Dog

[Tannin]

My friend lives on seven acres. She has a wonderful native garden, including a number of rare species that she has nurtured, and it is alive with birds. She lives alone, survives on her slender savings, is rather frail and over 50, and her only company most days is her two dogs, Max and Ida. They are beautifully trained. Max is a Springer, lively, intelligent and imaginative, given to moods and attention-seeking now and then. Ida is his opposite. She is a pedigree labrador - not that my friend cares about pedigrees to speak of, she just loves fine creatures. Ida is the fittest, most active labrador I have ever seen. She and Max spend hours every day running round the property, chasing each other, playing all sorts of games, which they invent for themselves. Where Max is charming but moody, fawning or grumpy, Ida is as placid as you could imagine. She is phenomenally active for a Labrador, with that subtle rippling of muscles under her soft black coat that only athletes have, but her jaunts with Max aside, she asks nothing more than to be by your side. She adores humans, is always the first to hear my car and race up to say hello to me. Last winter I had to mend the rainwater tank up on the hill. It was a bitterly cold day, icy, hailing from time to time. Max has sense enough to sulk in his kennel, or hang around outside the door asking to be let in near the heater. Not Ida: she came with me and sat, shivering in the hail, keeping me company until the job was done.

Living on the block next door is a very different sort of person. He runs some stock: cattle mostly, a few other creatures. He's not a farmer, of course, he just plays at it. The block is eaten bare because he over-stocks it. Every summer we have to listen to his cows bellowing for food and water, in winter there is no shelter for them because he has barely a tree on the whole 20 acres, and those he does have are that noxious feral import, Radiata Pine. Where my friend build a new fence around the central three acres of her block so as to keep the dogs from roaming, his cattle regularly break out, and it is not at all uncommon to have them create havoc in my friend's garden.

He does not speak with any of the neighbours, bar his son, who is one block further down, and just like him. He has truckloads of organic factory waste delivered now and then. Allegedly it's "fertiliser", but if the wind is wrong the stench is appalling. (If he is so interested in fertiliser and growing things, why is his block cropped bare and devoid of vegetation?) He doesn't care. He dumps his rubbish in a bulldozed hole, from where it blows all over the countryside. Picking up after him is a regular and unpleasant duty. When one of his sheep or cattle dies (which is not infrequent, as he does not give them proper shelter or look after them), he just leaves it to rot. And when he butchers an animal for the table, he takes the best cuts and leaves that carcass to rot also.

He has guns, of course, several legal licensed ones, plus at least one illegal semi-automatic. I've never seen it but you can hear the rapid fire shots from time to time; far too close together to be a legal weapon.

A couple of weeks ago he butchered an animal and, as ever, left the carcass and all the offal outside to rot. Now what dog, no matter how well-trained, could resist that? Ida, magnificent athlete that she is, can jump any fence less than twice her height, and did so.

So he shot her. No warning, no phone call "can you please control your dog", he pulled out one of his several guns and shot this beautiful, gentle creature in cold blood. (I actually suspect that he left the offal out deliberately in the hope of arranging just this circumstance, but have no way of proving it, of course.) Now the law restricts the use and ownership of guns here in Australia. According to the gun-lovers, the restrictions are very strict and in fact unreasonable. Unfortunately, there are many, many loopholes in them. The particular loophole that is relevant here is the one that says you may shoot any animal if you are farming and you are defending your stock. That particular law meant that, although no-one had the slightest doubt about his selfish, evil action, he could not be prosecuted for it.

Oh yes, the police were called, but in the end they had to admit that there was nothing they could do. They inspected his gun licenses and his guns but (surprise, surprise) the illegal semi-automatic was nowhere to be found. He himself, not realising that he had an iron-clad legal defence already, was foolish enough to flat-out deny that he had shot poor Ida, or indeed anything. I should imagine that it wouldn't have been too difficult for forensic people to find evidence of the shotgun blast in question, but what point? Even with absolute proof, all he had to do was swear on oath that he was defending his cattle from attack.

