[Everythings Shiny]

bulldogz4eva, on 13 March 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

I think I would disappear old mate farmers dog to teach him a lesson in manners.The punishment should fit the crime.Whats a few chooks worth anyway.Its not like they were pulling down a prize bull.yes you can shoot dogs on rural property and I have done myself but you also have to use a little common sense.Some farmers are just wankers.

After having my pet duck savagely mauled and murdered by a dog, don't think for a moment that I wouldn't shoot that mongrel if I got my hands on it. It's not always the cost of what the animal cost you to purchase it in the first place. Daisy was given to me, so technically she cost me no money. I am what you'd call a farmer, so am I a wanker for wanting that mongrel dog dead (The dog would be dead if I got my hands on it BTW). Sorry to seem pissy about it, but this is the exact mentality of our neighbours whose dogs used to be constantly out. My dog got mauled by their cross bred dog (dragged out from under her own fence while she was defending her boundary), few days later Daisy and several other pets had their yard invaded and they lost their lives. They "replaced" the ducks killed and paid Gypsy's vet bill, but what no one ever thought of was the psychological trauma Gypsy went through. She was never the same after that attack

Dog-owner - I'm sorry for your loss. The way he ended this is way over the top.

This post has been edited by Everythings Shiny: 15 March 2012 - 09:05 PM

[Diva]

Odin-Genie, on 15 March 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Diva, on 14 March 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

Aussie3, on 14 March 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

bulldogz4eva, on 14 March 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

What ever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt.We are not talking about dogs attacking and maiming large amounts of sheep,cattle or other livestock that is a different story and yes they should get shot and we have shot dogs for this,no problem.If it was a dog you have never seen before and it was hunting livestock and not caused any damage I would return it to owner or find them and tell them what happens to dogs that do that.Then they cant say they werent warned.Everybody makes mistakes and not all farmers are on massive pastoral leases with feral dogs killing large amounts of stock,a couple of chickens isnt going to see him bankrupt.Its not just the killing of the dogs its waht he did afterwards that annoys me and that is indefensible.If he treated my dogs with such disrespect his would disappear also.Shooting them I could accept but not treating them in that way.Plenty of farmers will see it the same way as animals are nothing more than livestock to them and a means to an end but it doesnt mean you have to be a heartless c**t your whole life.I have a dog here I have had for a month she was going to get a bullet for killing sheep so I took her.She is a lovely dog and it is as much the owners fault for allowing her to be put in that situation and I dont think it warrants her life for it but hey thats just me and yes I live on the land too.

Great post

Really? I don't find the highlighted sentence 'great' in any way.

I do. A lot of people tend to forget how much dogs can mean to some dog owners. If someone killed a member of your family in self-defence, you would grieve for them, but still accept it. However, if they not only killed in self-defence but also mocked you with their bodies, you would want to retaliate!!! I don't understand why some people can't see that for some of us dogs are part of the family and losing them can hurt as much as losing a human family member. To have someone mock that loss is inhuman.

Yep, I might well want to retaliate. But I wouldn't victimise a second set of innocent animals, his dogs, as the instruments of revenge. I might punch his lights out. But harm more animals? No. To 'disappear' dogs just to get at their owner? That's just as despicable as what he did. And btw, some people feel about their chickens just as we do about our dogs.

Dog-owner, I am very sorry for your loss and how you and your dogs were treated.

[bulldogz4eva]

Diva, on 15 March 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Odin-Genie, on 15 March 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Diva, on 14 March 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

