Sad news article
03-08-2008, 06:21 AM
#1
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fauquier Co. VA
Posts: 231
Sad news article
http://www.fauquier.com/news/2008/mar/05/animals-dogs-cruelty-fauquier/
The guy probably got off easy, there was no reason forhim to shoot the dogs, all he had to do was call animal controll and let themtakethe dogs. The owner have to share some of the blame also.
The guy probably got off easy, there was no reason forhim to shoot the dogs, all he had to do was call animal controll and let themtakethe dogs. The owner have to share some of the blame also.
03-08-2008, 07:19 AM
#2
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: VIRGINIA
Posts: 146
RE: Sad news article
The guy should not have shot the dogs, but the owners are for most of the blame if there were no collars on the dogs. A collar could have avoided this outcome. But im glad to see the state taking action against the murders of dogs and not just letting it go.
03-08-2008, 08:02 AM
#3
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location:
Posts: 72
RE: Sad news article
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.
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, 08:21 AM
#4
Fork Horn
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 466
RE: Sad news article
It was a spelling mistake. He forgot the last 2 "S".
Without more info one can only guess what really went on there. But in VA it's seems a dog has more rights to another's property than the one paying the taxes on it.
Without more info one can only guess what really went on there. But in VA it's seems a dog has more rights to another's property than the one paying the taxes on it.
03-08-2008, 12:18 PM
#5
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: va USA
Posts: 201
RE: Sad news article
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.
Today's electronic fences and collars are very effective and keeping pets where they are suppose to be.
03-08-2008, 12:45 PM
#6
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: va USA
Posts: 201
RE: Sad news article
The more I thought about this the more I feel the killing of someone else's dog should be civil not criminal. The civil courts are better set for the reimbursement of damages and this type of event would be better heard in that type of court. However,if my memory serves me correctly I think Va is a contributory state when it comes to civil law? If I understand the concept right, if a party is found to have even as little as 1% of contributory negligence they cannot collect for damages. If that is true in this case the dog owner whose K9 is at large would not beable to collect, however folks who kill someone's dog without cause could be held liable.
03-08-2008, 01:30 PM
#7
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location:
Posts: 72
RE: Sad news article
ORIGINAL: buckwild41
The more I thought about this the more I feel the killing of someone else's dog should be civil not criminal. The civil courts are better set for the reimbursement of damages and this type of event would be better heard in that type of court. However,if my memory serves me correctly I think Va is a contributory state when it comes to civil law? If I understand the concept right, if a party is found to have even as little as 1% of contributory negligence they cannot collect for damages. If that is true in this case the dog owner whose K9 is at large would not beable to collect, however folks who kill someone's dog without cause could be held liable.
The more I thought about this the more I feel the killing of someone else's dog should be civil not criminal. The civil courts are better set for the reimbursement of damages and this type of event would be better heard in that type of court. However,if my memory serves me correctly I think Va is a contributory state when it comes to civil law? If I understand the concept right, if a party is found to have even as little as 1% of contributory negligence they cannot collect for damages. If that is true in this case the dog owner whose K9 is at large would not beable to collect, however folks who kill someone's dog without cause could be held liable.
03-08-2008, 01:33 PM
#8
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location:
Posts: 72
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, 01:43 PM
#9
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: VIRGINIA
Posts: 146
RE: Sad news article
If the dogs did not have collars on them and they may have showed aggresion towards the guy checking his traps, then I dont blame him for shooting the dogs. If they had collars he should have called animal control.
03-08-2008, 02:14 PM
#10
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fauquier Co. VA
Posts: 231
RE: Sad news article
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.