Chicken owner charged after shooting dog.

[wjallen05]

how in the world are chickens not livestock?

I deffinetly do think it was wrong of him to shoot the dog, but I deffinetly do not think that the man should be charged. The dog was on HIS property and it shouldn't have been. People go WAY overboard with animal "cruelty". Why don't these people focus on REAL animal cruelty like caged hens, dairy cattle, pigs, bull fighting, etc. Geez.

 

[peepdaddy]

Thanks for the contact info! I just typed a quick note to this reporter. Though I was respectful, I made sure that she understood that there are those of us who have a different perspective on predators ( including uncontrolled dogs) which threaten our flocks.

 

[purr]

If the dog had been hit by a truck would it be the driver's fault in the dog owner's mind.
People need to learn accountability.I'ts always someone else's fault.If the dog had bitten someone would it be their fault.
If you keep the dog on a leash none of this would happen.

 

[MysticScorpio82]

Quote:
Do you think the reason there was no mention of the dog attempting to harm the chickens has to do with there being no mention of the chicken owners side? Maybe it was trying to get into the run? Even if it didn't try to get into the coop, just the dog running around it does harm the chicken...it is called "scared to death" basically it has a heart attack. If the dog is running around outside the run and coop doesnt kill the chickens, it has been know to cause injuries to a chicken who is attempting to flee because the chicken is panicked and runs into things.

Also were you there and we didn't realize? How do you know this wasn't a last resort?? Since, as I stated above, there is no mention of the chicken owners side. He may have yelled at it, tried to chase it off before pulling out the pellet gun. I doubt he was even TRYING to kill the dog, considering his choice of "firearm" (and I use that term loosely). If he wanted to kill it, he would have gotten out a .22 . The fact he used a pellet gun tells me he was trying to scare it off.

 

[speckledhen]

None of us are going to know the whole story, as Amy said, because this report was so obviously slanted in favor of the dog owner. All we know for sure is that the owner was letting a dog he'd just gotten run all over without any leash. Almost any city has some sort of leash law, so he was breaking the law when his dog was killed.

Let's put blame at the proper feet here--the dog is dead because of the irresponsible dog owner, period.

 

[flakey chick]

Quote:
Do you think the reason there was no mention of the dog attempting to harm the chickens has to do with there being no mention of the chicken owners side? Maybe it was trying to get into the run? Even if it didn't try to get into the coop, just the dog running around it does harm the chicken...it is called "scared to death" basically it has a heart attack. If the dog is running around outside the run and coop doesnt kill the chickens, it has been know to cause injuries to a chicken who is attempting to flee because the chicken is panicked and runs into things.

Also were you there and we didn't realize? How do you know this wasn't a last resort?? Since, as I stated above, there is no mention of the chicken owners side. He may have yelled at it, tried to chase it off before pulling out the pellet gun. I doubt he was even TRYING to kill the dog, considering his choice of "firearm" (and I use that term loosely). If he wanted to kill it, he would have gotten out a .22 . The fact he used a pellet gun tells me he was trying to scare it off.

According to the flyer that the dog owner sent out, the chicken owner went back to get a bigger gun after the pellet gun didn't convince the dog to leave. That would convince me it really was a last resort.

 

[Buck Creek Chickens]

Quote:
Exactly

 

[cgmccary]

I agree with the majority that the dog owner is the bad guy here. A good lawyer should be able to get the chicken owner acquitted.

I'm a lawyer and did criminal defense for 9 years before only doing civil work. I once defended a guy who chased a man down for stealing a few tools off his front porch. My client held the man down on the ground in a "choke hold" that killed him.

I didn't even put my client on the witness stand nor did I call a single witness. I simply cross examined the Prosecution's witnesses. The jury acquitted my guy & he walked. Of course, I live in Alabama where a person's land & property are sacred. A trespasser will usually lose in court. In Oregon, I'd suspect general attitudes toward property and firearms, are a little different than here in the South. Attitudes here vary between the rural areas & the cities. I'd suspect the same trend in Oregon and other states.

Most places, you can defend pets, like livestock, from other animals if your pets are imperiled. The "hump" to get over is the discharging the firearm in the city limits coupled with the jury feeling sorry for the dog. When I voir dired the jury pool, I'd keep cat people on the jury. That should at least hang the jury. I'd remove anybody who owned dogs & walked them without a leash. It will take a thorough voir dire, that's all.

Also, there are some brands of pellet guns that are powerful (such as Gamo-- one of my brothers claims his Gamo pellet gun is more lethal than his ,22). Personally, I use rat shot in a .22 and aim for the rear. I wouldn't shoot the dog in the chest. Perhaps the chicken owner was a bad shot as well.

 

[b.hromada]

Quote:
Agreed!

 

[roosterjerry]

I have lost hens to dogs. I also have dogs and would be very angry if someone shot them. I was very mad after losing my hens and was ready to shoot anything that came near my yard. There is some point that you understand about living with neighbors ect. Now I have a large bag of firecrackers and if I see a dog unattended near my coop or in my yard I will light a few. The dogs mostly run off. If a dog owner/neighbor hears the pops and comes over They mostly understand and no animals get harmed.