Aussie3, on 14 March 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

bulldogz4eva, on 14 March 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

What ever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt.We are not talking about dogs attacking and maiming large amounts of sheep,cattle or other livestock that is a different story and yes they should get shot and we have shot dogs for this,no problem.If it was a dog you have never seen before and it was hunting livestock and not caused any damage I would return it to owner or find them and tell them what happens to dogs that do that.Then they cant say they werent warned.Everybody makes mistakes and not all farmers are on massive pastoral leases with feral dogs killing large amounts of stock,a couple of chickens isnt going to see him bankrupt.Its not just the killing of the dogs its waht he did afterwards that annoys me and that is indefensible.If he treated my dogs with such disrespect his would disappear also.Shooting them I could accept but not treating them in that way.Plenty of farmers will see it the same way as animals are nothing more than livestock to them and a means to an end but it doesnt mean you have to be a heartless c**t your whole life.I have a dog here I have had for a month she was going to get a bullet for killing sheep so I took her.She is a lovely dog and it is as much the owners fault for allowing her to be put in that situation and I dont think it warrants her life for it but hey thats just me and yes I live on the land too.

Great post

Really? I don't find the highlighted sentence 'great' in any way.

I do. A lot of people tend to forget how much dogs can mean to some dog owners. If someone killed a member of your family in self-defence, you would grieve for them, but still accept it. However, if they not only killed in self-defence but also mocked you with their bodies, you would want to retaliate!!! I don't understand why some people can't see that for some of us dogs are part of the family and losing them can hurt as much as losing a human family member. To have someone mock that loss is inhuman.

Yep, I might well want to retaliate. But I wouldn't victimise a second set of innocent animals, his dogs, as the instruments of revenge. I might punch his lights out. But harm more animals? No. To 'disappear' dogs just to get at their owner? That's just as despicable as what he did. And btw, some people feel about their chickens just as we do about our dogs.

Dog-owner, I am very sorry for your loss and how you and your dogs were treated.

Who said anything about harming them.Just because they disappear and he wont see them again doesnt mean they would be dead now does it.Animals get rehomed all the time not always volountarily.I stand by my comments.If you dont like them thats fine thats why its called freedom of speech and my right to express my opinion.Im not here to win a popularity contest.If he treated me with the same contempt I would teach him a lesson, simple.

[bulldogz4eva]

Everythings Shiny, on 15 March 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

bulldogz4eva, on 13 March 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

I think I would disappear old mate farmers dog to teach him a lesson in manners.The punishment should fit the crime.Whats a few chooks worth anyway.Its not like they were pulling down a prize bull.yes you can shoot dogs on rural property and I have done myself but you also have to use a little common sense.Some farmers are just wankers.

After having my pet duck savagely mauled and murdered by a dog, don't think for a moment that I wouldn't shoot that mongrel if I got my hands on it. It's not always the cost of what the animal cost you to purchase it in the first place. Daisy was given to me, so technically she cost me no money. I am what you'd call a farmer, so am I a wanker for wanting that mongrel dog dead (The dog would be dead if I got my hands on it BTW). Sorry to seem pissy about it, but this is the exact mentality of our neighbours whose dogs used to be constantly out. My dog got mauled by their cross bred dog (dragged out from under her own fence while she was defending her boundary), few days later Daisy and several other pets had their yard invaded and they lost their lives. They "replaced" the ducks killed and paid Gypsy's vet bill, but what no one ever thought of was the psychological trauma Gypsy went through. She was never the same after that attack

Dog-owner - I'm sorry for your loss. The way he ended this is way over the top.

Sorry for your loss but your not the only one that has ever had an animal killed by a dog.I have had plenty too but it doesnt make what he did right.Becuase you owned a duck your a farmer?Having your dog attacked is a different story.Like I said they are just chooks and chooks to me arent pets they are Sunday roast as they are to most farmers.Its not a big loss and I have lost plenty of them over the years but I dont cry about it.I know dogs will be dogs.Now if a dog strayed onto my land where my dogs are and attacked one(they cant becuase my place is dog proof).They wouldnt have to worry about being shot becuase my dogs dont tolerate strange dogs.

[persephone]

Quote

they are just chooks and chooks to me arent pets

to some, they are , and to others they are still 'possessions' and valued .Recently I lost my old chookie mate of around 12 years. She was very much part of the family .


When my PET duck was killed by next door's dog , I was devastated....Frances Duck had been my companion for quite a few years .....

