Sad story - neighbor shoots dog

[JanM]

Frankly, my view is that my animals come first, and when an animal is on my property it’s an intruder. I don’t care what the Brittany owner says, I bet this animal wandered at will, and I’m surprised it didn’t get squashed by a car or take by another wandering animal or predator first. And for those that say the homeowner should shoot to wound or with paintball, I disagree. The dog owner is the type of person who would have sued for damages, and it would have meant the same protests anyway.

The guy next door has no fence and a Mastiff, and he can control the dog. However, the wife is not the dog’s master, and it ignores her. She lets the dog out to relieve itself, and that results in taking a dump on my property (the unfenced front yard), and resulted in me taking the poop next door, dumping it on the front porch, and ringing the bell and telling her why a huge, steaming pile was now smeared all over her porch. The dog was let out the next day, and went to say hi to a couple of passing neighbors, who were both walking dogs on leashes, and pushing their kids in strollers. The dog was friendly, but would leave them alone. The wife had to go out and drag the dog away, and animal control made a little visit that afternoon. I haven’t run into this dog more than once, but it was on my property, and was barking at me, and it obviously thinks it’s on his own territory. The wife now uses a leash when the dog goes out, and if looks could kill I’d be stone cold dead-too bad for her.

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=pAin’t_Misbehavin’;6780619]
I guess I’m like Sheriff Andy Taylor - or I try to be. I just don’t see the need for a gun most of the time.

I live in the land of the free-range canine. Yeah, they have occasionally chased my horses. I run out into the pasture and I chase the dog(s) the heck out of my pasture. I grab a big stick and I holler like a crazy woman and I lay into the dog if it’s stupid enough to let me close enough to make contact. But most of 'em aren’t that stupid. (BTW, I have also broken the neighborhood dogs from chasing my truck using the same method. It startles one’s passengers:winkgrin: but it works!)

Now I don’t dispute the right of the rabbit-owning neighbor to shoot the Brittany. Even taking the dog owner’s word that the rabbit-owning neighbor never warned him (which I doubt!) the dog owner still knew his neighbor had rabbits and his dog was loose. What the heck did the dog owner think was gonna happen?

But I get a little tired of the gun-toting self-righteousness of these threads. Yeah, you got the right to shoot the dog if it harasses your stock. But if know your neighbors and their dogs - why not just chase the animal off first and then go talk to the dog’s owner? That has worked 100% of the time for me. But if it doesn’t - why shoot the dog? Why not just fix it so the dog can’t hurt your stock again? I mean, this was a Brittany for Christ’s sake - not a Bengal tiger. Would it have been that hard to take it to a no-kill shelter in the next county? Or is Bwana so scared of 40 lbs of orange and white fluff he needs big firepower to dispatch it? :rolleyes:

I don’t know. Some folks live like they’re never gonna need a favor from their neighbors.:no: News flash - every one of us will at some point.[/QUOTE]

I’m most definitely not a gun crazy nut and I’d love to see very stringent gun control laws like Canada’s, but until you’ve seen your neighbor try to beat dogs off after they’ve torn the nose off a cow protecting her calf, you just don’t have a clue. They turned on him, he beat them off with a stick.

Would you believe that the same dogs were loose again, I called animal control to pick them up, and the owner is made at me for not shooting them? You can’t win. Next time I imagine they will get the bullet. You just can’t reason with some neighbors.

[pAin_t_Misbehavin]

[QUOTE=LauraKY;6781426]
I’m most definitely not a gun crazy nut and I’d love to see very stringent gun control laws like Canada’s, but until you’ve seen your neighbor try to beat dogs off after they’ve torn the nose off a cow protecting her calf, you just don’t have a clue. They turned on him, he beat them off with a stick.

Would you believe that the same dogs were loose again, I called animal control to pick them up, and the owner is made at me for not shooting them? You can’t win. Next time I imagine they will get the bullet. You just can’t reason with some neighbors.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I bet the neighbor was mad - if you’d shot them, he probably wouldn’t be facing a fine from AC. Nice how he expects you to clean up his mess!

