A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
ADVERTISEMENTS
On July 3, a Scappoose 911 call registered the screams of a calf that had wandered into an enclosure where a convicted dog fighter had chained two pit bull dogs he wasn’t supposed to have. The dogs had done what they were bred and likely trained to do — they had attacked the calf, opening holes in its throat down to its bubbling trachea.
Last week, the Columbia County Commission used what leverage it had to send a message to the dogs’ owner, Eduardo Ribaya, and to any other dog fighters in the region.
“We felt there was enough evidence that those dogs were being raised for fighting on the site. That’s exactly what he was doing before and that’s not acceptable,” Commissioner Tony Hyde said. “We gave him every fine the law allowed.”
In the absence of a suitable foster situation, the commission ordered the dogs euthanized and ordered Ribaya to pay $1,000 in fines for each dog, plus another $1,000 in dog-boarding costs.
But with Ribaya, who has convictions in both Washington state and California for dogfighting, planning to appeal the fines and the destruction of his dogs, the outcome of the case is far from certain.
In fact, Ribaya’s attorney wrote a letter citing a recently passed state law regarding damage caused by livestock. The letter called for a determination by the state whether Randy Holdner, the calf’s owner and Ribaya’s landord, might be responsible for the value of the dogs if they’re put down.
This is despite the presence of illegal dog fighting paraphernalia that respondents found on Ribaya’s property, including a treadmill for running dogs and a jawstrengthening spring line hanging from a tree near the fence opening the calf likely wandered through.
Hyde questioned why Ribaya, who was on parole on the day the dogs tore into the calf, did not go immediately to prison for possessing fighting dogs. Or for possessing nearly a dozen well-tended marijuana plants.
There’s another pressing question in this case, said John Goodwin, Manager of Animal Fighting Issues for the Humane Society of United States, whose agency has followed Ribaya’s activities since the 1990’s. Why was Ribaya – who Tony Hyde said was arrested but released with no charges – not charged with possessing dog-fighting paraphernalia?
In Oregon it is a felony to possess a dog with the intent to fight. You don’t have to catch them in the act, you don’t have to prove that they have fought a dog recently. All you have to prove is that they have the intent to fight,” Goodwin said. “Considering this man’s past history and the fact that he had paraphernalia consistent with dog fighting I believe the authorities have enough to issue a warrant.”
The county did its best to impose strong fines but dog fighting can bring big money that makes the fines seem small by comparison.
intent laws are unfair, un-American bs and so is this domestic terrorist goodwin.
his affiliation with ALF (an FBI listed domestic terrorist organization) or his previous criminal record are so rarely mentioned by those quoting him in these stories as though he's some shining example of good citizenship.
since he once helped commit arson does that mean he will always and for the rest of his life "INTEND" to do it again? what if he has any old ALF magazines, is that evidence of his future intent?
is it possible for anyone to ever get past this type of accusation and move forward while still keeping a bulldog (besides Michael Vick who they see more dollar signs working with than against) or does this show the real H$U$ agenda which is no more APBTs for anyone and they'll move that agenda forward every chance they get on the backs of every bulldog owner they get the chance to throw specious claims at.
that's just one of the problems with "thought crimes" and guilt by association, although apparently goodwin wants it applied to others, just not him.
so the dog wounded a calf, that's life and sometimes things are just what they are. the calf will be killed in worse ways to provide someone's dinner.
of course such mundane dog and cow stories don't make for the huge donations that fund these folks 6 figure incomes either.
(email verified)
Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:23 AM
As a former volunteer at the Oregon Humane Society and an ardent animal lover, I absolutely oppose the "sport" (and I use that term VERY loosely) of dogfighting, and think that humans who participate in such activities are low-life, no-brain Neanderthals who should be thrown in the ring so the dogs they've inhumanely bred to be vicious can tear THEIR throats out; they're the ones who truly deserve it.
HOWEVER...
I agree with Pet Lover that INTENT laws are unconstitutional, unfair, and a huge slippery slope that gives the government far too much control over the citizenry.
Also, I don't know much about John Goodwin's record, but a quick Google search leads me to believe that we're dealing with a wolf in sheep's clothing here - I don't take the opinions of a convicted terrorist any more seriously than I would take the opinions of a dogfighter. Neither one is dealing with reality, or being logical and rational.
(email verified)
Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Right... he didn't "intend" to fight dogs, he just kept the paraphernalia around because it looks so nice sitting on the coffee table.
The commissioners got it right!! Too bad the investigating officers did not... I wonder who dropped the ball on that, the Sheriff's office?
And just a note for the Spotlight... quoting the HSUS or anyone associated with it is always a recipe for bringing out the anti-AR googlers.
(email verified)
Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:34 PM
"And just a note for the Spotlight... quoting the HSUS or anyone associated with it is always a recipe for bringing out the anti-AR googlers."
---------------
How interesting that you suggest that anyone who doesn't agree 100% with the tactics used in this case is automatically is an "anti-Animal Rights googler."
What's the matter, don't have enough of a grasp on logic and reason to keep from connecting two completely unrelated things?
I believe in animal rights. Did you miss the part where I said I volunteered for the Humane Society? Or did you conveniently skip that to try and make your flimsy point?
I also believe in human rights.
And I believe humans have a right to due process and as per the 4th Amendment, should be assured that the long arm of the law doesn't over-extend its reach.
Unless you're one of those types that believes that the "ends always justifies the means," in which case, you don't have much grasp on the concepts of the democratic process.
I would love to see dogfighters strung up from the nearest tree, as they probably deserve to be.
That doesn't mean it should be OK for the government to do just that.
And, how telling that you chose not to sign your post, even with a made-up nickname. You must be pretty unsure of the bile you're spewing that you don't want to attach a name to it.
(email verified)
Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:24 PM
"Clear message to dog fighters"?
A $1000 fine. That's it? The county should at least make him donate that money to the Humane Society or ASPCA and the owner of the calf deserves a payment too. That's better than just giving it to the government.
As for a "clear message". These guys never get the message. It's why they keep doing this and why Ribaya is turning it around on the calf owner, who also happens to be his landlord.
If he's not going to jail, evict him.
(email verified)
Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 04:43 PM
The bigger problem with the measly $1,000 fine is the limits of the law... as the article states, that's the maximum fine. But of course, if the Commissioners want to change that, they can... many ordinances in this county need serious updating. The Commissioners are getting quite a bitter taste of what a bad idea it has been to not aggressively address the lack of animal control laws in this county. Hopefully, the lesson is learned and they will be more assertive moving forward.
Of course law enforcement had opportunity to get this guy as well... sounds like they dropped the ball entirely. The cumulative fines/sentencing/jail time might have made much more of an impact.
I don't exactly feel badly for the landlord... he should have done a background check before renting to the guy.
(email verified)
Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 07:18 PM
County Commissioners have known for years the risks of combining insufficient dog regulation with the county's dwindling enforcement capabilities: http://www.spotlightnews.net/opinion/story_2nd.php?story_id=122340959035741600
And yet the political game of 'hot potato' continues: http://www.katu.com/news/58784082.html
Just how broad are those shoulders, Commissioner Hyde?
(email verified)
Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:19 PM
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Browse archive
The South County Spotlight
News feed
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: County sends clear message to dogfighters
He probably made more than the fines in just one or two fights. Oh yeah, that Columbia County sent a strong message all right: Fighting is okay, just pay your fines (financed through your fights.)
"gerrrg"
(email verified)
Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 07:48 AM