"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

Not necessarily. First of all, this was a TV show. Jerry Springer aside, do
you seriously think a network would air a court session which informed
millions of people that they could get away with executing stray dogs?



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.

In a town with the laws written the way they are in mine, that lawyer would
be wasting his breath. Besides, what difference does it make whether crops
are destroyed by a coyote or your neighbor's stray dog? Either way, the
damage is done.



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.

If someone runs off with my car, they are no longer on my property. Even if
caught them in the driveway fiddling with the ignition, the law only allows
me to shoot them if they are in my dwelling. I can't even SHOW a gun legally
in that situation. It's called "brandishing". I can have my hand ready on
the concealed weapon, and I can tell them I have a weapon, but it can only
be drawn under a narrow set of circumstances.


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?

Depends on which being you're referring to. On a scale of 0 to 10, everyone
in my family is worth 10. The neighbor's dog is worth 4, at most, as long as
it's off my property. Its value drops to 0 the minute it breaks the rules on
my property. To give you something to compare to:

Earthworm: 8
Cow: 8
Cat: 9
Coyote: 6
Trout, any species: 218
Neighbors' kids: 9



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?

Because I'm much smarter than you, and won't fall for such a ridiculous
question.



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.

No. Kids can eventually be taught that it's dangerous to be careless around
traffic. Dogs, on the other hand, are stupid, and will never learn this.
Since this is obvious, it's safe to assume that anyone who lets their dog
roam has accepted the likelihood that it will be hit by a car. Anything
which is easily prevented but which is NOT prevented, is intentional. This
is the logic behind laws involving negligence, i.e.: criminally negligent
homicide.



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.

Doesn't matter to me why they do it. If they do it in my garden, they're
headed for trouble. I begin working on food plants in the middle of January
using plant lights. The hard work goes on indoors until April. Once they're
in the ground, the plants are vulnerable until they reach a certain size.
Any animal that destroys 4 months' worth of work can expect to be dealt
with.


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.

You keep falling into this hole. Question: If a person cares about his dog,
why does that person let it roam a suburban neighborhood full of traffic?



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.

The law says it is, as long as I've pursued legal means to put a stop to it.



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?

Private property, Dave. Why do you have so much trouble understanding that
concept? On your property, you have the right to put tacky stuffed sheep and
ugly statues and there's not a thing I can do about it. On my property, I
have the right to deal with dogs.



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.

Only if the neighbor pays for the fence. Otherwise, they're stealing from
me. Nice fences don't come cheap.



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.

A mental thing? Yeah...it's called "hate". I don't feel this way about any
other animal. I even like mosquitoes more than dogs. :-) I'm polite to the
well-behaved dogs and their owners. That's as far as I go, and that's
enough.