Predators and the Moral Dilemma

OldGuy43, I think your a better man than I am. I would have told him, No I use a 22LR. So keep your dog up or I'll use it on him if I see him after my chickens. I don't understand why they want to build more house in this economy and destroy woodlands.
 
use buckshot on both of them. livestock laws say you kill what ever poses a threat to your livestock and Castle doctrine says you can kill anyone that threatens you on your land with no legal repercussions so shot both and solve two problems.
 
FWIW,I am a major dog lover. I've owned several rescues. I'm the person my friends come to when they find a stray.

But anyone who doesn't abide by local laws with their dogs is a bad owner. Period. If this dude isn't adhering to local laws and is letting his dogs be put in dangerous situations (i.e. in front of your loaded gun) then that is on HIM, no you.
 
Quote:
to be honest I see very little problem here... though it is not the dog's fault, it will ultimately pay the price for it's owner's irresponsibility. Your animal's safety in your property trumps the well being of any trespassing predators.

The only thing I disagree with is the use of pellet gun.... when we decide to shoot, it's to kill, not to harm. A pellet lodge in the wrong place can mean a slow painfull death to the animals... which I think is unnecessary.

As for capital punishment.. it's neither a punishment nor a deterrent... it's a mean to end waste of resources on a redundant human being.
wink.png
 
I was thinking the same thing about the pellet gun being considered cruelty.Shoot to kill.SSS seems to be the way to go too,because people usually freak on you even when you are in the right.

Eye for a eye for people who kill people.Wish the actuaul time to execution was way shorter,and the death a bit more painful than a sleepy time injection.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom