Goat Horror Story Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

GoatWorld 411 & 911 » Goat 911 Archives » Goat Horror Story « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

C Newlin
New member
Username: typicalgirl

Post Number: 10
Registered: 09-2006
Posted From: 12.44.167.110


Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 11:46 pm:   

[ part 2 ]

"
35-46-108. Lien for trespass and care
Any party taking into custody animals under the provisions of this article shall have a lien upon such animals for the damages occasioned by the trespass of such animals and for a reasonable compensation for their feed and care while in the possession of the party, if damages are recovered.


35-46-109. Taking into custody or release unlawful - penalty
It is unlawful for any person to take into his custody any livestock without complying with the provisions of sections 35-46-102 to 35-46-105 unless such taking be done in good faith. It is unlawful for any person, forcibly or by trickery, fraud, or deceit, or without the knowledge and consent of the person having possession of any livestock taken under such provisions, to remove the same from the possession of such person. Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than sixty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.


35-46-110. Public highways - railways excluded
"Public highways", as used in this article, shall not be construed to include railways of any kind or railway rights- of-way of any kind.


35-46-111. Right-of-way fences
(1) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (1) and subsection (4) of this section, it is the duty of the department of transportation to maintain right-of-way fences constructed as of June 1, 1994, by the department at or near the boundary of the department's highway property in agriculturally zoned areas along and adjacent to all federal aid highways where such highways are maintained by the department. The department shall make repairs to such right-of-way fences when necessary only upon actual notice to the department. Neither the department nor the landowner is liable for any damages caused by the failure to adequately construct, maintain, or repair the right-of-way fence unless actual notice is given to the department.
(b) If the department removes a right-of-way fence in an agriculturally zoned area during a construction project, the department shall replace and maintain said fence unless the landowner and the department agree that said fence shall not be replaced.

(2) In nonagriculturally zoned areas, the department may erect a right-of-way fence where the highway has been declared a freeway pursuant to section 43-3-101, C.R.S., or in areas that the landowner and the department agree that said fence be erected. If the department erects a right-of- way fence or has previously erected a right-of-way fence where the highway has been declared a freeway, the department shall maintain and repair said fence when necessary upon actual notice to the department. Neither the department nor the landowner is liable for any damages caused by the failure to adequately construct, maintain, or repair the right-of-way fence unless actual notice is given to the department.

(3) Upon actual notice, the department shall maintain right-of-way fences constructed by the department, where highways are maintained by the department, at or near the boundary of the department's highway property adjacent to properties owned by municipalities unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the department and the municipality.

(4) If, in both agriculturally and nonagriculturally zoned areas, the landowner adjacent to an existing right-of- way fence and the department agree that said fence shall be removed, the right-of-way fence shall be removed by the department at its expense. If the landowner removes or causes the removal of the right-of-way fence without agreement by the department, the department shall not be required to reimburse the landowner for such removal, and the landowner shall be liable for any and all damages caused by the unauthorized removal of the fence.

(5) If a right-of-way fence is either removed or not replaced pursuant to subsection (1) or (4) of this section and the landowner who agreed that the fence be removed or not replaced or any subsequent landowner of property adjacent to the right-of-way later desires to erect a right- of-way fence, said fence may be erected by the landowner at the landowner's expense, but only upon prior agreement by the department. Such right-of-way fence shall be constructed in accordance with the standards applicable to the department at the time such fence is erected, and the department is required to make repairs to such right-of-way fence upon actual notice to the department. Liability for any damages caused by failure to adequately construct the right-of-way fence shall be borne by the landowner at the time the damages are incurred.

(6) All agreements required pursuant to subsections (1) to (5) of this section shall be in writing, be recorded by the department in the office of the county clerk and recorder of each county where the real property adjacent to the right-of-way is located, and be binding upon and notice to all persons or classes of persons claiming any interest in said property.

