|
||||||
|
Note: Guest Opinions are added to this page on an intermittent basis. No plot here Animal control officers should be able to help neglected animals when necessary We see nothing sinister, no plot against property rights, in a proposed county ordinance that would allow animal control officers to enter private property to rescue an imperiled animal. The ordinance, which was formally presented this week to the Jackson County Board of Commissioners, fills in what was likely an oversight on the part of state legislators when they created a statute intended to protect animals. That statute allows a "peace officer" to enter private premises to provide care for an animal being kept in a circumstance that threatens its life — for instance, a dog tied up for a long period of time in the heat of summer with no water, or an obviously malnourished horse in a pasture. The problem with the statute is the definition of peace officer, a definition that does not include animal control officers. Under current law, if an animal control officer knows of a suffering animal, he or she cannot take action to help the animal unless the property owner gives permission or unless the officer is accompanied by a police officer. Because of the lack of deputies in the rural parts of the county — where animal neglect or abuse are more frequent — animal control officers cannot always provide help in time. That can be a death sentence for some animals. This ordinance permits the animal control officers to enter private property — but not structures — to provide water, food or on-site medical treatment. The officer first would attempt to contact the property owners, but if that was not possible, the officer would then have authority to enter the property. Some fear the ordinance would violate the rights of property owners. But a property owner who mistreats or neglects an animal has committed an offense, intentionally or not, and is subject to official action. If that action involves safeguarding the life of the animal, that is a reasonable and justifiable response.
Ample opportunity We’re not crazy about the expected outcome in the revamping of the south Medford freeway interchange, but we do give the Oregon Department of Transportation high marks for its efforts to inform the public about what’s going on. A final public hearing and information session was held Tuesday evening in Medford. Not everyone involved came away happy — that would be too much to expect — but it’s clear that anyone who wanted to be involved and be informed had ample opportunity to do so. ODOT has reduced dozens of options to three: connect the interchange to Highland Drive, connect it to Ellendale Drive, or do nothing. The first two choices both involve closing the existing Barnett Road interchange. The Highland alternative clearly appears to be favored and, of the two route changes offered, makes the most sense. Like many others involved in the process, we’ve been frustrated by the rules of the game, which precluded some choices from consideration. But, like anyone else who wanted information, we’ve found it readily available in virtually very form imaginable. In addition to public hearings and information sessions held by the state and other transportation groups, ODOT has aired a regular television question-and-answer program, purchased advertising, produced a video, published a monthly magazine and made its information available on the Internet. This is a project that will affect most of the city of Medford and many beyond its boundaries. ODOT officials deserve credit for ensuring that, like it or not, we could see what’s coming. |
lick here to contact your elected representatives To participate in National polls & discussions, or to start a petition or contact elected officials, go to "e-thepeople interactive town hall"
The Mail Tribune welcomes letters on any topic of general public relevance and interest. Please include a daytime phone number and address for verification. We cannot print letters, even e--mail letters, without verification. We're interested in the comments of all our on--line readers, but we can only publish letters from residents within our Southern Oregon and Northern California circulation area. Sorry, we cannot publish poetry. Writers are limited to one letter every 30 days. Address your letters of 250 word or less (150 words for thank you or election letters) to: Letters to the editor Or send your e--mail letter to: The Mail Tribune offers its opinion pages to stimulate discussion and understanding of issues important to our community. Editorials in this column reflect the opinions of the Mail Tribune.
|
|||||
