May 25, 2007

Denali put to death
Oregon Supreme Court rejects plea to hear petition with a May 22 order

By KATHY GRAY
of the Chronicle

     Denali, the death row dog, is dead.
     The pit bull whose death sentence and nearly three-year incarceration at the local animal shelter spurred a nationwide campaign for clemency and a petition for an Oregon Supreme Court appeal, was put to death at about 4:30 p.m. Thursday under the direction of the Wasco County Court and District Attorney Eric Nisley, according to Nisley.
     “We did it through a licensed veterinarian who does these things in a humane manner,” Nisley said.
     The action came after the county received written notification that the state’s high court had denied owner Karissa Ball’s petition for review.
     Denali, a white-and-tan female pit bull, had been held at the Home at Last Humane Society animal shelter since July 20, 2004, when the dog bit a young child who had come to Ball’s door to invite her to come swimming with his family.
     Shortly after that event, the Wasco County Court declared the dog a public nuisance and ordered her destruction. The dog was held at the shelter while Ball and Sherwood attorney Robert Babcock went through the lengthy appeals process. Babcock is an active animal rights advocate, who represented Ball pro bono. His wife, Gail O’Connell-Babcock, leads Citizens for Humane Animal Legislation.
     In July 2005, Circuit Judge John Kelly upheld Wasco County’s right to order the dog’s destruction. The decision was upheld throughout the appeals process. The Supreme Court order denying review was signed May 22 by Chief Justice Paul de Muniz.
     “They did not give any reason,” Nisley said.
     The dog’s owner and her attorney were not notified by Wasco County in advance of the court’s action. They received the same notice as the county from the Supreme Court, and the county had previously informed them of its intent to carry out the destruction at the earliest opportunity, Nisley said.
     “We’ve been telling them that since the beginning,” he said. “We didn’t notify them we were taking the dog to have it euthanized today. We intentionally did not tell them. We were concerned. We’d received very hateful messages, letters and e-mails from people. We were concerned about the safety of the animal shelter and that someone would try to break in and free the dog.”
     At least two shelter break-ins had occurred in Oregon over recent months, Nisley noted, referring to a theft of a large number of rabbits in Washington County and a break-in at the Multnomah County animal shelter.
     “The venom people have directed toward county employees and the county court through this whole ordeal has been incredible,” Nisley said. “The anger is really pretty amazing.”
     Anyone breaking into the shelter might also have faced danger, he added. During her stay at the shelter. Denali had continued to display aggressive behavior at the shelter and on one occasion chewed another dog’s tail off.
     Babcock said he had not had news of the dog’s death until he was reached by The Chronicle this morning. However, he said, he had received a fax from Nisley at 1 p.m. yesterday requiring a Supreme Court order if the execution was to be stopped.
     Given that the dog was killed at 4:30, that gave Babcock a scant 3½ hours to secure an order. He characterized such an action “typical” of Nisley and the county.
     “I’m disappointed at Wasco County but not surprised,” Babcock said. “It’s basically a shame that they behave in the way that they do.”
     Babcock said the county had failed to consider alternatives, including putting the dog in a sanctuary, which he called “a real solution,” adding that “only a lack of respect for life could justify its rejection.”
     He also said that in his judgment the county killed the dog because of concerns about Ball’s responsibility rather than an actual threat the animal represented.
     County officials withheld public comment during the litigation, but Nisley shared a number of observations following Denali’s destruction.
     “The appeal by the animal rights activists was not on the merits of the decision — they never challenged the court’s decision that the dog was dangerous,” he said. “They simply challenged [the court’s] jurisdiction to make the decision.”
     Instead, they contended that the circuit court was the proper venue.
     Nisley also noted that it has been more than two years since Ball visited her dog at the shelter.
     “That’s what’s so offensive to me about these people,” Nisley said. “She doesn’t care about the dog or she would be visiting.”
     Ball owes more than $10,000 in shelter fees to the Home at Last Humane Society.
     Under state law, Ball’s attorney had 14 days to file a petition for reconsideration, but Nisley said chances of a petition being granted are very small. The attorney made no immediate effort to halt county actions.
     “In our opinion, the court has upheld the decision of the Wasco County Circuit Court that we have jurisdiction to hear this,” Nisley said. “We told them we were going to do this, we’re going to enforce this immediately unless we get some kind of order. Immediately means now.”
     Wasco County Judge Dan Ericksen said the definitive outcome of the case represents a relief for the county after an “expensive, excruciatingly long wait” and considerable stress for those who had to look after the dog.
     Noting that the case was more about an irresponsible pet owner than a vicious dog, he said, “If people can’t manage their animals, then it’s up to the county court to make sure the public is safe.”