(7) If a landowner and the department agree to either remove or not replace a right-of-way fence pursuant to subsections (1) to (5) of this section and the landowner at the time of the agreement or any subsequent landowner does not maintain livestock, as defined in section 35-46-101 (2), on the land adjacent to a highway right-of-way, any livestock that enters the highway right-of-way through that land shall not be a dangerous condition pursuant to section 24-10-106 (d), C.R.S. Neither the landowner nor the department shall be liable for any damages caused by such livestock because of the absence of such right-of-way fence.

(8) If a person herds livestock along a highway adjacent to property from which a fence has been removed pursuant to this section and any of the livestock strays onto that property, the landowner may not recover damages for trespass and injury to grass, garden or vegetable products, or other crops from the owner of the livestock unless the landowner can prove the person herding the livestock allowed the livestock to enter the property without making an effort to remove the livestock. Nothing in this section is intended to change the status of open range law and statutes relating to fences in Colorado.

(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the department may erect and maintain a right-of-way fence in any area at the department's expense, in its sole discretion, but the department has no duty to erect and maintain any fence at its expense.


35-46-112. Partition fences
Where the agriculture or grazing lands of two or more persons adjoin, whether or not such lands are farmed or grazed, it is the duty of the owner of each tract to build one-half of the line fence, such fence to be a lawful fence as described in section 35-46-101. When the owner or tenant of any agricultural or grazing lands owns a previously erected lawful fence upon any line between such land and the agricultural or grazing lands of any other person, and such other person or anyone holding under such person, occupies the adjoining land, it is the duty of such owner to pay the person owning such fence one-half of its cash value.


35-46-113. Cost and repair - how recovered
Partition fences between agricultural and grazing land shall be erected and also kept in repair at the joint cost of the owners of the respective adjoining tracts, except as otherwise agreed by such owners. If after thirty days written notice, served personally or by registered mail by either the owner or tenant of one tract upon the owner or tenant of the other tract, such other owner neglects or refuses to erect or repair one-half of the partition fence, the person giving notice may proceed to erect or repair the entire partition fence and collect by a civil action at law one-half the entire cost thereof from the other owner. Any judgment obtained against the owner of any land for the value of his share of any such partition fence or the repair thereof shall be a lien upon such owner's land to which such fence is appurtenant, and a special execution may issue and be levied upon the land to which such fence is appurtenant as in the manner now prescribed for the levying of an execution under the foreclosure of a mortgage upon real property. Such land may be sold under sheriff's sale for the purpose of satisfying such special execution in the same manner as is now provided for the foreclosure of mortgages on real property.


35-46-114. Fence may be removed, when
When any person unwittingly, or by mistake, erects a fence upon the land of another and when, by a line legally determined, that fact is ascertained, such person may enter upon such premises and remove such fence at any time within one year after giving or receiving notice that the line has been run; but when the fence to be removed forms any part of a fence enclosing a field of the other party, having a crop thereon, such first person shall not remove such fence until such crop can, with reasonable diligence, be gathered and secured.

ARTICLE 47. LIVESTOCK - RUNNING AT LARGE


35-47-101. Horses and mules running at large
It is unlawful for any owner, or the agent, lessee, bailee, or employee of such owner of any horses or mules, to knowingly permit any of said animals to run at large, within a distance of ten miles from any city having one hundred thousand or more population; within a distance of five miles of any city having between five thousand and thirty thousand population; within a distance of one mile of all other cities or towns; and within a distance of one mile from the business area of any unincorporated town or village; but nothing in this article shall prevent anyone from driving any of said animals to market or from pasture to pasture or prevent the use of horses or mules for riding, driving, or drawing animal-propelled vehicles or machinery. This article shall not affect any common used solely for grazing purposes which has been established by land grant and ratified by treaty.


