[Brenda]

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

I think we even agree on this one, Lily

Why the heck does that seem to bother people?

[BartSimpson]

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

I think we even agree on this one, Lily

Why the heck does that seem to bother people?

It doesn't bother me to agree with you, Lily. Although I will note that your commentary on people taking responsibility for their pets sure does sound really conservative to me.

[IcedCap]

lily lily:

IcedCap IcedCap:

yeah but you'd hope that if the driver could safely slow down and let your dog walk across a road they would, rather than driving over it just because they're within the law to do so

That's really irrelevant to this discussion. I was pointing out that there are dangers to a pet in the city that she was more than aware of, and the same holds true in the country as well. Bottom line - your pets are your responsibility and it's up to you to keep them under control, otherwise they're nuisances.

Er no it is isn't irrelevant try and separate this particular case from the livestock protection law, from what I have read the Law allows a farmer to shoot any animal that ventures onto their property whether there're livestock in the vicinity or not.

[BartSimpson]

IcedCap IcedCap:

lily lily:

IcedCap IcedCap:

yeah but you'd hope that if the driver could safely slow down and let your dog walk across a road they would, rather than driving over it just because they're within the law to do so

That's really irrelevant to this discussion. I was pointing out that there are dangers to a pet in the city that she was more than aware of, and the same holds true in the country as well. Bottom line - your pets are your responsibility and it's up to you to keep them under control, otherwise they're nuisances.

Er no it is isn't irrelevant try and separate this particular case from the livestock protection law, from what I have read the Law allows a farmer to shoot any animal that ventures onto their property whether there're livestock in the vicinity or not.

That's because it's utterly idiotic to ask the rancher to wait until the animal causes damage before doing anything about it.

If some guy comes onto a school with a belt-fed machine gun do you want the police to make nice or do you want them to neutralize the threat before he causes a problem?

To a rancher seeing a dog in a pasture is seeing a dog that will sooner or later be in the pasture with his cattle. That means it's time to get out the 30.06 and take care of a dog that, obviously, its owner is not willing to care for properly.

It is not the rancher's duty to assume the role of an animal control officer and spend his day chasing the dog around to catch it and then return it to its owner.

Keep your dog on your property and you don't have to worry about this.

[IcedCap]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This isn't about firearms. Had the rancher used a crossbow or a hunting knife or a rock to protect his cattle we'd still be having this same discussion.

This is about a rancher protecting his herd and the mere presence of the dogs is sufficient to spook the cattle and according to Derby's story the dogs weren't in a pasture, but in an enclosed feeding pen where the cattle would definitely feel threatened and cornered by the presence of two dogs. Panicked cattle are something you want calmed down and NOW, not after ten minutes of trying to chase down some stupid dog so you can read it's tags.

The rancher was totally justified in his actions. Period.

And tell me where I said that if a dog is harassing livestock the farmer doesn't have a right to act? the point that I'm trying to make is this portion should be revoked or clarified... "even just straying on property where his animals are kept"

[BartSimpson]

lily lily:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

I think we even agree on this one, Lily

Why the heck does that seem to bother people?

It doesn't bother me to agree with you, Lily. Although I will note that your commentary on people taking responsibility for their pets sure does sound really conservative to me.

I didn't mean just me. I just find it weird when people act all confused and upset that they find common ground with someone on the other side of the political spectrum. Is it really so difficult to grasp that people have opinions based on all sorts of things, including personal experience, and that we don't just follow some pre-set ideas handed out at the door?

I agree.


Seriously, it amazes me how some newbies will come on here and call me anti-Canadian just because I'm in the US and then they're amazed when they find out I'm more pro-Canadian than a lot of Canadians.

And I run kind of libertarian on some things, anti-NeoCon on almost everything, and I run even a tad leftist when the subject is predatory and abusive corporations like Wal Mart.

And sometimes I find myself having to beat someone up to get them to see that I'm actually on their side on an issue. It seems that some people's preconceived notions all-too-often prevent them from seeing the facts that are right in front of them.

And, yes, it tries my patience but still, I do try to be patient with them if only for my own benefit.

[BartSimpson]

IcedCap IcedCap:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This isn't about firearms. Had the rancher used a crossbow or a hunting knife or a rock to protect his cattle we'd still be having this same discussion.

This is about a rancher protecting his herd and the mere presence of the dogs is sufficient to spook the cattle and according to Derby's story the dogs weren't in a pasture, but in an enclosed feeding pen where the cattle would definitely feel threatened and cornered by the presence of two dogs. Panicked cattle are something you want calmed down and NOW, not after ten minutes of trying to chase down some stupid dog so you can read it's tags.

The rancher was totally justified in his actions. Period.

And tell me where I said that if a dog is harassing livestock the farmer doesn't have a right to act? the point that I'm trying to make is this portion should be revoked or clarified... "even just straying on property where his animals are kept"

As I said....

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If some guy comes onto a school with a belt-fed machine gun do you want the police to make nice or do you want them to neutralize the threat before he causes a problem?

