Sad news article
03-08-2008, 02:22 PM
#11
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fauquier Co. VA
Posts: 231
RE: Sad news article
ORIGINAL: deepzak
I was thinking about this statement. If someone abandoned a vehicle on your property, would that not mean that it becomes YOUR property? By the same token, if a dog (or any other animal) is abandoned on your property, it becomes yours and you are the new owner, and by VA law you are allowed to shoot your own dog. You are thereby cleared of all wrong doing.
ORIGINAL: buckwild41
I would never support anyone knownly killing another person's pet.However, I'mnot sure I agree with it being a crime to kill a dog either? It's a dog, nothing more.. You can kill a coyotewhich is in the same family and that's not considered cruelity. You can brandcattle and that's not considered cruelity either. I know some will shout "but it's a domestic animal", but so are many pigs and cows just before they are wacked in the head with an air hammer. But that's not cruelity either. SO back to the dogs. If the dog is roaming at large how long before it is considered feral? Besides, if I read the code correctly the owner or an agent for the owner of the dog can shoot it however noone else can.. How is that any less cruel? The act is the same just a different person pulling the trigger. What it boils down to is that the animal belongs to someone else. So it's really not a case of cruelity but more of a larceny of ones property. However, if someone's property is no longer under their control, abandon or at large is it still a larceny? I would say NO. Once property is abandon or left to run at large one can not reasonably expect the property to be returned in the same condition if returned at all? Therefore, if a dog by whatever means is running at large and happens upon the unfortunate circumstance of stepping into a legal trap on someone else's property and that person is unable to free the animal without killing it I would have to place the sole blame on the dog owner.
Today's electronic fences and collars are very effective and keeping pets where they are suppose to be.
I would never support anyone knownly killing another person's pet.However, I'mnot sure I agree with it being a crime to kill a dog either? It's a dog, nothing more.. You can kill a coyotewhich is in the same family and that's not considered cruelity. You can brandcattle and that's not considered cruelity either. I know some will shout "but it's a domestic animal", but so are many pigs and cows just before they are wacked in the head with an air hammer. But that's not cruelity either. SO back to the dogs. If the dog is roaming at large how long before it is considered feral? Besides, if I read the code correctly the owner or an agent for the owner of the dog can shoot it however noone else can.. How is that any less cruel? The act is the same just a different person pulling the trigger. What it boils down to is that the animal belongs to someone else. So it's really not a case of cruelity but more of a larceny of ones property. However, if someone's property is no longer under their control, abandon or at large is it still a larceny? I would say NO. Once property is abandon or left to run at large one can not reasonably expect the property to be returned in the same condition if returned at all? Therefore, if a dog by whatever means is running at large and happens upon the unfortunate circumstance of stepping into a legal trap on someone else's property and that person is unable to free the animal without killing it I would have to place the sole blame on the dog owner.
Today's electronic fences and collars are very effective and keeping pets where they are suppose to be.
03-08-2008, 02:36 PM
#12
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fauquier Co. VA
Posts: 231
RE: Sad news article
ORIGINAL: buckwild41
I would never support anyone knownly killing another person's pet.However, I'mnot sure I agree with it being a crime to kill a dog either? It's a dog, nothing more.. You can kill a coyotewhich is in the same family and that's not considered cruelity. You can brandcattle and that's not considered cruelity either. I know some will shout "but it's a domestic animal", but so are many pigs and cows just before they are wacked in the head with an air hammer. But that's not cruelity either. SO back to the dogs. If the dog is roaming at large how long before it is considered feral? Besides, if I read the code correctly the owner or an agent for the owner of the dog can shoot it however noone else can.. How is that any less cruel? The act is the same just a different person pulling the trigger. What it boils down to is that the animal belongs to someone else. So it's really not a case of cruelity but more of a larceny of ones property. However, if someone's property is no longer under their control, abandon or at large is it still a larceny? I would say NO. Once property is abandon or left to run at large one can not reasonably expect the property to be returned in the same condition if returned at all? Therefore, if a dog by whatever means is running at large and happens upon the unfortunate circumstance of stepping into a legal trap on someone else's property and that person is unable to free the animal without killing it I would have to place the sole blame on the dog owner.
