Dog killed a duck, I asked for $50....

[cjeanean]

Quote:
When hubby gets home we're gonna go over the letter and decide if we want to take the itemization out or not. I am open to all suggestions, and I appreciate the input especially since this is the first time I've ever dealt with this. I mentioned NPIP because there are a couple ducks listed on craigslist, but I'm not getting any non-certified birds. If he does the same thing and says, oh, look, here's a duck for $25, I'll explain to him what that means. And yes, I can prove all of it.

I called Holderreads and asked them about the shipping, and I was told I would need the $9 box for just a single, which the lady said she could send if she had one (by itself, that is). And shipping is $49, she looked it up.

I also called and spoke with a sheriff instead of the operator (yes, I had to specifically ask) and the sheriff guaranteed me that I could still make a report in a week, there is no time limit. He did tell me that the charges that would be filed would go under criminal court, not civil, because what the dog did doesn't necessarily fall under property damage because the duck being killed wasn't willful (as in, the owner didn't "sic" the dog on my duck). He did however say that the charges would most likely fall into the category of neglecting to keep his animal on his property, and that the fact that the dog killed my duck was illegal and that there were penalties. If criminal charges don't satisfy the amount that I asked for then it would go to civil court, like if he's not ordered to pay for a replacement as part of the proceedings.

Missouri's livestock law is under the category of "worrying livestock" and although the word "livestock" is used throughout there are specific mentions of sheep, but no other specifics.

Hubby just got home, so I'll go over the letter with him and see what he says. I'll update you all after we drop it by! Thanks again for the help!

 

[cjeanean]

Well, I took the letter to the guy, and I must say that for some reason his attitude was much better than yesterday. He said it wasn't a problem, but for some reason he did think I was apologizing to him. I did say I was sorry for the inconvenience, but that his dog was responsible. I was nice about it and he was agreeable as well, so I guess we'll see what happens. I did not change the date that I wanted payment by, I want it by the 24th or for him to at least contact me about paying me. I understand if money's tight, so if he wants to do 2 $25 payments I'm cool with that. I just definitely want my replacement hen by the end of February. He said paying for it wasn't a problem, and his dog will hopefully not be coming around my property anymore. I would hate for this to turn into a feud.

So we'll see how it goes. We'll know in a week! Thanks for posting, everyone, and I'll update when I have something to post!

 

[CoopCreations]

Quote:
You're going to get the minority trying to scare you that you shouldn't have done that, blah blah. As far as the law is concerned, a pet is a pet, livestock is livestock. Emotions mean zero in this case, so stick to the facts. This is a not a bleeding heart case. The dog trespassed and did harm to your property and livestock. No brainer case closed. However, you said something about not being able to shoot a gun "in your city". That may be a cause for concern if your city does not allow livestock and many do not. Including fowl, but I digress.

So, here is where you pull the old reliable state laws from the "olden days". Even here is Michigan, there are REAL tough laws about dogs killing, molesting, chasing, etc. Specifically, the "Dog Laws of 1919", Section 287.280, states in part

..a township officer or other person designated by the township board shall request the district court judge to immediately issue a summons against the owner commanding him or her to appear before the township supervisor or township officer or other person designated by the township board and show cause why the dog should not be killed.

and states further...

Upon the return day fixed in the summons the township supervisor or township officer or other person designated by the township board shall proceed to determine whether the loss or damage to the livestock was caused by the dog, and if so he or she shall immediately notify the sheriff or the animal control officer of the county of that fact and upon notification the sheriff or the animal control officer shall kill the dog wherever found. Any owner or keeper of the dog or dogs shall be liable to the county in a civil action for all damages and costs paid by the county on any claim as provided in this section.

And, if you don't want to have to go through all of that malarkey, you can just handle the problem yourself next time:

Michigan State statue Dog Law of 1919, Act 339 of 1919. Section 287.279 spells it out very clearly in Section 19

Any person including a law enforcement officer may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, worrying, or wounding any livestock or poultry or attacking persons, and there shall be no liability on such person in damages or otherwise, for such killing. Any dog that enters any field or enclosure which is owned by or leased by a person producing livestock or poultry, outside of a city, unaccompanied by his owner or his owner's agent, shall constitute a trespass, and the owner shall be liable in damages.

I am sure if you look hard enough you will find such laws in about any state. So, if the city/township does not provide for it, you can cite state law. And, if you're lucky enough to live in Michigan, I just did all the work for you!

