Similarly, the statute is implicated when the dog merely chases livestock without injury or wounding occurring. It is apparent that the legislature recognized the potential of harm to livestock by a dog merely chasing livestock and sought to prevent that potential harm. Plaintiff's argument regarding the need for proof of a predatory intent also fails. We are prohibited from adding words to the statute. Additionally, plaintiff's focus on the disputable presumption in ORS 609.157 is misplaced.
Disputable presumptions are evidentiary tools.
In other words, if a dog is found chasing livestock in an area where freshly damaged livestock are found, there is a disputable presumption that the dog caused the damage to the livestock. Although the statute is not artfully worded, the effect of ORS 609.157 is to provide a presumption of causation when there is a controversy about whether the dog is responsible for freshly damaged livestock. Again we disagree. The texts of the applicable statutes illustrate the point. In other words, ORS 609.155 is authority discrete from ORS 609.090 for the county governing body to impound a dog that kills, injures, wounds or chases livestock for the purpose of determining whether that dog has been engaged in that conduct and, upon that determination, to order the dog destroyed.