Today's electronic fences and collars are very effective and keeping pets where they are suppose to be.
I would never support anyone knownly killing another person's pet.However, I'mnot sure I agree with it being a crime to kill a dog either? It's a dog, nothing more.. You can kill a coyotewhich is in the same family and that's not considered cruelity. You can brandcattle and that's not considered cruelity either. I know some will shout "but it's a domestic animal", but so are many pigs and cows just before they are wacked in the head with an air hammer. But that's not cruelity either. SO back to the dogs. If the dog is roaming at large how long before it is considered feral? Besides, if I read the code correctly the owner or an agent for the owner of the dog can shoot it however noone else can.. How is that any less cruel? The act is the same just a different person pulling the trigger. What it boils down to is that the animal belongs to someone else. So it's really not a case of cruelity but more of a larceny of ones property. However, if someone's property is no longer under their control, abandon or at large is it still a larceny? I would say NO. Once property is abandon or left to run at large one can not reasonably expect the property to be returned in the same condition if returned at all? Therefore, if a dog by whatever means is running at large and happens upon the unfortunate circumstance of stepping into a legal trap on someone else's property and that person is unable to free the animal without killing it I would have to place the sole blame on the dog owner.
Today's electronic fences and collars are very effective and keeping pets where they are suppose to be.
03-08-2008, 02:47 PM
#13
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fauquier Co. VA
Posts: 231
RE: Sad news article
This ordnance listed in the article is interesting, don't know how it would apply to hunting dogs running on posted property.
"According to authorities, the county has a specific ordinance prohibiting dog owners from letting their dogs run free. It simply states: "it shall be unlawful for any owner or custodian of a dog to permit the same to run at large at anytime within this county."
Under the ordinance, a dog can be found to be running at large if it is roaming, running or self-hunting off the property of its owner or custodian and not under its owner or custodian's immediate control.
The penalty for owners who are found guilty of the offense for the first time is a fine of up to $100. Each second and subsequent conviction is punishable by a fine of up to $250 or imprisonment for up to five days, or both."
"According to authorities, the county has a specific ordinance prohibiting dog owners from letting their dogs run free. It simply states: "it shall be unlawful for any owner or custodian of a dog to permit the same to run at large at anytime within this county."
Under the ordinance, a dog can be found to be running at large if it is roaming, running or self-hunting off the property of its owner or custodian and not under its owner or custodian's immediate control.
The penalty for owners who are found guilty of the offense for the first time is a fine of up to $100. Each second and subsequent conviction is punishable by a fine of up to $250 or imprisonment for up to five days, or both."
03-08-2008, 04:49 PM
#14
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location:
Posts: 72
RE: Sad news article
ORIGINAL: rick64
It wasn't any issue with the man trapping on his property, he was charged because he shot the dogs. The issue of who has to "foot the bill" doesn't matter, if he had called animal control it would have been their problem and that's their job. The one dog owner was probably trespassing and both owners were in violation of the ordnance. It didn't say if they were charged, but they did lose their pets. Any further punishment probably wasn't necessary.
ORIGINAL: deepzak
I agree that the guty should not have shot the dogs, but if they were strays, how fair is it for tax payers to have to foot the bill to care for a bunch of strays until an owner can be found, if ever.
What I see coming from this is that it's now basically illegal to trap on your privately owned property. I guess that the state has just issued a warning order to all trappers that their chosen pass time has now basically been outlawed due to having to worry about what type of animal come onto your property and gets caught in your traps.
People who own animals and let them run free and uncontrolled are criminally neglegent and just as wrong as the guy who shot the dogs and both should be prosecuted for breaking the law. Additionally, the guy who found the dogs was more than likely tresspassing to have found the dog on the shooters property and should be prosecuted for that as well. Before anybody breaks out the right to retrieve law, remember that that law is for hunting dogs only (domestic pets are not covered under VDGIF codes) and if they were hunting dog, why were they running out of season without the supervision of the owners?
I know that this will not be a popular opinion, but it is one other way to look at the issue. If pet owners do not want anything to happen to their pets, keep them at home, in their yards/houses and you can pretty much bet that nothing will happen to them.
I agree that the guty should not have shot the dogs, but if they were strays, how fair is it for tax payers to have to foot the bill to care for a bunch of strays until an owner can be found, if ever.
What I see coming from this is that it's now basically illegal to trap on your privately owned property. I guess that the state has just issued a warning order to all trappers that their chosen pass time has now basically been outlawed due to having to worry about what type of animal come onto your property and gets caught in your traps.
People who own animals and let them run free and uncontrolled are criminally neglegent and just as wrong as the guy who shot the dogs and both should be prosecuted for breaking the law. Additionally, the guy who found the dogs was more than likely tresspassing to have found the dog on the shooters property and should be prosecuted for that as well. Before anybody breaks out the right to retrieve law, remember that that law is for hunting dogs only (domestic pets are not covered under VDGIF codes) and if they were hunting dog, why were they running out of season without the supervision of the owners?
I know that this will not be a popular opinion, but it is one other way to look at the issue. If pet owners do not want anything to happen to their pets, keep them at home, in their yards/houses and you can pretty much bet that nothing will happen to them.
03-08-2008, 04:53 PM
#15
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location:
Posts: 72
RE: Sad news article
ORIGINAL: rick64
Do you really want to take your chances with that in court? Using your argument any car passing through your property would be considered abandoned.
ORIGINAL: deepzak
I was thinking about this statement. If someone abandoned a vehicle on your property, would that not mean that it becomes YOUR property? By the same token, if a dog (or any other animal) is abandoned on your property, it becomes yours and you are the new owner, and by VA law you are allowed to shoot your own dog. You are thereby cleared of all wrong doing.
ORIGINAL: buckwild41
I would never support anyone knownly killing another person's pet.However, I'mnot sure I agree with it being a crime to kill a dog either? It's a dog, nothing more.. You can kill a coyotewhich is in the same family and that's not considered cruelity. You can brandcattle and that's not considered cruelity either. I know some will shout "but it's a domestic animal", but so are many pigs and cows just before they are wacked in the head with an air hammer. But that's not cruelity either. SO back to the dogs. If the dog is roaming at large how long before it is considered feral? Besides, if I read the code correctly the owner or an agent for the owner of the dog can shoot it however noone else can.. How is that any less cruel? The act is the same just a different person pulling the trigger. What it boils down to is that the animal belongs to someone else. So it's really not a case of cruelity but more of a larceny of ones property. However, if someone's property is no longer under their control, abandon or at large is it still a larceny? I would say NO. Once property is abandon or left to run at large one can not reasonably expect the property to be returned in the same condition if returned at all? Therefore, if a dog by whatever means is running at large and happens upon the unfortunate circumstance of stepping into a legal trap on someone else's property and that person is unable to free the animal without killing it I would have to place the sole blame on the dog owner.
Today's electronic fences and collars are very effective and keeping pets where they are suppose to be.
I would never support anyone knownly killing another person's pet.However, I'mnot sure I agree with it being a crime to kill a dog either? It's a dog, nothing more.. You can kill a coyotewhich is in the same family and that's not considered cruelity. You can brandcattle and that's not considered cruelity either. I know some will shout "but it's a domestic animal", but so are many pigs and cows just before they are wacked in the head with an air hammer. But that's not cruelity either. SO back to the dogs. If the dog is roaming at large how long before it is considered feral? Besides, if I read the code correctly the owner or an agent for the owner of the dog can shoot it however noone else can.. How is that any less cruel? The act is the same just a different person pulling the trigger. What it boils down to is that the animal belongs to someone else. So it's really not a case of cruelity but more of a larceny of ones property. However, if someone's property is no longer under their control, abandon or at large is it still a larceny? I would say NO. Once property is abandon or left to run at large one can not reasonably expect the property to be returned in the same condition if returned at all? Therefore, if a dog by whatever means is running at large and happens upon the unfortunate circumstance of stepping into a legal trap on someone else's property and that person is unable to free the animal without killing it I would have to place the sole blame on the dog owner.
