Letter to the Editor from Sindy Harris
On Saturday, September 24, 2022, at the entrance to the Britt Festival, a fawn was mauled by a dog running off leash. While I was not there until after the actual attack, a woman called 911 and a courageous man apparently attempted to stop the mauling by using a hose. Others warned families with children not come into the Britt. The poor, bloodied fawn lay in the leaves, while the custodian of the dog (and by now, the Jacksonville Police) attempted to find it and leash it. The dog was ultimately caught, and the woman and her dog(s) were allowed to leave, with no citation or other action by the Jacksonville police officer, Officer Oh.
Desperate to help the fawn, my friend called me to find out if I could help. While I have no experience rehabbing wildlife, I have a sanctuary for domesticated pigeons in Jacksonville and am an advocate for them as well as the environment. I immediately called Wildlife Images Rehabilitation and Education Center (“Wildlife Images”) in Grants Pass. Wildlife Images is charged with providing care and treatment for sick, injured, or orphaned wildlife. Wildlife Images informed me that all deer are not able to be “rehabbed” in the State of Oregon, per the rules and regulations of the Department of Oregon Fish and Wildlife. Wildlife Images further informed me that the injured fawn would likely be shot.
These rules are unfortunate since so many deer are hit by cars, and they are either shot by the police or left to die. However, in this case, since rehabilitation was not an option, I actually welcomed the officer shooting the fawn because it would put the fawn out of its misery. The fawn appeared to have a broken neck and at least one broken leg. It was also bleeding profusely from the dog bites to its head and neck. The officer told us that he was going to leave the fawn and “check back later” because deer are “resilient.” The poor fawn was still there the next day, twitching and barely alive. It most certainly had (and was) suffering. I called the Jacksonville police the next morning and implored Officer Oh to shoot the deer, so it would no longer suffer. I understand that this finally happened. I asked if the either the owner or the woman walking the dog had been cited, or what action had been taken. The officer stated that it was still an “open case,” assuring me that he was going to “look into it further.”
If the dog had mauled another person’s dog or a child, we all know the dog would have been impounded, citations issued, even criminal charges. That we are only dealing with the misery of a wild animal changes everything. But should it? There is no doubt that the dog’s custodian and its owner violated the law. According to the Jacksonville Municipal Code: “No person may permit an animal or bird owned or controlled by him or her to be at large within the City.” See Jacksonville Municipal Code, Section 6.04.030(A); see also O.R.S. Section 609.090. “At large means for the animal or bird to be off the premises of the owner or custodian and not under the control of the owner or custodian either by leash, cord, chain or otherwise legally controlled.” See Jacksonville Municipal Code Section 6.04.03(B); see also O.R.S. Section 609.090(1)(a); 609.035(7). The dog was not on a leash, cord or chain and could not be controlled, as proved by the vicious attack on the fawn and the difficulty catching the dog to leash it. The dog was also clearly a public nuisance, and the dog walker and owner could have been cited for this reason as well. See O.R.S. Section 609.095(1)(g); 609.035(6)(b).
It took me more than two weeks before I could follow up with Officer Oh to see what had happened, if anything. On October 10, 2022, my husband ultimately spoke to Officer Oh. He learned that no action was taken against either the custodian of the dog at the Britt that day or its owner. Oregon law does not compel a citation or other action. It is up to Officer Oh, in his discretion, to decide whether to cite or impound the dog. See O.R.S. Section 609.090(1)(A) (“A law enforcement officer or dog control officer may cite a keeper, impound a dog, or both, if: (a) The dog is found running at large in violation of O.R.S. 609.060.”) After speaking to Chief Towe, I learned the reasons why no citation was given. Officer Oh relied on two statements: (1) the statement of the dog walker and (2) the statement of a 14-year-old eyewitness to the attack on the fawn. The dog walker reported that she had had all three of the dogs she was walking on leashes. Indeed, she reported that the dog at issue even had on a muzzle. She stated that, she went to “make a change” to the muzzle (apparently requiring her to unleash the dog), and it got away “by mistake.” According to the dog walker, the dog was running at large for about 20 minutes before it mauled the fawn. Officer Oh’s second statement was from a 14-year-old girl, who witnessed the dog attack and believed that the dog was simply “playing” with the fawn.
I have every reason to doubt these two witness statements. As to the dog walker, she had a strong motivation to lie. It was only in her self-interest to report that she was complying fully with the leash law, and that an “accident” merely occurred. Moreover, does it really matter that freeing the dog was an “accident?” One could argue that her responsibilities to control the dog were even greater since she had the dog muzzled. A dog is ordinarily muzzled for reasons related to aggression. She also knew that if the dog got free, she could not “control” the dog by simply calling it back. As to the statement of the 14-year-old, it is clearly uninformed by life experience. A child who has never seen a vicious dog or a dog attack on another animal most likely does not know what she is actually observing. The severe injuries to the fawn certainly put to rest any claim that the dog was merely being “playful.” Moreover, there were many adults at the Britt who both saw the vicious attack first-hand and heard the pitiful cries of the fawn. Yet, these people were not interviewed by Officer Oh.
