"Taxpayers should not be obligated to support hobbies"
It is not necessarily a hobby for a lot of backyard flock owners. There's a lot of time and money invested, and the flock does generate some revenue, if only on a smaller scale. They also provide a source of food. Counties here will compensate a poultry owner if their birds are killed by stray dogs. There is no difference in this situation, IMO.
I invest more than most. I have no little amount in what I have, growing out, etc. Then there is no price tag I could put on the progress I could lose. I could not count the many hours I have spent going through my many birds from day to day evaluating etc.
I still to hold to the position that Taxpayers should not be obligated to support hobbies. If I lost everything I had to dogs, and the option you speak of was an option to me, I would not use it. I made the choice to do what I do, and it is my responsibility alone to protect what I have invested. If I lose birds to dogs I am in part responsible because I did not secure my birds. Otherwise it is between me and the owner of those dogs, which I would pursue if it could be known.
My view shifts when the birds are part of a flock that is an authentic and recognized farm that actually contributes in a substantial way to the food supply. I am not speaking of someone selling extra eggs. WalnutHill would be what I am referring to. In these cases the public (taxpayers) are dependents, and would starve otherwise. In this case they should have an invested interest in the food supply that feeds them, and their families.