This is just flat out crazy.......

[speckledhen]

You own a dog, you fence it in and make sure it can't get out. PERIOD. Dogs are domesticated animals, not wildlife. They do not NEED freedom. They need to be contained. If you don't contain your dog, said dog may meet a tragic end and it's the owner's fault. I realize there are times that someone, like a meter reader, will open a gate and let a dog out unknowingly, but most of the time, dogs are just allowed to roam, especially in the country, where people think that just because they have an acre, they can do what the heck they want to.
So, all bets are off if the dog is off his own property and off a leash. I live in the country and if I even walk the perimeter road around my property, I put my dog on a leash to do it and I expect the same of everyone else. If you cannot afford a fence and the dog cannot stay in the house all the time, you should not own a dog. On these walks, I am always afraid that the pack of dogs that roams my area will attack my own, so we dont go far away from the house. I shouldn't have to worry about that, but because of irresponsible owners, I must. Dogs in a pack will do things they wouldn't normally do alone.
I love dogs, but you just cannot "shoo" away some dogs and the ones I've seen are very large, although the breeds shall remain nameless, and can do damage if they attack. If any dog is threatening my chickens, it probably will not make it home that night. Same as if it was threatening my own dog or my child. I love dogs and have owned many. They've been given the best of care and have never been allowed loose. I expect the same of everyone who owns a dog, country or city. If you just can't make yourself fence your dog, you are gambling with its life. The Chessies' owners gambled with theirs and they lost and now they're whining about it.

 

[usbr]

The article is overly vauge but given what I read, the guy will walk. The Sherriff probally charged due to outcry from the owners of the animals. Its actually fairly common in a tear jerking situation like that for the (elected) Sherriff to just charge and hand it off to the DA. Most times the DA cant prove the charges so they get dropped but on occation the (elected) DA decided its best to try and go forward anyway. At that time the judge throws it out. The judge will find no law broken and he walks. By that time, it is out of the papers and the judge only losses a few votes come election time rather than many when it is still front page news. Unfortunatly, if it goes as far as court, the guy will need a lawyer and they are not free so indirectally, the owners of the dogs still get a pound of flesh so to speak from the shooter. This is a good thing to keep in mind for all the people out there that can/will/do shoot nusance animals, be prepaired to lawyer up if nessary.

I would like to hear the rest of the story though, apparently he did something to get charged with improper disposal of a companion animal. Hope he loaded them up and dumped them at the owners house. If not, maybe its just another classic case of the Sherriff loading up charges hoping for something to stick.

 

[eggcetra_farms]

In response to:
Quote:
My understanding from reading the article is that these dogs were not "puppies."

The article said, "Whitney and Kenny Wynn are shocked their neighbor would shoot their two dogs. They say they only have these puppy pictures of their Chesapeake Bay Retrievers."

"Puppy pictures" does not mean the dogs were puppies. I have baby pictures I could show you of myself, but I'm not a baby. Chances are they're trying to make these dogs to be adorable and harmless.

Here's what the man who shot them said in the article: "Robert Pennington says the dogs came into his property and he was defending his chickens, his own dog and himself. He says they were bigger than the puppy pictures suggest."

I say they're trying to make them adorable and harmless because I've seen people on court shows take in puppy pictures of their dogs that have wounded innocent children. Of course "puppy wuppy" is so "cutsey wutsey" in the pictures, but you can't deny the damage they did. By the way, I love dogs...but I also know what they can do AND I know it's not the dogs fault. What I've been trying to stress is the fault of the owners not keeping their dogs where they belong. Hopefully EVERYONE can agree that this would have never happened had the owners had control over their dogs.

 

[fowlweatherfriends]

Just shooting them both to me is the most terrible and inhumane thing in the world to do. I mean seriously the easiest thing to do is spray the dog with a water hose or something.

What part of shooting them is inhumane? I have always wondered why people pull the inhumane card all the time. If they are shot and dispatched quickly (like deer hunting) then what is the inhumanity issue? And shooting a dog would be MUCH MORE INHUMANE than letting them tear our chicken babies up piece by slow piece while little Johnny witnesses the demise of his beloved pets?! Shooting has always been much more humane than an animal being physically chased down and killed by biting.