The decision not to cite the wrongdoers is important. Wasn’t it simply “dumb luck” that the dog who ran free for 20 minutes in a very public venue did not attack a child or another pet? With no consequences for what happened, there is also no guarantee that this dog will not behave erratically and viciously again. The odds are certainly in that favor. People don’t break the rules when they know there are consequences. Imposition of a fine is a vital tool to get people to leash their dogs in public places, so no being, human or animal, is injured. Sadly, the events of September 24th resulted in an innocent fawn suffering needlessly, and a dog left unchecked to potentially hurt again.
Interested readers may contact Sindy Harris at syndisa@gmail.com.
I get that what happened to that fawn was awful, horrible, disgusting, irresponsible, etc. The thing is though, you see normal dog behaviour as viscous. It wasn’t a person, it wasn’t a child, it wasn’t another domesticated pet. It was doing what dogs would naturally do in the wild. So, let’s stop with viscous aggressive narrative. Muzzles don’t mean aggressive that is only your perception from movies and tv. If you had real world experience, you would know muzzles are for protection for the animal and the handlers. Very few dogs are truly aggressive. It is fear not aggression. Plus, it has nothing to do with this instance. I, personally, would be furious that the officer did not put the fawn down when it was suffering. I would have gone over his head and called ODFW. Another clarification, you know that officers don’t press charges DA’s do. Officer’s cite, arrest, or refer. What charge would it be anyways? No one suffered damage except a wild baby. The worst thing that would happen is the handler being cited for not having control and maybe license issue. I hate that this happened. I am an animal advocate, I have rescued hundreds of animals even baby gophers. There just wasn’t anything that the law allows for punishment. The dog was being a dog.
I was called to the scene after the fact. It was awful to see the poor fawn bloodied and suffering. I feel that dog owners or handlers do have a serious responsibility to prevent their dogs from doing damage to people, other animals, and other peoples property. The fact that the dog was running loose through public property was irresponsible. I’m also puzzled by the fact that injured deer are barred by state law from being rehabilitated and released back into nature. Wildlife images in Grants Pass rehabs all sorts of wild animals and releases them back into the wild. Why are they prevented from rehabbing deer?
After this op-ed piece was published, Chief Towe called me to discuss two other reasons why the officer did not cite the dog walker and owner. I add them here since the article is meant to fully set out both sides of these events. Officer Oh apparently spoke to the man, who grabbed the hose to break the dog’s grip on the fawn. The hose worked, and the dog ran off. The man and his son chased the dog for some time, but was unable to catch it. The dog was not aggressive towards them while it was running from them. Officer Oh also spoke by phone to the woman who called 911; at that time, and subsequently, when she called for an update on the fawn and whether citations had been issued. The woman relayed that the dog ran past her and her friend and was not aggressive toward either of them.
I would like to see more dog owners held accountable for their off-leash dog’s behavior. Working as an animal trainer for 19 years, I have helped many dogs recover from issues that were caused by unwanted off-leash encounters. It’s a nightmare scenario for many of my clients. If this dog truly was muzzled and yet it still managed to escape a leash, that’s even more concerning.
Based on the description of the injuries, this fawn should have been put down immediately. Perhaps this officer really did have good intentions though. If he has seen other injured deer bounce back, I like to think he was being hopeful. Sometimes it’s a hard judgement call to make and I don’t envy his position in having to making it.
Dogs behaving poorly off-leash really is a huge issue. I see it first hand, every day here in the valley. The effects of a dog running rampant can range from annoying and inconvenient to dangerous and life changing. To read that this dog managed not only to catch wildlife but also inflict multiple bloody injuries, sends up quite a few red flags. The owner needs to understand the risks her unconfined dog poses to the community going forward. She needs to be certain that this dog can’t get loose from a muzzle or leash again under any circumstance. Would a citation achieve that? I’d hope so. Maybe not.
I understand dog behavior more than most. I find no fault in this dog at all. It’s the humans responsibility to ensure that a “dog being dog” doesn’t affect anyone or anything else.
It sounds to me like you both have valid points of view. I think there is room for much agreement.
It sounds to me like you both have valid points of view. I think there is room for much agreement about the needless suffering of the fawn.
But it’s not accurate to imply that the dogs don’t viciously attack other dogs and people. My own dog, Gaucho, was blindsided by an attack by a labradoodle that outweighed him by at least 25 pounds.
I agree that the dog owners or “walkers “ should have at least been cited! I have seen dogs not on leashes almost every time I hike there at the Britt. It is very scary when a huge dog comes running up to you, whether friendly or viscously. You have NO idea what they are capable of doing at the time. As for the poor fawn in this incident, it should have NEVER been left there ALL NIGHT LONG to fend for itself !! God forbid it got attacked by something else that night. What a horrific ending to such a precious little life.
Something truly needs to be done about the leashless dogs that are free to roam and the owners that are allowing it.
