[QUOTE=shiningwizard255;6779673]
Take it easy.[/QUOTE]
Oh, please. You overreacted in your initial response to my opinion re: the dog, implied I had a secret rabbit-hating agenda, and when I pointed out your rather aggressive misunderstanding, you switch tactics to pretend that you’ve been calm and reasonable all along. Whatever. Go shoot some puppies*.
*See, it’s wrong to imply that others are monsters, just because they disagree with you!
[QUOTE=BabyGoose;6781578]
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. :([/QUOTE]
To what? A reality that laws created when the US was 60-90% agricultural might need to evolve? I could live with a world where dog attacks on other pets and on people were given more weight than those on livestock. That’s not because I hate farmers or want cows to die, but because only about 2% of Americans are now farmers and frankly, most of the time when people are talking SSS around here, they’ve not talking about dogs attacking livestock as the term “livestock” was understood in 1899 or 1920, when their state’s law was written. Pet horses, hobby flocks of chickens, a couple of mini donkeys -this is not what the laws were intended to protect, and everyone who’s so self-righteous on this topic is completely ignoring that. The reason dog attacks on livestock were taken so seriously under the law was that a farmer who lost animals faced losing his farm, and if that happened often enough, it hurt the country. Does that apply to the rabbit owner in this case? No. Does that mean I hate rabbits and think they deserve no protection? No. I’m all for curtailing aggressive and/or roaming dogs. But I don’t see how looking into the way 200-year-old laws apply in the current world is somehow a slippery slope.
[QUOTE=vacation1;6782998]
To what? A reality that laws created when the US was 60-90% agricultural might need to evolve? I could live with a world where dog attacks on other pets and on people were given more weight than those on livestock. That’s not because I hate farmers or want cows to die, but because only about 2% of Americans are now farmers and frankly, most of the time when people are talking SSS around here, they’ve not talking about dogs attacking livestock as the term “livestock” was understood in 1899 or 1920, when their state’s law was written. Pet horses, hobby flocks of chickens, a couple of mini donkeys -this is not what the laws were intended to protect, and everyone who’s so self-righteous on this topic is completely ignoring that. The reason dog attacks on livestock were taken so seriously under the law was that a farmer who lost animals faced losing his farm, and if that happened often enough, it hurt the country. Does that apply to the rabbit owner in this case? No. Does that mean I hate rabbits and think they deserve no protection? No. I’m all for curtailing aggressive and/or roaming dogs. But I don’t see how looking into the way 200-year-old laws apply in the current world is somehow a slippery slope.[/QUOTE]
Just because I might not make a living with the animal I have to endure somebody else being inconsiderate?
because only 2% of the population does make a living off the farm, the rest have to suffer? really?
There would still be a matter of property rights and, oh, public safety…so in essence, it does not matter one lick if there are 2% professional farmers or zero…astray dog with aggressive behavior is bad news.
I hope you read her post in the farming section!
There are many states where there are more cattle than people.
More chickens than people.
More swine than people.
The laws protect the majority. Just because the 2% of the people who FEED you don’t seem overly important to your insulated world view does not mean laws should change because you see more cats and dogs and non-farmers than you do farmers and food-stock. :rolleyes:
The vast majority of rabbits are kept outdoors. They don’t hibernate and survive in the wild without houses. :rolleyes:
Ignorance and elitism should be a painful condition. :no:
(FWIW, many states also include “other animals” which cover cats and dogs. Not to mention not all livestock are foodstock. Lesson horses, petting zoo animals, therapy animals, breeders’ stock, etc…these are also animals that make income for their owners. Farm and livestock have multiple legal definitions…for a reason)
:sigh:
Go tell BabyGoose since her lambs weren’t her sole source of income and she didn;t have thousands or supply a major grocery store, then her dead ones killed by dogs today don’t count. Or tell Hunterkiddo that since her rooster didn’t have Purdue stamped on his butt, he didn;t count either.
Ah yes - here it comes. Rural dwellers are merely serfs who must obey their urban overlords and honor their delicate sensibilities. Because fewer people live in the country their rights, needs, and wants are irrelevant. Good God.
You know - aggressive dogs don’t just kill livestock. A few years back a few of them packed up and killed a woman. You know what? The dogs had a history of attacking small animals but no one did anything.
The woman’s name was Dorothy Sullivan. I suggest you google her name and “dog attack”. Then see what happened to the owner of those dogs.
I can’t remember when I’ve read a more stupid, vacuous, self absorbed elitist post. Some people truly live in bubbles - makes you wonder how they manage to get out the door in the mornings.
