Killing dogs in Paradise Park

[sistersue]

Raylene asked me to remove this story of her dog being killed. But thank you for all the replies.

[spunky]

I would call the Humane Society re the sheep and the police re the owner. Cruelty to animals re the sheep and the dog. Although the law recognizes pets as possessions therefore the worst case is a misdemeanor.

Horrible for the sheep and your friend's dog.

[rbbyrd]

Please define "playing with/tormenting".
Also, please explain how the owner of the sheep is an "idiot" for protecting their property. Additionally, it seems the assertion being made is that the sheep owner should be responsible for erecting a fence in order to protect their property from "accidental" violations of the leash laws? Was this the first time this "accident" occurred? And the solution is to essentially accuse the sheep owner of animal cruelty? Doesn't sound like a solution is the goal here; more like retribution.

RB Byrd
Flower Mound, TX

[oink]

I'm sorry for the loss of the dog you cared deeply for. I agree that staking out goats or sheep without access to water is wrong. Staking them out at all isn't preferred but is common. The shooting of dogs that attack livestock is also common and is an accepted practice, especially in ranching and farming areas where loose dogs attacking livestock is all too frequently a costly problem, whether they are fenced or staked. Unlike a 6' chain link fence, most ag type fence will not deter a loose dog intent on "playing" with livestock.

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[Alaskana]

I agree with the sheep's in principal. Granted, I would have used a firearm over a crossbow.

An aggressive dog attacking livestock or people on my property automatically gets that response. Said response is both legal and appropriate. The dog should not have been able to leave it's owners property. I do not see how the sheep's owner should suffer because of someone else's screwup. The dog's owner is liable for any damages, and possible criminal charges for letting his dog harass and potentially damage other people's property. If it had actually injured or killed the sheep, the police/humane society would be putting the dog down anyhow.

Not to mention, I put my pets and livestocks wellbeing and value over that of an animal getting at them. That is how the world works.

Btw, once a dog breaks training and actually starts attacking something, it is extremely dangerous to try to separate the animal from it's target. Not to mention that scaring it off wouldn't have worked. They get rather one sided on what they are doing once the blood gets flowing.

And yes, I am a hunter. From bear to moose to caribou to wolves. If I were back home, this would have been solved with a suppressed rifle. Animals attacking livestock is not to be allowed. In nearly every state, the dogs owner would be criminally and civilly liable for damages.

Either way, it's amazing how your distinctions qualify dogs as a higher value pet then the sheep. Monetarily, the sheep has easily 3-4x the value of your average dog. Sheep also make good pets, plus they mow your lawn.

Would you have been happier of the guy sat there and watched his sheep die painfully from disembowelment? That's usually how the canine family works. Not to mention, the dogs owner would end up in jail for cruelty.

The point of the matter is, the dog was where it was not, doing what it should not. If it was a person attacking someone, they would get the exact same response. People need to take responsibility for their actions, not blaming someone else. They were an idiot and let their dog out. It did something stupid and got shot. The dog's owner is at fault.

No tears shed here.

[Alaskana]

Btw, shooting a dog with a bb gun or hitting it with a stick is legally considered animal cruelty. Not to mention, in this enviroment the bb wound would quickly become infected and put the sheeps owner in further legal and financial trouble.

Fair warning. The law is on the side of the sheep's owner. Any reprisals and or actions against him can constitute harassment all the way up to terroristic action. If push comes to shove, he has the legal standing to put people in jail over this.

It is regrettable, but it happened. Nothing but bad can come from pressing the issue.

[Radiopeg]

I have to be on the side with the sheep. They did not ask to be tormented. Livestock can be both a product and a pet. Sorry for your friend's loss, but it is not unexpected. Sorry for the sheep owner that the animals were not protected. Sad to see a situation that could have been prevented come to this.

[Carey]

We have learned over the years, and esp here, that the safety of your animals is very much YOUR responsibility. If your neighbors dog was loose, then it is in violation of the law. If it was on another persons property, that person has every right to deal with it. We have even had a cat shot here for agitating a neighbors dog - that is when we realized even if your animal is on your property, it could be doing something that is negetive to your neighbor....and could be solved by your neighbor....

Have you thought about the fact that the sheep could have been someone else's - there to mow the yard down - or a meal for a large celebration.... neither of these would you erect a fence for.... if the dog was only loose the once, it is a pity that the owners got such a reality check.... if the dog were out more than the once.... well....

The reality is that dogs and sheep "playing" can have a very negative outcome for the sheep, and not so much for the dog.... the owner of the sheep was only trying to protect HIS animals.....
]\

[Kelena]

Let's separate out the owner's legal right to do what he did from whether it was right and moral.

I will address the moral aspect. We lack a critical piece of information here: was the dog physically harming the sheep, or was the dog merely distressing them? If tormenting them included biting or mauling the sheep, who lacked even a chance to flee, that is one story.

If on the other hand, the dog was not physically harming the sheep and there was an opportunity for the owner to safely protect them by using less than deadly force, then that is another story.

It would be inappropriate to sit in judgment unless we have all of the evidence from both sides of this story.

However, as general proposition, I find it immoral to blindly assert a legal right, knowing that the probable result is emotional distress for a neighbor. My neighbor's cat sometimes comes into the yard, much to my annoyance (because he kills birds). My dog would love to kill that cat. I accept the trespass while encouraging my dog to chase the cat out of the yard (I give the cat a head start). Although I would shed no tears over that cat, my neighbor would and that matters to me.

If it were my neighbor's pitbull coming over the fence, and I had a reasonable belief that the likely outcome was actual harm to my dog or to me, I would use deadly force, especially if I knew that nothing less would suffice.

I would not rejoice in having used such force.

[Carey]

We have come to realize there is a more "rural" feel here towards animals.... our cat was not shot in our neighbors yard (ETA nor had it been in the neighbors yard).... most of the more local people accept that is a potential.... not that they agree that is the proper thing... but the neighbors dog was barking a lot...and it was annoying... so....

Sheep can be staked, they are often moved to mow around a lot. They are also a standing meal... and the neighbors dog was interacting with the sheep... which could have been very bad for the sheep (cattle dogs are NOT recommended for use with sheep... they do have the reputation of breaking the sheeps legs in their herding instincts...)