[cannibalgoldfish]

Sorry but I this thread annoyed me .For those saying " it wasn't a prize bull " or " Like I said they are just chooks and chooks to me arent pets they are Sunday roast as they are to most" It doesn't matter what animal was killed. Who knows, that " it's just a chook" might have been years of breeding to get to " just a chook" What if someones daughter/grandchild had been waiting on those eggs and watched them grow from chicks... the " just a chook" is wrong.
I'm sorry, but there is no difference between a dog killing a chook or a cow. Or that " prize bull" someone mentioned. The dog doen't need to even get close to an animal but it can create enough stess and worry, panic, livestock running into fences, aborting babies...

All is just as important as " just one chook" This is why we have bogans delibertately running over cats in my street because its " just a cat"

No matter what the animal, it is never " just" an animal"

I"m not getting into the issue here. For those on their egoboxes proudly stating " If you REALLY cared about your pets " they would tick this box then that...
\
I love my dogs. I'm not a bogan loser owner. But my little old guy is getting old. He is starting to lose his sight. Now, he is chipped, registered, vaccinated, loved and everything known to man. But every now and then he has a freak out and tries to escape. I Know I have the yard covered. He cant get out. But all it takes is someone letting off fireworks, a car muffler, any loud bang and he freaks out. Ever seen a scared dog try to scale an impossible fence to escape? We are talking a dog that rubs himself raw and leaps fences much taller than he has ever jumped. This isn't a predictible behaviour. It happened and I was lucky was home.

[Everythings Shiny]

bulldogz4eva, on 16 March 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

Everythings Shiny, on 15 March 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

bulldogz4eva, on 13 March 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

I think I would disappear old mate farmers dog to teach him a lesson in manners.The punishment should fit the crime.Whats a few chooks worth anyway.Its not like they were pulling down a prize bull.yes you can shoot dogs on rural property and I have done myself but you also have to use a little common sense.Some farmers are just wankers.

After having my pet duck savagely mauled and murdered by a dog, don't think for a moment that I wouldn't shoot that mongrel if I got my hands on it. It's not always the cost of what the animal cost you to purchase it in the first place. Daisy was given to me, so technically she cost me no money. I am what you'd call a farmer, so am I a wanker for wanting that mongrel dog dead (The dog would be dead if I got my hands on it BTW). Sorry to seem pissy about it, but this is the exact mentality of our neighbours whose dogs used to be constantly out. My dog got mauled by their cross bred dog (dragged out from under her own fence while she was defending her boundary), few days later Daisy and several other pets had their yard invaded and they lost their lives. They "replaced" the ducks killed and paid Gypsy's vet bill, but what no one ever thought of was the psychological trauma Gypsy went through. She was never the same after that attack

Dog-owner - I'm sorry for your loss. The way he ended this is way over the top.

Sorry for your loss but your not the only one that has ever had an animal killed by a dog.I have had plenty too but it doesnt make what he did right.Becuase you owned a duck your a farmer?Having your dog attacked is a different story.Like I said they are just chooks and chooks to me arent pets they are Sunday roast as they are to most farmers.Its not a big loss and I have lost plenty of them over the years but I dont cry about it.I know dogs will be dogs.Now if a dog strayed onto my land where my dogs are and attacked one(they cant becuase my place is dog proof).They wouldnt have to worry about being shot becuase my dogs dont tolerate strange dogs.

I didn't say having a duck makes me a farmer. Running my farm makes me a farmer. Just because you don't give a damn about what happens to some of your animals but that doesn't mean all farmers are the same.

ETA - The dog that killed my ducks was the very same dog who mauled my other dog. So maybe people should take this a little more seriously.

This post has been edited by Everythings Shiny: 17 March 2012 - 07:39 AM

[greytpets]

Dog owner I'm so sorry for your loss, my heart goes out to you.

