Letters to the Editor: February 2, 2018

Did us a favor

Last year, our neighbor, Nicole Wood, shot and killed two dogs trespassing on her property. She was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced in Yamhill County.
It is over as far as authorities are concerned. She will serve her sentence and resume her life.

Several of us in the neighborhood were not allowed to testify on her behalf. We would like readers to know there is considerably more to the story.

Over the past 18 months, we have been subjected to frightening confrontations with these two animals, each on our own property, and without provocation. Each of us has come face to face with a large, growling, very aggressive dog, to the point we have feared for our lives.

After these dogs trespassed on our properties, we witnessed sheep and deer running for safety, found our cats literally torn in half, discovered dead and mutilated chickens and a very brave rooster mortally injured.

Predators — except for skunks and coyotes when training their young — eat their prey. They do not kill without cause.

But dogs in packs will find pleasure in chasing and killing. And multiple requests for help from Dog Control were disappointing, to say the least.

We wish to thank Nicole for terminating these aggressive, uncontrolled animals, thus ending our ongoing harassment. No longer do we find it necessary to keep looking over our shoulder, wondering if they might return at any given moment.

We can now walk safely about our property, enjoying our animals and all that nature has to offer.

To us, she is a heroine. Thank you, Nicole.

Theresa Cheslock

(and three other neighbors)

 A taxing result

Now that Measure 101 has passed, it’s interesting to me how the words “fees” and “assessments,” which were used during the $3 million dollar yes campaign,  have been replaced by the word “tax.” That describes what the funding measure actually is.

Not only is it a tax, but it is a selective tax on most of us who work for a living. What’s even more interesting is that this tax isn’t for everyone, especially if you work for a union or a large, self-insured corporation such as Nike.

Why is it that they don’t have to help the more than 350,000 Oregonians proponents claimed would lose their coverage if the measure failed? Why is it OK for my spouse to pay $710 a month for health insurance with a $1,500 to $4,000 annual deductible, depending on which doctors she sees, while those who benefit from the bill pay nothing?

The adage rings true: Follow the money.

Funding for the yes campaign came primarily from those who served to benefit monetarily from passage. It really had nothing to do with compassion and care for the less fortunate.

Andy Davidson, president and CEO  of the Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, said: “We are proud to have been a partner in fighting for these patients and their families.” But that rings hollow when the members of that organization are the ones lining their pockets with the funding from this bill.

What passage of this bill really did was authorize the Legislature to dig into our collective pockets for more cash instead of buckling down to work and finding the money in our already bloated state budget. Cheers!

Steve Sommerfeld


Wave of the future

I got an e-mail from a group named Renew Oregon, reneworegon.com. It asked for a signature on a petition to support renewable energy efforts in Oregon, and I signed it.

The fact that renewable energy sources can’t completely replace the traditional oil- and coal-generated power isn’t a sound reason not to push hard for renewable energy. It’s cleaner and healthier, without question.

Having passed peak oil capacity almost four decades ago, we should be putting a whole lot more effort into what comes next.

Denmark currently produces 40 percent of its energy from green sources, and plans to hit 100 percent by 2035. Combining solar-, wind-, water- and wave-generated energy, we could probably replace a good chunk of our older, dirtier sources ourselves.

Recently, the Trump administration put a 30 percent tariff on imported solar panels. This serves only to raise the cost of a good investment for homeowners.
There is essentially no U.S. manufacturing of these panels. Almost all domestic production consists of thin film panels.

The immediate effect of the tariff was cancellation of plans for a $20 million facility and loss of hundreds of jobs at that site.

We should be pushing lawmakers to shift the corporate incentives we give oil companies to renewable industry. The investment in R & D would pay us back in the near future with cheaper and better renewables.

Propping up oil and coal is a misuse of tax dollars. It borders on corruption.

Fred Fawcett




Regarding the letter from Theresa Cheslock, et al: When commenting on Patricia Cole's submission, also referencing this case (see: http://newsregister.com/article?articleTitle=letters-to-the-editor-january-26-2018--1517003332--28636--), I intentionally omitted reference to any alleged deaths of neighbors' pets or livestock because I had seen no evidence other than vague allegations that the dogs Nicole Wood shot may or may not have instigated such attacks.

Many rural jurisdictions have century-old laws on the books allowing landowners to dispatch animals that attack their livestock, a perspective I can understand (although I believe these statutes might be revisited to emphasize diplomacy and maybe a shooting-as-a-last-resort mindset). If the allegations Cheslock, Cole and at least three other parties make are factual, then far more culpability lies with the master of the two dogs in question than has previously been assigned.

I cannot imagine shooting two energetic and enthusiastic dogs just because they bounded onto my property but a pair of predators intent on stalking my own pets is an entirely different matter. I do not condone Woods' actions, as reported. But if Cheslock's assertions are true, Woods isn't the only person with blood on her hands in that neighborhood.


So Nicole could be considered some form of reverse dog whisperer? Wow--you people have been existing for the past year and a half with two drooling Cujos lurking around?
Do you recall one of her initial declarations (first utterances are admissible in court and not subject to the hearsay rule) was how the dogs' behavior was not threatening in any way? How they were not advancing on her?
Honor your heroine and enjoy your restored Eden with its new sheriff.

Don Dix

Steve Sommerfeld wrote about M101 -- "Not only is it a tax, but it is a selective tax on most of us who work for a living. What’s even more interesting is that this tax isn’t for everyone, especially if you work for a union."

For 30+ years, the focus of the D majority in the legislature has been to protect and reward any union that helps keep them in office.

Be aware that M 101 is not constitutionally protected to be spent only on healthcare. This little fact will allow special interests to worm their way into the conversation when the allocations take place. And we all have seen how easily the Ds crumble to pressure from staunch political supporters when dollars are available.

Bottom line -- citizens of this state fund everything, but have very little say to where the money flows. The 'closed circle' that is the Ds and their special interest supporters (public unions) is the direct reason Oregon's government always seems to looking for more money. Most disturbing, the plea for those additional funds is always presented with a straight face, as if all the promises are sincere and forthright.

M 101 is just another prop that will benefit special interests and leave those that need assistance with scraps.


Theresa Cheslock, Interesting letter! You write about, for “the past 18 months”, being “subjected to frightening confrontations” where “we feared for our lives”. How can that be? Nicole executed those two dogs 14 months ago! You also talk of “multiple calls for help from Dog Control”. It seems very difficult to believe they didn’t respond to your desperate calls for help if the conditions were truly as horrible and frightening as you claim. Dog control showed up in our rural neighborhood when one person called them with one report of a new neighbor’s dogs barking. Am I supposed to believe they ignored multiple neighbors reporting of the horrers these dogs are accused of? You all must live in a very interesting place out on Peavine where the definition of “ethetics” is pretty skewed and the neighborhood is being terrorized by dogs that apparently have risen from the dead.


In regards to Theresa's letter.
Where were the owners in all this? Did they have so little regard for their dogs that they let them run wild? Be aggressive? Peavine is unlikely to have strict leash laws, but the responsibility is on the animal owner to control their animals otherwise. If these dogs were, in fact, terrorizing the neighborhood, then Nicole's action are justified! Not to mention, I read, that she is in the veterinarian industry which means she was pushed to her limit.
Bottom line...
YOUR animals are YOUR responsibility! Period!


How does the fact Nicole was “in the veterinarian business” tell you she was “pushed to her limit”? The real BOTTOM LINE here is ‘Do not take the law into your own hands’. Why didn’t we hear all these stories about two dogs terrorizing the Peavine neighborhood 14 months ago? The attempts of people trying to excuse or justify the actions of Nicole Wood as being a ‘heroine’ and ‘ the only ethical thing she could do’ are amazingly sad!


I would assume Theresa is referring to the 18 months prior to the dogs being shot. That is logical.

There is always more to these stories than the press releases.

I am a dog lover, but if I was confronted by two large, aggressive dogs continually, and with no help from law enforcement, or their owners, well I suppose I would be driven to do the same thing that was done here at some point.

Until you’ve been on the receiving end of aggressive dogs on a continuous basis, it’s hard to judge.


I've watched and read these comments for weeks regarding Nicole. There are always two sides to every story and too often I think comments are made without all the facts.

Nicole in my experience has always been a very kind and compassionate person. She was sweet enough to volunteer years ago to come in to be with me when I had to put my beloved dog to sleep so I wouldn't have to do it alone. With all my other animals over the years she was equally compassionate.

I think we all know that animal control in this county has been stretched and underfunded for many years. I am a huge animal lover and it's hard to hear these stories but I think she's been harshly judged. Just my opinion.


Well... the verdict would indicate that the evidence didn't support Ms. Wood's story.....

as far has the ability to testify...I would assume the defense attorney could have presented the information on the record....somehow a letter to the editor after the fact, doesn't hold the same level of credibility.


Perhaps, but Theresa seems to know more than any person posting here.

Bottom line, if my neighbors pack of aggressive dogs continually threatened me, my livestock, my family, or my pets, I’d have absolutely zero problem shooting them dead.

Bill B

all I can say to this last comment is; Wow!



What would you do?

With no help from law enforcement or the owners of the dogs, you would wait until your children are mauled or killed by a pack of roaming aggressive dogs?



The judge’s ruling makes me think that the pack of aggressive dogs story wasn’t backed up by the facts....


So...’There is always more to these stories than the press releases’.... Fake news? That’s a stretch!

‘Theresa seems to know more than any person posting here’... she doesn’t seem to know you don’t take the law into your own hands!

By Nicol’s own words, the dogs were not advancing on her or being aggressive when she decided she would execute them. How is it that the two dogs are now being described as a ‘pack of aggressive dogs, hunting’? Is it now also being implied they were out to maul the children of Peavine?

Please.... Go out there and take the law into your own hands and you can join the Great Heroine Nicole in jail, on community service, on probation, paying your fine, changing your job, not being allowed to have pets, and loosing your guns.


Again, her initial statement indicated the dogs were neither aggressive nor advancing toward her. Could we possibly keep that fact in mind before speeding down the rabies road?
On that day, it was cave Nicole, not cave canem.


Ad arma affectamus, Lulu. At least up in them thar hills.



Don’t know the facts in this case, just commenting on Theresa’s comment and stating if my neighbor had allowed their pack of aggressive dogs to threaten my kids, hypothetically, I would kill them no problem.

You, you can do whatever you want with the safety of your family.


Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable