This is from Jasper County in Indiana.
Protecting his deer by slaughtering three dogs that escaped their yard following heavy rain. The dogs are non-violent and abundantly friendly. No risk to his farm. He knew the dogs owners. Proceeded to burn them after taking their collars off their corpses.
He snap chatted a picture to a friend who did not approve and informed the owners.
Although within his rights this man is still a monster to rob a family of beloved pets. The dogs consisted of a mother and two of her fully grown pups.
I don't really have a problem with it.
even a friendly dog will scare a deer. Scared livestock loses weight running, and weight equals money.
the dog owners were robbing him. Nobody allows that in the west. Even the government will kill your dogs if they're near wildlife or livestock.
The government also sends wild horses to butchers.
They posted signs looking for them only to receive that graphic screen shot.
The guys website is down. This is messing up his business.
Can a single deer be worth 100k? I think not....
depends on whether or not the sort of people that buy his deer agree with his actions or condemn them.
if he sells to the public that is.
I'd guess most of the sort of people that eat deer in the US are raised with the understanding that dogs chasing livestock will die.
He was within his rights to protect property, but being so spiteful as to show the owners the corpses is bullshit and he should be sued for harrasment or something. Both sides were wrong in a way, now stop trying to get all your attention from online. And if you're trying to get this guy attacked or sent hate mail or some bullshit, then your a child and needs to be reminded this is an 18 and older site.
In country Australia, if your dog harassed a farmer's livestock, you could expect that it be shot. Seems fair enough to me. People should control their animals. I'd rather many dogs shot than a foal mauled, like I've seen.
My dad also shot a cat that was confirmed our neighbors when it was on our property. It was the right thing to do; mum and dad have provided a sanctuary for native birds for decades at their house.
Reading the article, he used other methods to try to keep the dogs away. He did what he could. He tried chasing them off with a four-wheeler, and they kept going for his deer.
Sucks that the dogs got out and ended up dead, but it happens. And according to the story, her dogs had two prior reported incidents of running at large. Who knows how many went unreported? If she wanted her dogs to be safe, she should've done a better job of keeping them on her property.
Personally, if someone's pets attacked my animals, it doesn't matter how nice the pet is to me. If my animals were in apparent danger, I'd put a stop to it however I could. If that means killing, then so be it. Life is shitty sometimes.
He didn't show the owners the corpses. Someone he knew took a picture and uploaded it to Facebook, which someone else forwarded to the owner of the dogs when he saw her posts about her lost dogs.
OP is just one of those irrational idiots that places dogs' lives above everything.
The dogs were digging under the fence into the deer pen, and did not leave when he attempted to run them off. He was protecting his livestock. They were husky mixes, and huskies are known for their high prey drive. The dogs had previously gotten out at least twice, which shows that they were improperly contained by their owner.
Maybe take off your bitch goggles and try to look at this with a little more logic.
So what you're saying you would not be angry if someone killed your loved ones? Take the dick out of your mouth man and stop being a cuck.
>raising deer instead of being a man and hunting
Maybe you're the one with bitch goggles on. Guns are not gonna hurt you anon. They're inanimate objects.
I think the guy was within his rights certainly, but I refuse to believe this was his only option and the only way to protect his deer.
Also, the article said the hole they dug was blocked up with a brick which only let them out after the rainfall. It's an obvious mistake, but a reasonable one, and up until the rain, they were properly contained.
Wow you're so edgy. Could I use your edge to shave? All my razors are dull compared to you. Wow.
What you said is something a borderline murderer would say.
Also what kind of fag raises and breeds a problem species?
So what you're saying is that you wouldn't prevent someone's shitty animals from damaging the things your livelihood depends on? It isn't my mouth that the dick is in, you silly faggot.
And I wouldn't be in this situation to begin with, because I 1) don't backyard breed high prey-drive mutts, 2) don't live near farms, and 3) am responsible enough to keep my animals on my property. But even if someone did kill my pets to defend themselves or the lives of others, that's very upsetting, I'd be an emotional wreck, but it'd be pretty damn reasonable to do in the situation. Blind revenge is for retards and movie plots. Which are you?
They weren't reasonably contained, they had gotten out two previous times at least. Those were just the times that it was reported. Not to mention her dog got knocked up and birthed a bunch of mutt puppies. This is NOT a responsible owner we're talking about.
If it were a single dog, I'd agree, and say he could've roped it and contained it. But three large, probably very excited dogs? No. His options were to scare them off or kill them. He tried both. Only one worked.
It's edgy to not put the lives of dogs and the rights of dog owners above the lives of livestock and the rights of farmers? I guess "edgy" is the new word for "rational," and every successful farmer ever is edgy as fuck.
Rational? Holy fuck you're delusional. If you haven't come from a farming background them you have no say here. My family and everyone around them is very territorial. They have killed cats just for coming on to property. Stop being a edgy faggot who says he wouldn't care if something he loved was killed.
While he roped and secured one, the others would still be digging, and could slip under the fence. Too risky, it would take too much time. It was raining, so the earth was soft and easy to dig up.
This is also assuming he actually carries strong rope.
From a more anecdotal standpoint, bigger dogs sometimes chew through leads easily. I caught a loose dog once, leashed him (heavy leash), turned my back for maybe two minutes, and when I turned back his leash was destroyed and he was loose again. Luckily I had nothing to defend from a dog. But I could see the hypothetical solution devolving into a comedy skit, with the dogs he just tied getting loose as he tied the next one. Then him slipping in the mud chasing them down, re-catching them, just to have it happen again. Maybe falling on his bum a few times.
