But LEGALLY, the landowner had no obligation to do so. And if even they ran, he STILL could have put them down if they were on his property, particularly if they had approached him, his other animals or livestock.These were dogs that were shy of other dogs and people, and if this landower had come out and yelled "Hey!" they would have scattered and run.
But the mechanics of the act, or whether he was a mile away or 2 feet away, so long as the cause of their death wasn't cruel or drawn out to cause suffering, is really not legally relevent. A small comfort perhaps that an effective single shot, from any distance, under any legal circumstance, which this appears to be, ended things quickly. Sure, he could been a real jerk, and knowing he'd only have time to shoot two, chose the two that looked like pets because he was a creep. But he could legally make that choice.I can't fathom our dogs romping with other dogs, and those other dogs getting away from someone that was such a good shot that he killed two dogs with one shot each.
We go back to the same point; that although the time frame may have been off, unless there is some proof that he went off his land or that the shot impacted one of the animals off of his land, it isn't relevent to the outcome that he was within the law to put them down. Even if in broad daylight, and even if he was fully aware that they were pets.Their bodies were still leaking blood, flexible, and not "refridgerator cold" as I would have expected them to be if they had spent the night in Maine on the ground (it was spitting snow that night).
[*]Why woundn't the land owner have called animal control first thing in the morning after killing dogs?[/LIST]
Happens all the time. People call animal control when there's a problem to BE solved. For the property owner, this issue had BEEN solved. Lots of people wouldn't have called at all if they'd have taken care of it themselves. In fact, in most jurisdictions, the only real issue is whether or not the discharge of a firearm was permitted within the jurisdiction, for the purpose of dealing with nuisance animals, or any other reason.
He's not legally required to wait to see if an actual attack occurs. He also has no obligation to hold off because they appear to be pets.It makes me think this guy knew he was shooting someone's pets in broad daylight that morning and just didn't care. There were no chicken carcasses in evidence, no stressed horses around.
The "game warden" told us that because our dogs were "threatening" (chasing, barking at, or trying to play with) the owner's livestock, the property owner had every right to kill our dogs.
Is this true?[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately for your dogs, yes. The only legal obligation this property owner had was safely discharge the firearm within the state and local ordinances (ie not shooting over a roadway, not shooting over someone else's property, not shooting at certain animals like deer for depredation purposes without appropriate depredation permits, etc.) - the shooting issue is likely the only reason the warden was involved at all. All other legal obligations fall to the owners to keep them adequately contained.