Today's electronic fences and collars are very effective and keeping pets where they are suppose to be.
03-08-2008, 04:55 PM
#16
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location:
Posts: 72
RE: Sad news article
ORIGINAL: rick64
This ordnance listed in the article is interesting, don't know how it would apply to hunting dogs running on posted property.
"According to authorities, the county has a specific ordinance prohibiting dog owners from letting their dogs run free. It simply states: "it shall be unlawful for any owner or custodian of a dog to permit the same to run at large at anytime within this county."
Under the ordinance, a dog can be found to be running at large if it is roaming, running or self-hunting off the property of its owner or custodian and not under its owner or custodian's immediate control.
The penalty for owners who are found guilty of the offense for the first time is a fine of up to $100. Each second and subsequent conviction is punishable by a fine of up to $250 or imprisonment for up to five days, or both."
This ordnance listed in the article is interesting, don't know how it would apply to hunting dogs running on posted property.
"According to authorities, the county has a specific ordinance prohibiting dog owners from letting their dogs run free. It simply states: "it shall be unlawful for any owner or custodian of a dog to permit the same to run at large at anytime within this county."
Under the ordinance, a dog can be found to be running at large if it is roaming, running or self-hunting off the property of its owner or custodian and not under its owner or custodian's immediate control.
The penalty for owners who are found guilty of the offense for the first time is a fine of up to $100. Each second and subsequent conviction is punishable by a fine of up to $250 or imprisonment for up to five days, or both."
03-08-2008, 07:07 PM
#17
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: va USA
Posts: 201
RE: Sad news article
Come on Rick, work with me a little bit. No a car passing through would not be abandon just on that point alone. Vehicles havetraceable vinsand state code requires waiting periods and posting in the paper before you can file for the title. If theK9 were bearing a collar or other identification it would be reasonable that an attempt to locate the owner would be expected. However, whether it's abandon or not is not the question. Abandonment only applies if this were a civil matter which it is not. I only suggested that it should be civil and that if it remained in the criminal courts it should fall under larceny not cruelity. The taking of ones property without intent of returning it, Larceny. I suggest what the person did was not cruel. It may not have been proper or legal but it was not cruel. The core of this issue deals with What is animal cruelity? Take emotion out of the equation and think about the act, not the result of the act. Shooting a dog is no different than shooting any other animal. If the mere shooting of an animal were deemed cruel I would imagine hunting would be a thing of the past.
With that in mind,consider the following:
Step one. Shootingan animal in and of it self is not cruel.(I know some outside this forum do not agree)
Step two:The type of animal? Does that now make the act of shooting cruel? I would say not.
Just because there is or is not a season on a particular animal does not make the act any different. It's still the killing of an animal by shooting. If someone shoots a deer out of season it does not all of a sudden become a cruel act. It's just killing out of season. When a someone shoots a non-game species they are charged with taking unlawful game or the taking of a protected animal, not animal cruelity.
So what is cruelity? I would hope most folks here agree that purposely starving a deer to death, or purposely shooting it with a small caliber rifle in the gut would be cruel? If you agree with this theory then you are agreeing with the idea that it is the act or type of act which determines cruelity notthe animal.. Remember, killing by shooting is not cruel.... see step one.
Step three: Who pulls the trigger? Not sure why it makes a difference who kills the animal? Whether the owner or a stranger kills the dog its the same act and same result. Back to the larceny theory
Step four: If you agree with the first two steps then you have established the following;The act of killing an animal by shooting in and of itself is notcruel. The species of animal in and of itselfdoes not create cruelity.
That is the case in point, and why I stated it should be civil not criminal.. You cannot say it is cruel to shoot one animal but not another. Now I realize it really doesn't matter what I think because Va Code says it is illegal to shoot a dog. I am just saying it should not be criminal...
wow that was a mouth full!
With that in mind,consider the following:
Step one. Shootingan animal in and of it self is not cruel.(I know some outside this forum do not agree)
Step two:The type of animal? Does that now make the act of shooting cruel? I would say not.
Just because there is or is not a season on a particular animal does not make the act any different. It's still the killing of an animal by shooting. If someone shoots a deer out of season it does not all of a sudden become a cruel act. It's just killing out of season. When a someone shoots a non-game species they are charged with taking unlawful game or the taking of a protected animal, not animal cruelity.
So what is cruelity? I would hope most folks here agree that purposely starving a deer to death, or purposely shooting it with a small caliber rifle in the gut would be cruel? If you agree with this theory then you are agreeing with the idea that it is the act or type of act which determines cruelity notthe animal.. Remember, killing by shooting is not cruel.... see step one.
Step three: Who pulls the trigger? Not sure why it makes a difference who kills the animal? Whether the owner or a stranger kills the dog its the same act and same result. Back to the larceny theory
Step four: If you agree with the first two steps then you have established the following;The act of killing an animal by shooting in and of itself is notcruel. The species of animal in and of itselfdoes not create cruelity.
That is the case in point, and why I stated it should be civil not criminal.. You cannot say it is cruel to shoot one animal but not another. Now I realize it really doesn't matter what I think because Va Code says it is illegal to shoot a dog. I am just saying it should not be criminal...
wow that was a mouth full!
03-08-2008, 07:30 PM
#18
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fauquier Co. VA
Posts: 231
RE: Sad news article
ORIGINAL: deepzak
Silly, cars that are passing through cant be abandoned, they have an owner with them. If the owners leave the cars, in VA you can file for an abandoned vehicle title and they become yours. Granted, it takes a few days, but there was no mention of how long the dogs were missing before the owners went looking for their dogs either.
ORIGINAL: rick64
Do you really want to take your chances with that in court? Using your argument any car passing through your property would be considered abandoned.
ORIGINAL: deepzak
I was thinking about this statement. If someone abandoned a vehicle on your property, would that not mean that it becomes YOUR property? By the same token, if a dog (or any other animal) is abandoned on your property, it becomes yours and you are the new owner, and by VA law you are allowed to shoot your own dog. You are thereby cleared of all wrong doing.
ORIGINAL: buckwild41
I would never support anyone knownly killing another person's pet.However, I'mnot sure I agree with it being a crime to kill a dog either? It's a dog, nothing more.. You can kill a coyotewhich is in the same family and that's not considered cruelity. You can brandcattle and that's not considered cruelity either. I know some will shout "but it's a domestic animal", but so are many pigs and cows just before they are wacked in the head with an air hammer. But that's not cruelity either. SO back to the dogs. If the dog is roaming at large how long before it is considered feral? Besides, if I read the code correctly the owner or an agent for the owner of the dog can shoot it however noone else can.. How is that any less cruel? The act is the same just a different person pulling the trigger. What it boils down to is that the animal belongs to someone else. So it's really not a case of cruelity but more of a larceny of ones property. However, if someone's property is no longer under their control, abandon or at large is it still a larceny? I would say NO. Once property is abandon or left to run at large one can not reasonably expect the property to be returned in the same condition if returned at all? Therefore, if a dog by whatever means is running at large and happens upon the unfortunate circumstance of stepping into a legal trap on someone else's property and that person is unable to free the animal without killing it I would have to place the sole blame on the dog owner.
Today's electronic fences and collars are very effective and keeping pets where they are suppose to be.
I would never support anyone knownly killing another person's pet.However, I'mnot sure I agree with it being a crime to kill a dog either? It's a dog, nothing more.. You can kill a coyotewhich is in the same family and that's not considered cruelity. You can brandcattle and that's not considered cruelity either. I know some will shout "but it's a domestic animal", but so are many pigs and cows just before they are wacked in the head with an air hammer. But that's not cruelity either. SO back to the dogs. If the dog is roaming at large how long before it is considered feral? Besides, if I read the code correctly the owner or an agent for the owner of the dog can shoot it however noone else can.. How is that any less cruel? The act is the same just a different person pulling the trigger. What it boils down to is that the animal belongs to someone else. So it's really not a case of cruelity but more of a larceny of ones property. However, if someone's property is no longer under their control, abandon or at large is it still a larceny? I would say NO. Once property is abandon or left to run at large one can not reasonably expect the property to be returned in the same condition if returned at all? Therefore, if a dog by whatever means is running at large and happens upon the unfortunate circumstance of stepping into a legal trap on someone else's property and that person is unable to free the animal without killing it I would have to place the sole blame on the dog owner.