35-47-102. Duty of custodian - fees - recovery
Where said animals are in violation of section 35-47-101, it is the duty of every sheriff or other peace officer of the county, on complaint of any person, to take custody of such animals and place them on feed and water. He may appoint a custodian for such purpose and pay such custodian a fee of four dollars per day to be assessed as costs; and the owner or agent may give the sheriff or other officer a redelivery bond in sufficient sum for repossession of his stock, pending a court action. In cases where the owner or agent is known and has been convicted in court, the sheriff or other officer may dispose of such animals or sufficient numbers of them to pay for the fine and reasonable costs of feeding and other expenses in connection therewith, after giving ten days notice by posting three notices in public and conspicuous places. In cases where the owner of such animals is unknown, the animals shall be taken up and disposed of by the state board of stock inspection commissioners, or one of its duly authorized representatives, the same as other estrays as provided for by law.


35-47-103. Penalty
Any person who knowingly permits any of said animals to run at large is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than five hundred dollars.


Reviewed by AAHS in December 2001."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

C Newlin
New member
Username: typicalgirl

Post Number: 9
Registered: 09-2006
Posted From: 12.44.167.110


Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 11:45 pm:   

Don't know if this is of any help to you, but I got this by searching "Colorado livestock at large" :
http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/dawson/fence/co_fnc.htm

"Colorado Livestock Laws

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES
TITLE 35. AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURE III - LIVESTOCK
LIVESTOCK
ARTICLE 46. FENCE LAW


35-46-101 Definitions.
As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Lawful fence" is a well- constructed three barbed wire fence with substantial posts set at a distance of approximately twenty feet apart, and sufficient to turn ordinary horses and cattle, with all gates equally as good as the fence, or any other fence of like efficiency.

Railroad right-of-way fences constructed in compliance with the statute in force on the date of construction and maintained in good condition shall be considered legal fences. (2) "Livestock" includes horses, cattle, mules, asses, goats, sheep, swine, buffalo, and cattalo, but does not include "alternative livestock" as defined in section 35- 41.5-102 (1).


35-46-102. Owner may recover for trespass
(1) Any person maintaining in good repair a lawful fence, as described in section 35-46-101, may recover damages for trespass and injury to grass, garden or vegetable products, or other crops of such person from the owner of any livestock which break through such fence. No person shall recover damages for such a trespass or injury unless at the time thereof such grass, garden or vegetable products, or crops were protected by such a lawful fence. Even though such land, grass, garden or vegetable products, or other crops were not at such time protected on all sides by a lawful fence, if it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that livestock have broken through a lawful fence on one side of such land to reach such land, grass, products, or crops, recovery and the remedies under this section may be had the same as if such land, grass, products, or crops had been at such time protected on all sides by a lawful fence.

(2) Whenever any person stocks land, not enclosed by a lawful fence, on which such person has a lawful right to pasture or forage livestock, with a greater number of livestock than such land can properly support or water and any of such livestock pasture, forage, or water on the lands of another person, in order to obtain the proper amount of pasture, forage, or water or whenever any person stocks with livestock land on which such person has no lawful right to pasture or forage livestock and such livestock pasture, forage, or water on such land or on other land on which such person has no right to pasture or forage livestock, he shall be deemed a trespasser and shall be liable in damages and subject to injunction.

(3) All damages sustained on account of the foregoing trespasses may be recovered, together with costs of court and arbitration, and the livestock so trespassing may be taken up by the person damaged and held as security for the payment of such damages and costs. A court of competent jurisdiction in any proper case may issue an injunction to prevent further trespasses. In any action for trespass where the injury complained of has been aggravated and attended by a willful or reckless disregard of the injured person's rights, the board of arbitration, court, or jury may in addition to awarding actual damages include reasonable exemplary damages. Recovery may be had under this section either in a court of law or by arbitration as provided in section 35-46-103.