Farmers are far from being rational people. I've done farming my whole life and I can't tell you how many times I've been shot at for accidentally stepping on someone's else's property or how many peoples animals are killed because these farmers are little all about there property and they aren't rational about it.
Fair enough point, but why didn't the guy just get something to hit them with and see if hitting them might get them to go away or just shoot them non-fatally? The article says he tried to scare them with his 4 wheeler and it seems to me like the dogs might have had enough experience with vehicles to not see it as a threat. I
I didn't say I wouldn't care. Or can't you read? I said that I would be very upset, but wouldn't seek revenge if my animals were killed for threatening the lives of someone else's animals. Because that would be unfair and moronic.
So do you do all your thinking with your ovaries, or do you simply not think?
You're really excited that "cuck" is no longer filtered, huh?
And there's feral dogs and cats that are are considered pests, but that doesn't mean yours aren't pets. I'm the one arguing that he didn't have to kill the dogs, but even I can see they are livestock and valuable property he has the right to protect. The fact wild deer are pests doesn't change that.
I guess they aren't domesticated, so they don't qualify as technical livestock. But he was breeding them for easy venison. They were his animals, in a fenced area on his land. Contained.
Let's be real, here. Would the outrage be any less if they were attacking his cattle, or his chickens?
Can't argue there, I have a farmer and a rancher in the family, and they're both a little nuts. But killing animals that are a credible threat your own animals is a pretty normal thing to do.
Its amazing how the story went from
OP: THIS GUY MURDERED 2 HARMLESS DOGS, PUPPIES AND A MUMMY.
Rational people: He did what he could, its a farm, the dogs are husky mixes and his livestock are worth more than the dogs.
None of this would have happened if the dogs were fucking trained properly and didnt escape. Who's really at fault?
He didn't brag about it, unless you have a source we don't. Someone he knew supposedly took the picture and uploaded it, not him.
There was another case recently in which a guy shot two dogs on his property and bragged on Facebook. Are you getting the two mixed?
Farm anon here. We are nuts about property and I inherited from my parents. Even though I don't own the street it still infuriates me to the point I want to slash tires if someone parks in front of my house but I can contain it
Though when I was a kid my puppy who was only about 6lbs was shot by my neighbors after he got loose so my parents say and waited and killed his 4 dogs. We are crazy. My friend recently has been catching feral cats and throwing them in fires.
Two sides to every story. There is nothing wrong here. I think the bigger offender is whatever douchhenozzle published his personal info to the internet and accused him of cold blooded murder, complete with unnecessary pictures. THAT guy is in the wrong. Justice is for the courts to dish out, not the retards on tumblr.
I misread. Sorry, he did do the snapchat. But that's not necessarily bragging. I take pictures of shitty or unusual things that happen and will upload those as a sort of, "fuck, I didn't see my day going this way."
>So what you're saying you would not be angry if someone killed your loved ones?
Unapplicable question. The "loved ones" weren't murdered in cold blood like the pictures say. If my dog was posing an immediate threat to the life of someone else's livestock, I would expect the livestock's owner to kill my dog. It would suck. I would cry. But that is what happens and it's perfectly fair. Furthermore, the person in the article had multiple warnings and police reports filed. I have no sympathy. I can only pray that if something like that happened with my dog, the person within their right to shoot my dog would be as kind as to call me first, like in the article.
Anyone that thinks otherwise has probably never lived in the country.
Could likely be a hobby farm. Probably sells the venison to people who aren't into hunting or can't get out to do it often, but dig the taste. But I don't know, the site's down.
Regardless, killing someone's animals because he killed a different person's animals seems kind of hypocritical. I know people get all sopping wet over doggies and kitties, but the response is a little silly.
You might want to convince your friend to kill the cats before throwing them into fires if he isn't already. There's being crazy, and then there's just being an asshole.
I'm probably more nuts about property than my farmer/rancher family, they're more crazy in the classic racist and conspiracy theorist ways. I don't kill animals, but I get mad and anxious when people walk in my driveway or park too close. I'm always suspicious that they're going to rob/rape/murder me or steal my baby/pets. But I'm the paranoid type.
it's going to cover the cost of his lost business and any effects springing from that. Potentially it could pay off his house and buy his entire biz from him if this ruins his name forever.
that's not backlash and harassment insurance, it's just normal liability and loss. My insurance has to cover me if a random fire breaks out and destroys my business just like they have to cover me if a random lynch mob forms and destroys it.
Which is why we trust the courts to at least TRY and serve justice, as opposed to over-emotional internet mobs with 1 side of the story spoon fed to them in easy to read infographs.
I hate that shit.
>Why the hell would insurance cover that?
because it's perfectly legal.
if you're legally going about your business and the public riots and ruins you that's not your fault. Insurance covers looted liquor stores in the LA riots and it's going to cover this guy too.
That's a real concern for people on farms, though. Just yesterday, one of my friends had 2 of their livestock guardian dogs stolen. Absolute WTF. It's right to be suspicious of anyone getting near your property - especially on foot.
I thought me saying "unless they actually do kill his animals" was discounting actual riots and physical.
I'm asking why you think they'll give him money because people are threatening and harassing him online. These are armchair activist types, they aren't actually going to show up and do anything. The worst they'll do is run his name though the mud.
