Police should not have shot, killed family pet
My dog had been sick and my husband put her out on the porch while he cleaned one of her messes up and she wandered off. Twenty minutes later we heard a gun shot so loud I thought it was outside of our door.
Startled, my husband and I rushed to the front door. We were not prepared for what we were about to witness.
Our beloved dog Mia was convulsing on the sidewalk and seconds later took her last breaths in my arms. Mia died 10 to 15 yards from our front lawn. My son also stepped out on the porch and saw his dog dead.
The police department had received a call about a dog wandering around and barking at people and so they came to check it out.
Officer Mike Nork shot my dog before waiting for backup because he “feared she was going to attack him.”
My dog has never attacked anyone and she was a great family pet. I need to mention that my dog was half Lab and half pointer. She was around 50 pounds and loved children. My neighbors can attest to that.
Officer Nork stated that when he first tried to approach my dog she “snarled, bared her teeth and lunged at him,” but he didn’t shoot her the first time she allegedly did those things. He shot her the second time.
If the officer really felt threatened, why did he wait a second time to shoot her? Why didn’t he wait for assistance? Why did he fail to mention talking with me in his report?
This was a senseless act of cruelty and no one should have to lose a pet this way.
Tanya Bergen
Klamath Falls
Police Chief James Hunter responds:
Klamath Falls police were sent by 911 to the area of North 12th and Lincoln streets on a report of an aggressive dog running at large in violation of the leash law. Two witnesses said they had been chased by this dog on this day and were afraid of being bitten.
Other witnesses stated this same dog had acted aggressively towards them two weeks prior and that they, too, were afraid of being bitten.
Officer Nork located the dog, which began acting aggressive, growling, barring its teeth, lowering its ears and lunging. This occurred twice in a short time.
Officer Nork feared for his safety as well as the safety of area residents and dispatched the dog as a necessary preventive measure on the dog’s second attack.
The dog met the definition of a “dangerous dog” according to Klamath County Code. A dangerous dog by definition is one that “demonstrates menacing behavior towards any human beings or domestic animals.” Officer Nork felt he and the public at large, whom we are sworn to protect, were endangered by this dog.
The dog’s owners filed a formal complaint with the department. A supervisor conducted an internal investigation and determined that the actions taken were justified and within department policy and procedure.
The action taken by Officer Nork in his estimation was necessary, but I fully understand the questions raised.
This incident has heightened our awareness of these types of incidents and we have taken steps to call in outside experts to train our officers on latest techniques available for controlling aggressive animals.
We have purchased two “control poles,” the type used by dog control, and will have them available for use after receiving training.
I offer my sincere condolences to the family of this dog. I regret that this unfortunate, but necessary action had to be taken.
James L. Hunter
Chief of Police
Klamath Falls Police Department
![]() |
|
|
| Divided, we fail — our students | Butte Valley faces ambulance problems |
Reader Comments
What a CROCK wrote on Dec 29, 2008 1:03 PM:
I am sure more people in Klamath Falls and Klamath County would do as you suggest and Join the police force if they only had someone on the "inside" to grease the wheels for them..seems from what I am told..thats what it takes and If your a female, just forget it altogether.
As for protecting us from all the crimes you mentioned...thats a total farse..The police here are anything but proactive..they are only reactive and not very often are they even that.
People complain about the lack of traffic enforcement around here and then you'll get some "cop" spout off that they are too busy dealing with the harden criminals to enforce the traffic laws..BLA BLA BLA...they only enforce what and when they want to..they fail in the "protect and serve" area of thier jobs.
It all starts with the lack of leadership in both the city and county police departmants. "
Stupid Owner wrote on Dec 27, 2008 11:41 AM:
NOTACOP wrote on Dec 26, 2008 9:49 AM:
joefisherman wrote on Dec 24, 2008 10:01 AM:
joe wrote on Dec 23, 2008 8:12 PM:
RS wrote on Dec 23, 2008 10:29 AM:
Paul C wrote on Dec 22, 2008 11:07 PM:
- K-9 Dog not under control by lease
- Meets "dangerous" dog criteria
- Growls at me, no officer present, then I shoot dog as a menance.
OK, works for me! Let's see how Hunter likes it when I drill his K-9 with a 45 slug. I have his statement above as a guideline. I guess he doesn't realize how many times his K-9's AREN'T under leash control as called out by city ordinance.