In the end, the police told him (and his son, who they also interviewed) that, this being a residential neighbourhood, shooting in the area was not permitted, and that if there were any more reports of shooting there could be serious consequences. In reality, while shooting in residential areas is indeed illegal, the population density here is such that it is unlikely that a charge would stand up before a magistrate.

He has had an unfriendly interview with the police to endure and (one hopes) something of a fright.

Ida crawled home in terrible pain and the vet does not expect that she will ever fully recover the use of one of her legs. She is still the same placid, gentle, loyal creature, but it is pitiful to see this once-magnificent athlete reduced to hobbling. The expense of the surgery to remove bone shotgun pellets and fragments from her body was significant, of course.

And my friend is still living next door to a demonstrably unbalanced man with a collection of deadly firearms.

 

[Jake the Dog]

that's a horrible story Tannin, but i'm glad you shared it with us. if it's any consolation to you and particulary your friend, Ida will soon rarely remember the incident and likely only if she were to go near the spot where she was shot. she may get a fright at the sound of a gunshot but that will wear off over time, as long as you don't make a fuss of it.

this is the kind of mean person that i wish could set Jake on.

 

[NRG = mc²]

What a complete twat!!

I would suggest thinking of ways to get back at him. I don't know how, but there must be something you can do, like smash his car up, or cut the brakes, or get a bunch of the meanest dogs that wouldn't even notice a gun shot to tear him apart.

Yes I'm serious.

 

[Handruin]

That story is truly frustrating, and I have to admit, on some level I lived next to neighbors for 22 years who were much of the same way.

It is sad that this person takes his personal frustrations out on a civil dog such as Ida. I see where NRG wants a valid revenge, but in the end it will only do more harm then good. After reading the story, and having a personal love for dogs, I too would be in a state of rage/revenge.

But the man has firearms, and an obvious lack of care for living creatures...humans included...

Like my neighbors, you can't revenge...you have to wait until they bend the law enough times to make themselves noticed. If you retaliate in your own terms, you would clearly end up being the one arrested or hurt.

 

[Cliptin]

That is a terrible problem. On the other hand, the dog is lucky the bad man did not leave out a bowl of antifreeze.

Your friend should get the proper licenses and buy a shotgun and learn how to use it if she is truely afraid enough of this man.

The law is your friend. She should then start calling the proper authorities about his various infractions. Leaving a carcass out to rot has to be against Health department regulations and mistreating his stock must fall within an animal cruelty juridiction. There may even be laws against de-grassing the land and its attendant erosion problems.

 

[Tannin]

Jake: indeed. When I saw Ida for the first time yesterday since the shooting a couple of weeks ago, she was the same sweet, loving creature she has always been. It took her a lot longer to hobble up to the fence to greet me than it used to, and I could see that she was still in pain, but she was in many ways the same as ever. Ida just accepts things. But she will never be entirely pain-free, or the wonderful natural athlete that she was.

She knows the sound of my car, can recognise it from half a kilometer away. I know dogs have sharper hearing than we do, but this amazes me as it's just a perfectly ordinary four-cylinder car, indistinguishable from a million others. Once or twice Belinda has borrowed my car to zip down and get some milk or something, and I've stayed back weeding the garden (or snoozing in the sunshine, more likely). A car might pass every ten or fifteen minutes, and neither dog shows any interest. Then, two pairs of ears prick up, and they take off for the front gate. I can hear a car in the distance by this time. A few moments later, sure enough, I hear the car slow down and turn in: they are already waiting for her at the gate. (If it's me that's driving it, Max might or might not deign to come and greet me, for I am just a blow-in of a few years standing, and a rival for the attentions of his mistress. If he's feeling grumpy ... well I can make my own way down to say hello to him, he thinks, or perhaps he will just come and meet me half-way down the drive. Only if he is feeling well with the world (which is quite often) or if he thinks it's nearly dinner time will Max come right up and wait. But Ida, she is always there.)