I'm in a suburb of a pretty large city with a bad reputation. Dogs are stolen from yards all the time around here. Other animals, not so much. Babies, not at all that I am aware of.
We have been robbed before. Once successfully, two other times attempted but thwarted by neighbors, not counting the times our cars were broken into. Also twice in the past year, someone in my family didn't lock the door behind them, and someone threw the door open and ran when they realized I was home. My brother and I have both been assaulted. Not a great area.
I think it's fair to be a little suspicious, now that I give it more consideration.
>The worst they'll do is run his name though the mud.
case precedent in the US.
insurance has previously paid businesses when their names are raked through the mud, and both insurance companies and businesses have successfully sued the people slandering them.
which means there are established legal guidelines where people are damaging a business and insurance companies have to pay for those damages.
in many cases the insurance companies will do their best to get their money back from the people actually doing the damage as well. How successful they are probably depends a lot on how many people are in on it.
tl;dr: it's not just activism, it's actually costing the business owner money. and it's not his fault, so it gets handed off to insurance.
but it's not slander because he actually did kill the dogs. it doesn't matter that it's legal, if people don't like it, they're allowed to talk about it and spread the word.
he did a thing that people didn't like, so it is his fault and doesn't deserve to be protected by insurance.
>they're allowed to talk about it and spread the word.
if he shut down his website and went into hiding they're doing more than just exercising their right to free speech.
deserve doesn't really have much to do with it. His insurance is required to pay whether he deserves it or not.
Most likely that dentist that shot a lion in Africa and had to go into hiding is going to get a nice fat paycheck as well.
so he's being a pussy about the backlash. you still haven't explained why his insurance will pay though. first you went on about riots and physical damage, which isn't happening. next you talked about slander, which this isn't a case.
what are these people doing to him specifically that is covered by insurance? i meant deserve as in what happened to him that going to get insurance involved here. i still don't get why insurance would cover you because you fucked up and got bad publicity. people damage businesses all the time by reacting to them doing things they didn't approve of.
1. he's being illegally harassed on his website and telephone, both of which are legally his place of business.
2. that harassment has forced him to close his business, costing him money.
it's likely that much of what people are saying is actually slander. I could probably find a couple comments itt that are slander or illegal threats under US law. I wouldn't be surprised.
Even OP posting the guy's info is probably illegal in this context, it's likely a threat or slander or both. It's undoubtedly against 4chan rules, because that is illegal in the US.
Not the guy you're replying to, but there is a huge difference between bad publicity and someone deliberately attacking your business. There are legal differences, and by extension, differences in insurances classifications and payouts. Also in how the 'damage' is executed against your business.
It really all depends on the insurance policy. And frankly, I doubt this guy has insurance for raising some deer as a hobby for a few bucks on the side. Really depends on the size of his entire farm operation. If he does, most lightweight policies won't cover anything unless physical damage is done. Proving anything without tangible evidence is hard, and requires actual numbers showing business decline and proof of relation. Insurance companies aren't pushovers. It's far from a guaranteed payout.
>Even OP posting the guy's info is probably illegal in this context
If nothing else, it's not allowed on 4Chan and 99% of other forums out there. It's a liability issues. If someone from 4chan went and killed the guy, 4chan would get tangled up in it for providing the personal details. All websites are like that.
>frankly, I doubt this guy has insurance for raising some deer as a hobby for a few bucks on the side
insurance is required of any business and also any property on which you have a mortgage.
chances are good he has insurance.
I don't think he'll have any trouble showing this cost him money. All he needs to do is compare 2016 sales to 2015.
thanks, that clears things up a bit.
but that does kinda go back to what I'm asking. maybe it's because i haven't read the article, but it was my understanding it just created an internet shitstorm of people bitching and threatening to do something. is that really "damaging" his business in a way that is going to get a payout?
same to you, did people do more than what i said above or can you really get paid because people on the internet bitched a lot about you for something you really did do?
>is that really "damaging" his business in a way that is going to get a payout?
assuming he has insurance and like the other anon says, can show that he was damaged and it wasn't his fault (he didn't break the law or intentionally damage himself).
My business liability policy would absolutely cover this. Their section on internet exposure is as thick as a phone book but they absolutely cover slander and threats. This shit can cost businesses millions, and it's not always your own fault.
>chances are good he has insurance.
Oh, I'm sure he has homeowner's insurance. I just don't know if his business insured. For example, backyard dog breeders are not insured. They have websites and junk. But you'll never see them with an insurance policy that covers their "business." So it's hard to say if this guy is covered without knowing what his business is. If he just has some deer as something to do on the side when he's not greeting at Walmart, he probably isn't covered by any existing policies.
then why doesn't every business that did something bad for publicity and is legal but caused damage get a payout? why are insurance companies protecting people from the effects of bad publicity? where exactly is the line drawn between people simply boycotting and posting about your business and damaging it enough to receive a payout?
>where exactly is the line drawn between people simply boycotting and posting about your business and damaging it enough to receive a payout?
the line is at illegal harassment, slander and threats.
the same line that takes you from legally speaking your mind to sitting in jail because you didn't realize you're not allowed to call up a number you found on 4chan at 2 am and tell whoever answers that you're going to kill them.
Nothing wrong with this, "friendly" dogs can turn into killers once livestock gets spooked. My uncle shoots dog once they put a toe into his land because it is less riskier than seeing what will happen, he has lost so many sheep in the past to mongrels not being restricted.