I am the person who called 911 along with my friend who witnessed the attack of the fawn. She was visiting from out of state and I live in Roseburg. I wanted to show her the beautiful town of Jacksonville and the Britt grounds. We saw the mamma dear and her two fawns trot down the hill. My friend being a city girl thought it was such a sweet site to see (as did I). As we walked the grounds, the vicious dog trotted right past us. It paid no attention to us. Looking back on it, the dog was obviously on a mission. About 90 seconds later, we heard an awful sound. Not knowing what the sounds was, followed it. There we saw the vicious dog (that had just trotted by us), attacking this poor fawn biting is neck. We were yelling, screaming and waving our arms to no avail. I was looking for a rock to throw and found a cardboard mouse/rat trap near the building and threw that hitting the chain length fence which mad a noise. For a brief second, the dog looked at me and then continued mauling the fawn. I then picked up a folding chair but worried I might hit the fawn and not scare the dog away. At the point, my friend feared for her life and we decided to run back to the car before the dog turned on us and called 911. There was a young woman who was walking in the parking lot with a toddler in a stroller, a small dog ON a leash and a baby in a backpack and we warned her of what was happening. She immediately packed up and left. I waited for the police to come and saw other people helping so my friend and I left. It was truly traumatizing for both of us. We parked in town and both just cried. WE will never forget the awful sound of the poor fawn screaming for its life. A couple of days later I called the police department to follow up on the situation. I found out the poor fawn was shot the next day. It sickened me to know that it suffered for 24+ hours. I also inquired to find out if the owner and/or dog walker of the dog was found and given a citation. I have since found out that she was found and NOT cited! Simply unbelievable!!! My husband and I as well as friends, spend time in Jacksonville a few times a year. We stay where we can have our dogs with us. We enjoy taking walks around the town with our two dogs on a leash as do our friends. WE follow the rules. Our dogs have no need to be muzzled. I guess in the future there may be no need to keep them on a leash either while walking around Jacksonville, especially at the Britt. Or does the leash law only apply to certain people??? This whole situation with this dog and the fawn is atrocious. The fact that the owner/dog walker not being cited is appalling. As much as we love Jacksonville, I will never think of it the same again.
Your article exemplified for me how even when there may be no mal-intention, real harm and suffering can arise. We have a duty as a society to protect the most vulnerable, not only humans but all species. Thank you for calling attention to the unnecessary harm and cruelty suffered to this fawn and all who witnessed it, not because of a dog but because of a reckless dog walker/owner. We are enculturated to see dogs as carrying out their instinct and excusing the walker/owner from their owner responsibility because of lack of intent. In doing so carelessness is reinforced. Thank you for raising our consciousness about how we all need to be conscious of the footprint we leave on others, humans and all life, by our actions and responses.
I can’t believe there wasn’t even a citation issued to the women. I’m so disappointed in how this was handled. Especially since the officers left that fawn to suffer for so long. Absolutely wrong. I hope some action is finally taken for the police and the women who should have been cited.
Please read the thread attached regarding this Mauling At the Britt. It was posted on the “neighborhood app.” I’ll link the website. Important details regarding the possibility the same dog was responsible for other attacks. A person got injured.
https://nextdoor.com/p/S88rFrM5Sw8Z?utm_source=share&extras=NDA3Mzk0NDE%3D
I am in agreement with those who believe the woman who owns the attacking dog should have been cited. She’s not the only one who will be undeterred since the officer failed to cite her. Other dog owners, seeing that there were no consequences in this situation, will test the enforcement of the law.
I feel this was incredibly inhumane to let the deer suffer for as long as it did. I also feel there should be a rehab place for deer but I understand there are so many that wildlife images no longer takes them. I wish they would let people be able to step in and help to release back to nature. As far as the attack, I absolutely think the owners should be held responsible for not having their dog on a leash. That is the rule” keep dogs on leashes. The fawn is a wild animal allowed to be there. The dog however is a domesticated animal who’s owners are responsible for him and for following the rules.
I, too, am concerned about the lack of enforcement regarding the leash “laws” in our town. I have walked in town and on the trails for many years and have encountered several different instances of terrifying instances of dogs coming at me, full speed ahead, with the owner hollering “don’t worry, he’s friendly.” Are you kidding me? On one of the trails I had a dog coming toward me, no one in sight and when the owner finally emerged from around the turn I told her it was not pleasant to be confronted by her off leash dog, not knowing what to expect. Her response was curt, telling me she thought she was “far enough out” that she wouldn’t bother anyone else. (I was on a main trail, not out far at all). From her there was no apology, no leashing up of her dog, just on her way down the path. It is curious, having this sort of thing happen to me more than once, that the perpetrators never seem to think they are in the wrong. Is this because, historically, the leash laws have not been enforced? These people are “enabled” so to speak? Not sure but it seems that those of us that are attempting to educate them about the laws are made out to be the bad guys. Sorry but I’d like the laws enforced so our local police officers can be the bad guys! Years ago I did experience a dog attack (in town) and ended up with a $1500.00 vet bill. I don’t walk the trails anymore because I am concerned, if something did happen I am way too far away from a vet to save one of my dogs. Thank you for your interest in rectifying this important issue.