John,
I am afraid I am still not properly conveying my message here, so I will try one last time and then I think we should probably move on or risk being censured.
All your points in your last message make sense, on paper. In fact, these are the same ideas I came up with in the past, and pursued. The end result was that for 6 months our SPCA center was shut down, and we had nowhere in our area to take unwanted animals, which created a huge mess. Then we were stuck with a for profit kennel that would not accept animals unless you paid money up front. When folks started going to nearby jurisdictions, it didn't take the other ACAs long to come up with a "no outsiders" policy as well. Our city council was queried, and they just shrugged and said "that's business". It was in the newspaper for a while, and there were some letters to the editor, but nothing changed, mainly because there was no funding for anything different. If dogs were branded livestock, then I would agree that taking strays off my property willfully could be considered theft, but they are not, so open range laws do not apply to them. They are, from the DA's viewpoint, abandoned property, and can be thus treated. As far as civil action goes, I don't like spending precious time and money to go to court (even small claims court) only to find that my hispanic neighbors are "judgement proof", and have nothing I would want or could use/resell for any value, not to mention that then I have started a war with these people. There is nothing surreptitious or criminal about my methods, any more than having the tow truck operator impound your vehicle for being illegally parked.
For the two times I've had to resort to relocating someone's pet out of town, they thus far have not replaced the animal, or if they have, I have not seen the replacement yet. So I would conclude my approach had the desired effect, without creating any undesirable confrontations.
I am glad that the outcome of your encounter worked out as well as you portray. From your previous post, I concluded that you had suffered more grievous injury, but you handled it as you saw fit, and if I were faced with similar danger, I would likely use necessary force to defend myself and utilize legal remedies as well. Fortunately, this is not a huge problem where I live, so my issues really have more to do with property rights than with outright defense. Still, pre-emptive action to remove strays is I believe a sound proactive approach.
What I would do is not legally considered abuse or abandonment, at least not by my local constabulary, and the public is already in danger from an animal that is already loose on it, so how does someone else's inconsideration suddenly become my responsibility? I am not going to pay to have someone else's dog impounded.
Pure and simple, my approach works, and gives the animal a better chance than putting them down would, which I may be legally entitled to do. I find nothing obnoxious about sparing a poor animal's life, even if it means he and others may have to face a certain amount of hardship. Ultimately, for me anyways, this was the best choice I felt was available to me.
I guess I better get started on fencing in my whole property when I get back home. Slowly but surely I am ending up like Bert Gummer. That's a shame, because there are a few really good people in my neighborhood, but a couple screw things up for all of us. Kinda reminds me of Baghdad. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
Previous Topic
Index