As for taking a picture some places require you to have evidence or even call the police and show them the dogs.
Stop being butthurt about it.
There are some scumbags out there. Every house on my road got robbed except for mine because my dog has a burning hatred for all living things but really he is a pussy but he barks, snarls loudly and spins in circles making him look like a demon.
Postman told me there two dogs he is afraid of in his jurisdiction and one is mine.
If you ignore him and walk past him he will stop barking and just go do something else
>all these autist acting like dogs never ever fucking manage to escape
Large dogs can dig and jump and are fast.
If they were digging into his deer enclosure there were a million different things he could have done instead of killing some peoples pets.
I think it's sad that those dogs were shot and the deer farm owner is likely an asshole (I have known a lot of farmers and all of them are violent assholes), but being a violent aggressive asshole doesn't mean you can't protect your property and livestock.
Fucking this! What else could he have done? Shooting them is the best method for a farmer.
It is just a bunch of faggots showing favoritism towards dogs. Having his deer killed would be as bad as having the dogs killed.
It was his deer or their dogs and if some nigger huskie mixes came around harassing my animals I would shoot them without hesitation.
Keep your dogs fenced in or train them, fucking simple.
>The property owner said he attempted to "run the dogs off with his four wheeler" after discovering them attempting to dig their way into the fenced-in deer, but they would not leave, police said.
if this is true, the dude was absolutely justified in shooting the dogs. if they had just been on his property and not doing anything, his reaction would have been completely uncalled for
but if the dogs were actively trying to get in with the deer, they needed to be stopped
ungulates are easily spooked and can do a ridiculous amount of damage to themselves in a heartbeat. these dogs had a history of getting out, and posed an immediate threat (if you are willing to believe the farmer's account of what happened).
shooting them before they got into the pen with the deer would be the only option. imagine trying to extract three dogs from that situation. fuck that.
predatory animals like dogs can show a really nasty side when around skittish prey animals. i'm sure this woman thought the world of her dogs but that does not mean they were perfectly well mannered animals, especially when presented with an opportunity like this
it's a shitty situation but the farmer is not at fault. i will reiterate: it is a shitty situation and it sucks that it happened but if you read the article, the farmer did the right thing to protect his animals which, even if the dogs had not harmed them, may have done an incredible amount of harm to themselves as they panicked because that's just what hoofed animals do
calling the owner first.. before... what? it's shitty that he burned the bodies without trying to contact the owner, yes. but that doesn't have anything to do with the shooting.
i doubt he could have gotten his hands on the dogs while they were alive, and honestly i wouldn't want to. three good sized dogs that you don't know who are zeroed in on prey items sounds like a situation you don't want to stick your hands into.
and are you seriously trying to use his instagram as a way to argue that he was in the wrong when he shot the dogs to protect his animals...?
If the dogs in any way damaged his property the owner of the dogs should be fined. It is not justified to destroy the dogs if they are docile and pose no threat to the life of people.
My dog is extremely violent to everyone thats not me, my dad, or children, this is why I keep her indoors when im not with her, and on a harness with a shock collar when I take her out. The harness is because I dont trust conventional collars not to break if she charges, and the shock collar so that if she darts off and I lose hold of the leash I can zap her down.
I also fully expect her to be shot if shes out wandering alone because of her kill drive, which is why I do everything I can to prevent her from ever getting into that situation. This dog owner is trash that should be buried along with their dogs, if you let your dogs wander freely or fail to procure adequate equipment necessary to retrain your dogs from breaking free, your dogs deserve to be shot the moment they step onto someone elses property.
Okay, but you have ignored the point that he probably could not (and, for his own safety, would not want to) get his hands on the dogs. i guess you could assume, for the sake of your argument, that he had his neighbor's phone number already, and knew who the dogs belonged to -- but maybe he didn't.
Of course, barring any action of the law, the family can still sue the deer farmer for mental anguish and, frankly, they could get quite a bit from him. I'm sure the price could be made to match how many deer he would have allegedly lost to somebody's tame-ass family pets.
this... is one of the most naive things i've ever read regarding animal behavior and time-critical situations involving animals.
sorry, i'm out. your super idealistic approach to this is a.. thing, and is 100% unrealistic.
>doesn't own a tranq gun
>can't get friendly pets to just come to him
>doesn't just keep an eye on them until the owners can be contacted
>tries to chase them a four-wheeler, assuring that they won't trust him now, enough, to just come to him
>this is basically the dog version of trayvon martin
Regardless of who's in the wrong I fully empathize with the woman as a dog owner and lover.
Fuck I can't believe what it must feel like to see this >>2027586, I can't even imagine it and I don't want to.
>implying excited husky mixes wouldn't maul the shit out of frantic prey animals
Doesn't matter how nice a dog is to humans. It has absolutely nothing to do with how they treat deer, rabbits, chickens, etc.
I think he tried, or has tried in the past. This in not the first time they have gotten out and caused a scene.
If I have to choose between some dogs mauling my livestock or my livestock, I'm choosing to save my livestock. If that means I have to kill those dogs so be it.
You forget that it takes time to call the person or drive over to their house if you don't have their number, then get them to come round up their animals. That is if they are even home or care enough to come get them. During all of that time 3 dogs can kill and/or terrorise a lot of deer.
The only thing I have a problem with is the jackass decided to burn the dogs bodies after killing them. It seems like he was disposing evidence, especially if he didn't kill the dogs in one shot.
