Killing dogs in Paradise Park

[csgray]

"Distressing" sheep is harming them, they have a nervous system and flight instinct developed by thousands of generations of being prey, and can easily have heart attacks or miscarry from being chased or harassed by dogs with no way to escape. This is a very different experience from being worked by a trained sheep dog and handler. Sheep herders and their dogs use that same flight instinct to get the sheep to go where they want, but a dog that is "playing" with staked or penned sheep can easily kill them without laying a tooth on the sheep.

Carol

[Alaskana]

Thank you carol. I knew that bout could not articulate that properly.

[Bullwinkle]

loose unsupervised dogs that are off property do risk getting injured by cars, predators or people. In some parts of the country they also risk ending up as lab animals. It is important to keep domestic pets supervised and or contained - end of story in my humble opinion

[sistersue]

The dog's owner Raylene was not home when this happened and finding her dog dead in her driveway was a terrible shock. She realizes it was an accident that her dog dug out under the fence that had held him for 3 years and the neighbor was protecting his sheep. BUT what we cannot understand is how someone could stake out many sheep (with no water) and not put up a fence. Doesn't that make them bait for any loose dog when the man isn't home to shoot them? There are dogs getting loose in Paradise Park all the time. I personally couldn't stand to have sheep or goats in my yard without a good fence to protect them - but that's just my feelings about it. She will call the humane society about the sheep with no fence but they can't really do anything except put a note on the guy's house. Thank you for all your replies - it helped a lot.

[Kelena]

Yes, I realize an animal can keel over and die from fright -- that is physical harm. But unless there is a serious risk of physical harm, I would take measures short of shooting someone's pet.

A tragedy all the way around. As for fences, no one has to fence their property. Fencing on solid lava can be expensive. I do wish people would avoid this. It is hard to see animals tethered in that way.

Our heart goes out to Raylene for this unfortunate set of circumstances.

[Rene]

What if it was a child the dog was "playing" with? I have seen dogs corner and threaten children in much the same way. The sheep owner has the right to stop the attack, period. The dog also has instincts much like the sheep and they are to attack & kill. Sorry for the loss but take some ownership in the real issue...control your dog.

[Kelena]

Again, we confuse the legal right with an action that is morally justified. If there is a reasonable action you can take to spare both dog and sheep, that is the action you should take.

In this instance, it does not sound like we have a dog who is a repeat offender. Based on the only side of the story presented thus far, we have a dog that has not escaped his confinement for 3 years. This does not sound like the sort of dog who is negligently left to wander and harass sheep or people. There are plenty of those, but this does not sound like one of them.

If a dog threatens a human, then deadly force is appropriate both morally and legally. If a dog attempts to shepherd a human without doing more, that might be a different matter.

It sounds, so far, like the owner carefully kept the dog confined for 3 years. Then there was an escape and harassment of sheep in a way that is unspecified.

Mere harassment is undeserving in my view of deadly force, from a moral perspective. Repeated harassment reduces the obligation of neighbor to neighbor. In such a case, the neighbor is suffering the trespass has more moral authority to exercise deadly force.

What we don't have a right, morally, to do as humans is to exercise a legal right gleefully, irresponsibly, and without regard to the consequences to others.

I can shoot your cat if it is attacking my bird. But if my bird is in a cage, and your cat appears for the very first time, paws the cage and attempts to scare the bird to death, I would exercise something short of deadly force to stop the attack.

If he scared the bird to death, then I would kill him.

[Bob Orts]

The only person who has any right to go into the moral or ethical question of killing this dog was the person who did it. We don’t know what that person saw or believed at the time they released the arrow. If they believed a real threat to their livestock existed in the seconds they made the decision, they are both morally and ethically sound in their decision. None of use were there so we have no idea what transpired. However based on the written words, (minus the emotional attempt at sympathy), it is very clear that the dog was engaged in actions that reasonably , morally, ethically and legally could easily be assumed to be a actual immediate threat and danger to the livestock.

[Kelena]

I rsspectfully disagree.

I think it is entirely appropriate for a society or community to arrive at a moral consensus on the killing of dogs and the circumstances under which it might be appropriate or inappropriate. This discussion is part of that process.

Upon reflection, I do think it is inappropriate to pass judgment on a particular circumstance in this forum, especially without knowing both sides of the story.

I do think, however, that society regards the killing of a neighbor's dog without substantial justification, such as the defense of sentient being, to be immoral. I hope that includes the Puna community, but I could be wrong. What constitutes substantial justification depends on the facts of a particular case. It is human nature to develop codes of conduct, some of which become law and some of which simply guide civilized societies.

And I like to believe that we as a society are better off when we consider the impacts of a given action on our neighbors, whether it be keeping dogs in, or dealing with dogs once they get out.

[Bullwinkle]

http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/fence/hi_fnc.htm

"142-74. Liability of dog owner; penalty
If any dog, while on private property without the consent of the owner of that property, injures or destroys any sheep, cattle, goat, hog, fowl, or other property belonging to any person other than the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable in damages to the person injured for the value of the property so injured or destroyed. The owner of the dog shall confine or destroy the dog, and if the owner of the dog neglects or refuses to do so, the owner of the dog, in the event of any further damage being done to the person or property of any person by the dog, in addition to paying the person injured for the damage, shall pay the costs of the trial together with the penalty imposed under section 142-12, and it shall be lawful for any other person to destroy the dog."

I may not agree as an individual how this was acted upon, and how the control of the dog was carried out - but the law (and consensus) seem to be in place.