-----

Just so, Doug and NRG. My initial thought was to go calling with a friend or two and quietly make it clear to him that he was but a hair's breadth away from walking on one leg himself for the next year or two. There were offers made, and I was tempted.

But on reflection I thought it better to leave it in the hands of the police and I'm glad I did, as I thought the way they handled a situation where they knew exactly what was going down but because of our crazy gun laws were powerless to act on it was a credit to their common sense and professionalism. They went to all the houses nearby and warned people that they would not tolerate firearms being used in this residential area. No-one can complain as everyone was treated exactly the same, but the message got through loud and clear to the only two people in the district that own and use guns - the feral and his feral son.

I don't think we will ever rid the world of people like that (though more attention to families and education would help a great deal), but the thing that must change - will change, bit by bit as the years roll by - is that we can no longer afford to tolerate allowing this sort of scum to own firearms.

 

[Pradeep]

I'm very sorry to hear that Tony.

I don't know about Victoria but in Tassie it is an offense to discharge a firearm within 500m of a dwelling, without the owner's permission.

Unfortunately, as you say, it is a problem because landowners are permitted to shoot animals that are chasing theirs, even though in this case the animal was already dead. Still that is no excuse for violating the Firearms Act. Perhaps you should write to your local paper? Public pressure may cause the prosecuter to pull his finger out.

 

[Mercutio]

My dog (who lives with my parents) is also a black lab. His name is Booker, and despite being aged - 13 is ancient for a lab - now, is also a supremely beautiful specimen.

If someone did that to my dog, there would be no quarter given.

 

[Tannin]

Thanks, Pradeep. I searched and searched for the relevant laws, and consulted several policemen friemds too, but there seems to be no specific rule under Victoria law. It may well have contravened the rule we do have that you cannot discharge a firearm if there is any chance of the projectile leaving your property, but the exact circumstances remain in doubt. Ida is not allowed to testify. Proof would be an issue too. I mean, from the point of view of a court, it just could have been some loonie from Perth or Darwin who just happened to decide to drive 2000 miles over here and shoot a dog. In the end, so long as it's legal for anyone to keep guns in his home without a valid (and I mean seriously valid) reason, I can't see how it's possible to prevent this type of situation. I mean, it's a bit like driver's licences: how do you phrase a law that says "gun licenses are not available to feral scum"?

As for the other matters (garbage, maltreatment of animals), I'm going to play that by ear. On the one hand, there is something to be said for letting sleeping .... er ... "dogs" is not appropriate and if I say "animals" Tea will go all hoity-toity on me ..... er .. letting sleeping scum lie. On the other hand ... well, I'll just wait and see what happens.

 

[Buck]

News like this really saddens me. This insult to humanity we must call a man (we should call him Cain instead), deliberately shot Ida for his own amusement. Tannin, your display of self-control is commendable.

 

[Handruin]

Provided he denied even shooting the dog, was he sympathetic to the situation or defensive? Me thinks he was out for revenge in some form or another. Has there been tension in the past between this neighbor?

 

[Tannin]

Quite right, Doug. There have been difficulties between the surrounding propery owners and this scumbag ever since he moved in, years ago. Belinda is closest to him and gets the brunt of the problems. I'm not sure in what manner he denied it: that question was put to him by the police. I have no intention of speaking to him in person: that would be most unwise.

 

[The Giver]

Leaving the entrails of cattle laying about is definitely a public health hazard. Why not call the SPCA on him as it sounds as if his cattle are neglected. They'll make his life miserable.

 

[Handruin]

Leaving the entrails of cattle laying about is definitely a public health hazard. Why not call the SPCA on him as it sounds as if his cattle are neglected. They'll make his life miserable.

Ah yes, but if this scum bag is of the same breed as my folk's next-door neighbor, the misery will fall back to Belinda since there has been a "higher caliber" incident between them. Even if she doesn't call and someone else does, I'll bet this scum bag will continue to retaliate on her.

Sorry to hear your friend has to live with such an intolerable neighbor. I really do sympathize with her ...I lived in the same situation for 22 years, although thankfully they never touched my dog. I may not have been able to practice what I preached above. :evil:

Oddly enough we lived across the street from a pig farm, and the first thing every out-of-town visitor commented on was the stink. The crap he used to feed his pigs was disgusting. Complaints were filed, but the town let it go. What's the point of rules; they can always be twisted or broken.

Life can be a frustrating thing at times, but in the end there will always be someone else who has it worse.

 

[OT: Polizei]

Napalm and fragmentation bombs.

 

[CougTek]

there would be no quarter given.

First time I read that expression in English. It also exist in French, but I didn't know it was also used in English.

Now back to the topic of this thread. If I ever make a trip in Australia and pass by Ballarat, just give me the address. It will be a pleasure. Free of charge, satisfaction garanteed. Tony's restraint is admirable, but when you have seen too many of these scum bags, vengeance isn't just sweet, it is uncontrolable.

At the very least, you should burn his house so hopefully, he'll move somewhere else.


NRG,

Destroying his car would be ok, but cutting the brakes is a bad idea. The risk that he hurts someone else when he'll try to stop his car (or truck) are too high.

 

[NRG = mc²]

but cutting the brakes is a bad idea.

Small sacrifice to pay for getting that scum off the earth

OK, that was extreme.

 

[Mercutio]

Try burying a dead animal in a shallow grave near his air conditioning intake. He'll never find the source of the smell and it'll ruin the inside of his home.
Sugar in a gas tank works better than cutting a brake line.
Thick, sharp, broken glass at the end of a driveway is kind of funny.

Break a key in a lock and super glue it. That'll get a locksmith out pretty quickly, especially in a car door.

As is urine on anything expensive, especially if you can get it on carpet inside his house - many animals are territorial and will piss where there's a stench of urine.

Does he have a basement window and an outdoor hose?

 

[NRG = mc²]

Some good ideas there, Merc.

Go ahead Tony, you know you want to 8)

 

[The Giver]

Force him to explain the rules of Cricket to every American he meets.

 

[P5-133XL]

As little as I like what happened, I feel obligated to be the devil's advocate here because the story is one-sided and the reactions have all been one-sided. Please note, I have great sympathy for the dog owner and her pain. I have had a dog as a pet ever since I can remember. I’ve even had to deal with a dog that has been shot by a neighbor: Specifically I had a dog with a habit of chewing on garden hoses. The neighbor got fed up and actually shot the dog (not fatally).

First, regardless of what the bad neighbor did, the good neighbor as a responsibility to control her own dog. If it is not possible with a fence, then keep the dog inside, or permanently leached, or caged. The point is that the dog is not on the owners’ property and thereby the owner is not properly controlling the dog and that creates at least partial responsibility on the dog owner for the bad event.

Next, I have no doubt that the bad owner left the carcass out deliberately to attract meat-eating animals. His point is to get rid of potential predators for his stock. It appears that the gun rules allow for the right to shoot predators and he is simply exercising that right. I wonder if you have rules concerning poison bait or traps. What would your reaction be, if the bad guy had put out poison on his own property and the dog ate it, or if the dog had destroyed a leg in a leg-trap? Those are not good events either, but people’s attitudes towards responsibility in dealing with predators differ depending upon local customs and traditions. He undoubtedly thought (thinks) he was in the “right” and dealing with predators according to the local rules. He was just protecting his interests and it is simply unfortunate that the pet was harmed – Not a deliberate action.

If there is a legitimate reason to leave the carcass out to attract potential predators then we can dispense with the argument that he did it just to get the dog. While it is possible that was his intention, why start out with that assumption? Isn’t it much more likely that he was simply negligent or didn’t care: He just shot at anything that came to the carcass on the assumption that it would be a predator. Not a good state to be in, but far above the evil that is portrayed by others. He actually may be regretful and sorry about the incident; I can’t tell because we are seeing the incident from only the perspective of the dog owner who has been horribly hurt. Everything since the incident has been adversarial, in that he is required to protect himself from serious consequences and that is not very contusive to determining his intentions and feelings about the incident.

I suspect he did not do this just to get the dog (it is possible though), and more likely that he just didn't pay attention to what he was shooting, or did not care: He was just going to shoot at whatever appeared. The whole point is that it is probably not an evil act but mearly negligence or callowness.

 

[Jake the Dog]

Mark, as always you make some excellent points to which I agree with you on all but one. i'm afraid i have to insist that shooting a kind and gentle labrador is an evil act. it don't care how little right it had to be on his property, shooting a friendly animal such as Ida not right. he could have easily shot near her if his intention were to scare ger away.

 

[Tannin]

Predators? This is Australia, Mark. There has not been a cattle-sized predator in Australia for 53,000 years.

 

[jtr1962]

Having just experienced the pain of losing a beloved pet myself, I'm glad to hear that Ida survived, but sad to hear that she'll likely be maimed for life due to this idiot's stupidity. It is beyond me how anyone can shoot at something(animal or human) unless their life is threatened, and that certainly wasn't the case here.

This weirdo seems like a singularly unpleasant person to have as a neighbor, and since more incidents like this will probably occur in the future, it is in the best interests of the neighborhood to figure out ways to make his life so unpleasant that he'll pack his bags in disgust and leave. Mercutio offered some excellent suggestions in that regard, and I have another. Put a few roaches(pregnant females in particular) in his house. Choose a particularly prolific and hardy breed. New York City roaches are the best in that regard-we are very proad of our roaches here since they are bigger and badder than anywhere else. Repeat as many times as needed until he has a full blown infestation, and make sure no one sees you. Everyone will think that the roaches came because of the filthy conditions. If possible get make sure the local exterminator uses something smelly but ineffective if he is called to the premises. Pay him a little on the side to spray something that'll actually nourish the critters and make everything worse, and then blame that on the continuing filthy conditions of his premises. After a few months of this, he'll either leave or clean up his act. While leaving is of course preferable, if he keeps his property neat and clean that is almost as good. At least they'll be no more rotting carcasses or piles of dung.

 

[Santilli]

the firearm didn't shoot the dog, the idiot did...

Tannin:

You are making the classic mistake that many here make:
the gun is not at fault, it's the whacko behind it.

Without guns, he is still capable of killing a dog.

On the other hand, your female friend, without a gun, is completely defenseless, more or less.

Here, congress gave women the vote: Sam Colt made them equal...

Also, regardless of how nice the dog is, she should not have entered the other guys property.

In Louisiana, you can shoot anyone that enters your property, police included. Came from the Napoleonic code.

Many people in this world, in international politics in particular, respect only the strength that comes out of the barrel of a gun(Mao Tse Tung said something to that effect).

When gun laws are really strict, only the outlaws have guns...


s

 

[Santilli]

By the way, I love animals, and would rather hunt poachers then any form of game.

I'm really sorry to hear about the dog, but, at the same time, the dog was in a place it was not supposed to be,
and, the owner knew the neighbor was whacky.

I've had a run in or two with a neighbor with a barking dog.
The police had to be called, and finally, he just told the dog to bark less, and the dog listened. He's very old, and very smart, but listening to him bark, every 6 minutes, when a new golf cart came by, was a bit much, every morning, at 6:30 am.

Now he only barks when something is really wrong, and, is an invaluable watchdog.

s

 

[blakerwry]

I feel for the dog owner, but mark does make alot of good points.

For all those that suggest retaliation by taking the law into their own hands, I think you are wrong.

Taking matters into your own hands and resorting to cheap pranks and annoyances will most likely escalate this higher and higher until somebody gets physically hurt.

If it were me, I would at first feel the same way, but would calm down and eventually let it go. Because I have found through personal experience that it is foolish to do otherwise.

Now, if something like this happens again that is a completely different story. If repeated offenses occur without my intervention or retaliatory action, I would then be forced to defend myself from further offenses. Whether this would be a completely defensive, offensive or a mix of the two depends on the situation.

 

[jtr1962]

Putting aside the incident with the dog getting shot, this slob is not someone I would care to have for a neighbor, and there must be some legal means of forcing him to keep his property in order. Piles of dung and rotting animal carcasses are of no concern if your nearest neighbor is a mile away, but in a typical residential area, even one where each person has several acres of property, it is simply unacceptable. It is a health hazard, attracts vermin, and drives down property values. There are many types of soil additives that will do exactly the same as manure and be less offensive to the nose. There are also ways of processing the manure from his own animals in order to make it less offensive. If these alternatives are unavailable(which is doubtful), or unaffordable, then this person should not be involved in farming or raising animals, period.

Second, based on Tannin's description, his treatment of his stock is abominable. Once again, if he can't raise and slaughter his animals humanely, he has no business having them, and I'm sure animal cruelty laws are applicable here.

Third, there is zero reason to have rotting carcasses around. Take what you want and sell the rest to a company that uses animal byproducts. Mark makes excuses for him by saying he's leaving the carcasses around to catch predators. There are better, more humane ways to deal with predators, assuming they even exist there in any great numbers. While I accept that he may not have intentionally left the carcasses around to attract his neighbor's dog, and that the dog shouldn't have been on his property, his disregard for his neighbor's(and his own) health caused by this disgusting habit shows that he has issues, to put it mildly. It is incredible that in 2002 people still live like this. At best he is a complete slob. At worst, he is mentally unbalanced, and disregard of personal and residential hygiene is one of the symptoms of mental illness.

In my opinion, he either needs to clean up his act or leave, and there should be laws against keeping your property in this state. If the law doesn't exist, or is not enforced, then you have two alternatives-move or resort to cheap pranks. Since this jerk is undoubtably making the lives of all his neighbors miserable, he should be the one to go, not them. This person(I use the term loosely) is a poster child for why certain types of people should not be allowed to procreate. I call it my 1-99 rule: 1% of the people cause 99% of the problems. Therefore, identify and sterilize this 1%.

 

[Santilli]

Hmmm. I find minding one's own business, and controling your end of the equation is the wisest choice, in a land, unlike Kalifornia, or New York, where EVERYTHING isn't ruled by some law, or government agency.

s

 

[Tannin]

Thankyou all for your views, your suggestions, and your care. This is a wonderful little community.

Just a couple of points to underline - I think they are all outlined above, but I'll mention them again. First, Ida should indeed not have been on his land, but two other factors need to be taken into account when considering this: (a) his animals frequently stray and none of the landholders on the surrounding property have ever done them the slightest harm, despite the inconvenience and occassional damage caused, and (b) no dog on the planet could resist the smell of raw meat, especially after it's been dead a few days.

Second, the matter of predators: here in Australia there has not been a predator large enough to attack cattle since the first human settlers wiped them out 53,000 years ago. (Not counting crocodiles, of course, but the nearest croc is 1500 miles north of here.) About 5000 years ago, humans introduced the dingo (a medium-sized dog) which now runs wild in remote parts of the country. I can't imagine a dingo taking on cattle, though a new-born calf might be a possibility, but in any case, there are no dingos around here. Further north, maybe. In short, the only two predators of note are feral cats and feral foxes, neither of which is anywhere near large enough to tackle a cow. This scumbag has no legitimate need to own a gun, let alone a collection of them.

You can't legislate to remove these people from the community or the gene pool (much as it is indeed desirable), but you can legislate to remove their right to own their beloved tools of death and terror. This won't get rid of every gun (because some people will bury them, but it will get rid of the vast majority of them, and make it much easier to enforce the laws.

Finally, this recent incident aside, the scumbag is continually borderline: his property is fairly large (20 acres) and most of the time his activities are far enough away to be no problem to anyone except himself. I'm not sure if the way he treats his cattle is legal or not: the authorities are usually reluctant to prosecute unless the case is clear-cut (and quite rightly so). In his case, I'm not sure that the neglect is sufficiently blatant. It is most certainly neglect, but they seem to be very hungry rather than actually starving, there is some shelter, and so on. If it gets bad this summer (there is a major drought on), I'll look into it more closely. I'm reluctant to stir up trouble again now that things are blowing over, but I'm fond of animals (OK, I don't like cows much, but they are still animals, still have feelings) and won't ignore their plight if it gets too bad.

The reason that his cattle (and Belinda's dog) cross over the boundary line is that the fence, while reasonably servicable, is not proof against a determined attempt by any large animal. It is in better condition than many, probably most, boundary fences, but most neighbors rub along without problems. Hell, the fence on the other side is as much horizontal as vertical, and no-one is in the slightest fussed by it.

Did I already mention another aspect to the law on straying stock, by the way? No? Well, just as he is (in strict point of law) entitled to shoot any dog, just so long as he is prepared to swear that it was attacking his cows, there is a law that covers staying sheep and cattle too: Belinda is entitled, if she wishes, to round up any stock that has strayed onto her property, take them to market, and sell them. Of course, not being the sort of arsehole that the scumbag is, she has never done that.

But in the back of my mind, I have a better idea. It's quite a long fence. It would cost, oh, maybe $5000 to replace it - fencing gets quite expensive as the distance increases. Next time his cattle stray, maybe it could be time to suggest a new fence? Normally, he would be required to pay for half of it, but given that the nuisance of the straying cattle is entirely his, and that without his stock a new fence would not be needed at all, that proportion might be considerably higher. (There are clear and straightforward legal mechanisms to deal with fencing matters.) Even at a worst case 50/50 breakdown ... Hmmm .... I like it.

But my feeling is, having had a warning from the police and knowing he has come to their attention, that he will pull his head in for quite a while and cause no further trouble, at least for a year or so. Wait and see, I guess.

 

[Cliptin]

Piles of dung and rotting animal carcasses are of no concern if your nearest neighbor is a mile away, but in a typical residential area, even one where each person has several acres of property, it is simply unacceptable.

It depends how your property is zoned. It is a bit humorous to me when yuppies move to the country and then complain about the cow/horse/pig/chicken/manure smell. At least once they have moved they get a touch of reality.


PS. If it weren't for human nature, we wouldn't need laws.

 

[Cliptin]

But in the back of my mind, I have a better idea. It's quite a long fence. It would cost, oh, maybe $5000 to replace it - fencing gets quite expensive as the distance increases. Next time his cattle stray, maybe it could be time to suggest a new fence? Normally, he would be required to pay for half of it, but given that the nuisance of the straying cattle is entirely his, and that without his stock a new fence would not be needed at all, that proportion might be considerably higher. (There are clear and straightforward legal mechanisms to deal with fencing matters.) Even at a worst case 50/50 breakdown ... Hmmm .... I like it.

Unfortunately, he is entirely within his right to give away his cattle by letting them wander. I seriously doubt any judge would force him to pay more than half. It depends on the laws but I would be surprised if he is required to have a fence at all.

All in all, I would suspect this guy is just ignorant and mean. I wonder if he know he is giving away his cattle when they leave his property.

Is this how the fellow makes his living? I'm not sure how if his cattle is in such bad shape. Unless, the demand is really high.

Additionally, I know I'd hate to do it but they do make dog shock collars that activate outside a certain range. This is besides the "invisible fence" products.