35-46-103. Board of arbitration
When any person is trespassed upon or damaged by any livestock or takes into his custody any livestock under section 35-46-102, the claim for damages occasioned by said livestock may be arbitrated by a board of three arbitrators, at the option of the party aggrieved selecting one, the owner of the livestock selecting a second, and the two thus chosen selecting a third. Said arbitrators so chosen shall meet and act as a board of arbitration within five days after a written application is made therefor by either party and written notice given to the other party. It is the duty of the person so taking into custody such livestock to notify in writing within five days after the taking into custody thereof the owner or person in charge of such livestock. If the owner or person in charge of such livestock is not known to the person taking the livestock into custody or cannot be found after diligent search and inquiry, then the person so taking custody of such livestock shall publish within one week a notice containing a full description of such livestock, including all marks and brands as nearly as can be ascertained, in a paper published nearest the place where the alleged damage occurred. In the event the owner of such livestock cannot be found within ten days after the date of the publication of such notice, the livestock shall be an estray and the state board of stock inspection commissioners shall be entitled to said livestock subject to the lien for damage sustained and cost and care and feeding of the same by the person taking such livestock into custody. Such person shall deliver the same to the owner thereof whenever such owner furnishes the person so damaged by such livestock a bond in double the amount of the damage claimed, executed by two responsible persons, said bond to be satisfactory to such damaged party or approved by a county judge or district judge of such county, conditioned upon the payment to the person taking custody of such livestock all damages and costs, if any such damages or costs are awarded.


35-46-104. Finding of board - enforcement
The finding of said board of arbitration, when reduced to writing and signed by a majority of the members thereof, constitutes an obligation on the part of the person against whom the finding is made to pay to the aggrieved party the sum set forth in the finding of said board of arbitration. In the event the person against whom the finding of such board of arbitration is made fails, neglects, or refuses to pay to the aggrieved party the sum set forth in the finding of said board of arbitration, within thirty days from the date of the written findings of such board, then the finding of said board of arbitration may be filed in any court of record within the jurisdiction where the damage was sustained. The finding of such board so filed shall be deemed for the purposes of sections 35-46-101 to 35-46-110 a judgment of said court and execution may issue thereon as by law provided in judgments of said court. The costs agreed upon to be incurred in said arbitration shall follow the findings as in suits at court. If the owner of any livestock makes a tender in money of all damages to the person claiming damages, the person claiming damages shall pay all costs and expenses thereafter accruing unless he is awarded a larger amount than was tendered by the owner of such livestock.


35-46-105. Grazing on roads and in municipalities - penalty
(1) It is unlawful for the owner or any person in charge of any livestock knowingly to cause or permit such livestock to graze or run at large in any incorporated or unincorporated municipality, lane, road, or public highway if the same is separated from the land or range of such owner or person in charge by a fence or other barrier sufficient to keep livestock from reaching such municipality, lane, road, or public highway. In case any such livestock so running at large is killed or injured by any vehicle, the owner, driver, or person in charge of such vehicle shall not be liable therefor if the killing or injury is not malicious, willful, or wanton. Nothing in this section shall be applicable to livestock having a person in charge when such livestock are being driven on or through such municipalities, lanes, roads, or public highways or when range livestock being ranged on their usual range or allotments have broken through maintained drift fences or cattle guards and are on the premises unknown to the owners.

(2) Any person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten dollars nor more than two hundred dollars for each offense. It is the duty of every Colorado state patrolman, sheriff, or other peace officer to prefer charges against any person violating this section and take custody of such livestock and place them on feed and water. Such livestock may be placed by such officer in the custody of a responsible person who shall care for the same pending disposition of any court action under this section. The livestock may be held in case of conviction of the owner or other person in charge for the payment of any reasonable costs of handling, care, and feed and of court and for the payment of all fines which may be levied against said owner or other person in charge. In the event such costs and fine are not paid within ten days after the entry of judgment, such court, after reasonable notice to such owner and any known persons in interest as determined by the court, may order sufficient numbers of such livestock sold to pay such costs and fine.

(3) In cases where such livestock are horses, mules, or burros of inferior quality and of the apparent value of less than thirty-five dollars per head and the owner or any other person in interest cannot be found after reasonable search and inquiry, the state board of stock inspection commissioners, or its duly authorized representative, after posting of notice at a conspicuous place at the courthouse of the county where such livestock are found for a period of ten days, may sell such livestock at private or public sale as stated in said notice, and the proceeds of such sale remaining after the payment of all reasonable costs shall be held for the owner or other person in interest when found as is provided by law for estray funds.


35-46-106. Care of stock taken into custody
It is the duty of any person who takes any animals into custody under the provisions of this article to feed and care for such animals in a reasonable, careful, and prudent manner and keep the same in as good order and condition as when so taken into custody by the said party, and he shall be liable for any damage occasioned by his failure to do so. For such feed and care such party shall be entitled to recover from the owner of such animals a reasonable compensation, to be recovered as provided for the recovery of damages sustained.


35-46-107. Unlawful to break fence or open gate
It is unlawful for any person to willfully break down or cause to be broken down any fence or gate or to leave open any gate in such fence. This section shall not apply to the owner or occupant unless such owner or occupant causes such fence or gate to be broken down or left open with malicious intent."

[ see part 2 ]
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Pfalzbot
Board Administrator
Username: admin

Post Number: 96
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 67.142.130.31


Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 09:00 pm:   

Well the Hatfields and McCoys are alive and well and living in Ordway Co...about a week ago the guy I mentioned who owns the fields where the roaming goats were eating hay told me the latest in the ongoing saga. Since it's winter here and just about everywhere you look is covered with two feet of snow or more, about the only thing available for these ranging goats to eat are trees. Enter neighbor #2...

As the story goes, neighbor #2 told the goat owner that if his goats ate one more twig of his 1st year trees, he was going to shoot them on sight. Well the goat owner called the sheriff (imagine that!) and told him that the neighbor threatened to shoot his goats. So the sheriff comes out and tells neighbor #2 that he can't shoot the goats and neighbor #2 says, "no? We'll just see about that". Sure enough, a couple of days later, here come the goats follwed by a couple of sheep and llamas.

Neighbor #2 gets out the rifle and shoots about 4 of them (a llama included!). I guess the goat owner called the sheriff again and the sheriff told him "look buddy, we've had so many calls about your darn goats that I might help neighbor #2 out". Since that day, every animal of the ranging goat owners have been penned up.

Supposedly the sheriff won't do anything about neighbor #2 shooting the goats or llama and the issue may finally be resolved...but accordingly, the two neighbors are not the best of friends right now or in the future. I am sure glad we don't live in that situation. Ugh!

Best regards, GP
Gary Pfalzbot, GoatWorld
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tristan Duke
New member
Username: tristan

Post Number: 10
Registered: 01-2007
Posted From: 208.180.102.183

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 04:17 pm:   

Hey Gary, I would check with your local wild life office I have found that their rules are different than the sheriffs department. I had 9 pigs show up here at my farm. They ran one of my horses thru the fence so I locked them up in my coral. I called the sherrif and he said that I needed to try to contact the owner to come get them, or hang onto them for 30 days. The wild life office told me to contain them and after the 5th day they were concidered vermin and I could dispose of them how I wished. On the morning of the 5th day a scrubby stinky man came knocking. I explained to him what had happened to my horse and my fence and told him that I had filed a report with the sherrif. He offerd to fix the fence at his expence and he folowed thru. The horse got cut up a bit but it wasn't anything I couldn't handle so I let it slide. I got lucky with the horse but I was sure looking forward to that ham. We cant get the ASPCA to respond out here, even after sending them pictures of a pile of dead horses. There is a local group that does a much better job. You might check around and see if there is such a group in your area. Your local humane society might know of one. I would be reluctant to have bad blood with a neighbor they can make your life hell.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alex Cripps
New member
Username: hazydaynubians

Post Number: 71
Registered: 10-2006
Posted From: 142.167.29.36


Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 01:58 pm:   

Hi I just don't get it! why any-one would be so mean i say go and take all you want. Find friends who want some and go and save them kids are great as pets or if there is a 4-H or FFA they some times are looking for kids for kids. so all i can say is take all the does and leave the bucks it may sound hard but after the ''fun is gone the bucks are gone!'' so thats what i say keep us posted
Alex Cripps
Hazy Day Nubians
raising Nubians, Boers, Indian Runner Ducks
www.hazydaynubians.piczo.com
Apohaqui New Brunswick Canada
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sassy
New member
Username: sassy