Good Luck.​

Actually, a few of the states have gotten away from this. I checked the animal law website and was surprised that Missouri doesn't list a "kill a livestock killing dog" law. In some states, the dog owner even can request a hearing to determine his dog's innocence or guilt. Thankfully, in Nebraska we can still shoot livestock harrassing dogs. The problem with pellet, bb and paint guns is that they are often not lethal. The laws specifically state that you can kill the dog. There is nothing saying that it is OK to wound, bruise, break the skin, etc. The courts have generally upheld that your intent must be lethal or you can be charged with cruelty. It's stupid, but that's the way it is. Shoot to kill. Everything else is a can of worms.​

I am going to have to object here. No laws cited and completely unfounded. I would like to see some jurisprudence of your claims or some quoted laws. "Some states have gotten away from this" suggests that we should just drop the constitution and make laws up as we go along. Where is the law that states a dog has a right to a hearing? Does the duck get a hearing too? Sorry to be brash here, but the facts are that Missouri does have statutes against dogs killing livestock. Also, the cruelty to animals thing makes me laugh. That reasoning would also hold true if someone broke into my home to cause me or my family harm. I shoot him with a pellet gun because that is all the law allows me to have, so I am guilty of being cruel because I didn't kill him? Further, people that say pellet guns are not lethal should check their facts. Pellet guns today are not your grandpa's RedRyder BB gun. I have two that shoot 1000fps, one is .177 and the other is .22. Both are very capable of piercing a canines skull. Or, you could check the story of the guy in New Jersey that shot his wife in the back with a pellet gun and killed her.

From the great State of Missouri:

Dogs may be killed when:

273.030. If any person shall discover any dog or dogs in the act of killing, wounding or chasing sheep in any portion of this state, or shall discover any dog or dogs under such circumstances as to satisfactorily show that such dog or dogs has or have been recently engaged in killing or chasing sheep or other domestic animal or animals, such person is authorized to immediately pursue and kill such dog or dogs; provided, however, that such dog or dogs shall not be killed in any enclosure belonging to or being in lawful possession of the owner of such dog or dogs.

Don't know when a sheep became so important in Missouri, but hell, its the law. Anyway....good talk.​

 

[CityChicker]

Quote:
Yay! That's awesome! I hope he comes through for you. He sounds a bit narcissistic really, making this about him not your dead bird. It sounded like he was just looking for a reason to not pay you with the way you described his initial attitude. I'm sure the way you and your husband handled yourselves is what turned the situation around. You should be very proud of yourself for asserting your rights calmly and respectively. I wish I could learn to do that more often. There is a lot to be said for that saying about getting more flies with honey. LOL I hope all works out well for you!

 

[cjeanean]

Thanks, I really hope he comes through. I'm not holding my breath, I've heard too many stories on here about 2-faced neighbors in situations like this. If I'm lucky it'll be a quickly resolved issue.

On a side note, I think I've decided what I'm gonna have to do. I'm going to be getting a small order from Ideal and selling the extras or raising and selling them. The minimum cost I can come up with is $40, and that's including a couple chicks so I don't have too many darn ducks in the order. I'm gonna butcher my mixed drakes because I don't really need them and make room for hens to replace them, then I'm also gonna butcher some of my roos to make room for the packing peanuts that I'm sure I'll get (until they're butchered) and Ameraucana hens. I've always wanted one or 2 green egg layers. I might try caponizing any packing peanuts I get, but my biggest concern is feed costs. I have it down to a science with the birds I have right now, so I can't go over a certain number in my flock.

Now in a week we'll see what the neighbor does. And hopefully if he comes through it won't be too late to order what I want from Ideal.

Thanks for the support, everyone....

 

[cjeanean]

Well, came home today and the dog was back with his buddy. I didn't see them on my property, we were turning onto my street as they were leaving our street, so I'm not going to say anything to the guy because although I'm reasonably sure they were drooling over my ducks I didn't actually see it and I refuse to lie about it. Tomorrow I'll be up bright and early with my pellet gun, though, believe that. Ol' boy was warned. I know now that the dog isn't vicious (at least I'm pretty sure) so if I can avoid shooting it I will. I'd hate for a dog to lose its life because of an irresponsible owner. I'm documenting all of it, that's for sure. I'll be waiting.