Perhaps of interest. Another weenie who thinks owning property places you above reasonable conduct.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/c...lony/93050556/
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
Printable View
Perhaps of interest. Another weenie who thinks owning property places you above reasonable conduct.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/c...lony/93050556/
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
So wrong.
welsh,Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
You know my feelings about this. The owner should have had better control of the dog. However, the dog's life shouldn't have been forfeit because of the owner.
I hope they hold him responsible to the fullest extent of the law. After that the owner can pursue him in civil court.
It is unfortunate that an owner is not attentive to his dog, it's security and control; however to even begin to think about shooting the animal is reprehensible......have to wonder how he'd handle misbehaved children around his property.
Hope they nail his to the wall!
As a hunter and landowner, I have had many many hunts ruined by trespassing dogs. I have had scolded, begged and pleaded with dog owners to keep dogs on their property and hunters to keep their dogs off of my property.
In my books, a trespasser and the owner of a trespassing dog are equal. I wouldn't shoot a trespasser or their dog, but the laws pertaining to both are laughable and their enforcement doubly so (at least in Ontario). I can see how situations like this can easily escalate when a landowner has zero recourse.
The article is a very sad story of two men both in the wrong. However, only one will learn a lesson.
What a shame.
Very sad indeed. A dog not under total control is one thing but a grown human is another.
I can see someone with livestock being harassed/injured by stray dogs or dogs running at large taking care of the problem,permanently,especially after complaining to owners and police as a last resort,but,I'm not sure this was the case here. I couldn't read the entire article because of the subscription pop-up.
I found it very difficult to read the whole report because of the page "disappearing" every 2 seconds ; so there may be some "twists" that I missed . However , I think the "hot-shot" was fortunate that he wasn't dealing with an "obsessed" dog-lover or he might have had an ACCIDENT . --- This s.o.b. deserves severe punishment .
Generally undisputed that landowners have the right to protect livestock, but not the case here.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Reading between the lines, the guy shot the ever-loving #$@% out of the dog just to make a point. I agree with Gunner 38, he's lucky he didn't suffer an "accident."
Perhaps the owner should sue and cite the case of "Old Drum". Love this tidbit
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/...er-should-know
The guy would have had to have hold of the dog or have it standing/sitting quietly beside him to shot it multiple times thru the collar. Did not read if the dog was shot anywhere else, but if the guy called the dog and it came and sat quietly till the first shot, I can't write how I feel..Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh