What I meant by my comment is that MyHaven's pets are not a food source for someone else's dog. I get that the dogs' don't know any different of course, and they were acting instinctually, so to them the birds they killed were food or sport, but to us no they are not, and importantly the council should not have made that comment. Someone (in this case MyHaven), who was responsible in ensuring her pets were confined to their own yard, those animals are not a food source for a negligent owners wandering and intrusive animals (I'm assuming negligence here as the dogs yard was not ensured to be secure). To clarify, I meant more from a legal human point of view. The dogs behaviour is awful, but not unusual for a dog. Their owners however need to accept responsibility for any damage their dogs may cause, as the dogs would be considered their property, therefore the dogs behaviour good or bad is on them legally, and the council should do what they're supposed to and penalize people whose animals who cause problems to other people and their property.
I'm sure we both agree though that we hope this goes MyHaven's way, and her new chicks will be safe in the future![]()
The owners should accept responsibility and that as the council officer said "dogs will be dogs" and will do it again if the opportunity arises.
If I had a dog do similar I would not hesitate to have it put down. That is the only way it couldn't repeat the behaviour, but more importantly build on the behaviour.
Thanks