A hose will not prevent an attack, and especially if they are WATER dogs trained to RETRIEVE birds IN WATER, duh...​

 

[Chickenlover88]

I guess nobody agrees with me. I have a water LOVING Boston Terrier (she swims in the pool every day and loves to retrieve, I swear she should be called a boston retriever) and she hates getting sprayed with a hose so does my water loving lab mix, and i'm sure 99% of all dogs do as well. Spray your dog with a hose and i'm sure it will run away. I had a pool guy come out a few years ago who brought his lab. It attacked my chicken and I sprayed it with a hose he immediatly stopped my chicken survived and so did the dog. I also prevented my lab mix from killing my chickens with a hose. If my dogs got out of the house and attacked someones chickens and they were shot, I would be heartbroken. I love my dogs to death.

 

[fowlweatherfriends]

My local laws:

Animals at Large
It is unlawful for any owner or keeper of an animal other than a cat to willfully or negligently allow the animal to run at large on any public property or on any private property of another without permission of the property owner.

Nuisance
It is unlawful for your animal to:

Disturb the rights of, threaten the safety of, or damage a member of the general public or interfere with the ordinary use and enjoyment of their property.
Damage the property of anyone other than its owner, including turning over garbage containers or damaging gardens, flowers or vegetables, or repeated defecation upon the property of another.

All Violations Are Subject To A $525.00 Fine Or 30 Days In Jail!


FYI: My animal control is completely in agreement with shooting any predator on others property.

 

[seedcorn]

At first glance(w/out knowing all the details), shooting the 2 dogs seems excessive to me but what really bothers me is the fact that the authorities would even think about charging him. If anything the dog owners should be charged for not taking care of their dogs......

 

[okiechick57]

Quote:
Makes me wonder what kind of time he would get if he shot the owner of the dogs instead? sad to say...would probably get less time.............. this world is insane like that.....I will pray for mercy for him .........

 

[Jsto]

Before another thread dissolves into something uneccesary, why don't we discuss the real issue, which is not whether it's nice or not to shoot an animal attacking your pets/livestock. The issue is whether or not it's fair to persecute a man for protecting his animals. It's too easy to offend on the internet

I think it's wrong to persecute this man for protecting what is his on HIS property. While I may not follow the same route, like someone else said: dogs are unpredictable. We know nothing about other people's dogs and it's dangerous to think everyone else's dogs are just like our favourite little Rover. Unfortunately, not all animals are well taken care of and socialized. Were you to get in between a strange dog and it's prey, who knows what it could do.

I got bit when I was 7 by a Golden Retriever over jealousy. The dog had never show aggression to anyone. She was chained up with her father constantly and one day as I was petting daddy, she just snapped and lashed out at me. Tore my arm open and ripped out a tendon. 36 stitches later and I learned a very valuable lesson.

I don't own a gun and probably never will, but I see them as more humane then other methods. If something came after my pets, I'd probably be stuck beating it with whatever was nearest. I guess I think of it like stabbing someone with a dull knife as opposed to a sharp one.

At the end of the day, I believe we all have a right to protect what is ours within reason. Going out and shooting a dog for, say, putting one paw on your property or killing an animal because it munched on a couple of your flowers is a bit extreme. I believe persecuting this man is just wrong and silly.

 

[mlheran]

It seems like the only way to "protect" yourself (legally or otherwise) nowadays is to make your house an property and impenatrable fortress, so nothing can get in or out. What a fun and practical prospect.

You'd think people would prefer the simple and more neighborly route of keeping track of their property and making reparations for when things go wrong.

That said, the news article is obviously sensationalized in it's tit-for-tat quotes and lack of important details. In short, it's rather biased and meant to get people's blood up (and readership as well). I really can't make an informed desicion on the suit, but I think the penalties for enforcing your own property are very skewed in comparison with the rarely-enforced fines that could have headed this situation off. Meaning, if animal owners had to repeatedly bail their animals from AC they would probably be more responsible (one would hope!) -and that's the bottom line -more responsible animal ownership!