I am always amazed that we don’t have dog packs running around here. Because practically no one fences their dogs where I live. But I’ve only ever seen one feral-looking dog pack in the fifteen years I’ve lived here, and they scuttled for the woods as fast as they could go when I glanced in their direction. Anyway, I agree a pack situation might call for a weapon. But that doesn’t seem to have been the case with the Brittany.

[Rallycairn]

Am I understanding some of you correctly that you would consider shooting a loose dog that came on your property even if it weren’t threatening anything? I don’t want to misunderstand or extrapolate, but a few statements have implied that – someone upthread did mention feeling comfortable shooting a dog if it got in his fenced yard, I think? ??

Like JSwan pointed out earlier, there are many places/circumstances where a loose dog is perfectly legal, such as a hunting dog, and still many places with no leash laws, so dogs are allowed legally to be loose.

As I’ve said, I still find things in the current situation to be questionable, though many of the other scenarios described in this thread seemed to clearly warrant deadly force. You do have to protect your own animals of any species.

[LauraKY]

Rallycairn, no I would not shoot a loose dog that wasn’t bothering my horses. We have them…several go traveling through the back pasture and never bother anyone or anything.

As a matter of fact, only the two dogs I had picked up by A/C have ever been a problem. But they’ve been a HUGE problem.

[millerra]

[QUOTE=caballero;6780837]
A) You assume way too much

B) Who gives a crap if he knew or didn’t know whose dog it was? Certainly not me.[/QUOTE]

Because, according to the news story, the two neighbors did not get along (complaints against each other). The neighbor who shot the dog had complained about the dog wandering in the yard (note- reported as wandering, not causing problems). The neighbors complained about the guy shooting his guns. So, he knew the dog. And if you can’t ID what you are shooting, you don’t shoot. Period. Therefore, I call BS on that fact that he didn’t know the dog. And if he’s lying about THAT, then that brings into question his whole story.

Were the dog owners at fault for letting the dog wander? Absolutely.

Are people allowed to protect their livestock using lethal force? Absolutely.

Did this guy shoot the dog just because he could? Possibly.

And why do I stand so firmly on knowing what you are shooting? Because every year people and other animals, including horses, DIE during hunting season because someone thought they saw a deer and shot…

[BabyGoose]

[QUOTE=GotGait;6781079]
There was another news article with pictures of the protestors. I feel like I live on a different planet than these people. Take a look at the signs:

http://www.wcvb.com/news/local/boston-north/Protesters-rally-near-home-of-man-who-shot-neighbor-s-dog/-/11984708/18116192/-/12jbb3m/-/index.html

ETA: 50 people stood outside this guys house all day. 50 people. And they came from Massachessetts. What a crock.[/QUOTE]

Sadie just wanted to play with the rabbits… “she was a playful dog, she played with squirrels and chipmunks.”

Oh heck! What are these people thinking. Yeah, played with them until they were dead. And I am sure the squirrels and chipmunks loved playing with Sadie too.

These protesters make me so mad. And they will probably manage to get the law changed, and there will be no protection or recourse for people that lose animals to stray dogs. No longer any incentive to keep dogs confined. There have been many arguments on this board about just how far people could take humane laws, and could they actually take away our use of horses etc. If this ends up changing laws on protecting livestock from roaming dogs, then I am inclined to believe we could actually go down that slippery slope.

[Lin]

If a dog is harassing your livestock, I don’t see why it matters “which dog”, it is a dog harassing your livestock. You don’t need to know its name

[caballero]

[QUOTE=millerra;6781553]
Because, according to the news story, the two neighbors did not get along (complaints against each other). As much as you would like it to be, there is no relevance to this re the reason for shooting the dog. Dog trying to get into chicken coop is liable to get shot no matter the past history.

The neighbor who shot the dog had complained about the dog wandering in the yard (note- reported as wandering, not causing problems).
Why shouldn’t he complain? And it goes to show that evidently the dog got the benefit of the doubt for as long as it could.

The neighbors complained about the guy shooting his guns.
Ahhh, now we get to the meat of the matter. A masshole/citiot moves to NH and is shocked to learn that in NH it is very easy to legally shoot on one’s property. Screw him. He should move back to town or to another state. Having been to NH several times to visit my “gun nut” friends I have heard their complaints ad nauseum of migrants from the south coming over and wanting to turn everything to the way it was in Mass.

