Chicken Murder... I didn't think it would happen to me.

[horsejody]

Quote:
It's not so simple if you consider the cost and possible zoning restrictions. The dog is the responsibility of the dog owner. Let them pay for the fence and deal with the zoning regulations. We all have the right to use our yards as we wish.

 

[Castaway]

cmjust0:

All I know for sure is that in a human-baby-safety vs. chicken-safety debate, the baby's mom will at least get the benefit of the doubt -- and that's the whole point I was making.

Given the benefit of the doubt by whom is the key question. In the court of public opinion, where reason and logic rarely rules the day, I would tend to agree with you. But if a judge were to arbitrate this I think he/she would want to know what is a reasonable amount of time to leave a baby alone. If it would take about the same amount of time to retrieve the dog as would to use the bathroom I'd assume the dog owner would lose the benefit of the doubt.​

 

[Buff Hooligans]

Quote:
To prevent another loss, try reinforcing this with hardware cloth.

Chicken wire will never stop a dog.

 

[Castaway]

Quote:
It's not so simple if you consider the cost and possible zoning restrictions. The dog is the responsibility of the dog owner. Let them pay for the fence and deal with the zoning regulations. We all have the right to use our yards as we wish.

I also believe the dog owner should bear the brunt, if not all of the cost of erecting a fence. But if the owner doesn't, where does that leave the chicken owner? The only option left is escalate the conflict by taking matters into your own hands, which will end up costing more in stress and court fees.

 

[horsejody]

Quote:
Or, perhaps she was telling the truth... Perhaps the dog accidentally got loose while she was home alone with the baby and she decided it wouldn't be a good decision to just up and leave the baby..

All I know for sure is that in a human-baby-safety vs. chicken-safety debate, the baby's mom will at least get the benefit of the doubt -- and that's the whole point I was making.

To reiterate, I was simply suggesting that the OP not make the argument that the lady should have left the baby sleeping alone in the house to come get her dog. If she does, the neighbor is liable to spin it and turn the whole thing into a debate over her values as a mom and the chicken owners values, and how she's some kind of lunatic chicken worshipper who values chickens over human beings.

NOW do you get it?

By the way...you said yourself:

Quote:
There ya go. Most folks wouldn't, hence the baby's mom getting the benefit of the doubt..

Do you see how that worked? The OP and another poster brought up how they thought the mom should have bailed on the kid to chase the dog, I played devils advocate, and here we are in a debate over THAT instead of what really matters..

If the woman who owned the dog had any intelligence she would have realized that waking the baby up and bringing the baby with her to retreive the wayward dog was a viable option too. Saying that the baby was sleeping is really no excuse at all. She was just being lazy and irresponsible. It too bad she has already had children. Stupid people shouldn't breed.

 

[cmjust0]

Quote:
I disagree.

I think any judge worth their salt would completely dismiss all of the above as totally irrelevant to the FACT that the chicken owner suffered a loss as a result of the dog owner's negligence, and would rule in favor of the chicken owner. I mean, without all the nonsense about leaving babies unattended and whatnot, it's basically a slamdunk..

If, however, the judge decided to rule on how long a mother should be expected to leave her baby alone in the house , I suspect that's going to be determined as the same amount of time it takes for someone to break in or for a fire to break out....both of which, if I'm not mistaken, are roughly equivalent to the twinkling of an eye.

In other words...0.00 seconds.

Just think about it...can you honestly picture a judge saying "I'm sorry, ma'am, but you should have left your baby unattended."

Never.gonna.happen.

For the record, though.....please note that we're still talking about this, and that the debate here is slowly turning into the very thing I warned it would turn into...

 

[citrusdreams]

Quote:
...well, it kinda does cut it.

You can build a fortress, but if management of your chickens involves free ranging, it really doesn't matter if you have a fortress.

So again, we're at protecting your animals in the best way you can, for your situation. And being that we're talking about private property, animal owners have the right to manage their animals the way they feel is best, on their own property.

I manage my chickens by free ranging: it's less expensive in grain, it's better for bug control, it's healthier for the chickens, and I enjoy seeing them free ranging on the property. The best way for me to protect them is to have my dogs out with them (which they are, off and on all day), and to have a gun ready, and let the neighbors know that it will be used if needed.

Yes, you might have the occassional natural maurader when you free range. That doesn't put a kink in my logic for me. It happens whether you have a fortress or not. And you have to deal with it, just as you deal with the neighbor's dogs - the neighbor's dogs just belong to someone who can eliminate that part of the equation - and are obligated to do so. And again, we're talking about an individuals unique circumstances. And my circumstances don't involve natural mauraders. I haven't lost a chicken to a natural predator in over a year (knock on wood), when a raccoon ripped and pulled up my netting and got in to the coop. He was killed, the netting was repaired, and I haven't had that problem in a year. However, I do still have a problem with the neighbor's dogs - who should be confined to their own property in the first place. The best way for me to manage my chickens, in my own situation, is to SSS any predators so that my chickens can freely use my own property - and I just don't see the flaw in that logic. It's simply the way I choose to raise my chickens.

Predators, belonging to someone or not, aren't just a threat to chickens. That is a very dangerous assumption to make. They destroy property, bring disease, and are a threat to you and your children as well. IMOHO, chicken safety is among only ONE of my worries when a predator is on my property.

 

[horsejody]

Quote:
When I went to court with my evil neighbors, the judge ordered them to pay all of my legal costs. Dog laws are pretty cut and dry in most places. If a dog is off leash on another person's property killing, the dog owner pays. When my neighbors got the financial judgement against them, they finally started keeping their dogs in, and believe me, that relieved my stress. It releived the stress of my other neighbors too.

 

[Castaway]

Quote:
When I went to court with my evil neighbors, the judge ordered them to pay all of my legal costs. Dog laws are pretty cut and dry in most places. If a dog is off leash on another person's property killing, the dog owner pays. When my neighbors got the financial judgement against them, they finally started keeping their dogs in, and believe me, that relieved my stress. It releived the stress of my other neighbors too.

I'm all in favor of stress free life.

 

[Boyd]

Quote:
I agree, but that's why I usually am armed on my own property, because it could be the neighbor's dog, or it could be a pack of coyote's, or just some feral dogs gone wild. Building a fortress is good, but being ready and capable to defend house and home is better. er........... flock and feathers.

The law is on my side, shoot to kill and bear the consequences.