CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8533
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:01 pm
 


neopundit neopundit:
lily lily:
His own insurance should cover that. Or he can shoot either one for simply being on the property..... hey! maybe that's why that part is still on the books 90 years later, because you just never know when a stray rhino will wander onto your property. ;)


So there you have it. He can sue or his insurance can cover it. What's the point of shooting the dogs again?


To avoid endless legal wrangling? The fact that the family can get a new dog for way less than they'd have to pay if he sued them? Hell, you might even look on it as he did them a favor.

$1:
lily lily:
I also added:
Besides, it's not economically feasible to put up a 6' fence around a ranch.


That depends on how much you value your asset.


Depends on how much you value your PROFIT on your asset.

The fact remains, out in the country, a dog you don't know is a threat to your livestock and livelihood. It sucks hard that these two dogs, who were no doubt loving, loyal pets, suffered from their owner's negligence and were shot.

A dog not under control is a dog out of control. This even goes for in the city. In the city we can afford to be humane, and catch the dog, and try to reunite it with its owner. Not so much out on the farm.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:06 pm
 


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


Besides, it's not economically feasible to put up a 6' fence around a ranch.


True that. And bullets are cheap. :wink:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:10 pm
 


neopundit neopundit:
lily lily:
His own insurance should cover that. Or he can shoot either one for simply being on the property..... hey! maybe that's why that part is still on the books 90 years later, because you just never know when a stray rhino will wander onto your property. ;)


So there you have it. He can sue or his insurance can cover it. What's the point of shooting the dogs again?


At this point I'm sure the rancher would not need to shoot the dogs.

Because his insurance agent would be happy to do it for him.

The dogs stay out of the rancher's pastures and enclosed feeding pens or the dogs get shot.

What is so hard for you to grasp here? Why do irresponsible people have a right to let their dogs run amok? Why does a rancher have to assume the responsibility of taking care of someone's damned dog in addition to his herd?


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 939
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:12 pm
 


hurley_108 hurley_108:
To avoid endless legal wrangling? The fact that the family can get a new dog for way less than they'd have to pay if he sued them? Hell, you might even look on it as he did them a favor.


Them's the breaks for letting your dog out, then. Also, you're assuming some "value" be placed on the dog; what it is "worth" to the family. In this case, it seems that you believe the dog's "worth" to that family is no more than the cost of a new dog.

So, then, if the dog gets free and causes the bull to break it's leg, does the farmer get to shoot the dog AND sue?


hurley_108 hurley_108:
Depends on how much you value your PROFIT on your asset.


Thanks for clearing up the semantics. The fact is, to say it's not economically feasible to put a fence around your ranch is false. This can be clearly demonstrated if I own a 1 gabillion dollar bull.

hurley_108 hurley_108:
The fact remains, out in the country, a dog you don't know is a threat to your livestock and livelihood. It sucks hard that these two dogs, who were no doubt loving, loyal pets, suffered from their owner's negligence and were shot.

A dog not under control is a dog out of control. This even goes for in the city. In the city we can afford to be humane, and catch the dog, and try to reunite it with its owner. Not so much out on the farm.


I didn't say anything to the contrary, or at least never intended to. I just think it's ludicrous to rely on a shotgun to protect a very expensive asset. It will work sometimes, like this case. But I'd try harder, to ensure nothing can happen. Of course, I'm a know-nothing city slicker.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 939
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:21 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
What is so hard for you to grasp here? Why do irresponsible people have a right to let their dogs run amok? Why does a rancher have to assume the responsibility of taking care of someone's damned dog in addition to his herd?


What's so hard for you to grasp here? Put down your "ima debate what I want regardless of the argument" glasses for a second.

I never stated the dogs had a right to be in the fucking field. I said that if the bull is worth as much as you said, the farmer should want to take measures to protect the god damn thing. These measures should be a bit more involved then a shotgun. You see, it may have worked this time. But if 2 random dogs can easily put his asset at risk, he may not be so lucky next time.

I'm sure that his insurance agent would feel the same way.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8533
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:21 pm
 


neopundit neopundit:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
To avoid endless legal wrangling? The fact that the family can get a new dog for way less than they'd have to pay if he sued them? Hell, you might even look on it as he did them a favor.


Them's the breaks for letting your dog out, then. Also, you're assuming some "value" be placed on the dog; what it is "worth" to the family. In this case, it seems that you believe the dog's "worth" to that family is no more than the cost of a new dog.

So, then, if the dog gets free and causes the bull to break it's leg, does the farmer get to shoot the dog AND sue?


What would you rather happen?