 

[Tannin]

Whhoah there! You need hundreds of acres to make a living off the land, thousands of acres if all you are doing is running cattle. In Europe or the USA, where the soil is young and rich and deep, and the rainfall more reliable, maybe it's possible to have just 20 acres and make a living off it, but it sounds unlikely. Here, it's not even a question.

 

[Santilli]

I wonder if Mike375 lives in your area?

I've run into some very intresting folks on the net, in another forum.

They enjoy shooting feral animals, that wander off the correct property...

I could make enquires as to the general area they live in, and, if they are intrested in a bit of culling feral animals.

Perhaps a bit of target practice, on your friends land, by his group of friends might persuade this "gentleman" to be a bit more careful with the use of his firearms.

What you are experiencing is the same thing we have here. Law abiding citizens, at the mercy of non-lawabiding, armed, assholes.

Banning firearms has certainly been successful in.....ahhhhh, it hasn't been successful anywhere. As a general rule, the crooks don't care about the laws. Ask some of our British compatriates how their wonderful anti-irish gun laws are working...

Or, try Washington D.C. as of late...

And the list goes on...

s

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Ask some of our British compatriates how their wonderful anti-irish gun laws are working...

Erm, very nicely thanks for asking. I have never actually looked at or held a real working (i.e. one that can fire live rounds) gun before in my life. I don't know many people here that have. No one I know is unhappy about that either. I don't recall ever hearing anyone complain about their lack of a gun in any circumstanes. Not once. Ever.

P.S, the gun laws were not anti-Irish. They were anti-lunatic-with automatic-weapons-running-around-a-school-and-killing-children. They worked as well. No more Dumblanes since then. Our Police can work perfectly well without Guns. Why would any of us want one?

 

[Pradeep]

The banning of legally owned handguns in England is a prime example of a complete failure. Crime with handguns is at an all time high, much higher than it was pre-ban.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

And whilst a beat cop may not be armed with a gun, an armed response vehicle full of men with MP5 sub-machine guns is never more than a few minutes away.

 

[Cliptin]

Our Police can work perfectly well without Guns. Why would any of us want one?

Just curious, how many police officers do you know Vlad?

 

[Jake the Dog]

uh-oh, the gun zealots P) are trying to make the "it will never work" point again... let me jump in and provide the following statistic: of all the hand gun crimes commited in Australia, 70% of the people committing these crimes are registered handgun owners. source, The Age newspaper, as read in McDonalds some two weeks ago! (damn I should have kept that article)

of course it's not possible to entirely remove handguns from Australian society, it never will. however it is possible to remove a percentage of handguns from those who can legally obtain them and are using them in criminal activites.

 

[Tannin]

Jake made the very telling point that "of all the hand gun crimes commited in Australia, 70% of the people committing these crimes are registered handgun owners". This really needs no further comment: in and of itself it is compelling. However, just to add a little salt to it, we should also consider the other 30% of hand gun crimes. A great many of these guns are also a direct result of legal handgun ownership: the majority of them come from break-ins and are previously legitimate but now stolen weapons. Removing the menace of hanguns from the community will remove the criminals best source of supply.

 

[The Giver]

Jake made the very telling point that "of all the hand gun crimes commited in Australia, 70% of the people committing these crimes are registered handgun owners". This really needs no further comment: in and of itself it is compelling. However, just to add a little salt to it, we should also consider the other 30% of hand gun crimes. A great many of these guns are also a direct result of legal handgun ownership: the majority of them come from break-ins and are previously legitimate but now stolen weapons. Removing the menace of hanguns from the community will remove the criminals best source of supply.

Can either of you fellows provide a source for the 70% figure? It would also be interesting to know just "crimes" they are referring to. For example, are they including offences such as discharging a firearm in a restricted area? Or illegally concealing a handgun? etc. It makes a big difference.

Also, as The Giver recalls, you have a much larger problem with knives in Oz than with handguns. Anything being done about that?