Rajzwaibel, I'm very sorry for your DS's loss, and that you had to be the one to break it to him.
New Neighbors = pit bull = dead chickens
- Thread starter rajzwaibel
- Start date
Oregon laws
75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2009 Regular Session
NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within { - braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
{ + braces and plus signs + } .
LC 2100
House Bill 2852
Sponsored by Representative BERGER
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.
Requires keeper of pit bull to maintain liability insurance.
Makes violation punishable by maximum fine of $180. Directs court
to order keeper found in violation to prove compliance within
period established by court. Makes failure to prove compliance
with order punishable by maximum fine of $720 per day.
Creates crime of maintaining potentially dangerous dog. Makes
first offense punishable by maximum of 30 days' imprisonment,
$1,250 fine, or both. Makes second or subsequent offense
punishable by maximum of six months' imprisonment, $2,500 fine,
or both.
Changes elements for crime of maintaining dangerous dog. Makes
most violations punishable by maximum of one year's imprisonment,
$6,250 fine, or both. Makes punishable by maximum of five years'
imprisonment, $125,000 fine, or both, if dog kills person or for
second or subsequent offense resulting in serious physical
injury.
Eliminates potentially dangerous dog behavior from public
nuisance statute. Adds menacing behavior to public nuisance
statute.
609.140 Right of action by owner of damaged livestock. (1) The owner of any livestock which has been damaged by being injured, chased, wounded or killed by any dog shall have a cause of action against the owner of such dog for the damages resulting therefrom, including double the value of any livestock killed and double the amount of any damage to the livestock.
(2) If one or more of several dogs owned by different persons participate in damaging any livestock, the owners of the respective dogs shall be jointly and severally liable under this section. The owners of dogs jointly or severally liable under this section have a right of contribution among themselves. The right exists only in favor of an owner who has paid more than the pro rata share of the owner, determined by dividing the total damage by the number of dogs involved, of the common liability, and the total recovery of the owner is limited to the amount paid by the owner in excess of the pro rata share of the owner.
(3) An action brought under this section may be tried as an action at law in any court of competent jurisdiction.
(4) As used in this section:
(a) Owner means the head of the family of the home where the dog is cared for at the time of the damage.
(b) Head of the family means any person who has charge or manages the affairs of a collective body of persons residing together, the relations between whom are of a permanent and domestic character. [Amended by 1973 c.655 §7; 1975 c.749 §1]
609.150 Right to kill dog that harms or chases livestock. (1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, any dog, whether licensed or not, which, while off the premises owned or under control of its owner, kills, wounds, or injures any livestock not belonging to the master of such dog, is a public nuisance and may be killed immediately by any person. However, nothing in this section applies to any dog acting under the direction of its master, or the agents or employees of such master.
(2) If any dog, not under the control of its owner or keeper, is found chasing or feeding upon the warm carcass of livestock not the property of such owner or keeper it shall be deemed, prima facie, as engaged in killing, wounding or injuring livestock.
(3) No person shall kill any dog for killing, wounding, injuring or chasing chickens upon a public place, highway or within the corporate limits of any city. [Amended by 1975 c.749 §6]
609.153 Dog owner education program. (1) The State Department of Agriculture shall coordinate the development of a program to educate dog owners concerning their responsibility to avoid conflicts between dogs and livestock. The program shall include the publication of a brochure. A discussion of penalties and other measures provided for under ORS 609.162 and 609.163 shall be included in the brochure.
(2) The obligation of the department under subsection (1) of this section is limited to the extent of any moneys specifically appropriated for that purpose or available from donations, gifts and grants by private or other nonstate sources. [1999 c.756 §10]
609.155 Impoundment for harming or chasing livestock; determination of fact; costs. (1) In a county with a dog control program, upon finding a dog engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock or upon receipt from a complainant of evidence that a dog has been so engaged, the dog control officer or other law enforcement officer shall impound the dog.
(2) If there is reason to believe that reasonable testing of a dog impounded pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, including but not limited to a fecal examination or examination of the teeth of the dog, will provide substantial further evidence as to whether the dog has been engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock, the county shall provide for the administration of the tests by a licensed veterinarian.
