Need help calculating the cost of lost chickens PLEASE!

[BigDaddy'sGurl]

Again, though, I am confused. Say you asked 15.00 each (what I consider acceptable for a production point of lay pullet in my area) and you used that 15.00 each to buy a new bird... that new bird is going to also lay eggs. So if you in turn asked for 35.00 based on lost income, how is that fair? Aren't you getting the "merchandise" in the form of eggs from the new bird? So you're getting repaid twice, in my opinion.

 

[peterlund]

Easy calculation. First: Repeat offense. $1200. Second: Unleashed and unattended dog, hazard to all $2800 Third: Prized pets and potential showbird breeding stock $4600 Forth; you seemingly endless Self restraint $8000 Fifth: The cost of you NOT buying a more viscous and blood thirsty dog to tear the life out of your uncaring neighbors dog on a whim.... Lets say a navy trained american bulldog $2000. So if you add it all up, without all the stress and duress fees you have acquired, then 35 bucks a chicken is downright charitable.... Also you can add that you saved the neighbor from re-imbursing you for the 12 gauge shotgun, the shells and the shovel you would need to buy to dig the hole to bury his dead dog in... never mind the cost of your time... My rant! I just felt like typing. Tell him to pay the $35 bucks each, keep his dog leashed and if he refuses drag his a$$ to court for principle....

 

[OldGuy43]

BigDaddy'sGurl :

Again, though, I am confused. Say you asked 15.00 each (what I consider acceptable for a production point of lay pullet in my area) and you used that 15.00 each to buy a new bird... that new bird is going to also lay eggs. So if you in turn asked for 35.00 based on lost income, how is that fair? Aren't you getting the "merchandise" in the form of eggs from the new bird? So you're getting repaid twice, in my opinion.

I'm not confused at all. Yes, the new bird may eventually lay eggs, maybe not. That's after you get the money, go through the hassle of quarantining the new bird and integrating it into the flock.

I can't speak for North Carolina law, but here in Texas (the OP is from Texas) you are responsible for any damage your pet does. Considering that this was the third time that the dog had attacked there's a really good chance that a Texas court would award punitive damages as well. Oh, and under Texas law you have a right to protect your livestock and still recover damages so the OP could have killed the dog and still been awarded all of this.

Taking all of that into consideration $35.00/bird strikes me as dirt cheap. We take livestock seriously here in Texas.​

 

[123ChickieLou]

BigDaddy'sGurl :

Again, though, I am confused. Say you asked 15.00 each (what I consider acceptable for a production point of lay pullet in my area) and you used that 15.00 each to buy a new bird... that new bird is going to also lay eggs. So if you in turn asked for 35.00 based on lost income, how is that fair? Aren't you getting the "merchandise" in the form of eggs from the new bird? So you're getting repaid twice, in my opinion.

Because she's going to have to invest that much back in to get her flock to the point of laying that it was when the dog killed them. It will take her at least 6 months time to rebuild her flock and get them all laying again and start selling again. The labor, care and feed are what make up the amount. This is six month she'll go without laying hens and the income from the eggs; at least that, if the neighbor starts paying it off now. if not, it would be even longer. And what about future lost sales from being out of production for so long? Thirty-five is fair. She's not asking for the full 700 eggs each had the potential to lay, only for 200.​

 

[Anarchy82]

Quote:
Because she's going to have to invest that much back in to get her flock to the point of laying that it was when the dog killed them. It will take her at least 6 months time to rebuild her flock and get them all laying again and start selling again. The labor, care and feed are what make up the amount. This is six month she'll go without laying hens and the income from the eggs; at least that, if the neighbor starts paying it off now. if not, it would be even longer. And what about future lost sales from being out of production for so long? Thirty-five is fair. She's not asking for the full 700 eggs each had the potential to lay, only for 200.

X2

The only other thing you could do is buy already laying chickens. Except you could run into the problem I did. I bought 10, then ended up having to sell 3 for way less then I bought because they were attacking the other chickens. Plus the headaches of trying to get them to all get along. Just not worth it. Get them young, that way you can train them.

 

[BigDaddy'sGurl]

Well, I will just agree to disagree. My response was not if you use the money to invest in day old chicks...around here, it only costs me about 7-8 dollars in feed to get my day olds to point of lay. I was saying if you took the 15.00 and bought point-of lay pullets...then you may wait a whole whopping 2 weeks for eggs. So far as quarantine, if you lost that many birds, wouldn't buying the same number back just make it a whole new flock? That's my philosophy anyway. And who's to say that the flock of killed birds would have continued to lay like anyone would have assumed? Just because a breed of chicken "typically" lays a certain way does not mean your individual bird will follow suit... I just think asking for the cost of reimbursement of eggs when your new birds will be providing the "lost eggs" is over the top.

 

[mythkat]

She has already lost production 3 times. There are 9 hens that have not been producing since the last attack. What about her time and effort and the feed invested in the lost birds already. She deserves to paid for her work. If this had been cattle or sheep and they were pregnant she would be able to ask for the loss on the calves or lambs for their future sales. This is the problem, people still have the attitude that they are "just chickens" and therefore are not as important as larger livestock.

 

[BigDaddy'sGurl]

Quote:
I would never ever say they are "just chickens". Don't know where that came from. Remind me (because I don't have time to read back 4 pages) why these dogs weren't shot or trapped for animal control after the first attack? I mean, at some point someone has to take responsibility for the damage if the owner won't. No, we shouldn't HAVE to fortify our coops and make them impenetrable on our property, yes we SHOULD be able to freerange without supervision, but if my birds were repeatedly getting killed, I would sit back and think of some way to keep them safe since it is an ongoing problem. You will never make me see the fairness in getting paid twice for one loss. You just won't and lumping me with people who think they are "just chickens" only cheapens the difference of opinion.

 

[Mamma_Duck04]

Big Daddy's Gurl- it's just like the other livestock mentioned. It's expected in most places that if you're liable for a pregnant cow dying, you're responsible for the cost of the cow & the calf. Why aren't you only responsible for the cost of the cow, because then they could just replace it & impregnate & have a calf to 'replace' the lost calf? Why be responsible for the calf? That's the point people here are making. Where the OP is from, she's allowed to charge for loss of production (eggs), so it's acceptable where she lives. I can't remember what state was posted about by another poster, but the reimbursement cost for larger livestock was capped at $400/ea (I read that & tried thinking of any marketable livestock that would only cost $400 to replace!)- in places like that, she wouldn't be allowed to get more than $10/ea for her chickens, so it's not acceptable there.

With your thinking, that who's to say those chickens would have even laid those eggs, etc.- who's to say that cow would have birthed a living calf, or a calf that would make income vs. just up & dying in the snow or some such? Yet in some places, you're STILL responsible for that calf if you caused the death of the cow. And in some places, you can be held responsible for the loss of productions if you kill a chicken.

 

[BigDaddy'sGurl]

I am sorry but you are beating a dead horse with me. I will never agree with double reimbursement for a singular loss. I just won't. So far as the cow goes, no offense, but monetarily a cow is worth a heck of a lot more financially than a chicken. And what if the cow was just bred the week before her death? Do you ask for compensation for a possible birthing when the breeding may not have "taken"? It just gets to the point of nit picking to make an example...

Again, no offense, but I am still at a loss as to why these birds weren't better protected if they were worth so very much? Like I said before, in a perfect world, all dogs and other predators would be kept off our properties... but this isn't a perfect world so some of the responsibility for taking care of our own falls on us, the owners.