[QUOTE=vacation1;6782998]
To what? A reality that laws created when the US was 60-90% agricultural might need to evolve? I could live with a world where dog attacks on other pets and on people were given more weight than those on livestock. That’s not because I hate farmers or want cows to die, but because only about 2% of Americans are now farmers and frankly, most of the time when people are talking SSS around here, they’ve not talking about dogs attacking livestock as the term “livestock” was understood in 1899 or 1920, when their state’s law was written. Pet horses, hobby flocks of chickens, a couple of mini donkeys -this is not what the laws were intended to protect, and everyone who’s so self-righteous on this topic is completely ignoring that. The reason dog attacks on livestock were taken so seriously under the law was that a farmer who lost animals faced losing his farm, and if that happened often enough, it hurt the country. Does that apply to the rabbit owner in this case? No. Does that mean I hate rabbits and think they deserve no protection? No. I’m all for curtailing aggressive and/or roaming dogs. But I don’t see how looking into the way 200-year-old laws apply in the current world is somehow a slippery slope.[/QUOTE]
I don’t give a care that I don’t have to make my living off my livestock. So that makes them less important? Pet horses, hobby chickens, a couple of mini donkeys? They are no less important than someones pet dog that they didn’t even care enough about to keep it confined. I just came home this afternoon to dead and dying lambs and wounded scared sheep. Their wounds point toward dog attack. One of the lambs was still ALIVE with a 6 x 6 HOLE chewed into it’s side! I could see it’s rib cage! I don’t know how long it layed there today suffering before we got home to put it out of it’s misery. The other sheep have patches of wool pulled out of their backs and sides. One has bloody wounds that will require vet attention. It shouldn’t matter that I won’t “lose the farm” over those dead lambs. I shouldn’t have to worry about some idiots loose dogs tearing MY animals apart, and I sure as heck am going to defend them, with deadly force if neccessary. Sorry if that offends you. I have mini horses. Are they next to be attacked? I love my animals. Don’t belittle that because we no longer have “real farms” anymore. Sheesh!
Luckily the laws apply to all “stock” be it one sheep or 3,000, a champion horse or a backyard pet. In addition more and more dangerous dog laws (not breed specific) include animals that attack/bite ANY animal, pet or livestock, as well as people. I only have/had 1-2 goats but when they were attacked I was ready to kill that dog had it not gotten away. And I promised the owner that there would be not second chances. I never saw that one again! That was over 10 years ago now and the remaining goat is STILL petrified of strange dogs on the horizon.
[QUOTE=vacation1;6782982]
Oh, please. You overreacted in your initial response to my opinion re: the dog, implied I had a secret rabbit-hating agenda, and when I pointed out your rather aggressive misunderstanding, you switch tactics to pretend that you’ve been calm and reasonable all along. Whatever. Go shoot some puppies*.
*See, it’s wrong to imply that others are monsters, just because they disagree with you![/QUOTE]
Feel better now? :rolleyes:
I may have quoted one of your posts (I don’t remember to be honest and I don’t feel like checking) to make a point but it wasn’t an attack on you per se.
It was to make a point I felt needed to be made.
Don’t flatter yourself.
[QUOTE=BabyGoose;6783045]
I don’t give a care that I don’t have to make my living off my livestock. So that makes them less important? Pet horses, hobby chickens, a couple of mini donkeys? They are no less important than someones pet dog that they didn’t even care enough about to keep it confined. I just came home this afternoon to dead and dying lambs and wounded scared sheep. Their wounds point toward dog attack. One of the lambs was still ALIVE with a 6 x 6 HOLE chewed into it’s side! I could see it’s rib cage! I don’t know how long it layed there today suffering before we got home to put it out of it’s misery. The other sheep have patches of wool pulled out of their backs and sides. One has bloody wounds that will require vet attention. It shouldn’t matter that I won’t “lose the farm” over those dead lambs. I shouldn’t have to worry about some idiots loose dogs tearing MY animals apart, and I sure as heck am going to defend them, with deadly force if neccessary. Sorry if that offends you. I have mini horses. Are they next to be attacked? I love my animals. Don’t belittle that because we no longer have “real farms” anymore. Sheesh![/QUOTE]
Oh, wow. That must have been absolutely horrible to see. So sorry for your loss and that you are going through this, BabyGoose.
[QUOTE=LauraKY;6780569]
You’re assuming the reporting is accurate. It’s been my experience, first hand, that quite often it’s not. Accurate.[/QUOTE]
Propaganda to rile people up about not exactly the most earth shaking things. Wars in the Middle East, Obama using US military force in yet again another country that Congress has not declared war on (Somalia), but a DOG ATTACKS A RABBIT or not. Hell yes!
[QUOTE=Calamber;6783157]
Propaganda to rile people up about not exactly the most earth shaking things. Wars in the Middle East, Obama using US military force in yet again another country that Congress has not declared war on (Somalia), but a DOG ATTACKS A RABBIT or not. Hell yes![/QUOTE]
I wasn’t commenting on propaganda, I was commenting on the poor quality of what passes for journalism. For instance, I was interviewed for an industry specific magazine. The “journalist” didn’t bother to even report accurately what my responses were to her questions. I believe it was just pure laziness, not a hidden agenda.