(3)(a) After the completion of tests administered pursuant to subsection (2) of this section and allowing an opportunity for a hearing under ORS 609.158, the county shall determine whether the dog has been engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock. If the county determines that the dog has been so engaged, the county shall take action as provided under ORS 609.162 and 609.163. In addition to any action taken under ORS 609.162 and 609.163, the county may require that the dog owner pay the costs of keeping and testing the dog during impoundment. If the county determines that the dog has not been engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock, the dog shall be released to its owner and, if the dog had been impounded upon receipt of evidence from a complainant, the complainant shall pay the costs of keeping and testing the dog during the impoundment.
(b) Notwithstanding ORS 609.090, a dog impounded pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall not be released until a determination is made by the county pursuant to this subsection. [1975 c.749 §4; 1977 c.802 §9; 1999 c.756 §20]
609.156 Opportunity to request hearing. (1) Prior to making a determination whether a dog has killed, wounded, injured or chased livestock, a county shall provide an opportunity for the dog owner to receive a hearing. The county shall send notice of the opportunity to request a hearing in a manner that is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the dog owner of the specific behavior and incident alleged and the possible penalties, and to provide the dog owner with a fair opportunity for making the hearing request.
(2) A dog owner must cause a hearing request to be delivered to the county not later than the 14th day following the sending of notice under subsection (1) of this section. If a dog owner does not make a timely request for a hearing, the dog owner is conclusively presumed to have admitted the matter alleged and the county may immediately take action under ORS 609.162 and 609.163. The county shall send notice of its determination in the manner provided under ORS 609.158 (4). [1999 c.756 §2]
609.157 [1975 c.749 §5; 1999 c.756 §21; renumbered 609.161 in 1999]
609.158 Hearing process; notice of determination; reexamination of determination. (1) A hearing may be conducted and a determination whether a dog has killed, wounded, injured or chased livestock may be made by the county governing body or any members thereof, the dog control board or any members thereof or a county hearings officer.
(2) Notwithstanding ORS 9.160 and 9.320, the county may choose to be represented at the hearing by any employee of the county. If the employee is not an attorney, the employee shall not present legal argument, examine or cross-examine witnesses, present rebuttal evidence or give legal advice to the governing body, dog control board or hearings officer conducting the hearing.
(3) The person presiding at the hearing shall ensure that the record developed at the hearing shows a full and fair inquiry into the facts necessary to determine the matter alleged. A determination made by a county following a hearing must be upon consideration of the whole record and supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence.
(4) The county shall notify the dog owner of its determination and of any civil penalties or other measures imposed by delivering or mailing a copy to the dog owner or, if applicable, the attorney of the dog owner.
(5) If a hearing is not conducted by a majority of the county governing body, the owner may request that the county governing body reexamine the determination. If the county governing body does not grant the request for reexamination within 14 days, the request shall be deemed denied. A county governing body may not reexamine a determination if a petition for judicial review of the determination has been filed. [1999 c.756 §3]
609.160 [Amended by 1975 c.499 §2; 1999 c.756 §22; renumbered 609.169 in 1999]
609.161 Disputable presumption that dog harms or chases livestock. For purposes of ORS 609.135 to 609.190, a disputable presumption shall arise that a dog has been engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock if:
(1) The dog is found chasing livestock not the property of the owner of the dog in an area where freshly damaged livestock are found;
(2) The dog is found feeding upon a warm carcass of a livestock animal;
(3) An examination of the dogs feces indicates ingestion of portions of the anatomy or covering of the anatomy of livestock by the dog; or
(4) Portions of the anatomy or covering of the anatomy of livestock are found on the teeth of the dog, unless the dog is regularly used for the purpose of herding sheep. [Formerly 609.157]
609.162 Guidelines for imposing remedial measures, civil penalties or other sanctions. (1) If a county determines under ORS 609.156 (2) or after a full and fair hearing that a dog has engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock, the county shall take action in accordance with the following guidelines:
(a) If the dog has engaged in chasing livestock and has not previously killed, wounded, injured or chased livestock:
(A) The county shall take reasonable measures to prevent a recurrence. Reasonable measures include, but are not limited to, requiring that the dog owner take specific measures to adequately confine the dog and provide a notarized written pledge that the owner will prevent the dog from chasing livestock again; and
(B) The county may impose a civil penalty of not more than $500.