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

IcedCap IcedCap:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This isn't about firearms. Had the rancher used a crossbow or a hunting knife or a rock to protect his cattle we'd still be having this same discussion.

This is about a rancher protecting his herd and the mere presence of the dogs is sufficient to spook the cattle and according to Derby's story the dogs weren't in a pasture, but in an enclosed feeding pen where the cattle would definitely feel threatened and cornered by the presence of two dogs. Panicked cattle are something you want calmed down and NOW, not after ten minutes of trying to chase down some stupid dog so you can read it's tags.

The rancher was totally justified in his actions. Period.

And tell me where I said that if a dog is harassing livestock the farmer doesn't have a right to act? the point that I'm trying to make is this portion should be revoked or clarified... "even just straying on property where his animals are kept"

As I said....

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If some guy comes onto a school with a belt-fed machine gun do you want the police to make nice or do you want them to neutralize the threat before he causes a problem?

I think your analogy is a little extreme, but I agree. City people need to understand that the country is a very different place, animals are kept for work, not pleasure, and that the rules are just different.

I just wish country people would realize that it works both ways, and if they're gonna be making frequent forays into the city they should invest in a vehicle more suited to the city than their full-ton diesel behemoths of trucks. I don't drive my Corolla in your field, or on your rutted / washboard dirt roads, don't drive your vehicle I can't see around on my streets, polluting my air.

Or at the very least, take off the cowcatcher. All those things do in the city is kill people who otherwise might have survived the collision.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

I think your analogy is a little extreme, but I agree. City people need to understand that the country is a very different place, animals are kept for work, not pleasure, and that the rules are just different.

I just wish country people would realize that it works both ways, and if they're gonna be making frequent forays into the city they should invest in a vehicle more suited to the city than their full-ton diesel behemoths of trucks. I don't drive my Corolla in your field, or on your rutted / washboard dirt roads, don't drive your vehicle I can't see around on my streets, polluting my air.

Or at the very least, take off the cowcatcher. All those things do in the city is kill people who otherwise might have survived the collision.

I just can't see some John Wayne style rancher driving a Prius instead of a Ford Super Duty.

[Robair]

IcedCap IcedCap:

Robair Robair:

Your point sucks.

What has changed since 1920 that justifies changing this law?????

the world's changed you dolt, 90 years ago a farmer could've blown away someone walking across his property and probably gotten away with it, 90 years ago folks let their dogs run loose all the time, 90 years ago there wasn't animal control

90 Years ago, dogs that hadn't been taught any better enjoyed chasing cattle. Currently, same thing.

90 Years ago, scared cattle would run. Currently, same thing.

90 Years ago, running cattle would hurt themselves, badly. Currently, same thing.

90 Years ago, a dead animal would cost a rancher a lot of money. Currently, same thing.

90 Years ago, the quickest way to stop a stray dog from damaging the herd was a fast moving piece of led. Currently, same thing.

There is a reason for that law. A good reason. If your dog is running loose, it is your fault, not the ranchers. Put the blame where it belongs.

[BartSimpson]

lily lily:

Besides...

$1:

90 years ago folks let their dogs run loose all the time,90 years ago there wasn't animal control

that's probably the reason for the law right there... and it seems little has changed.

You forgot to mention that in most rural areas there still isn't any animal control.

[neopundit]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

Ok Neo, I’ll put my bull in a kennel like you say , would you then come out and jack off the bull and impregnate the cows for me. Or we could just do it the easy way and let the bull out with the cows and keep shooting stupid people’s best friends.
And you really don’t know how an animal in a pasture can break their legs do you. Man we can always tell a city slicker but we can’t tell them much.

Who said a kennel? Not me. Put up a fence where no dog can get in. Or not, it's your god damn asset. Don't cry about the spilled milk that occurs when your cow tips over and breaks its leg. If I have artifact worth half a million dollars, I don't leave it on the coffee table. I take measures to protect it.

Next, I don't give a fuck how an animal can break it's leg in a pasture. If it does while running from a "predator" then that is something evolution probably should have taken care of. I don't know, I've watched my share of nature shows and have never seen an antelope succumb to a broken leg whilst running from a lioness. Hence, the "thank god for domestication" part of my statement.

Finally, don't be so sensitive. It's not like I insulted your wife/sister.

[Robair]

neopundit neopundit:

Put up a fence where no dog can get in. Or not, it's your god damn asset.

Put up a fence where your dog can't get out. Or not, It's your god damn dog.

[neopundit]

Robair Robair:

neopundit neopundit:

Put up a fence where no dog can get in. Or not, it's your god damn asset.

Put up a fence where your dog can't get out. Or not, It's your god damn dog.

Right. Except on the one hand, my dog gets shot. On the other, your $500,000 asset may break it's leg.

Economically, the one who stands to lose the most should be willing to bear a greater cost. Sitting on your porch with a shotgun is one method of protecting your asset, but it isn't very efficient.

[neopundit]

lily lily:

The farmer can sue, the dog owner can't.

In this instance he can. What about the stray dog? Or the rhinoceros?