the agencys primary revenue source; whereas enforcement of a nuisance animal on the other hand requires an officer and is part of the contribution to one of the biggest sources of expense. In this case, the argument can be made that to increase enforcement of criminal statutes and non-license related citations would increase the budget for Klamath County Animal Control,

Dibrell 3

but this argument loses its veracity when confronted with the fact that in 2010 Klamath County Animal Control was able to reserve $50,000 after starting the year in the green by $73,579.58 as well as over $4500 in pay increases. This surplus was even after a higher number of citations, calls, and criminal incidents (1050 calls, 15 criminal incidents and 420 citations). Evidently, pay raises and budgeting reserves when under budget are more important than the protection of the public against vicious animals. To further the case of enforcement, or rather the lack, of vicious and vicious dogs ORS 403.105 states: It is a violation of this Chapter to allow a dog to run at large. Once a dog leaves the keepers property and is on public property or right of way, the dog must be kept under physical control on a leash not exceeding eight feet in length. Yet constantly in Klamath County loose dogs can be seen roaming around the parks and even streets in the lower income neighborhoods specifically because there is a lack of law enforcement or animal control presence in these areas. The question in regards to this is: do dog owners in these areas who take the proper steps get harassed for license issues? Going back to the statement that Animal Control received between three and five calls per week, mentioned previous, if even half of those is a dog bite that falls under KCC403.540 (2) that would result in approximately 72 citations for vicious dogs alone. Furthermore, if those dogs menace or bite anyone again it becomes punishable under ORS609.990 (3) which is a class A misdemeanor, so if only 9 of those originals repeat that already ties up the 9 criminal incidents stated in FY2011-2012. So where do any other cruelty/abuse/vicious dog incidents come into this number?

Dibrell 4

Furthermore, if a known dangerous dog reoffends, resultant in the death of a human being, then that is a class C felony which is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $125,000 in fines worst case, under ORS Ch161. How many offenders are serving prison time for the actions of their dogs? This information is unavailable from either the Klamath County District Attorneys Office or the Klamath County Animal Control at this time. This would seem to suggest its not a very high priority to Animal Control or they would have better statistics regarding this situation, especially since enforcement under criminal code would mean that Animal Control has to know if this is a first or second offense by the animal in question as well as if the offending animal has been previously classified dangerous. Again, in Beavers article, as of August 2011 there were approximately 800 registered pit bulls in Klamath County, however, Horton states that there are likely another 1,400 pit bulls in the county unlicensed. Proponents of the disproportionate issue of dog-licensing would likely point to this statistic as proof that further enforcement is necessary. The fact that there are 800 that are registered does not decrease the likelihood that these dogs will bite someone however, nor does it force the owners to train them well or keep them on a leash. Additionally, per Dr. Grover Shipman of Shasta Regional Medical Center As a full time ER doc serving an area of 8,000, I guess I see about 8-10 [dog bite] cases per year out of about 2,000 total patients. The majority of these are children and almost exclusively bitten by the family pet. None of these are prevented or even addressed by the licensing issues and in fact, time and money spent focusing primarily on the issue of dog licenses actually diverts money and time from the pursuit of enforcement of vicious dog laws. Once again, this comes back to the fact that the agency enforces the law/statute that generates the most revenue for the least amount of actual work and manpower needed. So how does this help citizens of Klamath County feel safe when

Dibrell 5

walking down the street? Does seeing that the loose dog running around the park where their children play is licensed ease the trepidation they may feel about it biting or mauling them? Yes, a license does require the dog have rabies vaccines, but it is completely possible to get a rabies vaccine without a dog license and the two have quite separate and different tags even. So, yes, knowing a dog most likely is not rabid means if it bites a child or adult they will probably not contract the virus. Additionally, knowing who the owner is can be helpful. Neither piece of information actually stops the dog from biting, or biting again for that matter, nor does it keep the dog inside its own yard or on a leash. If licensing enforcement serves to merely generate revenue but not protect the public interest or maintain public safety while being the primary pursued violation, then Klamath County is, indeed, failing to live up to its own mission statement To protect and serve our community through courteous education, professional enforcement and competent leadership. This is because the agency is not protecting the community but rather punishing the responsible dog owners to generate revenue while merely paying lip-service to the more prevalent issues that actually result in injury and create a very real threat to the citizens and children of Klamath County.

Dibrell 6

Works Cited

Beaver, Ty. "Barks and bites: Dog incidents up." Herald and News. 31 Aug. 2011. Web

Klamath County. Klamath Community Code. Chapter 403 - Animal Services and Dog Control. July 2006. Web June 04, 2012

Klamath County. Depart of Dog Control. FY 2012 Proposed Budget. April 2011. Web. June 04, 2012.

Shipman, Grover, M.D.F.A.C.S. Personal Interview. 2 June 2012

State of Oregon. Oregon Revised Statutes. Chapter 609 - Dogs; Exotic Animals; Dealers. 2011 Edition. Web. June 04, 2012