(b) If the dog has engaged in chasing livestock and has previously killed, wounded, injured or chased livestock, or if the dog has engaged in wounding or injuring livestock and has not previously killed, wounded, injured or chased livestock, the county shall impose a civil penalty of not less than $250 and not more than $1,000. In addition to imposing the civil penalty, the county may:
(A) Require the dog owner to surrender the dog for adoption by a new owner approved by the county;
(B) Require the owner to remove the dog to a location where, in the opinion of the county, the dog does not present a threat to livestock; or
(C) Require that the dog be put to death in a humane manner. Before requiring that a dog be put to death under this subparagraph, the county shall make specific findings on the record that other measures are not available, are not adequate to remedy the problem or are otherwise unsuitable.
(c) If the dog has engaged in wounding or injuring livestock and has previously killed, wounded, injured or chased livestock, or if the dog has engaged in killing livestock and has not previously killed livestock, the county shall impose a civil penalty of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000. In addition to imposing the civil penalty, the county shall:
(A) Require the dog owner to remove the dog to a location where, in the opinion of the county, the dog does not present a threat to livestock; or
(B) Require that the dog be put to death in a humane manner.
(d) If the dog has engaged in killing livestock and the dog has previously killed livestock, the county shall impose a civil penalty of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000. In addition to imposing the civil penalty, the county shall require that the dog be put to death in a humane manner.
(2) In establishing the history of a dog for purposes of this section, or the history of an owner for purposes of ORS 609.163, a county shall consider all known determinations involving the dog or owner by any court, or by a governing body, official or agency of any local or state government, without regard to where or when the incident occurred. [1999 c.756 §5]
609.163 Enhanced civil penalties for habitual violators. (1) If a county assesses a civil penalty under ORS 609.162 against a dog owner who has previously been assessed a civil penalty, fine or forfeiture based upon the killing, wounding, injuring or chasing of livestock in an incident not involving the same dog or dogs as in the matter being determined, the county shall assess an additional civil penalty of not less than $250 and not more than $1,000.
(2) If a county assesses a civil penalty under ORS 609.162 against a dog owner who has previously been assessed two or more civil penalties, fines or forfeitures, or a combination thereof, based upon the killing, wounding, injuring or chasing of livestock in two or more incidents not involving the same dog or dogs as in the matter being determined, the county shall assess an additional civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000. A penalty under this subsection is in lieu of a civil penalty under subsection (1) of this section.
(3) In addition to any other civil penalty under this section or ORS 609.162, if a dog that kills, wounds, injures or chases livestock is not licensed as required, the county may assess a civil penalty of not more than $1,000. A civil penalty imposed under this subsection shall prevent imposition of a fine under ORS 609.990 for violation of ORS 609.100. [1999 c.756 §6]
75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2009 Regular Session
NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within { - braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
{ + braces and plus signs + } .
LC 2100
House Bill 2852
Sponsored by Representative BERGER
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.
Requires keeper of pit bull to maintain liability insurance.
Makes violation punishable by maximum fine of $180. Directs court
to order keeper found in violation to prove compliance within
period established by court. Makes failure to prove compliance
with order punishable by maximum fine of $720 per day.
Creates crime of maintaining potentially dangerous dog. Makes
first offense punishable by maximum of 30 days' imprisonment,
$1,250 fine, or both. Makes second or subsequent offense
punishable by maximum of six months' imprisonment, $2,500 fine,
or both.
Changes elements for crime of maintaining dangerous dog. Makes
most violations punishable by maximum of one year's imprisonment,
$6,250 fine, or both. Makes punishable by maximum of five years'
imprisonment, $125,000 fine, or both, if dog kills person or for
second or subsequent offense resulting in serious physical
injury.
Eliminates potentially dangerous dog behavior from public
nuisance statute. Adds menacing behavior to public nuisance
statute.
609.140 Right of action by owner of damaged livestock. (1) The owner of any livestock which has been damaged by being injured, chased, wounded or killed by any dog shall have a cause of action against the owner of such dog for the damages resulting therefrom, including double the value of any livestock killed and double the amount of any damage to the livestock.