I also own 2 little terriers who would act the same way if they ever got the oppitunity, luckily to date they haven't. What I do know is that they can't open gates & they can't get through secure fences. If these chooks had been in a secure yard this wouldn't have happened. Surely it is your responsibility if you own ANY animals to keep them as safe as you possibly can? Too often I see animals kept in very insecure yards whose owners are the first to scream out when something happens.

[Everythings Shiny]

greytpets, on 17 March 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Dog owner I'm so sorry for your loss, my heart goes out to you.

I also own 2 little terriers who would act the same way if they ever got the oppitunity, luckily to date they haven't. What I do know is that they can't open gates & they can't get through secure fences. If these chooks had been in a secure yard this wouldn't have happened. Surely it is your responsibility if you own ANY animals to keep them as safe as you possibly can? Too often I see animals kept in very insecure yards whose owners are the first to scream out when something happens.

You can't keep chooks etc locked up 24/7. Free range birds should be safe on their own property. Rural laws state that the owner must have suitable fencing to keep their stock on their property. If you have one strand fencing that keeps them in, then by law thats all you need. I spent huge $$$ dog proofing my top acre paddock to protect my flock of geese and ducks, no matter how dog proofed (electric fencing included) you can't stop a determined dog. After my ducks were attacked last time, I locked them up for weeks. It wasn't fair on them and as much as I wanted to keep them safe in their pen, it was kinder to them to let them have their free range day time back.

[behluka]

I absolutely feel for the dog owner , I believe the farmer was within his rights to shoot the dogs but the correct protocol should have been followed. Dogs menacing on his property - dogs shot - bodies left where they lie - council contacted for removal/identification. This is a case where the farmer went too far in his actions after the fact, maybe he was tired of irresponsible owners allowing their dogs to roam and menacing his animals and these two were the final straw. No owner needs to find their animals the way this one did but never minimise the species that was injured/killed. To this day my son still cries when he thinks of his pet rabbit and chickens killed by neighbours dogs

Property owners are well within their rights to have any animal they are legally allowed to own contained on their own property, it is up to other animal owners to keep their animals off of other properties end of story

[espinay2]

greytpets, on 17 March 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Dog owner I'm so sorry for your loss, my heart goes out to you.

I also own 2 little terriers who would act the same way if they ever got the oppitunity, luckily to date they haven't. What I do know is that they can't open gates & they can't get through secure fences. If these chooks had been in a secure yard this wouldn't have happened. Surely it is your responsibility if you own ANY animals to keep them as safe as you possibly can? Too often I see animals kept in very insecure yards whose owners are the first to scream out when something happens.

This is a very unfair blame shift particularly when the benefits of free ranging poultry are so well known. I free range some of my poultry but not others (dependant on age, size, breeding program, time of year etc). Certainly there are risks in free ranging. I take precautions as I see fit to protect those birds given known predators. I can not mitigate against occasional 'wild card' intruders without also compromising what I consider to be the welfare of my birds who get great benefit in health and quality of life from free ranging on specific areas of my property. To put the blame on the owner of the poultry for someone elses dog coming onto their property and killing their stock is to blame the victim for the crime because 'they asked for it'.

millbrooksprings, on 17 March 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

I absolutely feel for the dog owner , I believe the farmer was within his rights to shoot the dogs but the correct protocol should have been followed. Dogs menacing on his property - dogs shot - bodies left where they lie - council contacted for removal/identification. This is a case where the farmer went too far in his actions after the fact, maybe he was tired of irresponsible owners allowing their dogs to roam and menacing his animals and these two were the final straw. No owner needs to find their animals the way this one did but never minimise the species that was injured/killed. To this day my son still cries when he thinks of his pet rabbit and chickens killed by neighbours dogs

Property owners are well within their rights to have any animal they are legally allowed to own contained on their own property, it is up to other animal owners to keep their animals off of other properties end of story

I too feel for the dog owner and agree with millbrook springs that while I consider the farmer well within their rights to shoot the dogs, the correct protocol should have been followed. I do understand the frustrations of the farmer though. Having other peoples animals roam on your property and compromise the welfare of your own animals is also a very stressful, frustrating and heartbreaking thing. The loss of ANY animal is not a positive experience, and to have them die a violent and early death is even less pleasant.

