Pest Control -- Antifreeze!!?
E.W.
My rural neighbor has a bad problem with coyotes feeding on his
(unfenced) barnyard chickens, geese, etc., during the night time. He
says he will put out some meat soaked in antifreeze to reduce (?) the
numbers of animals killing his own! Strange.
Is this a good option for him? Isn't there a better way? What
about the effect on roaming dogs, cats, etc.
EW
Robin Driscoll
Why doesn't he build a coop for the chickens, etc.?
--
Robin
Replace nojunk with robind to reply via e-mail
E.W. wrote in message <34995bcd...@qwknews.com>...
John T. Klausner
The logical answer is to fence them...is there some reason why he
doesn't???
SueK
John J. Stafford
> My rural neighbor has a bad problem with coyotes feeding on his
> (unfenced) barnyard chickens, geese, etc., during the night time. He
> says he will put out some meat soaked in antifreeze to reduce (?) the
> numbers of animals killing his own! Strange.
>
> Is this a good option for him? Isn't there a better way? What
> about the effect on roaming dogs, cats, etc.
A canine is a canine. What will poison the Coyote will
poison dogs - and cats. He's being utterly stupid.
In my experience, getting a well-bread livestock guardian
dog is a win-win situation when it comes to Coyote. Mine
is a Great Pyrenees.
Dave Clark
John T. Klausner <som...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<67e7mn$1...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
> The logical answer is to fence them...is there some reason why he
> doesn't???
> SueK
>
> In <34995bcd...@qwknews.com> ern...@camalott.com (E.W.) writes:
> >
> > Is this a good option for him? Isn't there a better way? What
> >about the effect on roaming dogs, cats, etc.
> >
Though I don't agree with his methods, and I believe he should take proper
steps (i.e. fencing, coops, etc.) to protect his livestock, dogs and cats
should not be roaming and therefor are subject to the poisoning. It is up
to the dog owners to keep the dogs and cats confined to their own property.
--
-------------
Dave Clark
Opinions expressed are my own. Any resemblance to other opinions living or
dead are purely coincidental.
Dave_...@nospam.dg!.com remove nospam and ! to reply
John T. Klausner
I thought the problem was primarily coyotes...???
SueK
In <01bd0cc1$0a7fa1c0$13cd...@nelson.webo.dg.com> "Dave Clark"
R EDWARD MCCANDLESS
>(unfenced) barnyard chickens, geese, etc., during the night time. He
>says he will put out some meat soaked in antifreeze to reduce (?) the
>numbers of animals killing his own! Strange.
>
>about the effect on roaming dogs, cats, etc.
>
>
THe old type antifreeze will kill any animal that drinks it. Some of
the newer types are more friendly to animals, and less toxic. I have
heard of locals lacing dead sheep etc. with Furidan (a pesticide).
Expect to find dead coyotes, dogs, possums, and even hawks and buzzards
within 6 feet of the site. Not a pretty picture as poisions are
non-selective. I do agree however, coyotes are really becoming a
problem, and would welcome advice on selective methods to eliminate
them.
ED
JP151
>THe old type antifreeze will kill any animal that drinks it. Some of
>the newer types are more friendly to animals, and less toxic. I have
>heard of locals lacing dead sheep etc. with Furidan (a pesticide).
>Expect to find dead coyotes, dogs, possums, and even hawks and buzzards
>within 6 feet of the site. Not a pretty picture as poisions are
>non-selective. I do agree however, coyotes are really becoming a
>problem, and would welcome advice on selective methods to eliminate
>t
I suggest contacting a local trapping assiciation or animal damage control. I
know either will be happy to take care of the problem or knows someone who
will.
Tom
Richard Bishop
In article
<01bd0cc1$0a7fa1c0$13cd...@nelson.webo.dg.com>,
"Dave Clark" <Dave_...@nospam.dg!.com> wrote:
>
>John T. Klausner <som...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><67e7mn$1...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
>> The logical answer is to fence them...is there some
reason why he
>> doesn't???
>> SueK
>>
>> In <34995bcd...@qwknews.com> ern...@camalott.com
(E.W.) writes:
>> >
>> > Is this a good option for him? Isn't there a
better way? What
>> >about the effect on roaming dogs, cats, etc.
>> >
>
>Though I don't agree with his methods, and I believe he
should take proper
>steps (i.e. fencing, coops, etc.) to protect his
livestock, dogs and cats
>should not be roaming and therefor are subject to the
poisoning. It is up
>to the dog owners to keep the dogs and cats confined to
their own property.