(2) If one or more of several dogs owned by different persons participate in damaging any livestock, the owners of the respective dogs shall be jointly and severally liable under this section. The owners of dogs jointly or severally liable under this section have a right of contribution among themselves. The right exists only in favor of an owner who has paid more than the pro rata share of the owner, determined by dividing the total damage by the number of dogs involved, of the common liability, and the total recovery of the owner is limited to the amount paid by the owner in excess of the pro rata share of the owner.
(3) An action brought under this section may be tried as an action at law in any court of competent jurisdiction.
(4) As used in this section:
(a) Owner means the head of the family of the home where the dog is cared for at the time of the damage.
(b) Head of the family means any person who has charge or manages the affairs of a collective body of persons residing together, the relations between whom are of a permanent and domestic character. [Amended by 1973 c.655 §7; 1975 c.749 §1]
609.150 Right to kill dog that harms or chases livestock. (1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, any dog, whether licensed or not, which, while off the premises owned or under control of its owner, kills, wounds, or injures any livestock not belonging to the master of such dog, is a public nuisance and may be killed immediately by any person. However, nothing in this section applies to any dog acting under the direction of its master, or the agents or employees of such master.
(2) If any dog, not under the control of its owner or keeper, is found chasing or feeding upon the warm carcass of livestock not the property of such owner or keeper it shall be deemed, prima facie, as engaged in killing, wounding or injuring livestock.
(3) No person shall kill any dog for killing, wounding, injuring or chasing chickens upon a public place, highway or within the corporate limits of any city. [Amended by 1975 c.749 §6]
609.153 Dog owner education program. (1) The State Department of Agriculture shall coordinate the development of a program to educate dog owners concerning their responsibility to avoid conflicts between dogs and livestock. The program shall include the publication of a brochure. A discussion of penalties and other measures provided for under ORS 609.162 and 609.163 shall be included in the brochure.
(2) The obligation of the department under subsection (1) of this section is limited to the extent of any moneys specifically appropriated for that purpose or available from donations, gifts and grants by private or other nonstate sources. [1999 c.756 §10]
609.155 Impoundment for harming or chasing livestock; determination of fact; costs. (1) In a county with a dog control program, upon finding a dog engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock or upon receipt from a complainant of evidence that a dog has been so engaged, the dog control officer or other law enforcement officer shall impound the dog.
(2) If there is reason to believe that reasonable testing of a dog impounded pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, including but not limited to a fecal examination or examination of the teeth of the dog, will provide substantial further evidence as to whether the dog has been engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock, the county shall provide for the administration of the tests by a licensed veterinarian.
(3)(a) After the completion of tests administered pursuant to subsection (2) of this section and allowing an opportunity for a hearing under ORS 609.158, the county shall determine whether the dog has been engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock. If the county determines that the dog has been so engaged, the county shall take action as provided under ORS 609.162 and 609.163. In addition to any action taken under ORS 609.162 and 609.163, the county may require that the dog owner pay the costs of keeping and testing the dog during impoundment. If the county determines that the dog has not been engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock, the dog shall be released to its owner and, if the dog had been impounded upon receipt of evidence from a complainant, the complainant shall pay the costs of keeping and testing the dog during the impoundment.
(b) Notwithstanding ORS 609.090, a dog impounded pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall not be released until a determination is made by the county pursuant to this subsection. [1975 c.749 §4; 1977 c.802 §9; 1999 c.756 §20]
609.156 Opportunity to request hearing. (1) Prior to making a determination whether a dog has killed, wounded, injured or chased livestock, a county shall provide an opportunity for the dog owner to receive a hearing. The county shall send notice of the opportunity to request a hearing in a manner that is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the dog owner of the specific behavior and incident alleged and the possible penalties, and to provide the dog owner with a fair opportunity for making the hearing request.
(2) A dog owner must cause a hearing request to be delivered to the county not later than the 14th day following the sending of notice under subsection (1) of this section. If a dog owner does not make a timely request for a hearing, the dog owner is conclusively presumed to have admitted the matter alleged and the county may immediately take action under ORS 609.162 and 609.163. The county shall send notice of its determination in the manner provided under ORS 609.158 (4). [1999 c.756 §2]
609.157 [1975 c.749 §5; 1999 c.756 §21; renumbered 609.161 in 1999]
609.158 Hearing process; notice of determination; reexamination of determination. (1) A hearing may be conducted and a determination whether a dog has killed, wounded, injured or chased livestock may be made by the county governing body or any members thereof, the dog control board or any members thereof or a county hearings officer.
