24 October 2007

Out here in the country...

The farmers refer to it as the three S's... that's short for shoot, shovel and shutup.

The shooting deaths of an Uxbridge family's two dogs by a farmer exemplify the harsh facts of rural life, an animal welfare official says.

Under provincial law, a farmer has the right to kill a dog that's attacking his livestock or even just straying on property where his animals are kept, the chief inspector with the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said yesterday.
And there's a perfectly good rationale for doing exactly that.
"I sympathize with the owner," Hugh Coghill said. "I'd be devastated if it happened to my dogs. But I've seen what two dogs will do to a flock of sheep overnight. It's horrifically graphic."

The intention of the decades-old Livestock, Poultry and Honeybee Protection Act is to protect livestock from harm by stray dogs, Coghill said.

"They don't even have to be in the act of attacking. A dog can actually worry cattle, sheep or poultry to death."
And that's just part of the reason people out here are less than impressed with the fiberal's 2-billion dollar "Farmer Bob Rifle Registry."

Let's register criminals... instead of chasing down inanimate and useful tools.

Technorati Tags: , ,


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stray dogs are a menace, especially the large breeds, if animal control can't catch them for whatever reason the police should be obligated to shoot them.

Anonymous said...

If they know the dogs were shot, then they found the bodies because the farmer didn't "shovel". If they found the bodies, then they must know where the bodies were found and therefore, whose property they were on when they were shot. So, how can they not know who killed their dogs?

If the dogs' bodies were moved after being shot, instead of being buried, is the farmer in some kind of trouble for that?