>--
I tend to agree with Dave. As an absolute last resort, I
recommended using anti-freeze to a friend of mine. She
lives alone, is hearing impaired, had neighbors who
insisted on letting their dogs run at night. And these
dogs were coming onto her property and harassing her
horses at night. She was at her wit's end with what to
do, she couldn't hear the dogs after her horses, she
couldn't get her neighbors to stop letting the dogs out,
the dog catcher wouldn't do anything..... And she had a
new foal due soon and was terrified the dogs would kill
it. I'll have to ask her some time if it worked.
Sue
Richard Bishop
In article <67etdd$a...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
ed...@ix.netcom.com(R EDWARD MCCANDLESS) wrote:
>In <34995bcd...@qwknews.com> ern...@camalott.com
(E.W.) writes:
>>
>> My rural neighbor has a bad problem with coyotes
feeding on his
>>(unfenced) barnyard chickens, geese, etc., during the
night time. He
>>says he will put out some meat soaked in antifreeze to
reduce (?) the
>>numbers of animals killing his own! Strange.
>>
>> Is this a good option for him? Isn't there a
better way? What
>>about the effect on roaming dogs, cats, etc.
>>
>>EW
>>
>THe old type antifreeze will kill any animal that drinks
it. Some of
>the newer types are more friendly to animals, and less
toxic. I have
>heard of locals lacing dead sheep etc. with Furidan (a
pesticide).
>Expect to find dead coyotes, dogs, possums, and even
hawks and buzzards
>within 6 feet of the site. Not a pretty picture as
poisions are
>non-selective. I do agree however, coyotes are really
becoming a
>problem, and would welcome advice on selective methods
to eliminate
>them.
>
>ED
A good livestock protection dog is really the answer.
There are several breeds who do quite well, Great
Pyrenese, Kuvasz, Akbash Dog. In fact, I have an Akbash
Dog and, since we never have managed to get all our
property fenced, really needs to go to someone else who
has a fenced farm for her.
If anyone is interested, she's 2 1/2, does NOT have hip
problems, is socialized and accustomed to all kinds of
farm animals. She is submissive around horses, friendly
to cats and poultry, and spent the first six months of
her life in a field with lambs and goats.
We live in SW Ohio and since we are moving in about a
year, I'd rather find a new home for her soon.
For those who have never seen an Akbash Dog, they are
very regal looking, have a thick white short plush coat,
a broad intelligent face with ears that hang down, are
deep chested and rangy in build. She's about 28 inches
high and weighs around 110 pounds.
Sue
wri...@indy.net
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 17:29:17 GMT, ern...@camalott.com (E.W.) wrote:
>
> Is this a good option for him? Isn't there a better way? What
>about the effect on roaming dogs, cats, etc.
>
>EW
>
Perhaps a better option is to make or purchase a live trap. I also
have had problems with night time predators and predation ceased when
my chicken finally grew large enough to fly up into the cross braces
of the barn.
Alan
Mike Fox
Richard Bishop wrote:
> >
> I tend to agree with Dave. As an absolute last resort, I
> recommended using anti-freeze to a friend of mine. She
> lives alone, is hearing impaired, had neighbors who
> insisted on letting their dogs run at night. And these
> dogs were coming onto her property and harassing her
> horses at night. She was at her wit's end with what to
> do, she couldn't hear the dogs after her horses, she
> couldn't get her neighbors to stop letting the dogs out,
> the dog catcher wouldn't do anything..... And she had a
> new foal due soon and was terrified the dogs would kill
> it. I'll have to ask her some time if it worked.
Leaving aside how bad she would feel if one of HER animals ate the
antifreeze (it's peskily indiscriminate, you know), but...
Not to start this flame-war all over again, but before reccommending the
antifreeze option to your friend, you might want to check to make sure
you're not advising her to violate state law (you would be in my
state). And you can probably assume that if a neighbor's dog gets
killed by this, they will come after her with full legal guns blazing.
As you can see from below, it's quite easy for someone whose pet has
been poisoned to rally a lot of support and get legal help from all
kinds of unexpected sources, even if the pet was roaming free illegally
(as was the case in the story quoted below). See the news story below
from the 11/12/96 Raleigh (NC) News and Observer. (this story isn't
final word but I can assure you it didn't end well for the antifreeze
poisoner.)