Post Number: 19
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 69.27.195.115

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Friday, November 03, 2006 - 10:00 am:   

No, he died a few years ago and it's safe to drive the roads again. He did as he pleased just like the goat owner is doing in Gary's area and no matter what was threatened or how many times he was taken to court he still let them roam.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mark guernsey
New member
Username: 2ndchance

Post Number: 33
Registered: 05-2006
Posted From: 70.129.196.21

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2006 - 06:09 pm:   

heh with the price of cattle now does he still let them (free range)? and the goat market will jump in the next 2 months
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sassy
New member
Username: sassy

Post Number: 18
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 69.27.195.115

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 09:02 am:   

I had planned on getting my two cents worth in but my hard drive died and I'm just now back online.

Years ago there was a man with lots of cattle that roamed all the country gravel roads around his place. It was dangerous to travel that road at night to say the least. Everyone in that area plus others including me called the sheriffs office complaining. There was not anything they could do except go out and talk to him. It was called 'free range'. At that time I had a teenager driving and we had to threaten to take his drivers license away to keep him off that road at night. The road was a shortcut to town but these cattle were black which made it even worse. I never did understand why the owner got by with so much. It's a law to keep thistles sprayed because they spread so fast when in bloom but his pastures was covered with them and nothing was done about this either.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Pfalzbot
Board Administrator
Username: admin

Post Number: 71
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 66.82.9.71


Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 08:09 am:   

Hi Folks,

I really do appreciate all the posts you have made on this issue. To date, no further action has been taken...the goats are still roaming free...the neighbor calls the sheriff out about once a week now...so nothing has really changed. Well, there have been a couple of changes; supposedly the people with the loose goats have gotten more! Either from the auction or goats that have kidded. I was even told a few days a go that they had added a few sheep to the mix which in itself, makes the whole deal even more dangerous and interesting. All the round bales have been removed from the adjacent pastures so what these goats are now eating is a mystery to me. There's not much left at this time of year other than some Russian Knapweed and Vineweed. All the Kochia (Mexican Fireweed) is pretty much dried out and in a state of becoming tumbleweeds.

I will pass along all of your comments to my neighbor and see what course of action he decides to take. As I mentioned in my earlier posts, he is a real nice guy that just "wants to get along". But even nice guys can only take so much right?

I think what I may do if I get a chance is go up and take several pictures of the scene just so everyone can get an idea. The peoples place is a real shambles and I would think at the very least they would have made accommodations so the goats are not eating the siding off their house. I'm sure it's only going to be a matter of time before push comes to shove but myself I can only be a liason between good ideas and communication. If the shoe were on the other foot and these goats were getting on to my property, I can at the very least tell you the following:

1) The attempt to resolve the situation through verbal communique would be long past.
2) The goats at large would eithe rbe long gone to the auction or at the very least, mine by possession.

It all comes down to the basic tenement of having neighbors: you can have good neighbors and you can have bad neighbors and then you can get into situations where there is a continuous tension and this tension can and often does end in acts of violence where no one comes out the real winner. I really do believe that many people prefer to avoid these types of situations and will usually sit on their hands instead of taking the next step.

Best regards, GP
Gary Pfalzbot, GoatWorld
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

H. C. Sheldon, Jr
Member
Username: hcsheldonjr

Post Number: 8
Registered: 07-2006
Posted From: 4.249.192.163


Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 05:51 am:   

Hi Gary,

I, too, am curious about how things are going. This is just a thought, but have you considered (God forgive me) an attorney? Property, trespass and nusance laws vary from state to state, and the way you deal with this may have unforseen and unwanted consequences for you! Sometimes a well drafted demand letter from a lawyer can work wonders. I know that lawyers cost money, but I am willing to bet that at least a few of us would "pony-up" some dollars in this regard. Do you know of any "gentleman goat farmer lawyers" in your area. One may be willing to spend some time on this pro bono if s/he finds it interesting. Again, just a thought. Thanks for all you do for us, Gary. You are a good guy.