>Most dogs nowadays have tags with phone numbers.
One thing most of the people in this thread don't understand is these were not the cuddly, playful, friendly dogs that people keep as indoor pets. These are farm dogs. They're not going to let you grab their collar and read the phone number (if there is one). If you're lucky, they will do their best to stay 30 feet away and become aggressive if you try to close that distance. If you're not lucky, they lunge for you right off. That is what to expect from a rural farm dog. No, factor that into how you think the situation would have been handled better.
>It is not justified to destroy the dogs if they are docile and pose no threat to the life of people.
Do you realize how many dogs are put down every year who are "docile" because of mistakes they made? Home owner's insurance, potential lawsuits, keeping the peace - all valid reasons to put your dog down if they tear into somebody or even other dogs. It is not a black and white issue.
My family had to put down our Akita who tore a 10 year old's face off. Want some details? The dog was inside our house. Tied to a recliner. The boy was in our house alone, unattended, and he (by his own words) put his face up to our dog's. The dog was a domestic guard dog and didn't take shit from strangers. But because of potential legal complications, we put him down. We never got sued because we voluntarily took the dog out, and the circumstances made it impossible to find fault in how we handled the situation. Shit happens.
you are so full of shit, I live 5 minuets away from this guy, and hes dead on right for shooting the dogs.
Past that, he is within Indiana law to shoot any dog that is roaming, to shoot any dog threatening his stock, and to shoot any dog on his land.
My dogs are very friendly and I still wouldn't trust them in a fenced in area with deer.. I'd be upset if they were shot, but that's the risk you take for improperly securing and not training dogs when you live near livestock.
Same thing as outdoor cats, really. Sometimes they go where they don't know they shouldn't go and they pay the price.
>he could have given the dogs some food and try reading the phone number off their tags while they were busy eating.
This is what hippies actually believe.
>reach out for a strange dog's throat while they're eating a treat.
Let us know how that goes.
>>raising deer instead of being a man and hunting
Every fucking time
"you don't need a gun, real men use their fists"
"you don't need agriculture, real men hunt for their food"
"you don't need a truck, real men use their legs"
"you don't need your testicles, real men replace them with pingpong balls"
"you don't need your house, real men sleep in the snow"
just admit you have no argument and are full of shit.
between me, and my family, I would say we have well over 900 animals, mostly sheep, but also hogs/cattle/goats/poultry and I have a llama cause llamas are cool, not one of us owns a tranq gun.
>this is basically the dog version of trayvon martin
So we are in agreement this is a legally justifiable shooting? Or am I to assume you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
so you also shouldn't bring it up as a solution to a n y t h i n g
even administering sedatives when you know exactly how much an animal weighs is risky as fuck
anesthesiologists make a shitzillion dollars for a reason, it's very easy to accidentally kill living things when you sedate them
>probably a complete dickbag anyway
okay but what does that have to do with him being 100% in the right when he shot the dogs
The problem with this story is that we don't have the full means of it. While he was legally in the right to shot the dogs if they were being pests on his property, it's suspicious as fuck that he burned the carcasses. All we have in the story is this man saying he shot these dogs because they were trying to dig into the pen.
I bet he killed one of the dogs clean and murdered the other two as they tried to get away. One of the dogs even has a wound on the haunch in the snapchat picture. If the dogs were trying to get away or were wounded and trying to escape, he killed them in cold blood, and that isn't fucking right.
>it isn't suspicious that this guy tosses their bodies into a fire pit to destroy evidence that he was shooting at them as they tried to flee the property
If he was making a point that the dogs were dangerous to himself and the deer then the bodies would prove that with where the shots hit the mark. A dog running at you will take a bullet differently from a dog running away, and he had three targets.
Dogs aren't stupid, an anon in 'my family killed my pets thread' even pointed out that his dogs bolted like hell when they botched shooting them.
No. We accept that it was legally ok for him to shoot those dogs. The courts decided this and it's how things are. But nothing wrong? His plan A was haphazard and far too aggressive for the situation and his plan B was quite literally overkill. If that isn't apparent from reading the story, then what the fuck are you even doing here? I get the guy has his livelihood invested in his livestock but so did my grandfather. He never shot somebody's pets over it but, again, he wasn't a dumbass.
>then the bodies would prove that with where the shots hit the mark.
which doesn't matter.
>A dog running at you will take a bullet differently from a dog running away
if it's on his property they can legally be shot.
>Not by legal definition
well we could believe you or we could believe the police in the county that said he was legally within his rights.
go ahead and guess which one we're going to believe.
I literally live 15 minuets from were this happend, what do you mean I don't have the full means of it? Facebook has been going nuts with retards to commit criminal acts over this shit.
He burned them because you never, NEVER, give the bodies of dogs back after you shoot them, it is asking to get sued. Indiana law says he can shoot them.
I suggest you all read up on Puckett v. Miller, its not the first time our state has had this debate, and we have a very clear stance on the issue.
I've shot in my lifetime no fewer than 13 dogs, and my livelihood is not tied to my livestock, I just raise them as a hobby. Why should I allow my animals to be injured because some dipshit cant keep their husky muts chained or contained?