(2) Notwithstanding ORS 9.160 and 9.320, the county may choose to be represented at the hearing by any employee of the county. If the employee is not an attorney, the employee shall not present legal argument, examine or cross-examine witnesses, present rebuttal evidence or give legal advice to the governing body, dog control board or hearings officer conducting the hearing.
(3) The person presiding at the hearing shall ensure that the record developed at the hearing shows a full and fair inquiry into the facts necessary to determine the matter alleged. A determination made by a county following a hearing must be upon consideration of the whole record and supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence.
(4) The county shall notify the dog owner of its determination and of any civil penalties or other measures imposed by delivering or mailing a copy to the dog owner or, if applicable, the attorney of the dog owner.
(5) If a hearing is not conducted by a majority of the county governing body, the owner may request that the county governing body reexamine the determination. If the county governing body does not grant the request for reexamination within 14 days, the request shall be deemed denied. A county governing body may not reexamine a determination if a petition for judicial review of the determination has been filed. [1999 c.756 §3]
609.160 [Amended by 1975 c.499 §2; 1999 c.756 §22; renumbered 609.169 in 1999]
609.161 Disputable presumption that dog harms or chases livestock. For purposes of ORS 609.135 to 609.190, a disputable presumption shall arise that a dog has been engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock if:
(1) The dog is found chasing livestock not the property of the owner of the dog in an area where freshly damaged livestock are found;
(2) The dog is found feeding upon a warm carcass of a livestock animal;
(3) An examination of the dogs feces indicates ingestion of portions of the anatomy or covering of the anatomy of livestock by the dog; or
(4) Portions of the anatomy or covering of the anatomy of livestock are found on the teeth of the dog, unless the dog is regularly used for the purpose of herding sheep. [Formerly 609.157]
609.162 Guidelines for imposing remedial measures, civil penalties or other sanctions. (1) If a county determines under ORS 609.156 (2) or after a full and fair hearing that a dog has engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock, the county shall take action in accordance with the following guidelines:
(a) If the dog has engaged in chasing livestock and has not previously killed, wounded, injured or chased livestock:
(A) The county shall take reasonable measures to prevent a recurrence. Reasonable measures include, but are not limited to, requiring that the dog owner take specific measures to adequately confine the dog and provide a notarized written pledge that the owner will prevent the dog from chasing livestock again; and
(B) The county may impose a civil penalty of not more than $500.
(b) If the dog has engaged in chasing livestock and has previously killed, wounded, injured or chased livestock, or if the dog has engaged in wounding or injuring livestock and has not previously killed, wounded, injured or chased livestock, the county shall impose a civil penalty of not less than $250 and not more than $1,000. In addition to imposing the civil penalty, the county may:
(A) Require the dog owner to surrender the dog for adoption by a new owner approved by the county;
(B) Require the owner to remove the dog to a location where, in the opinion of the county, the dog does not present a threat to livestock; or
(C) Require that the dog be put to death in a humane manner. Before requiring that a dog be put to death under this subparagraph, the county shall make specific findings on the record that other measures are not available, are not adequate to remedy the problem or are otherwise unsuitable.
(c) If the dog has engaged in wounding or injuring livestock and has previously killed, wounded, injured or chased livestock, or if the dog has engaged in killing livestock and has not previously killed livestock, the county shall impose a civil penalty of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000. In addition to imposing the civil penalty, the county shall:
(A) Require the dog owner to remove the dog to a location where, in the opinion of the county, the dog does not present a threat to livestock; or
(B) Require that the dog be put to death in a humane manner.
(d) If the dog has engaged in killing livestock and the dog has previously killed livestock, the county shall impose a civil penalty of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000. In addition to imposing the civil penalty, the county shall require that the dog be put to death in a humane manner.
(2) In establishing the history of a dog for purposes of this section, or the history of an owner for purposes of ORS 609.163, a county shall consider all known determinations involving the dog or owner by any court, or by a governing body, official or agency of any local or state government, without regard to where or when the incident occurred. [1999 c.756 §5]
609.163 Enhanced civil penalties for habitual violators. (1) If a county assesses a civil penalty under ORS 609.162 against a dog owner who has previously been assessed a civil penalty, fine or forfeiture based upon the killing, wounding, injuring or chasing of livestock in an incident not involving the same dog or dogs as in the matter being determined, the county shall assess an additional civil penalty of not less than $250 and not more than $1,000.
(2) If a county assesses a civil penalty under ORS 609.162 against a dog owner who has previously been assessed two or more civil penalties, fines or forfeitures, or a combination thereof, based upon the killing, wounding, injuring or chasing of livestock in two or more incidents not involving the same dog or dogs as in the matter being determined, the county shall assess an additional civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000. A penalty under this subsection is in lieu of a civil penalty under subsection (1) of this section.
(3) In addition to any other civil penalty under this section or ORS 609.162, if a dog that kills, wounds, injures or chases livestock is not licensed as required, the county may assess a civil penalty of not more than $1,000. A civil penalty imposed under this subsection shall prevent imposition of a fine under ORS 609.990 for violation of ORS 609.100. [1999 c.756 §6]
I have a husky assie mix and she would kill my chickens in a heartbeat if I let her, she is always in a fenced yard or with me. Any dog has the potential to kill chickens and I firmly believe if you have a dog its the owners responsibility to make sure the dog does not become a nuisance to the neighbors and their animals. If one cannot control the dog its best for the dog to go to someone who can. I wouldnt kill the dog on the first kill but if it came back for seconds I cant say I wouldnt try or at least make sure it went to the pound or humane society. Very sorry for your loss I hope this never happens again and your son is ok.
I am so sorry this happened to you and your son.
My 8 year old son has chickens too and I know how devastated he would be by such a horrible attack. Please express our condolences to him on our behalf.
Oh, I am so sorry. I lost a number of chickens to dogs recently. I don't know where you live. In West Virginia, it is definitely legal to shoot a dog who is worrying stock, including chickens. Not that this will help your chickens. I was absolutely furious when the dogs got into my chickens. Do please at least see your neighbors and present them with a bill, preferably a large one. This should at least give them pause. Please do not misunderstand--I have dogs and I love dogs. But people cannot let their dogs kill other people's pets.
I don't know where you live but I would be happy to give your son a hen. That said I understand that shipping a hen might not be a good thing. Oops I forgot Oregon.. Anyway my thoughts are I would gladly send a dollar or two for replacement of his hens. I bet there are maybe ten or fifteen more compassionate people here that would do the same. I know the economy is not good right now and I personally am unemployed but a dollar or two would not hurt. So if you want to send me a note with your son's name and address I'll send him two dollars for his new flock. I also want to say I am not some weirdo just trying to get your address I live in Kentucky and have 5 grandkids ,13 chickens,4 calves anyway I realize the world we live in is going to crap quick I just want to help if I can.
we charge 50 dollars per chicken a dog kills to the owner and if they dont pay we take them to court and have them pay court cost and call animal control. or we shoot the dog
Unfortunately, with law enforcement being a bit of a joke in some counties and irrational, irresponsible dog owners, the SSS method is the only one available to us. Sad, I know, but you have to take the bull by the horns and be responsible for most areas of your own life in this world we live in. It's part of self sufficiency, IMO.
Quote:
Um, is that winking smiley and the "if they did that to me, it wouldn't get any prettier" comment supposed to indicate that this is a threat? That this is what you'd do if someone shot your dog if it escaped your property? You'd find one of their beloved pets and mutilate it and lay it on their doorstep? Please clarify.
Um, is that winking smiley and the "if they did that to me, it wouldn't get any prettier" comment supposed to indicate that this is a threat? That this is what you'd do if someone shot your dog if it escaped your property? You'd find one of their beloved pets and mutilate it and lay it on their doorstep? Please clarify.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
Help please month old chick attack my cat
- Latest: uzi and jade
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
Integrating pullets with existing, older chickens - should we build a temporary coop?
- Started by socalchickens76
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
Caged Bird and Parrot Thread!!!!- Started by ShrekDawg
- Replies: 417
-
This is what a balanced layer feed with no treats delivers- Started by Perris
- Replies: 143
-
Our first call duck incubation adventure (hatch-a-long)- Started by MrsWinterWheat
- Replies: 130
-
-
Ducklings are pipping!! - would love some distractions!- Started by PuddlesandWaddles
- Replies: 112
-