So, he knew the dog. And if you can’t ID what you are shooting, you don’t shoot. Period. Therefore, I call BS on that fact that he didn’t know the dog. And if he’s lying about THAT, then that brings into question his whole story.
WTH are you on now? Not knowing who the dog belongs to is NOWHERE near the same as not knowing what you are shooting at. He saw A PREDATOR trying to get to his animals. That’s enough ID to drop the hammer in any rational person’s playbook.

And why do I stand so firmly on knowing what you are shooting? Because every year people and other animals, including horses, DIE during hunting season because someone thought they saw a deer and shot.
Non-sequitur …[/QUOTE]

See my replies in red

[millerra]

Since I can’t figure out how to quote a quote…

No it is NOT ok to think you see a unidentified predator trying to get into cage and shoot.

What if had been a child wearing brown pants on the far side of the cage harassing the rabbit. UNIDENTIFIED = a bad shoot. UNIDENTIFIED gets innocent things killed.

You and I don’t know what he saw. You and I don’t know if the dog was sniffing the cage or trying to tear it open. WE don’t know. All I’m saying is that there is the possibility that he chose to shoot the dog because he could out of spite for the neighbor.

please continue to swear…(WTH) - it really adds to the rationality of your arguments.

[Lin]

I thought he saw a dog. Though I guess I might have looked like a fox or coyote.

[caballero]

[QUOTE=millerra;6781679]
What if had been a child wearing brown pants on the far side of the cage harassing the rabbit. [/QUOTE]

LOL

[Alagirl]

[QUOTE=Lin;6781687]
Though I guess I might have looked like a fox or coyote.[/QUOTE]

Foxy Lady?

[millerra]

[QUOTE=caballero;6781717]
LOL[/QUOTE]

not funny at all. FWIW, I think he identified it as a dog, as a brittany.

BUT since you think it’s funny -

driver of a brown van, shot and killed because the shooter thought the brown van was a deer.

Turkey hunter shot and killed because the shooter thought it was a bobcat.

White horse with child rider, shot and killed because the hunter saw white (tail of deer) and shot.

2 yr old child in a stroller, out for a walk with mom and dog, shot and killed by the neighbor shooting at the dog.

Oh, so so funny.

[Alagirl]

[QUOTE=millerra;6781679]
Since I can’t figure out how to quote a quote…

No it is NOT ok to think you see a unidentified predator trying to get into cage and shoot.

What if had been a child wearing brown pants on the far side of the cage harassing the rabbit. UNIDENTIFIED = a bad shoot. UNIDENTIFIED gets innocent things killed.

You and I don’t know what he saw. You and I don’t know if the dog was sniffing the cage or trying to tear it open. WE don’t know. All I’m saying is that there is the possibility that he chose to shoot the dog because he could out of spite for the neighbor.

please continue to swear…(WTH) - it really adds to the rationality of your arguments.[/QUOTE]

unidentified dog does not equal he didn’t know what (species) he was shooting at!

Do you get paid for coming up with ridiculous scenarios like that?

I am pretty sure that even in bad light you can tell a child with brown pants from a dog.canine like creature!
Not to mention that people do usually show a reaction to warning shots (and if not, they probably need killin anyhow…)

The guy said he could not tell it was the neighbor’s dog, big difference from ‘unidentified’
It really is of no consequence. Canine bothered the rabbit hutch. Canine died.
Only because useless dog owner allowed dog to roam, ‘play’ with neighbor’s prey animal pets…you do realize how quickly ‘play’ can end when dog meets rabbit? Quicker than two shakes of a lambs tale…

[millerra]

@Alagirl;6781740

unidentified dog does not equal he didn’t know what (species) he was shooting at!

Do you get paid for coming up with ridiculous scenarios like that?

Yeah, right. See my next post. I WISH I was paid to make up those scenarios. Please feel free to google those “stories”. They all happened in MN and WI over the last few years.

