Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNikolauson emailMoghannam, Kathleen From: Yamaguchi, Kim Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 '[2:50 PM To: Murdock, Phyllis; Kirk, Maureen; Wahl, Larry; Lambert, Steve; Connelly, Bill Cc: Hahn, Paul; Kim, Sang; Moghannam, Kathleen Subject: RE: Property Rights Violation notification Thank you, Kim K. Yamaguchi From: Murdock, Phyllis Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 4:35 PM To: Kirk, Maureen; Wahl, Larry; Yamaguchi, Kim; Lambert, Steve; Connelly, Bill Cc: Hahn, Paul; Kim, Sang; Moghannam, Kathleen Subject: RE: Property Rights Violation notification Good afternoon all, l apologize for the length of this response, however I need you to have a clear picture of what our involvement has been. Mr. Nikolauson has been engaged with our Animal Control ©ivisian since March of 2008. At that time, we began receiving complaints about a large white dog name "Yogi" who was running at large and acting aggressively toward neighbors. Neighbors over the years have called our office and complained and yet have been reluctant to provide written statements when they have seen Yogi running at large. In 2009 we impounded Yogi for running at large; Mr. Nikolauson paid the impound fee and license fee and Yogi was released back to his owner. In 2010 we received a complaint that Yogi was acting aggressively toward neighbors, but the witness was hesitant to provide a statement, so responded by education with Mr. Nikolauson about the importance of him keeping his dog on his own property. Qn March 30 of 2012 we received a call from 13C50 reporting a dog bite. The witness stated they had seen Yogi bite a 16 year old juvenile walking on Nimshew Rd. The witness saw the bite occur and we confined Yagi to his home for the quarantine period as he was current on his rabies and license. Yogi was released from quarantine after the required holding period. At some point in the last few months, Mr. Nikolauson acquired two additional dogs, the dogs he refers to as puppies, who are actually over a year old and weigh approximately 60 lbs. each. These two dogs in addition to Yogi have been the cause of several calks to our office for running at large, and we have again had discussions with Mr. Nikolauson about his need to keep his dogs on his property. Mr. Nikolauson is correct that he is allowed to have his dogs run on his own property and if he has an agreement with another property owner (which we have confirmed that he has), to allow his dogs on that property as weft. The problem is that there is not complete fencing around the property of the neighbor granting permission. Therefore the dogs are not only running on Mr. Nikolausons property and that of the neighbor who has granted permission, but on the property of a neighbor who has not granted permission. ,,.~ .. ~_.~.~ In April of 2012 these incidents resulted in a citation being issued for annoying/harassing and failure to license for the two additional dogs. The case went to court in May, 2012 and Mr. Nikolauson pled not guilty; the court trial was held in July, 2012 and Judge Goldkind dismissed the two counts of failure to license and continued the annoying and harassing part of the case until October 4, 2012. The judge ordered Nikolauson to contain his dogs on his own property within 90 days or pay the fine. On August 10, 2012 Animal Control received a complaint that Yogi bit a person who walked by him on his own property. Yogi was again quarantined at home. On September 13, 2012 Animal control received another complaint of the dogs running loose, with photos. We agree with the courts interpretation of Butte County Code 4-1.2. P H Y L L I S M U R D O C K Director of Public Health Butte County Public Health Department Phone: 530.538.7750 Fax: 530.538.2164 From: Kris Nikolauson [mailtoaantakrisnik@yahoa.cam] Sent: Saturday, September ].5, 2a1Z 3:52 PM To: Connelly, Bill; Wahl, Larry; Kirk, Maureen; BOS District 4; Yamaguchi, Kim Cc: Wayne Bentley Subject: Properly Rights Violation notification Dear Supervisors of Butte County, This E-mail is to inform you of an injustice that has come upon the people whereby Animal Control and the Butte County Courts have misinterpreted B.C.C. 4-1.2, which was not the intent of the Supervisors. The Code begins with a description z of dog behavior that is unacceptable to any person or persons. Annoying and harassing have now been interpreted against my two 13 month old puppies who wandered up to a fence on leased property where the neighbor on the other side of the fence complained that the dogs were annoying and harassing her. This woman is afraid of dogs and complained to Animal Control where I was cited and found guilty with a suspended sentence if the dogs were kept only on my property and not allowed on my neighbors property with whom we have a mutual lease to allow our 3 dogs to have space to roam and protect our mutual properties. As hard as I tried to comply with the order and to keep peace in the neighborhood, unfortunately the puppies wandered up to the neighbors where pictures were taken and I'm sure a $256.00 fine will be imposed. I have spent over $1200.00 to date on fences, collars, cable runs, ana xenneis to try ana xeep peace, to no avail when dealing with a fearful woman. This misinterpretation has allowed the complaining party to shift the burden to me instead of them where a wood fence could be constructed instead of a wire fence or therapy could be sought to cure her fear of dogs. Our country was founded at It's core a belief in God and private property rights. While it was not intended by the Supervisors, the error has extremely limited my and my neighbor's right to protect our property by infringing on the territory of our dogs and to warn us in case of an intruder. I have recently, last week, had gang activity on my property where several picnic tables were vandalized because my dogs were kenneled instead of roaming free on our land. 5 To keep this from continuing to be an issue, I would suggest omitting the two words (annoying and harassing) from the code as these word are highly subjective which was indicated by one Animal Control officer who did not write a ticket after he determined that my puppies had a right to approach the neighbors fence and one officer and judge who did not. The other three words in the Code are nipping, mauling or biting which all indicate contact, which are appropriate. I would also appreciate a letter expressing this was not the Supervisors intent so I 6 can do damage control in offsetting the fine with the judge or better yet how about showing up in Court with me to ask the Judge "WHAT WAS HE THINKING ?" . Sincerely, Kris Nikolauson