BabyGoose, I am so sorry you had to deal with that. I lost a much loved goat to pneumonia yesterday. That was very hard. I can’t even imagine how much harder to come home to what you did.
[QUOTE=vacation1;6782998]
To what? A reality that laws created when the US was 60-90% agricultural might need to evolve? I could live with a world where dog attacks on other pets and on people were given more weight than those on livestock. That’s not because I hate farmers or want cows to die, but because only about 2% of Americans are now farmers and frankly, most of the time when people are talking SSS around here, they’ve not talking about dogs attacking livestock as the term “livestock” was understood in 1899 or 1920, when their state’s law was written. Pet horses, hobby flocks of chickens, a couple of mini donkeys -this is not what the laws were intended to protect, and everyone who’s so self-righteous on this topic is completely ignoring that. The reason dog attacks on livestock were taken so seriously under the law was that a farmer who lost animals faced losing his farm, and if that happened often enough, it hurt the country. Does that apply to the rabbit owner in this case? No. Does that mean I hate rabbits and think they deserve no protection? No. I’m all for curtailing aggressive and/or roaming dogs. But I don’t see how looking into the way 200-year-old laws apply in the current world is somehow a slippery slope.[/QUOTE]
The sheer lack of logical argument in the above post is epic.
Does this mean we should go for an open season on the pets of old white men because they’re becoming a minority? Clearly, their rights shouldn’t matter; there are so few of them left.
I’ve dealt with livestock killed and maimed by dogs on working farms and on hobby farms.
It doesn’t matter which is which, the animals still suffered because some thoughtless asshat of an owner couldn’t be bothered to care for their allegedly beloved pet as well as the livestock killed were cared for by their owners.
I guess I think of it as a rights issue. You get to have your rights until they tread on mine.
Your dog going after my livestock? Sorry. I will employ every method I can think of to remedy before shooting an animal attacking livestock, children, whatever. But at some point, your rights cannot infringe on mine.
I love my dogs. But if (God forbid) they got loose and were doing something nefarious on someone else’s property, I would consider them fair game.
I can not figure out your reasoning Vacation1. The age of a law has nothing to do with it’s appropriateness, the first amendment though allows you to express ithat thought.
I went to a political BB and a Coth thread broke out:D
Still at it, aren’t you all. Never are we going to agree.I still believe that guns provide a quick and easy answer to solving a problem. Many of you believe it’s within your rights to use the weapon when you see fit. I’ll agree with you if it’s a human being attacked,but for the vast majority of cases, I don’t believe a weapon is the sole answer. Are you going to shoot every predator ( dogs, coyotes, wolves, fishers, weasels, mink, eagles, hawks, great blue herons etc)? Humans are the most powerful predator of all. Are you going to shoot some kid in your fields chasing one of your critters?
Rights are a 2 way street at least in some places in the country. And some of us do live in neighborhoods and dogs, cats, kids run around and cause trouble. A loose dog, even attacking chickens or rabbits, is nothing compared to a drug selling neighbor. And even in the last situation, just because something is within your rights, doesn’t mean the exercising of your rights is the wisest course of action.Sometimes it pays to think first and react second.
Yes, actually, I think most of us WOULD shoot ANY predator as needed. If a person was attacking my family or my stock they’d be treated like a dog doing the same. It’s not going to work here. Sorry. I can’t think of a reason NOT to shoot any creature harming mine.
Your family, sure be it a dog or human. But you’re going to shoot a human for attacking your livestock? Most of you defend hunters who shoot the wrong thing. Are you going to shoot them too, if they shoot your horse? Just curious how far this goes.
“Won’t work here”. Doesn’t have too. You live your life and I 'll live mine but don’t expect me to applaud your choice anymore than you approve of mine.
[QUOTE=BuddyRoo;6784473]
Yes, actually, I think most of us WOULD shoot ANY predator as needed. If a person was attacking my family or my stock they’d be treated like a dog doing the same. It’s not going to work here. Sorry. I can’t think of a reason NOT to shoot any creature harming mine.[/QUOTE]
It’ called a $10,000. Fine for shooting a great blue heron who just ate all your expensive koi or a bald eagle who decided your chicken or dog looked pretty tasty,among other things. Not even getting into shooting the kid for hurting your livestock.
,
,
[QUOTE=BuddyRoo;6784473]
Yes, actually, I think most of us WOULD shoot ANY predator as needed. If a person was attacking my family or my stock they’d be treated like a dog doing the same. It’s not going to work here. Sorry. I can’t think of a reason NOT to shoot any creature harming mine.[/QUOTE]
While I probably would not have shot the dog from this scenario (our own dogs have killed a few of our chickens over the years) I do support the guy in NH’s right to do so. And where I live we do have a gun we can access quickly for coyotes, porcupines, etc that might wish to harm our critters. We found claw marks last year when something harassed my gelding enough in the middle of the night that he ran through three board fence to get away.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