What was that saying...What's good for the goose....... "
MK wrote on Dec 22, 2008 10:21 PM:
Pet owner wrote on Dec 22, 2008 5:17 PM:
Curious wrote on Dec 22, 2008 4:39 PM:
pril wrote on Dec 22, 2008 3:09 PM:
Angel wrote on Dec 22, 2008 10:49 AM:
tj wrote on Dec 21, 2008 5:48 PM:
Dog control is a joke. You would get more luck getting the bank to open on Christmas day. "
Ray W wrote on Dec 21, 2008 4:18 PM:
dt wrote on Dec 21, 2008 9:17 AM:
I know even for myself, when I am sick, I am not nearly as cheerful and polite as I am when I feel "normal".
Yes it is tragic for this family, but the dog deserved better when they knew it was already sick and not feeling well. "
Russ wrote on Dec 21, 2008 9:08 AM:
Archie B. wrote on Dec 21, 2008 9:00 AM:
Robert N. E. wrote on Dec 21, 2008 12:50 AM:
Why was there no animal control officer dispatched? If animal control has the capability to drive around the county, levying fines for animal licenses, I am sure that they should also be able to drive around answering potential animal hazards and complaints, or am I mistaken?
Although I can understand, even respect, to a point, Police Chief Hunter's stance, with respect to his officer's actions, there must be an understanding, an expectation, of mistakes being made, as police officers are trained to deal with human society issues, not humane society issues.
Other responses could have been used, most especially less-than-lethal, non-lethal is a misnomer, since even the most mundane of less-than-lethal, such as a taser or stun gun, can be used to a lethal level. But, that said, pepper spray is very effective against canids, as well as most mammals, and could have easily disabled or cowed the dog until properly tasked personnel could have responded.
Sadly, the family pet was slain through an overreaction, within reason or not, of the officer that is, in my opinion, equally attributable to the negligence of the owners, albeit accidental. Animals, when sick, even the most docile, are prone to reaction unexpectedly, moreso when confronted by strangers, and putting such an animal on an unsecured porch, unrestrained, wasn't of sound reason. It is understandable, as the frustration that led to it is something we've all experienced, but what if Mia would have bitten a child?
Hopefully everyone involved can learn something from the tragic loss, as the only true innocent here was the dog, a companion that relies on human's for protection, and hopefully her passing will make everyone think a bit more clearly the next time this happens.
Next time, someone might secure their sick dog. Next time animal control will be dispatched. Next time, maybe pepper spray will be deployed. Next time, perhaps, action instead of reaction will lead to a proper plan, instead of a knee jerk moment.
While the officer involved may not be liable, hopefully they're still reflecting on their actions, so as to improve and react better, next time. "
Frank wrote on Dec 20, 2008 7:31 PM:
People think everyone should love their pets like they do. In reality, a lot of people consider them a nuisance or even a threat (I can't tell you how many aggressive encounters I've had with people's unsecured pets while out running on the sidewalks). It is the owner's responsibility for keeping their animal under their direct control or on their property. "
Lacr0ix wrote on Dec 20, 2008 6:13 PM:
In the end, it's the owner's responsibility to protect the pet - whether from traffic or from someone - anyone - with a gun.
Cops have much more important things to be doing than chasing or shooting someone's unkept domestic animal.
Unfortunate, yes - but hardly the officer's fault, regardless. Unguarded = unwanted. "
Peace over retaliation wrote on Dec 20, 2008 2:30 PM:






CC wrote on Feb 11, 2009 12:22 PM:
As for dog control, that office is basically non-existent. It would be nice if they were available to take the calls and complaints, but more often than not they're non responsive. Police respond when someone feels threatened and then takes the route they feel is necessary to remedy the situation. Pepper spray does not always work. Sometimes it makes the animal more angry, and by that time the officer (or unfortunate citizen) has already been attacked. Local officers have been bitten many times. I don't blame Nork for shooting the animal. In fact, it really serves the owners right! Other more "humane" ways of dog discipline seem worse to me. Tasing means that the animal is flopping around for many minutes being shocked senseless, and then when he does recover attacks anyway. Now, if dog control actually showed up, then tasing might be an effective way to postpone capture, but what's the point? That same dog will continue to be a menace to society and will be called in the following week again. If you can't take care of your pet, DON'T HAVE ONE!! And don't attack the local heroes who are just trying to do their jobs and keep you safe.
(And yes, our local PD is very pro-active. Certainly more so than the county or many other agencies. This town doesn't realize how lucky we are to have such a great police force.) "