Obscure law might aid
poisoned dog's owner in case
against deputy
It's a misdemeanor to leave antifreeze
in the open
By CRAIG JARVIS, Staff Writer
RALEIGH -- Animal-rights advocates lining up
behind a Zebulon woman whose dog was poisoned
by a sheriff's deputy might have new leverage in
an overlooked state law.
It is specifically against the law to leave antifreeze
anywhere in the open unless it is in a closed
container. A violation is a misdemeanor,
punishable according to the offender's record.
That statute could throw an already tense situation
out of kilter or, advocates say, offer a way for
everyone to save face.
Wake County officials decided to seek a $100
civil fine against Deputy Richard Lambert rather
than file a criminal charge against him under
either the county ordinance or the state law that
applies to animal cruelty.
Lambert admitted putting hamburger in a
container of antifreeze to stop dogs in his rural
neighborhood from getting into his trash. A
9-month-old mixed breed named Tiger was put to
sleep after falling ill from the poisoned meat.
Animal control officials said the county attorney
advised them to file the civil complaint because it
was easier to prevail than in criminal court. But
because it is a civil matter, the Sheriff's
Department's attorney said the policy doesn't
require that Lambert be disciplined.
Wake County Sheriff John H. Baker Jr. said
Friday he didn't think the poisoning was grounds
for punishment because Lambert wasn't on duty at
the time. But he acknowledged he wasn't familiar
with the details of the case. Baker could not be
reached Monday, which was a holiday.
The News & Observer has not been able to reach
Lambert for several days.
The dog's owner, Lisa Bailey, tried to take out a
criminal warrant against the deputy Saturday, but
a magistrate refused to let her, claiming it would
be improper to second-guess the animal control
officer. Bailey said she plans to appeal to Wake
County District Attorney Colon Willoughby.
The prospect that Lambert, who serves warrants
for the Sheriff's Department, might get off with a
$100 fine for killing a dog -- and possibly
endangering others in his rural neighborhood --
angers Bailey and her supporters.
Helping the 22-year-old woman are Mariana
Burt, an Apex lawyer who specializes in animal
issues; Patricia Anne Hutchins, a Raleigh lawyer;
and members of the Raleigh Kennel Club, who
plan a letter-writing campaign to county
commissioners and the county manager. Also, a
national advocacy group, the California-based
Animal Legal Defense Fund, says it is monitoring
the case and is willing to help.
On Monday, an animal control officer from
another county brought to Burt's attention a state
law making it illegal to put poisoned food
anywhere accessible to the public. The law was
amended in 1993 to specify antifreeze.
Case notes say the statute was written to prohibit
poison from every conceivable place that a child
or animal might find it. Insect and rat control are
exempted.
The local lawyers say they think the law might
offer Baker and Willoughby a graceful way out of
the controversy. Willoughby could allow a
criminal charge, and Baker could discipline his
deputy without overruling what has already been
done, as the previous decisions weren't based on
the antifreeze statute.
"Everybody seems to feel that charging a $100
fine is not adequate because of the willfulness and
premeditation," Burt said Monday. "There is a hue
and cry; people have been calling me all
morning."
Richard Bishop
In article <349E7B...@ibm.net>,
Mike Fox <mik...@ibm.net> wrote:
Her own dogs stay in a confined area. The dogs who were
bothering her horses were coming in through an area where
her dogs could not go. And, while it's darned easy to
confine your own animals, it's darned hard for other
animals to get in. My dog lives in a fenced kennel. My
horses live in a big wooden railed corral. It would be
quite easy for a dog to get in and attack them. Luckily,
I've made it clear enough to my neighbors that I WILL
press charges if anyone's dog bothers my place.
My friend was in a much tougher situation, 20 miles from
town, in a remote area of the county, only one Humane
Officer for a very large western county.
>As you can see from below, it's quite easy for someone
whose pet has
>been poisoned to rally a lot of support and get legal
help from all
>kinds of unexpected sources, even if the pet was roaming
free illegally
And if that dog was running free, how the owners would
have to prove where the poison came from.
As I have said before, she was without any other
resources.
Trash is one thing, dogs attacking and harming livestock
is entirely different. I've had a couple of
conversations with my neighbors on the subject. As a
result, we have very few dogs running loose around here.
And if I DO catch one running loose, he/she is going out
of the county to a no-kill shelter I know about.
