Animal Cruelty Case--Not Guilty Verdict: Protecting Livestock

I believe the law is the same here, too. It was the last time I had to use it...Danged bear ate my goat. We had a trap and gun ready to go, but the bear didn't come back. It is a shame that the dogs had to be killed, but it is irresponsible to let them roam on another person's property.
 
It is unfortunate the man had to waste good money trying to defend himself.


<<<<Spiegel said competing interests between neighboring pet owners and livestock farmers “presents a unique challenge for the community>>>>

It is not a difficult challenge.How about the county take pet owners to court instead of charging farmers that as a LAST RESORT shoot dogs killing their livestock?!?!?!?

Animals-whether pet or livestock need to be fenced in,or somehow kept in the owners yard.
 
What a shame that we can't charge the OWNERS for animal cruelty. Is it not cruel to let your dogs roam into others yards where the may in danger?
 
That is one point I keep trying to make--owners who let their dogs roam are endangering them, whether getting hit by a car, being shot while harassing livestock or even being trampled by livestock; not to mention, there are folks who are deathly afraid of dogs and they are terrorizing those folks by allowing their dogs to be in a position to approach them freely.
 
I live on a busy highway and when we see a stray running on the road it usually gets hit within a few days. Someone was putting out poison in an on-leash park in Portland Or. a while back. Seems this person got tired of other peoples dogs pissing on their cooler and stuff. I have seen this kind of stuff done and I do blame the owners.
 
Last edited:
It is unfortunate the man had to waste good money trying to defend himself.

That's the part that makes me the most upset...This guy has to spend his time and money...will he get it back?? Probably Not.. I feel sorry for him on both accts. now.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom