Alaska: Fairbanks Borough Assembly approves fines for unjustified killing of loose pets

ALASKA --  After the outcry over the recent killings of pet dogs, the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly on Thursday night approved stiff fines for the unjustified killing of loose pets.

The assembly approved the ordinance on a 7-1 vote that will add monetary fines for animal cruelty and neglect to the borough’s list of citations. It also will require someone who kills or injures an animal to notify the owner or animal control within one day or face a $100 fine. The ordinance allows for self-defense from threatening or aggressive animals.

The legislation is a direct response to local outcry over the shooting of a dog December in Goldstream Valley. Details of the shooting are contested by the shooters and owner of the pet, but animal owners have been frustrated that the Alaska State Troopers have not investigated the case.

“It’s my understanding that the Alaska State Troopers aren’t necessarily actively enforcing these incidents whether it’s staffing, insufficient evidence or other reasons,” said Assemblyman Andrew Gray, who co-authored the ordinance with Presiding Officer Kathryn Dodge. “But if the borough has an option of an animal cruelty code, this gives people another route even if it’s a violation.”

The intentional killing of an animal except for hunting, trapping, the humane killing of one’s own animal and killing an animal in defense of life and property was once a violation of borough law, but the violation was removed in a revision of borough code. The assembly recently decided to reinvest in enforcing borough code.

More than 20 people testified on the ordinance and nearly all supported the measure. A handful of the supporters said they, too, had pets that were killed after getting loose. Mark and Jacquie Richards said their two retriever mixes, Teddy and Bear, were killed in North Pole some 30 minutes after getting loose on a walk but didn’t discover their fates until weeks later.

Maggie Richards was near tears while describing the ordeal, saying she believed the man who shot the dogs did it for sport and refused to offer an explanation, denying it altogether for weeks.

“My husband and son went over and confronted them man, finally, and he finally admitted and pointed to the direction where our dogs were,” she said. “He lied at least four times prior to this conversation. He never offered any explanation or apology. ... Current laws and ordinances do nothing to help the situation. Laws indicate it’s legal to shoot animals that are vicious and threatening. Teddy and Bear were not threatening. Our hearts are grieved, but justice has not been served.”

After the often-emotional testimony, Assemblyman John Davies immediately offered an amendment that increased the fines for animal cruelty. The amendment, which was approved 7-1 with Assemblyman Lance Roberts voting against it, increased the fines from $100 for the first violation to $500 and $1,000 for the second offenses, up from $200 and $300, respectively.

Roberts was opposed to the ordinance, saying that the intentionally unjustified killing of an animal is a crime and should be treated as such. He also warned that proving intent in these cases is near-impossible because the borough lacks police powers.

“What this ends up being, this unenforceable code, is it’s a feel-good ordinance,” he said. “We have this bad thing happen and all these other tragedies mentioned, and we’re going to create a law that doesn’t actually solve the problem or do anything and we’re not going to be able to enforce it with the powers we have. People are going to feel good because they thought we did something. I don’t think we need to fill our code with a lot of feel-good statutes.”

Davies countered that the measure is a “statement by our community” that the actions taken recently to kill nonthreatening stray dogs is unacceptable.

“It’s not going to be prevent all the crime from happening, everybody understand that, but what it does do it set a standard of behavior we expect them to follow,” he said. “And in those particularly egregious situations, it provides a tool to address the bad circumstances, and I feel that’s what the people in Goldstream Valley felt. There wasn’t a standard in place, we had taken it off the books.”

(NewsMiner - Jan 27, 2017)

Earlier:

• Alaska: Family says they’ve been wrongly blamed for Goldstream dog killing

Alaska: Family says they’ve been wrongly blamed for Goldstream dog killing

ALASKA --  The Goldstream Valley dog killing that led to a proposed animal cruelty law for the Fairbanks North Star Borough didn’t happen the way the dog’s owners described, said the mother of the boy who shot the dog.

Since her son mistakenly killed a loose dog while hunting in the Goldstream Valley, life has changed for her family, Sherril Mose said in an interview earlier this month.

Since the November dog shooting and a December neighborhood meeting hosted by the dog’s owners, her 13- and 14-year-old sons have been subjected to frequent harassment during their small-game hunts in the valley, Mose said.

More than a dozen times people have seen the teens along Goldstream Road and driven at them or stopped to yell at them, she said. Her older son also was reprimanded by one of his high school teachers for shooting the dog, she said.

In addition, dog owners Anita Rae Fowler and Hélène Genet have filed a small claims lawsuit against them. Fowler and Genet seek $1,500 for the death of their 14-month-old sled dog, Padouk. The owners have used the incident to lobby for a borough law, which goes before the Borough Assembly tonight.

Mose said she believes the responsibility for Padouk’s death lies entirely with Fowler.

According to the lawsuit against Mose’s family, Padouk ran away after Fowler let him off leash at the end of a walk on the O’Connor Creek trail.

Mose compares this case with someone letting a dog loose and then blaming its death on a driver who accidentally runs over the dog.  

“They broke the law and anything that came from that is their fault. Shame on them for neglecting their animal,” Mose said.

Mose said her older son shot an animal that was not wearing a collar.

The dog’s owners have said the dog was wearing a collar shortly before it was shot and accuse the boys of removing the collar after killing the dog.

The dog was an Alaskan husky that was easily confused with a coyote when it was shot at 50 yards, Mose said.

After approaching the animal, the boys saw it was bigger than they initially thought and assumed it was a wolf. It looked so much like a wolf that her grandfather, a taxidermist in Delta Junction, also believed the carcass was that of a wolf until he inspected its toenails and found the dog had a microchip, Mose said.

In her lawsuit, Fowler alleges the teenage hunters referred to the animal they shot as either a wolf or a coyote because they learned wolf hunting was illegal in the area and were trying to cover their tracks.

However, wolf hunting isn’t illegal in the area. Alaska’s hunting regulations allow harvests between Aug. 10 and May 31. The bag limit is 10 wolves.

Mose is bothered particularly by the comments of Alaska Rep. David Guttenberg, who suggested at the neighborhood meeting that Padouk’s owners report the teenage hunters to the Alaska Office of Children’s Services, the agency that operates the state foster care system.

Mose said her sons are responsible teenagers who follow the rules. Her older son has completed the state-required hunter education class and has successfully harvested wolves, coyotes and many snowshoe hares.

“He wasn’t out their misusing his gun. He wasn’t out there creating havoc. Look around, do I look like a neglectful mother?” she said in her tidy living room in the Birchwood Homes neighborhood.

The proposed borough ordinance up for a vote tonight would allow the borough to fine people who intentionally kill  animals, with exceptions, such as for legal hunting or trapping, the humane killing of one’s own animal or killing in defense of life and property.

(NewsMiner - Jan 25, 2017)