It is essentially undisputed that Puckett's dogs were unattended and trespassing upon Miller's property. Two statutes address this situation:
>"Dog that has killed, chased, or worried stock or fowls — Killing — Penalty for keeping. — Any dog that is known to have killed, maimed, chased or worried any sheep, cattle, horses, swine or other livestock or fowls, unless accompanied by his master or some other person, may be killed by any person, and any person who shall own, keep or harbor any dog, after he knows that such dog has killed or maimed, chased or worried any sheep, cattle, horses, swine, other livestock or fowls shall be fined in any sum not less than ten [$10.00] nor more than fifty dollars [$50.00]."
>IC 1971, 15-5-8-1, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 16-203 (Burns Code Ed.).
>"Killing roaming dog. — If any dog shall be found roaming over the country unattended by his master or owner or his owner's agent, it shall be lawful to kill such dog."
>IC 1971, 15-5-8-3, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 16-204 (Burns Code Ed.).
Again, read Puckett v. Miller
>Another couple interesting facts. Randy's deer racket was highly illegal, possibly violating federal wildlife laws. And his criminal record featuring DUI's and domestic violence made it illegal to own a gun at all.
Assuming he is a convicted felon and barred from owning a firearm under the current laws, the legality of the gun has no bearing on the legality of shooting the dogs. He could however be charged for weapons violations if the gun is his.
Past that, I would love to know how you claim his "deer racket was highly illegal" when Indiana Code - Section 14-22-20.5-1 through Indiana Code - Section 14-22-20.5-5 says it is.
You made the claims, so the burden of proof is on you, but I suspect you are talking out your ass, so go ahead and keep making baseless claims on topics you are ignorant about.
[citation still needed]
you made the claims, now back them up. I do not take your word as that of an expert, and have no reason to, so start providing sources for your claims.
>You can not sell livestock for hunting.
I skimmed the entire section of code pertaining to livestock, not once does it say this anywhere. Provide a source or I will assume once again you are talking out your ass.
>So in summary, you can shove your false accusations up your ass.
What false accusations have I made?
searching their name actually brings up their registered corporation....
if they took the time to register with the state it seems pretty unlikely they skipped the local license.
1) that dealt with wildlife, not livestock, by your claim we are talking about livestock
2) the article you linked references no specific law
3) Amicus brief
Which animal portion are you talking about?
The two parts that are relevant (based on your claim that these dear are livestock) can be found on the links below, and do not by any means amass 500 pages.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/14/22/20.5 (pertaining strictly to wild cervids)
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/15/19 (the entire livestock code)
To pull a specific passage, both as evidence to support my point, and to show you how its done
>As used in this chapter, "cervidae livestock operation" means an operation that:
>(1) has a game breeders license issued by the department of natural resources under IC 14-22-20;
>(2) contains privately owned cervidae; and
>(3) involves the breeding, propagating, purchasing, selling, and marketing of cervidae or cervidae products; but does not involve the hunting of privately owned cervidae.
Ind. Code § 14-22-20.5-2
(keep in mind by your own claim, these deer are livestock, not wildlife)
As long as there was no hunting on his operation, he is within the law. He is not responsible for what the operation in Pierston however could be in violation.
Start citing hard sources or admit your wrong,
If you would like to see the code written in brick form instead of separated piece by piece, you can find it here. https://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2015/ic/titles/015/
>if he sells to the public
I also live in southern Indiana,ost deer farms sell live animals to hunting camps for people to pay to shoot. Or they are butchered and sold to public as food source, either way the emotional state of the deer is irrelevant.
Three times these dogs have escaped. According to the article, they did it by moving a rock that covered a previously dug hole under the fence. They covered a hole with a rock. That is irresponsible ownership. Not to mention the farmer was completely in his rights.
Both parties are you blame. I know the farmer tried to run the dogs off, how much if an effort he put in I'm skeptical about, these were friendly pets, not wild animals on a raid. The owners are just as much, if not more, at fault however for failure to keep the dogs secure. I know shit happens, but this is the third time, and putting a rock over a hole sounds about as half assed as it gets. It's a sad situation that easily could have been avoided.
As for the person who took a pic of dead dogs to post on fecesbook, fuck you. That was only done to start shit and that person should be ashamed of themselves.
I agree with you mostly. But how is blocking off how the dogs escaped irresponsible? They addressed how the dogs were getting out, and it did contain them perfectly well until this rain made the dirt soft. It's a reasonable mistake to make.
They did not address it. They used the quickest fix without enough concern to properly fill the hole, let alone deepen the fence foundation.
Putting a rock on a hole is an irresponsible way to block the dogs' escape.
Shit, they could've even bought rough gravel and filled in the hole. Dogs don't usually want to dig in densely packed rocks, especially if it has sharp edges. It takes barely more effort than a brick. They did the laziest thing.
>That was only done to start shit and that person should be ashamed of themselves.
the farmer burned the dogs and left the owners just wondering where their dogs went. He was trying to hide it. The guy taking the pic was right to do it
He wasn't trying to hide it, he was trying to dispose of the corpses because if he didn't they risking making things sick as they decay.
You don't really expect him to spend a day and a half digging graves for coyotes do you? Why would he do it for dogs?
like I stated before, burning carcasses is a whole lot cleaner than digging a hole anyway.
not like /an/ would know, they've never buried anything, and they can't bury anything because they're all women living in the city where there's only pavements and asphalt judging from the lack of gardening on this board.
I've buried plenty, and I've never had the odor problem mentioned earlier. And I can say that the smell of burning hair is absolutely horrible, though I don't know if fur is any different. Normally when I bury an animal, I wrap it in cloth first, so it's not really messy. Just takes some effort to dig the hole.
