On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 03:41:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



I'm simply helping him understand laws he is 100% unfamiliar with. The same
laws I've become 100% familiar with in order to enjoy the simple pleasure of
a vegetable garden in the midst of a few neighbors who don't care.


Well, I can remember a case that I saw on one of those TV court shows
(I know, not the best forum) where a neighbor had problems with a cat
or dog tearing up their garden, and after finally having enough, set
out some rat poison. The neighbor's pet ate it and died. The pet
owner figured out what happened and sued the "killer" and was awarded
damages for her loss.

The laws you referenced were put into place to cover wild animals
destroying commercial crops, not domestic pets invading a vegetable
garden. In an earlier post, you remarked about the intrinsic "value"
of crops versus that of destructive animals as some sort of
justification for killing them. In the case of wild animals, the
"value" of commercial crops would seem to exceed the "value" of
rabbits, deer, or other indigenous wildlife. But pets are another
matter. People place a high "value" on their pets, and as such, they
are not as arbitrary and subject to the same considerations WRT
intrinsic value versus a wild animal.

Do you have a right to kill a wild rabbit who invades your garden?
What if it was your neighbor's prized poodle? What if it was the
neighbor's kid? Where do you draw the line? I'm curious to hear your
justification.

Dave
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj