"Don White" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote in message
...
Actually, the law about terminating animals is tested around here a few
times a year. It doesn't specify that the property has to be an
income-producing farm - just "food crops". My son's baseball coach was
our
town justice, who clued me in to the law. He explained that it was
almost
done away with in the early 1940s, but the advent of the victory garden
concept kept it on the books. He also explained that HOW one terminates
an
animal is obviously crucial. If it's done with a firearm within town
limits,
you may be judged without fault for killing the animal, but slammed with
a
(justified) weapons violation. Further, the "terminator" needs to
exhaust
every other possible solution, which usually means you have to prove
that
you tried to get help from the animal control dept and negotiate with
the
owner of the animal, usually a dog. A side benefit of the law is that it
gives towns a reason to replace dog catchers who are overly sympathetic
with
dog owners who are perpetually irresponsible.


Wow! Up here it's against the law to discharge firearms within a certain
distance of a dwelling and certainly within town/city limits. You
'mericans
need to get rid of that NRA and civilize your firearm laws.



It's the same here, Don. That's why I said that although you might not be
breaking the law by killing an animal, you most certainly WOULD be if you
used a gun in certain places. But, 15 minutes outside the city, there are
100-200 acre properties where you *can* discharge firearms, but not within a
certain distance of the road. Having said that, I have a friend who does it
all the time, but he set up his shooting area in such an obsessively save
way that when the sheriff stopped by, he just looked around and said
"OK....just keep it this way, and make sure you supervise the
inexperienced."