Maybe you're not digging deep enough.
>Also what kind of fag raises and breeds a problem species?
What kind of fag wouldn't!
>he was trying to hide it
He had every right to dispose of the bodies. Calling the number on the collar to tell them the animal has been put down is one thing, calling them to come get the corpse is another.
I stand by my original statement, that person posted that pic only to start shit. Both parties were in the wrong, sad situation, let the parties involved deal with it and mind your own business.
>believing that the guy "did all that he could do" before shooting them when he was insensitive enough to snapchat their corpses to a friend, then burn their them without telling the owners first
You guys are such naive cock suckers. If you were smart, you'd realize the one thing he didn't do: fire into the air. This guy obviously didn't give a shit, and just shot them without trying anything else.
Legally, yes, he wasn't required to and he had the right to kill the animals threatening his property. At this point, I don't think anyone is arguing the mere legality of his actions.
However, shooting someone's pets is a cold thing to do, even if they are a nuisance. You can rationalize it's the fault of owner for letting them escape all day, (and I agree, the owner is at fault here, they aren't blameless at all), he didn't need to kill these dogs. He had the right to, but he didn't have to.
It's all on his word that those dogs wouldn't go away. And it's not hard to imagine after two previous escapes (also the fault of the owner of the dogs, not trying to gloss that over) that he was sick of it and decided this would be the last time and didn't try too hard to get them to go away.
Basically, yes, the owner should have stepped up and repaired the fence properly, and yes, the farmer did nothing illegal, but it didn't have to end with these dogs dead.
It doesn't take a fucking genius to realize collared huskies are someone's pets and that since people are really, really biased in the favor of pets, even if the owner fucked up, it's best to not to kill them, if just to avoid this exact controversy.
I'm not sure you understand rural culture and property in the US.
you may see it as cold and callous, we see it as a property owner exercising his right and his duty.
we don't appreciate your pets getting loose and destroying things. The farmer saved the county some money, because if he hadn't killed them our cops would. We don't tolerate dogs that destroy property or chase livestock/wildlife. They're killed without question.
>he was insensitive enough to snapchat their corpses to a friend,
That's not what it says in the article. As a matter of fact, it states the opposite, the farmer did not take or post the pic.
It's not just muh properdy.
Our government will kill your dog if they see it chasing livestock or wildlife. This is the law of our land, we all agree to it when we live here.
>Cry more, dog killer.
not him, but that insult isn't going to bother anyone who shot a dog under these circumstances, as I've said earlier in this thread, i've killed 13 dogs for messing with my animals, and would kill another 13 without hesitation.
Can't keep your dog contained? I will fix the problem for you.
Thats it, get mad about things you have no understanding of.
I hope you don't own any animals if you think its the farmers fault for shooting the dog, and not the owners fault for not keeping the dog contained.
I hope you get mauled by a dog that the owner just couldn't bother to keep contained.
>the lack of gardening on this board.
There used to be a lot. It was a long time ago, though. I imagine when 4chan as a whole became more popular and less mature simultaneously, some of the more mature crowd left.
I am 34 and barely hanging on after all these years. This site has gotten so bad.
The real funny part is it's all anonymous. His pride was so fragile, he couldn't handle being proven wrong even if no one knew it was him. Her. Whatever. That is just sad either way.
>If you were smart, you'd realize the one thing he didn't do: fire into the air.
Doesn't matter. For one, it was a legal kill. But more importantly, this thread is full of city folks (or least people with HOAs) that have never lived next to some asshole who left his dog out all night, every night, barking 10 feet from your bedroom window until the sun came up.
The fact is other people's animals can easily be annoying enough for to want to fucking strangle. You may think "Oh no, I'd never do that". Fine. Live in your fairy tale world. Until you move next to someone with lots of animals and no respect for their neighbors.
There is no "going to talk to them" about it. Or "calling animal control". Nothing you can think of in your internet-lawyer head will work. And if you have the legal chance to take them out, you'd do it. Just like the guy in the article and the dogs constantly fucking off on his land.
Oh, god, I love dogs, but my neighbor had a basset hound that I wanted to poison. Never felt such hate for an animal before. If it heard anyone, it would howl for fifteen to twenty-five straight minutes, right near my window. There was nowhere in the house to escape its noise. I never hurt it, but I felt such immense relief when that thing died.
You know when you hold in a shit for four or five hours, and it's painful, but you really don't want to use the public restroom? So you wait until you get home, and then you take the biggest, most satisfying shit of the year. That's what it was like when the dog died, only I held in that shit for twelve years.
I love dogs but fuck you if you let them roam, they should be shot
>Brother has chickens
>Crazy ass neighbor bitch lets dog roam
>Chicken walking around garden minding their own business
>Brothers 2 year old daughter has a chicken she handled since it was a chick called baby, baby would let my niece stroke her and hug her
>Nigger dogs runs into garden kills 5 chickens including baby
>Niece 3 years old and still asks where baby is.
My brother told the neighbor next time the dog puts a tow in his garden it is getting a bullet.
Digging out a fence is a substantial risk to the deer and a fair amount of money spent on repairs, assuming this was only the first attempt. If they had gotten in there's no real telling how much damage they would have done.
Probably a lot and the owner would most likely not pony up the cash for damages. It would have been a long civil case either way.
