chickenlaw vs. doglaws or out-laws??

[War Chicken]

Quote:
Sorry, but there are no animal cruelty statutes where the livestock exception depends on the method of defense. Let's look at one statute and see if we can find any consideration of the design and intended use of a weapon:

42.09. Cruelty to Animals
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly:

(1) tortures an animal;
(2) fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, care, or shelter for an animal in the person's custody;
(3) abandons unreasonably an animal in the person's custody;
(4) transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner;
(5) kills, seriously injures, or administers poison to an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's effective consent;
(6) causes one animal to fight with another;
(7) uses a live animal as a lure in dog race training or in dog coursing on a racetrack;
(8) trips a horse;
(9) injures an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's effective consent; or
(10) seriously overworks an animal.

...

(e) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(5) that the animal was discovered on the person's property in the act of or immediately after injuring or killing the person's goats, sheep, cattle, horses, swine, or poultry and that the person killed or injured the animal at the time of this discovery.

Nope, nothing.

Wounding a dog with a BB gun or killing it with a real gun would both be considered animal cruelty under (a)(5) yet one would have a valid defense if the dog was attacking livestock. Sub-section (e) doesn't say that only killing the animal is acceptable.​

 

[dainerra]

but, the point is, that animal cruelty still applies. So, if you do something "cruel" to stop the dog that is attacking livestock, then you run the risk of being charged with animal cruelty. It's a simple case of "two wrongs don't make a right"

The livestock exemption specifically states that you can't be charged for KILLING the dog. It doesn't say "do whatever you want to stop the dog, even if it is illegal"

 

[OldGuy43]

What I found most telling was not the video itself, (typical slanted, sensationalist reporting) but some of the comments to it; to wit:

Corruption SD
If someone tried to shoot my dog -- they would be met with my shotgun before they even pulled the trigger -- because we all know the worthless DA won't do anything to this low class nutjob who is a liar, doesn't know how to act like an adult, has no IMPULSE CONTROL and has no remorse. A 2 pound dog -- and you use a BB Gun? Sounds like an animal who has nothing but air in the head.

tuffyturf
This problem is easily solved... simply find something that is poisonous to people, but not to chickens... feed the chickens the poison and you take care of the white trash. I do agree that there appears to be more going on here, why is this dog even remotely allowed to go near these peoples homes.. ? The DA's decision is typical, they only prosecute when a story goes to the news.. I bet they reconsider this case now.. If someone shot my dog with a BB gun, I would introduce them to my friend Smith Wesson.​

 

[War Chicken]

Quote:
Yes, it still applies. Your original argument was that you have to try to kill, not merely wound, the attacking animal. Either act is considered animal cruelty unless the animal is attacking livestock. Now you're agreeing with me in that the law makes no distinction between killing or wounding the animal.

Quote:
Uh, no. (a)(5) states "kills, seriously injures, or administers poison to an animal" and (e) says "killed or injured."

Perhaps you're confusing this with euthanasia exceptions where only certain methods considered humane are permitted. Those don't apply to livestock defense. They apply to vets and euthanasia techs, etc. They can put down animals with the owner's consent and in a humane manner. They can't shoot a dog 29 times with a BB gun to kill it.

 

[dainerra]

no, the livestock laws exempt a livestock owner who kills a dog in defense of his livestock.

from the AR code (all the states have the same exemption) and I have bolded the relevant part

§ 20-19-102. Domesticated animals--Injuries by dogs

(a)(1) “Domesticated animals” includes, but is not limited to, sheep, goats, cattle, swine, and poultry.

(2) Any person owning or having in possession or under control any dog shall be liable in damages to the owner or owners of any domesticated animals killed or injured by the dog in the full value of the domesticated animal killed or injured.

(b)(1) Any person engaged in raising domesticated animals or owning any domesticated animals who shall sustain any loss or damages to his or her or their domesticated animals by any dog shall have a right of action against the owner, person, or controller of the dog.

(2) Any person knowing that any dog has killed or is about to catch, injure, or kill any domesticated animal shall have the right to kill the dog, without in any way being liable to the owner of the dog in any courts of this state.

the law does not, however, say that the owner of the livestock has a right to treat the dog in any way that would be considered cruel or inhumane.

I don't know where you got "shooting the dog with a BB gun 29 times to kill it" ?? If you use a BB gun, one shot or 500 shots, then you are violating the cruelty laws and can be charged. It doesn't matter if you can prove that the dog attacked livestock or not.
Whereas if you KILL the dog in a normal way (shoot it with a rifle or something) then you are exempt from the liability. Now, if you shoot the dog in the stomach and let it drag itself off to die a slow painful death, then yup. You're going to be charged with cruelty.

It comes down to this. Livestock law allows you to stop a dog from killing your poultry. It doesn't exempt you from treating the dog cruelly or inhumanely. When the OP shot the dog with a BB gun, he violated the cruelty laws. If he had just shot the dog, then he wouldn't be in trouble with the law right now, provided he meets the law in his state for being allowed to protect his livestock. In some states, that means that you have to wait until the dog kills livestock. In AR, that means that the dog is ABOUT to kill or even injure livestock.

Again, though, it says I can KILL the dog. It doesn't say shoot it or treat it cruelly.

 

[War Chicken]

Quote:
It says one has the right to kill the dog but doesn't limit one to only killing it. AR animal cruelty law does in fact consider killing an animal to be animal cruelty:

§ 5-62-103. Offense of cruelty to animals

(a) A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly:

(2) Kills or injures any animal owned by another person without legal privilege or consent of the owner;

Yet another state that considers both injuring and killing an animal to be animal cruelty.

The Arkansas animal cruelty statute is more clear on this matter:

§ 5-62-105. Exemptions

(a) This subchapter does not prohibit any of the following activities:

(1) Reasonably acting to protect a person or a person's property from damage;

(2) Injuring or humanely killing an animal on the property of a person if the person is acting as a reasonable person would act under similar circumstances and if the animal is reasonably believed to constitute a threat of physical injury or damage to any animal under the care or control of the person;

You can injure or humanely kill the dog. Notice that "humanely" only modifies "kill" not "injure." If the original poster lived in AR, injuring it with a BB gun would have been perfectly legal.​

 

[War Chicken]

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter9-2.html

Dogs Attacking People or Livestock

Generally, it's perfectly legal to do anything necessary to stop a dog caught in the act of attacking a person or livestock. A dog's owner is not legally entitled to any money from someone who injures or kills the dog while protecting a person or farm animal from attack. Nor is the person guilty of a criminal offense; many animal cruelty laws specifically exempt the act of injuring or killing a dog in these circumstances.​

 

[hemet dennis]

so if all i have is a baseball bat and i kill the dog in the chicken coop. can you see how that would get spun i would end up the bad guy

 

[OldGuy43]

Quote:
Not as far as I'm concerned.

 

[mulewagon]

Ugh, what horrid, horrid people! So their dog can do anything it wants, they have no responsibility at all? How sweet for them!

I guess I'm a cruel person or something, but if my dog was running off and bothering people, I would be immensely grateful if the neighbor just popped him with a BB, instead of blowing him to smithereens. But of course I know if a dog lives outside, he's going to get some injuries. If you want him uninjured, you make him a house dog.

(It sounded from the news story like everyone in the neighborhood had tried to kill this dog, but only Kim got caught!)