chickenlaw vs. doglaws or out-laws??

[Mother_Hen2011]

Just to be honest my husband would have shot it with a .22 we live out in the country and all of our neighbors know we have chickens and know that if one of their dogs get loose and kill a chicken we will shot to kill. We have had no incidents. Im so sorry it turned out to be this way. Its wrong in so many ways. chickens are live stock and no matter what anyone says you had every right to do that. He wouldnt have gotten off so easily had it been my chickens.

 

[War Chicken]

Quote:
It doesn't really make sense that one must intend to kill the animal. You'd think society in general would prefer a non-lethal approach such as electric fences if possible.

This is all I could find in the FL statutes:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0767/Sections/0767.03.html

767.03 Good defense for killing dog.—In any action for damages or of a criminal prosecution against any person for killing or injuring a dog, satisfactory proof that said dog had been or was killing any animal included in the definitions of “domestic animal” and “livestock” as provided by s. 585.01 shall constitute a good defense to either of such actions.​

 

[thatbloke]

Personally I think you did nothing wrong, what's the difference the dog is in your yard and has been killing your chickens or whatever else it gets into to ? Would the table not be turned if it came in and massacred your chicldrens rabbit ? If they love their dog so much how is it wandering so far, mine stays with me or within sight or voice command all the time ? Yes it's a terrier and they like to do this but if you have a working dog already you should know that you better be containing it. I bought a bee bee gun before I ever had chickens. but I'm going to buy a shotgun as I've seen that chickens bring bigger interest and if you come into my place to eat my chickens there is a price to pay and you had better be fast and good. !
Hang in there

 

[dainerra]

Quote:
It doesn't really make sense that one must intend to kill the animal. You'd think society in general would prefer a non-lethal approach such as electric fences if possible.

This is all I could find in the FL statutes:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0767/Sections/0767.03.html

767.03 Good defense for killing dog.—In any action for damages or of a criminal prosecution against any person for killing or injuring a dog, satisfactory proof that said dog had been or was killing any animal included in the definitions of “domestic animal” and “livestock” as provided by s. 585.01 shall constitute a good defense to either of such actions.
​

electric fences are legal as they are a physical barrier that is created with the intent of dealing a mild electric shock. Now, if you hook it up and boost the voltage to a degree that causes more than "normal" pain, then you would be looking at cruelty.

BB guns, on the other hand, are not designed to be used to kill things like dogs. The only outcome of using them is to cause lasting pain, IE bb stuck in the skin. That is what makes using them animal cruelty. So, yes, non-lethal is good if it is something INTENDED to be a non-lethal deterrent to animals. BB guns, paintball guns, etc are not intended for that purpose and are legally viewed as cruelty in most areas. So, the "he was killing my livestock" defense doesn't hold water if you follow that up with "but he's a cute widdle puppy and I didn't want to hurt him"

I am the one who drew the correlation to self-defense. Because, legally, the reasoning is the same. If you are willing to pull a gun, then you should be willing to use lethal force. You can't have it both ways - either the animal is a predator menacing livestock and causing damage or it is a cute widdle puppy that you don't want to harm.

 

[EweSheep]

I agree with most of us in here, use a gun, not a BB gun. I hope the judge or jury can see that the owners SHOULD be taking care of their dogs and making sure it is contained.

As for the boy, I am suspecious "oh he is his puppy, sleeps on his pillow" trying to get the media and folks outrage. What if the dog really is the mother's? Usually its something heart tugging like that would do that. The boy don't look like he is all that really interested in the dog. He rather go out and play with his friends or ride his bike, etc.

Bottom line, keep the dog contained, not out running around. To OP, next time you see that dog, either catch the dog, call the animal control or shoot to kill if it is going after your chickens. Do not move the dog, just leave it there for evidence for the cops or AC to come, particuarly in the act, or ate a chicken, feathers everywhere.

 

[Ole rooster]

Yep, you brought the whole thing on yourself by going through the "authorities" and not handling it yourself. That's what happens.

Real mess huh?

 

[ladyride]

dont know about cali. but most every city has a form of leash laws if he can't or won't keep his dog on his property s.s.s no more problem

 

[War Chicken]

Quote:
So if a woman pepper sprays her attempted murder she's guilty of battery? Non-lethal force is used all the time in self-defense.

Government agencies often recommend non-lethal methods for controlling livestock predation by wolves, including shooting them with beanbag rounds.

Self-defense against humans is based on the belief of imminent danger to life or limb. The focus is on the mental state of the defendant and whether his or her belief was reasonable and force proportional.

In defense of livestock cases, the statutes focus on proof the animal was in fact killing or harassing livestock. They literally look inside the stomachs of shot dogs for chicken remains. These cases don't turn on the shooter's state of mind or level of force.

The state animal laws I've seen are pretty clear as to the elements of a livestock defense exception and none of them limit the livestock owner to lethal force or require lethal intent.

I'd like you to cite at least one state law that requires lethal force or lethal intent otherwise, it's time to put this urban (or rural) legend to rest.

 

[cybercat 2]

Over the years we've had several attacks by dogs- different dogs, different owners...the last time my neighbor saw two dogs killing a pullet that apparently flew over the fence. My neighbor chased the dogs home and confronted the owner, who OF COURSE denied that her precious dogs would do such a thing. And right in front of her, in her front yard, one of her dogs was chewing on my very dead pullet. I have NEVER been re-paid for any of my dead birds, but we DID make somebody replace our dead llama after their dog killed her ($650 worth...)

I am very sorry for your ordeal. Honest and unbiased reporting seems to be a thing of the past.

 

[dainerra]

Quote:
I never said that it requires lethal force, except that the things used must be as intended. IE pepper spray is meant to be a non-lethal defense. A BB gun isn't intended to shoot animals. So, the woman in your scenario would be fine using pepper spray. But if she took wasp spray and a lighter and used that to defend herself (I've seen this advocated on some sites)? Then she is going to be charged with assault. Why? because it's not a valid form of non-lethal defense, nor is shooting a dog with a BB gun, from a legal standpoint.

again, bean bag rounds might be legal against dogs, as they don't generally cause harm. Though I'm not sure that the average person has access to beanbag rounds. Again, though, a BB gun is designed to pierce the skin and cause damage.