[MistyBlue]

Because, according to the news story, the two neighbors did not get along (complaints against each other). The neighbor who shot the dog had complained about the dog wandering in the yard (note- reported as wandering, not causing problems). The neighbors complained about the guy shooting his guns. So, he knew the dog. And if you can’t ID what you are shooting, you don’t shoot. Period. Therefore, I call BS on that fact that he didn’t know the dog. And if he’s lying about THAT, then that brings into question his whole story.

Were the dog owners at fault for letting the dog wander? Absolutely.

Are people allowed to protect their livestock using lethal force? Absolutely.

Did this guy shoot the dog just because he could? Possibly.

I understand that the shooting of a dog really bothers a lot of people. It bothers those shooting it also.

The article was written with a definite bias. As with normal media, firearm stories sell a lot due to many people finding them scary. Dog stories sell due to many people loving dogs. A dog being shot? Media gold. This isn’t a slam to the media…they’re a business and the purpose of a business is to be successful and make income.
However the media is hardly ever neutral. Even if a story is very neutral, media will spin it to maximize attention/income. It’s their job.

People are naive and tend to believe the media stories they want to believe. If this story was told by the other angle…rabbit owner worried about his rabbits and deals with neighbor’s illegally uncontained dog repeatedly coming over and bothering them and reporting to authorities doesn’t help. Neighbors ignore asking to contain dog. Dog comes over final time, clawing at cage, terrified rabbits, owner saves his rabbits by shooting dog legally and neighbors & media crucify that person and he ends up being harassed by protestors. Had the media told the story from the actual LEGAL side, less attention (more people relate to dogs than rabbits, guns are scary) but the little attention it got would have been people villifying the dog owner.

The issue with the article and above quoted response is:

*rabbit owner complained to neighbors/authorities for repeated illegal activity that possibly jeopardized his animals legally kept on his own property.
*dog owner complained to neighbor/authorities for repeated LEGAL activity by rabbit owner on his own property that was not jeopardizing anything or anyone. (no, it’s not. I do it almost every single day and so do many of my neighbors, I’m in CT)
*rabbit owner finally, after REPEATED legal attempts to have the dog contained as it legally NEEDS to be, takes the 100% legal option of protecting his rabbits with deadly force
*Dog owners blame him for the death and report him for nothing illegal while they were breaking the laws with the repeated loose dog
*media goes after the wrong person and even has police tell media rabbit owner did NOTHING wrong. Media KNOWS dog owners were the ones actually breaking the laws and putting their own supposedly beloved dog in jeopardy
*general public is too thick and too impressionable and too afraid of firearms to think through the biased story and react in a ridiculous manner, harassing the absolute WRONG person.

The man complained numerous times over the dog owners breaking the law repeatedly with the loose dog. Neighbors knew they had repeated reports of illegal activity. Neighbors retaliate by reporting man for his legal activity. If they were so loving of their dog, would they be letting it loose knowing it often goes onto the property of the “scary gun guy” and tries to “play” with his rabbits?

Seems the man tried many times to use a legal, nonconfrontational and nonviolent method to stop the dog from coming on his property. He has rabbits outside. It wasn’t a chihuahua, a dog is a danger to rabbits. He went the legal, nonviolent route multiple times and that didn’t stop the problem.
So he, what?, just repeats reporting them endlessly hoping that eventually the owners stop breaking the law before the dog kills his rabbits?

I could see if this was a first time offense…loose dog ran through an opening door or got out of an open gate, etc and were bothering his rabbits and he just shot without yelling or any other warnings. Then, although still 100% legal, as long as the dog wasn’t in immediate danger of getting into the hutch or scaring rabbits to death, I could see trying to leash it and drag it’s butt home with a stern warning. (and as long as the dog isn’t into snapping at people) That would be a viable option.

In this case…even from the biased slant of the media, it’s crystal clear the person who was most neighborly IS the scary gun guy. He only reported illegal activity that put his animals in danger. His dingbat neighbors reported him for legal activity that they didn’t like happening near them.

[dacasodivine]

I"m not even going to pretend the guy didn’t know it was his neighbor’s dog. He was probably sick and tired of it coming over despite his calls and sick and tired of the neighbors complaining about him shooting his gun. Was it going after his rabbits? Don’t know. Brittany’s are hunting dogs so it’s not outside the realm of possibility.