As for them being 'just chooks' - as someone who breeds purebred poultry as well as dogs I can tell you that to many many people they are way more than 'just chooks'. If a dog killed some of my birds - who are the product of many hours of planning, multiple generations of careful breeding and selection, sourcing hard to get stock, rearing, observing, handling and yes, even getting to know individual personalities and some that are simply 'more special' - then I would be very very angry and very very upset. In general though - regardless of their supposed 'worth' - no animal should be considered 'just an animal' as a way of lessening the meaning of its existence or the manner of its death.

This post has been edited by espinay2: 18 March 2012 - 11:34 AM

[StaffordLUV]

the "just chooks" attitude is a joke!
what if i said pfff they are only terriers plenty more of them around, they still make them or the pounds are full of them?
That would cause some trouble wouldnt it?

I breed chickens also and the amount of time and effort planning and money that goes into my other hobby is on par with what i spend on my dogs.

It might not have been a "prize bull" which might have been able to defend itself against marauding dogs btw, but they were someone's pets or livestock.

[ellz]

It doesn't really matter whether they are "just chooks" or prize winning sheep, horses or cattle, the law is the law. I'm sorry that the farmer dealt with the situation so badly even though he was within his rights to dispose of the dogs.

When I lived in a rural area I had an agreement with my neighbour....his animals on my land, fair game and likewise, my dogs on HIS land...he does what he has to do provided he lets me know that he has done it.

And yes, whilst in an ideal world a "stockproof" fence COULD/SHOULD be a "dogproof" fence, most often, it isn't.

[KOE]

I think this is probably the only way SOME dog owners take notice,

[Odin-Genie]

Diva, on 15 March 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Odin-Genie, on 15 March 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Diva, on 14 March 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

Aussie3, on 14 March 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

bulldogz4eva, on 14 March 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

What ever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt.We are not talking about dogs attacking and maiming large amounts of sheep,cattle or other livestock that is a different story and yes they should get shot and we have shot dogs for this,no problem.If it was a dog you have never seen before and it was hunting livestock and not caused any damage I would return it to owner or find them and tell them what happens to dogs that do that.Then they cant say they werent warned.Everybody makes mistakes and not all farmers are on massive pastoral leases with feral dogs killing large amounts of stock,a couple of chickens isnt going to see him bankrupt.Its not just the killing of the dogs its waht he did afterwards that annoys me and that is indefensible.If he treated my dogs with such disrespect his would disappear also.Shooting them I could accept but not treating them in that way.Plenty of farmers will see it the same way as animals are nothing more than livestock to them and a means to an end but it doesnt mean you have to be a heartless c**t your whole life.I have a dog here I have had for a month she was going to get a bullet for killing sheep so I took her.She is a lovely dog and it is as much the owners fault for allowing her to be put in that situation and I dont think it warrants her life for it but hey thats just me and yes I live on the land too.

Great post

Really? I don't find the highlighted sentence 'great' in any way.

I do. A lot of people tend to forget how much dogs can mean to some dog owners. If someone killed a member of your family in self-defence, you would grieve for them, but still accept it. However, if they not only killed in self-defence but also mocked you with their bodies, you would want to retaliate!!! I don't understand why some people can't see that for some of us dogs are part of the family and losing them can hurt as much as losing a human family member. To have someone mock that loss is inhuman.

Yep, I might well want to retaliate. But I wouldn't victimise a second set of innocent animals, his dogs, as the instruments of revenge. I might punch his lights out. But harm more animals? No. To 'disappear' dogs just to get at their owner? That's just as despicable as what he did. And btw, some people feel about their chickens just as we do about our dogs.

Dog-owner, I am very sorry for your loss and how you and your dogs were treated.

You are right. I misread the above quote as "If he treated my dogs with such disrespect his he would disappear also". I definitely would not want to harm someone's else's animals. I would want the person responsible to suffer.