A: your dog gets out, and is shot before it can do any harm. You're emotionally hurt by the incident, but learn a big lesson in responsible dog ownership and country life

B: Your dog gets out, a farmer's $250000 bull breaks its leg and has to be put down. The farmer gives your your dog back, and sues you for a cool quarter mill. You've got your dog, but you have to take out a second mortgage to pay the settlement because you don't have the right insurance.

No dog is worth a quarter million. My house isn't worth that. And these animals can be worth more.

$1:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Depends on how much you value your PROFIT on your asset.


Thanks for clearing up the semantics. The fact is, to say it's not economically feasible to put a fence around your ranch is false. This can be clearly demonstrated if I own a 1 gabillion dollar bull.


What kind of car do you drive?

$1:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
The fact remains, out in the country, a dog you don't know is a threat to your livestock and livelihood. It sucks hard that these two dogs, who were no doubt loving, loyal pets, suffered from their owner's negligence and were shot.

A dog not under control is a dog out of control. This even goes for in the city. In the city we can afford to be humane, and catch the dog, and try to reunite it with its owner. Not so much out on the farm.


I didn't say anything to the contrary, or at least never intended to. I just think it's ludicrous to rely on a shotgun to protect a very expensive asset. It will work sometimes, like this case. But I'd try harder, to ensure nothing can happen. Of course, I'm a know-nothing city slicker.


If it works, and it's legal, then why do something that would cost a thousand times more?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8533
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:26 pm
 


lily lily:
$1:
Thanks for clearing up the semantics. The fact is, to say it's not economically feasible to put a fence around your ranch is false. This can be clearly demonstrated if I own a 1 gabillion dollar bull.

How about we discuss gabillion dollar rhinos instead.


What's a gabillion anyway? Since we're doing semantics, I want a definition of that number.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1176
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:33 pm
 


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?

:idea:


you really should keep away from analogies Bart they're not your forte,


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:36 pm
 


neopundit neopundit:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
To avoid endless legal wrangling? The fact that the family can get a new dog for way less than they'd have to pay if he sued them? Hell, you might even look on it as he did them a favor.


Them's the breaks for letting your dog out, then. Also, you're assuming some "value" be placed on the dog; what it is "worth" to the family. In this case, it seems that you believe the dog's "worth" to that family is no more than the cost of a new dog.

So, then, if the dog gets free and causes the bull to break it's leg, does the farmer get to shoot the dog AND sue?


Actually, yes. In both Canada and the USA this would be a tort for actual damages and the owner(s) of the dog(s) would be severally responsible for the actions of their dog(s).


neopundit neopundit:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Depends on how much you value your PROFIT on your asset.


Thanks for clearing up the semantics. The fact is, to say it's not economically feasible to put a fence around your ranch is false. This can be clearly demonstrated if I own a 1 gabillion dollar bull.

hurley_108 hurley_108:
The fact remains, out in the country, a dog you don't know is a threat to your livestock and livelihood. It sucks hard that these two dogs, who were no doubt loving, loyal pets, suffered from their owner's negligence and were shot.

A dog not under control is a dog out of control. This even goes for in the city. In the city we can afford to be humane, and catch the dog, and try to reunite it with its owner. Not so much out on the farm.


I didn't say anything to the contrary, or at least never intended to. I just think it's ludicrous to rely on a shotgun to protect a very expensive asset. It will work sometimes, like this case. But I'd try harder, to ensure nothing can happen. Of course, I'm a know-nothing city slicker.


In general in rural areas people know to keep their pets penned up for their own safety. If it isn't a rancher who shoots the pet it'll be a hungry wild animal that eats it.

In this case the problem was with someone who thought they would move from the city to some bucolic rural fantasy land where you have fresh air and the same rules of life that apply in the city.

Except our ex-pat city folks are now finding out that rural life does not mean fewer responsibilities than they had in the city but more responsibility than they had in the city.

Liese and I moved from the city to a rural area south of Sacramento some years back and I can't tell you how many times I've had to go help do things that we expect other people to do in the city. I've had to help muck out the sump pumps for the islands drainage system (we're in a low lying area surrounded by levees and this is very important), I've gone and helped fix the roof at the school because there's no budget to have union labor come in to do it, I've been out driving the tanker truck for the fire department when they've been short on volunteers, I've helped sandbag the levee during the high water back in 1997, and I've been over to Merritt Island to help hunt down and kill two pitbulls who killed a herd of goats and a pet sheep. And just so you know, I nailed both of them. :wink:

Now, on the other side of that rural thing, when Liese accidentally ran her old car into a ditch one of my friends down there told her to forget the tow truck and he brought out his 100 ton crane and lifted it out without damaging the car in the least. When our air conditioner broke down we asked around at church for someone to fix it and it got fixed and not only did we never get a bill, we still don't know who fixed it. When I needed a couple guys to help me put up a new outbuilding about thirty guys showed up and it was done in a shade under two hours.