That said, neighbors new he had a problem with their dog going to “visit” him and knew he had a gun because they complained he used it. Why are they surprised at the outcome?

[caballero]

[QUOTE=MistyBlue;6781804]
I understand that the shooting of a dog really bothers a lot of people. It bothers those shooting it also.

The article was written with a definite bias. As with normal media, firearm stories sell a lot due to many people finding them scary. Dog stories sell due to many people loving dogs. A dog being shot? Media gold. This isn’t a slam to the media…they’re a business and the purpose of a business is to be successful and make income.
However the media is hardly ever neutral. Even if a story is very neutral, media will spin it to maximize attention/income. It’s their job.

People are naive and tend to believe the media stories they want to believe. If this story was told by the other angle…rabbit owner worried about his rabbits and deals with neighbor’s illegally uncontained dog repeatedly coming over and bothering them and reporting to authorities doesn’t help. Neighbors ignore asking to contain dog. Dog comes over final time, clawing at cage, terrified rabbits, owner saves his rabbits by shooting dog legally and neighbors & media crucify that person and he ends up being harassed by protestors. Had the media told the story from the actual LEGAL side, less attention (more people relate to dogs than rabbits, guns are scary) but the little attention it got would have been people villifying the dog owner.

The issue with the article and above quoted response is:

*rabbit owner complained to neighbors/authorities for repeated illegal activity that possibly jeopardized his animals legally kept on his own property.
*dog owner complained to neighbor/authorities for repeated LEGAL activity by rabbit owner on his own property that was not jeopardizing anything or anyone. (no, it’s not. I do it almost every single day and so do many of my neighbors, I’m in CT)
*rabbit owner finally, after REPEATED legal attempts to have the dog contained as it legally NEEDS to be, takes the 100% legal option of protecting his rabbits with deadly force
*Dog owners blame him for the death and report him for nothing illegal while they were breaking the laws with the repeated loose dog
*media goes after the wrong person and even has police tell media rabbit owner did NOTHING wrong. Media KNOWS dog owners were the ones actually breaking the laws and putting their own supposedly beloved dog in jeopardy
*general public is too thick and too impressionable and too afraid of firearms to think through the biased story and react in a ridiculous manner, harassing the absolute WRONG person.

The man complained numerous times over the dog owners breaking the law repeatedly with the loose dog. Neighbors knew they had repeated reports of illegal activity. Neighbors retaliate by reporting man for his legal activity. If they were so loving of their dog, would they be letting it loose knowing it often goes onto the property of the “scary gun guy” and tries to “play” with his rabbits?

Seems the man tried many times to use a legal, nonconfrontational and nonviolent method to stop the dog from coming on his property. He has rabbits outside. It wasn’t a chihuahua, a dog is a danger to rabbits. He went the legal, nonviolent route multiple times and that didn’t stop the problem.
So he, what?, just repeats reporting them endlessly hoping that eventually the owners stop breaking the law before the dog kills his rabbits?

I could see if this was a first time offense…loose dog ran through an opening door or got out of an open gate, etc and were bothering his rabbits and he just shot without yelling or any other warnings. Then, although still 100% legal, as long as the dog wasn’t in immediate danger of getting into the hutch or scaring rabbits to death, I could see trying to leash it and drag it’s butt home with a stern warning. (and as long as the dog isn’t into snapping at people) That would be a viable option.

In this case…even from the biased slant of the media, it’s crystal clear the person who was most neighborly IS the scary gun guy. He only reported illegal activity that put his animals in danger. His dingbat neighbors reported him for legal activity that they didn’t like happening near them.[/QUOTE]

Excellent summation. Some will still not get it, sadly.

[dacasodivine]

I"m not even going to pretend the guy didn’t know it was his neighbor’s dog. He was probably sick and tired of it coming over despite his calls and sick and tired of the neighbors complaining about him shooting his gun. Was it going after his rabbits? Don’t know. Brittany’s are hunting dogs so it’s not outside the realm of possibility.

That said, neighbors knew he had a problem with their dog going to “visit” him and knew he had a gun because they complained he used it. Why are they surprised at the outcome?