OK OK little ofended virgins...
he picked the colars after burning the corpses, guess its says all...
try see it this way, your son robs a shop, the owner, shots him, Gets is id and them burn the corpse. its in is own right... right?
It's more like your idiot son runs away from home, attempts to murder shoppers in the store, and the shop-owner shoots your son to prevent him from slaughtering his customers, without which his business would go under.
And also your son lives twelve years max, isn't sentient, and you don't care enough about him to keep tabs on him.
Guy who lived on a ranch for a few years here, the guy might well have been justified. There's a lot of damage those dogs could have done even if they hadn't attacked. Deer are skittish as fuck and if the dogs had gotten near them it's quite probable the deer would have injured themselves to get away from what, to them, is a pack of vicious predators who literally smell evil to their instincts.
He could have handled the situation way better, but protecting his livestock from loose dogs is a valid excuse.
This is amqzing, I been gone from this board for a long time, because of all the sjw, liberal, hippie BS, this threas has revived hope. Ill be coming back more often now.
In topic now, the dogs should of been leashed up, he should of notified her before hand, but he had the lrgal right, it was his deers or her dogs, and the deer cost him money
Read the article. This is the 3rd time they've got out. The owner "fixed" the problem by putting a rock over the hole they've been getting out. Evidently they did not do a good enough job.
>Tfw had 6 chickens as pets and some birches huskies mauled 3 of them
>we confront her about it, "oh man, how much do I owe you for them?"
I don't care about the fucking money they were like 2 dollars each, the point is that I raised them and they were my pets, they would jump onto my shoulders if I called them. Let me shoot your husky and say "what do I owe you"
Retarded ass dog owners
The deer were fenced in. The dogs were trying to dig under the fence to get at them. Plus knowing the spastic nature of whitetails, I'm sure they were going apeshit.
So for the fiftieth time this thread, yes the farmer was well within his rights to shoot them.
Op you and the dog's owners are dumbasses. You said abundantly friendly... TO HUMANS! Many dogs have aggression to other animals, and deer are prey animals, no less. The dogs would not have been friendly to the deer. The owner was in the right by protecting his livestock on his land.
In Tennessee it is illegal to shoot a whale from a moving vehicle. Unfortunately it was passed too late, since the whale population of the Cumberland river has been decimated evidently.
Nah. It was just something I read in some kind of "You wouldn't believe these weird laws!" article on cracked or something. I just meant to point out that obsolete laws are dumb.
Might not have been Maryland, might not be true at all.
Why couldn't he have just called animal control instead of trying to chase the dogs off with four wheelers? Or maybe even called the cops and said there were loose dogs on his property terrorizing his animals. It just seems retarded to go for shooting and corralling them over, idk, calling somebody or notifying the neighbors that their dogs were loose? This is assuming it was a once off occasion, if it wasn't I'd call animal control on them, give me one reason why they wouldn't come, seriously enlighten me, because I've used them before to remove dogs from my property without issue
Animal control has never helped me. They're probably vastly different from state to state and county to county.
>caught a pitbull running loose
>dog was chasing cars, running into the street, charging at people
>called animal control
>"just let him go, maybe he'll go home"
>found sick fox wandering listlessly around in parking lot in the middle of the day
>call animal control, say fox is clearly very sick and needs help or to be put down
>""how old is it?"
>fuck if I know, tell them it looks maybe young adult
>"we only take baby foxes, just let it die"
>mfw rabies is present in my area, and it's right beside a neighborhood with a lot of dogs
They're also closed half the week.
And while he is calling and they are taking their sweet time to get there, the dogs have now finished their hole into the deer pin and are killing deer left and right. Not to mention that the deer are panicked and panicked deer hurt themselves, further causing damage.
Because the situation required immediate attention. If someone was choking, and you knew first aid, you would not call someone you would handle the situation. Farmers/ranchers know how to protect and care for their livestock, he handled the situation.
Probably, but he's going to lose income. They'd make her pay for what the deer were worth at that moment, which isn't the same as what they'd be worth when he's selling normally, doesn't account for the effort he's put down, and so on. "The insurance covers it" is never acceptable for a company.
That's the thing about this... If a neighbor's dogs had come onto my property and attacked my cats, I'd probably have shot them too. (I'm in the suburbs, not a rural area, and don't really let my cats out.)
>comparing fucking canines to "loved ones"
You're a sick twisted furry, aren't you? Maybe you should stop anthropomorphizing fucking dogs, you dingus.
No matter how many times you shove your dick into them, they are not going to love you back.
Well when you are a hick rancher you tend to make alot of decisions to save time and money where other people wouldn't.
Burning the bodies is faster and cheaper.
Besides I don't think he knew who's dogs they were and no one wants their dogs sent back to them filled with bullet holes.
Or if you are the conspiracy type, then he could have burNed them to keep people from investigating the deaths and whether or not he was "within his rights" to shoot the fleeing dogs after the first one went down.
I know tons of people including myself who aren't furries who would put bullet holes in you for even assaulting their dogs.
And they all would agree that the rancher was within his rights to shoot those dogs.e
Yeah I applaud that man. Caught some dogs on my 30 acres on gamecam and will shoot them if I come in contact with them. Fucking owners who cannot keep their animals off other people's property deserve their pets getting shot dead.
my ten pound dog got into a goat herd alone once and caused a lot of ... disturbance (spooked the goats and a couple escaped)
and i was there and had him under control in a matter of minutes
i can imagine three big ones, unsupervised can cause a lot of trouble