I do think it's interesting that no one managed to file
charges against the owner of the dog that died, after
all, it was also due to her negligence that the dog was
running loose. Do they have a leash law?
Sue
Donovan White
Just shoot the damned things and be done with it.
dw
Richard Bishop wrote in message <67n6pv$l...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
>In article <349E7B...@ibm.net>,
> Mike Fox <mik...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
><story snipped>
>
>OK, what would you have told my friend? She had
>thousands of dollars worth of horses in danger, not even
>counting the fact they were her beloved pets. How ELSE
>was she to protect them? Sure, it's just fine to be all
>noble, but when push comes to shove, you do what is
>necessary to protect your own.
>
>Sue
Richard Bishop
Mike Fox
Richard Bishop wrote:
>
> >As you can see from below, it's quite easy for someone
> whose pet has
> >been poisoned to rally a lot of support and get legal
> help from all
> >kinds of unexpected sources, even if the pet was roaming
> free illegally
>
> And if that dog was running free, how the owners would
> have to prove where the poison came from.
That's the "beauty" of this state law. It is not a law against
poisoning dogs with antifreeze. It's a law against leaving antifreeze
out in the open. All the dog owners would have to do is lead the
authorities to the person's little antifreeze trap, without having to
show that an animal was affected, and you have a violation of the law.
The uproar among local animal rights people just gives the prosecutor
more incentive to follow up on the charge that he CAN get, which is the
antifreeze law. If the dog owners can prove that her antifreeze killed
them, he gets animal cruelty as a bonus.
I'm not saying she can't get away with it -- if the dog owners are
completely clueless about where their dogs spend the day, they may never
find out where it came from. But if they have an idea where their dogs
roam, and they turn up poisoned, and they quietly search for the source
before raising an uproar about the dogs' deaths, she may have a legal
problem.
Plus, I don't know the layout of the land or where she would put the
trap, but how many wild animals would the antifreeze also kill?
Assuming it wouldn't get her animals, she's still probably going to have
a lot of collateral damage. And heaven help her if kids get into it.
It's just not a good solution.
>
> Trash is one thing, dogs attacking and harming livestock
> is entirely different. I've had a couple of
> conversations with my neighbors on the subject. As a
> result, we have very few dogs running loose around here.
> And if I DO catch one running loose, he/she is going out
> of the county to a no-kill shelter I know about.
Your solution is far more humane than any others given here. Why not
suggest it to your friend?
>
> I do think it's interesting that no one managed to file
> charges against the owner of the dog that died, after
> all, it was also due to her negligence that the dog was
> running loose. Do they have a leash law?
In the end, the dog owner was charged and convicted of neglecting her
dogs and violating the leash law. The antifreeze poisoner was charged
and convicted of violation of the above-mentioned state law. Plus he
paid about $1000 in vet bills, etc., to settle the matter. So no-one
got off scot-free. It seemed about right to me. The point being, that
you can't poison dogs with impunity. (I'm not saying you can't shoot
them) The fact that the dog owner faced charges doesn't change the fact
that the poisoner faced (more severe) charges.
As someone else mentioned in this thread, shooting the dogs would have
been the preferred solution -- it would have had no criminal
ramifications if the dogs were loose and on the person's property, but
of course that would require the wronged person to take direct action,
instead of sneaking around with poison.
Mike
Phil
Richard Bishop wrote:
> OK, what would you have told my friend? She had
> thousands of dollars worth of horses in danger, not even
> counting the fact they were her beloved pets. How ELSE
> was she to protect them? Sure, it's just fine to be all
> noble, but when push comes to shove, you do what is
> necessary to protect your own.
>
> Sue
Sue, I've been following this thread, and unfortunately, in my area
too, they have a law against leaving antifreeze "available". I think you
and she should find a friend who will spend a night or two sitting up in
the loft with a 22.... then follow the 3 S's.. shoot, shovel, shut-up.
Works every time. Once a few of the free roaming dogs "dissappear",
there will be a reluctance on the owners behalf to turn them loose
anymore.
Last month, here in New Mexico, we had a woman whose $10,000.00 Arabian
filly, 8 months old, was attacked by free roaming house dogs. The dogs
ripped it's front leg 40% off, tore open the chest, and were chased off
by the lady before they could finish off the colt. The former show
potential colt is still alive, mending well due to rapid action by a
vet/surgeon, and the community was outraged! The county mounties said
they could do nothing, the animal control ditto, etc. Not a single
animal lover dared speak out for the dogs. Many people volunteered to
"babysit" both day and night, and the dogs are no longer a threat to
animals or children. A nice side effect is that any free running dog now
seen is shot on sight by the whole community, which also tends to make
people keep their pets at home. Get some publicity...call the TV about
the dogs "threatening" to attack the horses... maybe it'll work before
it needs to....? Get film clips frm our TV station amd newspeper for
yours to use.....
Hope this helps!
--
Phil (NM)
Richard Bishop
In article <67na9j$jgg$1...@usenet50.supernews.com>,
"Donovan White" <dwh...@nospam.olinfo.com> wrote:
>Just shoot the damned things and be done with it.
>
Kinda hard to do when they run when they see you. And
even harder to do when they are racing around your horses
and snapping at them.
You have to not only have a gun but be a decent enough
shot with it.
Sue
>dw
>
>Richard Bishop wrote in message <67n6pv$lvu@sjx
ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In article <349E7B...@ibm.net>,
>> Mike Fox <mik...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>
>><story snipped>
Richard Bishop
In article <349FFD...@ibm.net>,
Phil <gol...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Richard Bishop wrote:
>> OK, what would you have told my friend? She had
>> thousands of dollars worth of horses in danger, not
even
>> counting the fact they were her beloved pets. How
ELSE
>> was she to protect them? Sure, it's just fine to be
all
>> noble, but when push comes to shove, you do what is
>> necessary to protect your own.
>>
>> Sue
>
All of the problems my friend had are in the past, it's
been a while and I really don't know what she did do.
She lives a fairly isolated life due to her hearing
impairment, didn't have anyone really close by who could
help her. And as for a loft, she lives in southern Az.,
all she has are shelters for her horses, no barn or any
kind of place where some one could hide to watch for the
dogs.
Sue
>--
>Phil (NM)
Richard Bishop
In article <349FCD...@ibm.net>,
Mike Fox <mik...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Richard Bishop wrote:
>>
>> >As you can see from below, it's quite easy for
someone
>> whose pet has
>> >been poisoned to rally a lot of support and get legal
>> help from all
>> >kinds of unexpected sources, even if the pet was
roaming
>> free illegally
>>
>> And if that dog was running free, how the owners would
>> have to prove where the poison came from.
>
>That's the "beauty" of this state law. It is not a law
against
>poisoning dogs with antifreeze. It's a law against
leaving antifreeze
>a lot of collateral damage. And heaven help her if kids
get into it.
>It's just not a good solution.
>
>>
>> Trash is one thing, dogs attacking and harming
livestock
>> is entirely different. I've had a couple of
>> conversations with my neighbors on the subject. As a
>> result, we have very few dogs running loose around
here.
>> And if I DO catch one running loose, he/she is going
out
>> of the county to a no-kill shelter I know about.
>
>Your solution is far more humane than any others given
here. Why not
>suggest it to your friend?
The point of my whole post was that she did NOT have any
other options. The dog owners were shoving the dogs
outside when they went to bed, the dogs were coming onto
her place at night and attacking her horses, she is
hearing impaired and cannot hear the dogs (and besides,
she can't stay up all night every night to protect the
horses), local authorities are no help at all, the county
seat is 20 miles away and there is only one animal
control officer for the whole county, and the neighbors
are a bunch of lowlifes who ignore her complaints.
Ya do what ya gotta do.
Sue
>
>>
>> I do think it's interesting that no one managed to
file
>> charges against the owner of the dog that died, after
>> all, it was also due to her negligence that the dog
was
>> running loose. Do they have a leash law?
>
Write Me Please
A live trap large enough for dogs would be the "humane" option. But be
sure you shoot them after you catch them. If you catch someone's dog
in the trap and return them to the owner, you can't rely on an owner's
promise that the dog won't do it again.
If you want to poison a dog effectively, don't use antifreeze. Open up
a "contac" or similar gelatin capsule and fill it with cyanide or
similar chemical. Works great. Remember: Don't rely on a person's
promise that they'll keep their dog in in the future if they already
have a bad history of this behavior.
clyde
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 17:29:17 GMT, ern...@camalott.com (E.W.) wrote:
> My rural neighbor has a bad problem with coyotes feeding on his
>(unfenced) barnyard chickens, geese, etc., during the night time. He
>says he will put out some meat soaked in antifreeze to reduce (?) the
>numbers of animals killing his own! Strange.
>