None of this would have happened in the city where we barely even knew our next door neighbors.

So when the rancher shoots the dogs that's a violation of the trust and the unspoken rules of most rural communities where people take care of each other and they also take pains to not piss off the people who just might be able to save their property or lives someday.

Now I look at the story with this stupid woman making a federal case out of her dogs getting shot and what I see is someone who will be on her own this winter if her power lines go down. I see someone who will get lost in a blizzard and find no one interested in heading out into the danger to rescue her. I see someone who may have a fire at her house someday and she won't be able to get someone with a tanker to come over and spray it for her - instead she'll have to wait the thirty minutes or so for the regular fire department to show up.

I see someone who may as well move back to the city because she isn't making the kind of friends you MUST make if you wish to live in a rural area. :idea:


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 939
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:38 pm
 


hurley_108 hurley_108:

If it works, and it's legal, then why do something that would cost a thousand times more?


Well, I suppose you think it's a very efficient method, and I do not. I guess we just disagree.

So, on this day the farmer successfully shoots two "bandits". However, later that night another "bandit" sneaks into the pasture and causes the bull to break it's leg. I guess it's been established that for this circumstance, the farmer would put in an insurance claim. What happens then?

Well, I'm going to guess, if it's like insurance anywhere else, that this guys premiums are going to go up. I mean, I've never lived in rural canada, but I'll assume that the insurance company won't say:

"Look, Tom. We need you to promise you are going to be extra vigilant with that shotgun. We need you or a family member out there 24/7 to ensure that this doesn't happen to another bull."

In order to save money, the farmer is going to have to do something extra to protect his asset. Am I way off base? Perhaps the I'm overestimating the extent of this problem, but judging by some of the posts in the thread, this is a major issue.

I'm sure there's a clever farmer with a clever solution.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:39 pm
 


IcedCap IcedCap:
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?

:idea:


you really should keep away from analogies Bart they're not your forte,


Just as proper capitalisation and punctuation are not yours. PDT_Armataz_01_28


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 939
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:42 pm
 


hurley_108 hurley_108:
What's a gabillion anyway? Since we're doing semantics, I want a definition of that number.


Gabillion.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1176
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:48 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Just as proper capitalisation and punctuation are not yours. PDT_Armataz_01_28


:lol: You bastard.

Nice to see you spelt capitalisation the proper way.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 939
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:50 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Actually, yes. In both Canada and the USA this would be a tort for actual damages and the owner(s) of the dog(s) would be severally responsible for the actions of their dog(s).


I think a clever lawyer would be able to get the civil suit reduced by the "value" of the pet.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:54 pm
 


neopundit neopundit:
hurley_108 hurley_108:

If it works, and it's legal, then why do something that would cost a thousand times more?


Well, I suppose you think it's a very efficient method, and I do not. I guess we just disagree.

So, on this day the farmer successfully shoots two "bandits". However, later that night another "bandit" sneaks into the pasture and causes the bull to break it's leg. I guess it's been established that for this circumstance, the farmer would put in an insurance claim. What happens then?

Well, I'm going to guess, if it's like insurance anywhere else, that this guys premiums are going to go up. I mean, I've never lived in rural canada, but I'll assume that the insurance company won't say:

"Look, Tom. We need you to promise you are going to be extra vigilant with that shotgun. We need you or a family member out there 24/7 to ensure that this doesn't happen to another bull."

In order to save money, the farmer is going to have to do something extra to protect his asset. Am I way off base? Perhaps the I'm overestimating the extent of this problem, but judging by some of the posts in the thread, this is a major issue.

I'm sure there's a clever farmer with a clever solution.


I don't know about Canada, but every now and again the teenagers down here like to go cow tipping which sounds like good clean fun, except the cows usually end up with broken ribs.

Typically, the ranchers will keep a vigil on Friday nights after the high school football games let out and apply the proper amount of rock salt to some teenage butts with a twelve gauge.

And then the problem goes away for a few years.

And, yes, it is legal in California for a rancher/farmer to shoot someone with rock salt who is "molesting" their cattle or crops.

Oh, yeah - a couple rural definitions:

Ranchers raise beef cattle.

Farmers husband dairy cattle and raise crops.

The two terms are not interchangeable to rural folks.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.