Clark
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alexander Cripps
New member
Username: hazydaynubians

Post Number: 14
Registered: 10-2006
Posted From: 142.167.30.44

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Sunday, October 22, 2006 - 10:35 am:   

how you can help out those goats i bet they are perrty cute!!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mark guernsey
New member
Username: 2ndchance

Post Number: 28
Registered: 05-2006
Posted From: 70.129.196.21

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Saturday, October 21, 2006 - 07:50 pm:   

how is it working out gary?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cindy Hance
New member
Username: chance

Post Number: 120
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 69.27.218.92

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 11:18 am:   

Hey Gary,

Tell your neighbor to contact the local Extension Office in the area. They can help him and tell him exactly what to do. We just had our livestock specialist go out for a site visit for the same reason involving some cows and a corn field that was torn up. He'll need someone to validate his claims (Extension agent or Sheriff will work - maybe even a conservation agent) and he can press charges and put a claim in for $$$ lost. If anything I would definately have him call the local Extension office. They are university affiliated. Our here is called the University of Missouri Extension Office. They will have a website online with livestock specialist information for your area. There is a fence law in each state and if his are not fence in he is responsible for the damage caused by his goats. I would also call some sort of humane society for the goats sake! If you need any further info please don't hesitate to contact me.
Cindy
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alexander Cripps
New member
Username: hazydaynubians

Post Number: 6
Registered: 10-2006
Posted From: 142.167.26.248

Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!)

Posted on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 02:06 pm:   

Hey People
I feel for you i have been to so many goat owners farms and i want to take them all home even if their not show animals i say talk to the owner and ask if he was going away soon or if they work go on their land and take them to your farm or your friends and take all the females and males and kidds and put them in different pens and when the owner says you have my goats say that they were on your land and they are yours now and that you were feeding them from you feild for many months and then take with stock is good for milkers and brood does and sell them to good buyers and hold a livestock sale and sell them keep them for about 2 weeks then sell them after that take all the hay and feed costs out of what you made and give 50% to the SPCA and then give the the left overs to the old owner this is what i would do and if you want to make them very sad say that if they don't fence them in your going to sell them all and make them get a vet to look at all of them and cure all of them HOPe this helps
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mark guernsey
New member
Username: 2ndchance

Post Number: 21
Registered: 05-2006
Posted From: 70.129.196.21

Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!)

Posted on Monday, October 02, 2006 - 04:25 pm:   

hey Gary. does your neighbor have a lot that is big enough to hold them for 30 days?
the round up deal will work but he cant take them and sell them right off.
$1.50 per day per goat storage = 100 goats =$150.00
$.85 per day per goat...feed =100 goats = $85.00
and when the neighbor comes over to him and says he stole the goat or HEY YOU CANT DO THAT!!

heh i would like to be a mouse in the corner!!
now comes the good part. all you buddy needs to say is hmmmm? i got these here goats off of (my) farm and i gotem here in storage and the bill is $7050.00 now you need to prove these animals are yours or i will sell them you for the ammount i told you. this way will end it for good and it is leagl all the way through
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Pfalzbot
Board Administrator
Username: admin

Post Number: 65
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 67.142.130.30


Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!)

Posted on Monday, October 02, 2006 - 11:14 am:   

Hi Mark,

I appreciate your feedback. Many of the options you listed have been discussed, even up to calling the ASPCA. My neighbor leans toward the idea of catching them and taking them to the auction overall. I've thought about taking a few myself but other than calling law enforcement, no other corrective measures have been taken (yet).

This is one of those situations that really paints "goatkeeping" as good or bad. I strongly advocate rights to keep goats as pets, which seems to be the case here despite the large numbers. If this goat owner were equipped to raise goats for some type of commercial purpose, it would be a different story. But if these goats are serving no other purpose rather than to run loose and largely unsupervised, they can't even be considered in a pet category.

