On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:51:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Two things: First of all, the guy who killed the pet didn't finish the job.
He should wrapped it in a trash bag and taken it to a dumpster.

He still ended up forking over some dough for illegally killing his
neighbor's pet. That in itself would seem to validate the notion that
killing a pet over yard damage is neither legal nor justified.

Either way,
he was rid of the problem. Second: It's highly likely that the pet owner
learned to keep her next animal where it belonged.

I wouldn't know. Then again, it's even more likely that the pet killer
would not be so quick to murder the next pet either.



The laws you referenced were put into place to cover wild animals
destroying commercial crops, not domestic pets invading a vegetable
garden.

The law here does not specify animals by species. Any uncontrolled animal is
"wild".

A good lawyer could argue that. A domestic "pet" is not considered
wild. Especially if it is properly licensed, and displays them.



And, answer a question which I posed to one of the Patsy Twins: How
large do YOU think a vegetable garden has to be before YOU consider it a
food source which, if threatened, is the same as someone sticking a knife in
your face and demanding your wallet?

Would you kill someone who ran off with your car? Would the law
consider it justified? Why then do you not extend the same logic to
pets? The "value" of the item is irrelevant. That you resorted to
using deadly force, when the use of such was not warranted IS the
issue.


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.

Commercial crops? Who are YOU to determine the monetary value of the food I
grow? One year, I got a 20x40 area to crank out what we estimated to be over
$800.00 worth of food.

What is the "value" that you place on another living being?


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.

Correction: ***SOME*** people place a high value on their pets. The ones who
let dogs roam the neighborhood do NOT.

And you know this how?

Those people have clearly
demonstrated that they want their dogs to be hit by cars. Otherwise, they
would not let them roam.

An assumption. One that is not interchangeable with fact. To apply
that same logic, parents who let their kids out to play, must want
harm to come to them, since by doing so, they open them up to
potential accidents and abductions. Surely you see the flaws in your
logic.



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.

Rabbit: 99% of the time, no. Bugs and rabbits sometimes eat 10% of your
crops. I plant 10% extra. It works out nicely. Rabbits may eat some lettuce,
but they don't dig up a 1x1 square every time they take a crap.

Most dogs don't either. Dogs dig for other reasons which have little
to do with their potty habits.


One
particularly bold rabbit became coniglio con aglio, rosmarino & pomodori,
served with buckwheat polenta. Delicious.

But the point here is that no one would miss a wild rabbit, so there's
likely no one who would challenge your "right" to kill it. A pet is
another story.


Poodle: If it fits the necessary criteria and diplomatic efforts to stop the
problem have failed, the dog is in trouble.

It's not your call to make.


Incidentally, you've chosen or
pretended to miss the difference between a rabbit and a dog. The rabbit's
doing what it's supposed to do.

And a dog is not?


The dog belongs to a person who is
pretending not to know that you cannot destroy your neighbor's property.

Like I said before, put up a fence if you can't deal with a neighbor's
pet who occasionally wanders.



Neighbor's kids: Don't be stupid. That's a human being, easily dealt with
via the standard laws of civil trespass.

So why then, can you not exercise the same consideration for pets? I
suspect that you just have some sort of mental thing for dogs. Your
contempt for them is plainly obvious. That you would take a totally
different tact when dealing with a human versus a dog, which is
causing the same damage, is telling in itself. Remember a parent is
responsible for a young child in much the same way as they are
responsible for a pet. Whatever tact or logic you apply toward an
unruly child, can also be used against an equally unruly pet. You
still don't have the right to kill the pet, even if you consider them
below whale dung on the evolutionary scale.



Anything else you need to be taught today?


Nope, you've illustrated your poor judgement just fine for one day.


Dave