Today's electronic fences and collars are very effective and keeping pets where they are suppose to be.
I guess the car passing through is a bad analogy, but even a car park your property would take sometime time before it could be declared abandoned and in that time you could have it removed, but not destroyed.
03-08-2008, 07:39 PM
#19
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fauquier Co. VA
Posts: 231
RE: Sad news article
ORIGINAL: deepzak
The money for animal control comes from somewhere, and don't you believe for one minute that it's all charity. Taxpayers foot the bill for all these programs. The more "abandoned" animals they have to deal with, the higher OUR taxes go.
ORIGINAL: rick64
It wasn't any issue with the man trapping on his property, he was charged because he shot the dogs. The issue of who has to "foot the bill" doesn't matter, if he had called animal control it would have been their problem and that's their job. The one dog owner was probably trespassing and both owners were in violation of the ordnance. It didn't say if they were charged, but they did lose their pets. Any further punishment probably wasn't necessary.
ORIGINAL: deepzak
I agree that the guty should not have shot the dogs, but if they were strays, how fair is it for tax payers to have to foot the bill to care for a bunch of strays until an owner can be found, if ever.
What I see coming from this is that it's now basically illegal to trap on your privately owned property. I guess that the state has just issued a warning order to all trappers that their chosen pass time has now basically been outlawed due to having to worry about what type of animal come onto your property and gets caught in your traps.
People who own animals and let them run free and uncontrolled are criminally neglegent and just as wrong as the guy who shot the dogs and both should be prosecuted for breaking the law. Additionally, the guy who found the dogs was more than likely tresspassing to have found the dog on the shooters property and should be prosecuted for that as well. Before anybody breaks out the right to retrieve law, remember that that law is for hunting dogs only (domestic pets are not covered under VDGIF codes) and if they were hunting dog, why were they running out of season without the supervision of the owners?
I know that this will not be a popular opinion, but it is one other way to look at the issue. If pet owners do not want anything to happen to their pets, keep them at home, in their yards/houses and you can pretty much bet that nothing will happen to them.
I agree that the guty should not have shot the dogs, but if they were strays, how fair is it for tax payers to have to foot the bill to care for a bunch of strays until an owner can be found, if ever.
What I see coming from this is that it's now basically illegal to trap on your privately owned property. I guess that the state has just issued a warning order to all trappers that their chosen pass time has now basically been outlawed due to having to worry about what type of animal come onto your property and gets caught in your traps.
People who own animals and let them run free and uncontrolled are criminally neglegent and just as wrong as the guy who shot the dogs and both should be prosecuted for breaking the law. Additionally, the guy who found the dogs was more than likely tresspassing to have found the dog on the shooters property and should be prosecuted for that as well. Before anybody breaks out the right to retrieve law, remember that that law is for hunting dogs only (domestic pets are not covered under VDGIF codes) and if they were hunting dog, why were they running out of season without the supervision of the owners?
I know that this will not be a popular opinion, but it is one other way to look at the issue. If pet owners do not want anything to happen to their pets, keep them at home, in their yards/houses and you can pretty much bet that nothing will happen to them.
03-08-2008, 08:12 PM
#20
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fauquier Co. VA
Posts: 231
RE: Sad news article
ORIGINAL: buckwild41
Come on Rick, work with me a little bit. No a car passing through would not be abandon just on that point alone. Vehicles havetraceable vinsand state code requires waiting periods and posting in the paper before you can file for the title. If theK9 were bearing a collar or other identification it would be reasonable that an attempt to locate the owner would be expected. However, whether it's abandon or not is not the question. Abandonment only applies if this were a civil matter which it is not. I only suggested that it should be civil and that if it remained in the criminal courts it should fall under larceny not cruelity. The taking of ones property without intent of returning it, Larceny. I suggest what the person did was not cruel. It may not have been proper or legal but it was not cruel. The core of this issue deals with What is animal cruelity? Take emotion out of the equation and think about the act, not the result of the act. Shooting a dog is no different than shooting any other animal. If the mere shooting of an animal were deemed cruel I would imagine hunting would be a thing of the past.
With that in mind,consider the following:
Step one. Shootingan animal in and of it self is not cruel.(I know some outside this forum do not agree)
Step two:The type of animal? Does that now make the act of shooting cruel? I would say not.
Just because there is or is not a season on a particular animal does not make the act any different. It's still the killing of an animal by shooting. If someone shoots a deer out of season it does not all of a sudden become a cruel act. It's just killing out of season. When a someone shoots a non-game species they are charged with taking unlawful game or the taking of a protected animal, not animal cruelity.
So what is cruelity? I would hope most folks here agree that purposely starving a deer to death, or purposely shooting it with a small caliber rifle in the gut would be cruel? If you agree with this theory then you are agreeing with the idea that it is the act or type of act which determines cruelity notthe animal.. Remember, killing by shooting is not cruel.... see step one.
Step three: Who pulls the trigger? Not sure why it makes a difference who kills the animal? Whether the owner or a stranger kills the dog its the same act and same result. Back to the larceny theory
Step four: If you agree with the first two steps then you have established the following;The act of killing an animal by shooting in and of itself is notcruel. The species of animal in and of itselfdoes not create cruelity.
That is the case in point, and why I stated it should be civil not criminal.. You cannot say it is cruel to shoot one animal but not another. Now I realize it really doesn't matter what I think because Va Code says it is illegal to shoot a dog. I am just saying it should not be criminal...
wow that was a mouth full!
Come on Rick, work with me a little bit. No a car passing through would not be abandon just on that point alone. Vehicles havetraceable vinsand state code requires waiting periods and posting in the paper before you can file for the title. If theK9 were bearing a collar or other identification it would be reasonable that an attempt to locate the owner would be expected. However, whether it's abandon or not is not the question. Abandonment only applies if this were a civil matter which it is not. I only suggested that it should be civil and that if it remained in the criminal courts it should fall under larceny not cruelity. The taking of ones property without intent of returning it, Larceny. I suggest what the person did was not cruel. It may not have been proper or legal but it was not cruel. The core of this issue deals with What is animal cruelity? Take emotion out of the equation and think about the act, not the result of the act. Shooting a dog is no different than shooting any other animal. If the mere shooting of an animal were deemed cruel I would imagine hunting would be a thing of the past.
With that in mind,consider the following:
Step one. Shootingan animal in and of it self is not cruel.(I know some outside this forum do not agree)
Step two:The type of animal? Does that now make the act of shooting cruel? I would say not.
Just because there is or is not a season on a particular animal does not make the act any different. It's still the killing of an animal by shooting. If someone shoots a deer out of season it does not all of a sudden become a cruel act. It's just killing out of season. When a someone shoots a non-game species they are charged with taking unlawful game or the taking of a protected animal, not animal cruelity.
So what is cruelity? I would hope most folks here agree that purposely starving a deer to death, or purposely shooting it with a small caliber rifle in the gut would be cruel? If you agree with this theory then you are agreeing with the idea that it is the act or type of act which determines cruelity notthe animal.. Remember, killing by shooting is not cruel.... see step one.
Step three: Who pulls the trigger? Not sure why it makes a difference who kills the animal? Whether the owner or a stranger kills the dog its the same act and same result. Back to the larceny theory
Step four: If you agree with the first two steps then you have established the following;The act of killing an animal by shooting in and of itself is notcruel. The species of animal in and of itselfdoes not create cruelity.
That is the case in point, and why I stated it should be civil not criminal.. You cannot say it is cruel to shoot one animal but not another. Now I realize it really doesn't matter what I think because Va Code says it is illegal to shoot a dog. I am just saying it should not be criminal...
wow that was a mouth full!
As far the dogs ID, my pointers and retriever are chipped, just in case they are stolen or lose their collars. Vets and shelters can check for this. Some owners have their dogs tattooed. In any case, if your turn the dog over to the animal control it's their problem to figure out. Unless your just looking for a dog to shoot there's a better way to handle the situation in that article.