And that's totally unfair to the rest of us who do take care of our goats - many people who could raise goats and don't, won't, because they know of or have heard of people like this who leave the goats to their true nature; to roam free and sample just about everything along the way. They can get much more destructive than just eating a few hay bales. Goats get a bad name because they were not properly raised and watched closely.

I've met quite a few people along the way who are intrigued by goats and "just have to have one". It can often be difficult explaining and trying to convince them that goats are not for everyone. While they are fun to raise and can certainly bring joy to your life, they do have special needs and considerations that must be met.

To me it's no different than the child who gets very excited about getting an Easter Bunny as a pet. Usually two or three months later bugsy is banished to a small cage in the back yard as the childs interest has vanished. That's the point where the "fun and joy" turn into "work and frustration".

Best regards,
Gary Pfalzbot, GoatWorld
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mark guernsey
New member
Username: 2ndchance

Post Number: 18
Registered: 05-2006
Posted From: 70.129.196.21

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Sunday, October 01, 2006 - 06:58 pm:   

gary as much as i HATE this group i think they will help you its the aspca they will come in with the cops and tell him can you take care of these animals ? he will need to prove that he can in that little pen.... the next thing you will see is stock trailers and the goats will go up for adoption its that easy. the 2nd thing is the owner of the land the goats free range on. he can shoot them by law and let them lay i know that sounds mean but they are eating his crops so it is costing him $$ let me know what happens i can take 50 and come get them.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Pfalzbot
Board Administrator
Username: admin

Post Number: 64
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 67.142.130.24


Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 10:35 pm:   

Hi folks,

I have a real life story that I've been reluctant to post for many reasons, but since I try to make things as educational as possible, I'll go ahead and say my piece...

Many of you know that I moved this last year to an 80 acre farm in south-central Colorado. The area is rich in agriculture and there are many people who raise goats.

Well, within a mile or so of our place there is a family who also raises a very large herd of goats. I'm speaking of at least 100 in terms of a visual headcount. Can anyone imagine what it would cost in terms of feed and care for this many goats per month, week, year?

Enter part two...my neighbor adjacent is a pretty decent fellow...someone I'm happy to know and live nearby. From day one we've gotten along well...trading favors, work, etc. No problems there. But he does have a problem and he has asked me about it a few times.

He not only owns the land next to our place, he also owns several other 80 acre lots, two of them which he raises crops such as hay, corn, etc. It so happens the primary 160 acres is right next to the people with the goats. Are you seeing any red flags yet?

As we got to talking, he related to me the problem which I have since seen firsthand...the goats are running free. They have no fences. Their owners do not feed them hay, grain, etc. They have one small holding pen which is no larger than a conventional garage. In short, they let the goats roam other peoples land (primarily my neighbors) where they dine daily on his crops and most recently, his newly baled hay. It was also reported that they ventured a little further north and wiped out a would be nursery.

Now my neighbor isn't a radical that will sit with a gun and shoot whatever crosses his path...no, he's gone about it the proper way by contacting the sheriff who in turn contacts the goat owner, who in turn pens up the goats temporarily while the sheriff is there and then lets them out once he's gone. It's a vicious cycle. The sheriff has told him the best thing to do is catch every goat that comes on to the property and take them to the auction.

I've thought about getting involved here somehow but I think common sense tells you why I don't. But perhaps you can see my predicament as my own herd of "little angels" stay obediently on our land while someone elses goats wreak havoc and give goats a bad name in general, in this area.

In talking with my good neighbor, he came to realize that goats are not the bad guys here, it's the owner. But if we hadn't talked, I'm certain he would frown upon anyone with goats no matter the situation. He has more or less told me that.

In short, I'm all for someone having a massive herd like that but they should definitely be willing to take responsibility for their actions, have the facilities to house them, and realize that they need to provide the feed for them...not rely on someone elses land to feed off.

The situation might sound silly to some, but consider that these goats have to cross at least one road to get into one field and since I have lived here, I've heard that at least 4 of them have been hit by a car or truck - at least two of them out of anger. It's not good.

GP
Gary Pfalzbot, GoatWorld

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration