TexasCHLforum.com

51 Buffalo Shot Dead in King County

There has to be more to this story. So far, it's all from the animals' owner.

Looks like they're lawyering up.

threoh8 wrote:51 Buffalo Shot Dead in King County

There has to be more to this story. So far, it's all from the animals' owner.

Looks like they're lawyering up.

If I was out almost a Quarter of a Millon Dollars I would Lawyer up big time

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt Texas a Fence out state, as in you Got to put a Fence up if you want to keep Cattle out of your land?

Why would you slaughter 51 Animals for no reason, its stupid and wasteful. I hope the owner gets every penny from this bozo

What a complete jerk. We had something similar with our cattle and the Sheriff told the guy he would be prosecuted if he shot any of our cattle. He never did so it never got tested.

Isn't it the responsibility of the buffalo owner to fence them IN?

Could the shooter be justified in shooting these animals since if
they stampeded him or others, human deaths could result?

I'm not really standing up for the shooter, just raising some Q's.
The shooter probably knew the man whose animals got loose, but
the neighborly thing to do (call him to come get his critters) was not
done.

The buffalo were valued at "more than $280,000" for 51 head.
The math works out that each head of buffalo was worth more
than $5,490.

Are there any cattle savvy folks out there that know how the worth
of a longhorn would compare with the $5K worth of a buffalo?

***************************************************************************
Oh give me a home where the buffalo roam,
And I'll show you a darned dirty home.

SIA

If the buffalo have been consistently getting on the neighbors property and have been reported to the Sherriff and documented they can be considered a nuisance if nothing to alleviate this has been done by their owner. In this case the property owner is well within his rights to shoot them as long as he does not harvest any meat or trophy heads from the animals. I know the Sherriff in that county very well as we grew up on the same ranch and will try to find out the real story behind this. I don't agree with what happened but the land owner could have been within his rights.

SIA longhorns are quite a bit cheaper except for certain breeding stock and how much you want to pay.

In Texas the owner has to keep his stock up. I think the neighbor has a responsibility to notify then the owner has to pay feed & damages. I dont think you can shoot them like he did.
IANAL

Anyone wanna wade through this and tell us if its accurate?
http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/fence/tx_fnc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Learned this

143.082. Penalty
(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly permits a head of cattle or a domestic turkey to run at large in a county or area that has adopted this subchapter.

Yes mark, it's accurate. It's in the Texas Statutes.

Also the statutes allows for an owner of livestock to sue for damages, if the livestock is killed by someone because they got through the fence:

"Sec.143.033.INJURY TO TRESPASSING ANIMAL. If a person whose fence is insufficient under this subchapter maims, wounds, or kills a head of cattle or a horse, mule, jack, or jennet, or procures the maiming, wounding, or killing of one of those animals, by any means, including a gun or a dog, the person is liable to the owner of the animal for damages. This section does not authorize a person to maim, wound, or kill any horse, mule, jack, jennet, or head of cattle of another person.
Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 1345, ch. 388, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1981."

Fascinating read. Thanks for the memories mark!

joe817 wrote:Yes mark, it's accurate. It's in the Texas Statutes.

Also the statutes allows for an owner of livestock to sue for damages, if the livestock is killed by someone because they got through the fence:

"Sec.143.033.INJURY TO TRESPASSING ANIMAL. If a person whose fence is insufficient under this subchapter maims, wounds, or kills a head of cattle or a horse, mule, jack, or jennet, or procures the maiming, wounding, or killing of one of those animals, by any means, including a gun or a dog, the person is liable to the owner of the animal for damages. This section does not authorize a person to maim, wound, or kill any horse, mule, jack, jennet, or head of cattle of another person.
Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 1345, ch. 388, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1981."

Fascinating read. Thanks for the memories mark!

So I'm terrible at Reading Laws (part of the reason I come here)
Basically its says, if my cow wonders onto your land, and you shoot it or have your dog attack it, you owe me a New Cow or the Cash value of a cow.
now if my cow wonders onto your property and drowns in your lake or falls to its death, you aren't responsible.

gregthehand wrote:What a complete jerk. We had something similar with our cattle and the Sheriff told the guy he would be prosecuted if he shot any of our cattle. He never did so it never got tested.

Same thing happen to my grandparents.

joe817 wrote:Yes mark, it's accurate. It's in the Texas Statutes.

Also the statutes allows for an owner of livestock to sue for damages, if the livestock is killed by someone because they got through the fence:

"Sec.143.033.INJURY TO TRESPASSING ANIMAL. If a person whose fence is insufficient under this subchapter maims, wounds, or kills a head of cattle or a horse, mule, jack, or jennet, or procures the maiming, wounding, or killing of one of those animals, by any means, including a gun or a dog, the person is liable to the owner of the animal for damages. This section does not authorize a person to maim, wound, or kill any horse, mule, jack, jennet, or head of cattle of another person.
Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 1345, ch. 388, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1981."

Fascinating read. Thanks for the memories mark!

IANAL but isnt the loop hope that he didnt shoot "a head of cattle or a horse, mule, jack, or jennet,"? He shot buffalo, which arent mentioned in that text. Splitting hairs yes, but that is whats gonna happen when people lawyer up.

That's probably why charges haven't been filed - they're figuring out whether buffalo are cattle, and what if any laws were broken.

The shooter's going to be toast unless something really interesting turns up. Charges or no, the suit will be expensive.

I wonder if the owner is also going to go after his own ranch hands who were supposed to keep the fences up?

The cows are still property and im sure there is an animal cruelty charge in there somewhere

Trinitite wrote:

51 head of buffalo, you're going to need a bigger shovel.