In the next few days, a 7-year-old female rottweiler named Karma will face euthanasia after a Chehalis woman chose to keep the dog — despite Lewis County designating it as “dangerous” — and failed to comply with related codes to keep her pet.
Through tears, Rebecca Nichols, an 81-year-old in rural Chehalis, described the dog as innocent on Tuesday as she sought any chance to save Karma, who she renamed “Kara” after adoption from the Lewis County Animal Shelter. Though Nichols said she wasn’t aware of Karma’s designation when she was adopted, when she found out about it, she chose to keep her.
Living alone at the end of a gravel road after her husband died in September of 2021, Nichols said Karma was “her only protection,” and “the biggest baby you’ve ever seen and loves everybody.”
Nichols has several other dogs, cats and chickens. She said Karma never harmed them. She recalls when the dog was repossessed, she was wagging her tail happily as deputies leashed her and took her away.
From her perspective, the story of Karma is one of the county’s cruelty.
From the perspective of Lewis County Humane Officer Alisha Hornburg, who reported trying multiple times to help Nichols come into compliance with codes to keep the dog, the tale is one where everyone loses.
Those codes were set in place by state law around dangerous animals. Thanks to the codes, in Hornburg’s time with the county, the process for dogs has become controlled by a third party, removing bias from owners or the department.
Some owners of the 10 registered dangerous dogs in Lewis County are happy with the process, as it allows them to keep their dog as long as they comply with the codes. Others have screamed at Hornburg, she said.
“It's very difficult. It's very emotional. And this is the end. This is where a dangerous dog, a registered dangerous dog, this is where it ends. And it’s very emotional, too,” Hornburg said. “Not just for the dog owner. It’s emotional for me. It was very emotional for Judge Buzzard (during the county’s repossession of Karma). He was visibly upset. None of us enjoy this. This is one of the worst things that we do.”
From the perspective of Nichols’ neighbor Corey Owens, who is the reason behind Hornburg’s visit to Nichols house, the story has a more sinister background.
After noticing a minor in Nichols’ care harass and ultimately kill a cat, he called the police. The case is currently ongoing and a followup story will come later.
In the early 2000s, Nichols and her husband, Wayne Nichols, made national news for a case near Brothers, Oregon, where the two had neglected a herd of 128 horses. Before that, they’d made previous appearances in headlines for a similar case in Thurston County in 1995, where the couple submitted a plea deal and relinquished most of their herd, as reported by the East Oregonian.
Before calling The Chronicle on Tuesday, just days before the destruction of her dog, Nichols said she’d tried hiring lawyers to represent her on the matter, but “everyone just slams the door.”
“I don’t feel sorry for her (Nichols),” Owens said. “I feel sorry for the animal that has to be put down.”
The story of Karma is long and complicated, going back to Jan. 31, 2021, when she was owned by Winlock resident Miguel Munoz alongside Lobo, a male husky. That morning, Lobo and Karma were found “menacingly” chasing two horses, according to the horse owner, who then discharged a firearm several times into the ground to get the dogs to stop, unsuccessfully.
The dogs were finally apprehended by Lewis County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Smokey Padgett and taken to the shelter, where Munoz came and recovered them. He was given warning at that time of their dangerous potential.
In April 2021, the dogs were involved in another incident where they chased and mangled a neighbor’s cat, leaving the pet severely injured. According to Munoz, Karma was simply following Lobo’s lead, and should not have been punished for the incident.
That began the process of the county’s determination of the dog as dangerous.
In May, despite knowing the dogs were set to be on trial in front of the quasi-judicial Dangerous Animal Designation (DAD) board, someone connected to Munoz took Lobo and Karma to the shelter in an attempt to pass them off as other dogs. Staff at the shelter deemed them “friendly, healthy and highly adoptable,” according to case documents. Then, they were adopted out.
Lobo went home with a woman by the last name of Kickingbird while Karma was taken in by Nichols.
When the county discovered the error, Hornburg informed the new owners of the pending dangerous status and gave them three options: return the dogs to the shelter for euthanaisa and collect a refund; take them to a veterinarian to put them down; or keep the dog and assume responsibility for upholding the rules that come with the designation set up by state law. While Kickingbird chose the first option for Lobo, who was euthanized at the shelter, Nichols wanted to keep Karma.
“She’s my dog. She’s my partner. My security blanket,” Nichols told The Chronicle this week.
When Nichols and Munoz appeared in front of the DAD board on July 15, 2021, both of them pleaded with the volunteer citizens group to spare the dogs, but the board voted 2-1 that both were dangerous.
The following day, Nichols filed for an appeal of the designation, but the ruling was upheld by the Lewis County Hearing Examiner.
County code on the keeping of a dangerous dog requires the owner to provide proof of homeowner’s insurance annually alongside a $50 registration fee. They must also keep the animal in the proper enclosure unless muzzled, leashed and under the immediate supervision of a competent person (adult). Nichols provided several copies of tickets to The Chronicle where she was cited for offenses in this area, including one where a neighbor took a video of Karma running freely around nearby properties.
“I said to her, ‘This is a violation. Your dog must be leashed and muzzled,’” Hornburg said. “She doesn’t believe her dog is dangerous, she doesn’t believe that her dog should have ever been ‘dangerous.’ And I can’t help that. I have a whole DAD board and a hearings examiner who all decided. … She was present at all of the hearings.”
Nonetheless, Hornburg said she was sympathetic knowing Nichols lost her husband and worked with her to slowly bring her home into compliance, which required building a fence around the front yard and posting signs warning of the dog’s status.
Eventually, the renewal of Nichols’ registration with a copy of her homeowner’s insurance was needed again. Hornburg had a receipt of Nichols signing for the notice letter on the topic but never received the documentation Nichols needed to keep her dog.
She went to Nichols and extended her deadline for the documentation by nearly a full week. Had she just provided insurance without the $50 payment, Hornburg said, “I wouldn’t have taken the dog. … When I was there with the officer and the dog was running around in the yard, I said, ‘that’s in my affidavit for a warrant.’”
After Karma was taken away, Nichols requested a hearing in front of district court. However, at that point, no argument was allowed on the status of the dog, which had already been upheld over a year earlier. Without sufficient evidence to fight the issuance and execution of the warrant that allowed repossession of Karma, Nichols was stripped of her ownership of the dog.
This meant Karma, per court documents, would be “humanely destroyed,” and Nichols would be made to pay the fees for her euthanasia and costs for each day Karma was held at the shelter.
Since it was founded in 2018, the DAD board has held hearings for 35 animals, meaning that 25 have been euthanized after the process.
In the code, owners have the opportunity to rescind the designation if they receive a veterinarian’s opinion that the dog is no longer a danger due to old age or condition. Hornburg said despite their knowledge of this clause, no one in Lewis County has even attempted to utilize this option, even though some of the dangerous animal cases date back to 2017.
“If (Nichols) went to the vet before we had the order she could have done it. Because, I would have been excited, I would have been like, ‘Let’s try it,’” Hornburg said. “Usually what I say is ‘let’s register your dog for three years and take your dog to the vet,’ but nobody does it. Not even the ones (from back) in 2017. It’s really hard.”
