When Russ Garvin shot a dog in his cattle pen last spring, he thought he was within his rights. He found out differently when a judge ordered him to pay the dog's owners $800.
Although many Montana ranchers and property owners believe they have the right to destroy a dog chasing cattle or deer, they may find themselves in court if they do so.Dogs are protected from cruelty to animals and as personal property under state law. It is rarely legal to shoot them, authorities say.
Private citizens cannot kill dogs for chasing game animals. Only game wardens or peace officers can do so and only if they witness a dog attacking or killing hoofed game animals.
Nor can livestock owners dispatch dogs simply for chasing their animals; the dog must actually kill or injure hoofed livestock first.
Based on past court decisions, the killing of a dog is justified only if it is necessary to protect property from imminent danger, the actions are reasonable and there is no other way to prevent injury to the property.
That leaves a lot of gray areas, and that is why county agencies say it is just not a good idea to solve dog problems by shooting.
"It's our recommendation that people do not shoot dogs," said Flathead County Undersheriff Chuck Curry, "just like it would be our recommendation that people don't shoot other people. And certainly there will be instances where there will be extenuating circum-stances."
Justice of the Peace Stewart Stadler, who issued the ruling against Garvin, said dog-shooting cases are among the most emotional to come through his court.
"There's nothing that creates more passion than my right to shoot and my right not to have my dog shot," he said.
In the Garvin case, he said Garvin believed he could shoot a dog if it was pestering his cattle. But to Stadler it appeared there could have been other ways to handle the situation.
"It seemed to me (Garvin) acted hastily, and that's why he paid for the dog," Stadler said. The judge said people have "no right to kill a dog if there's any other way to do deal with it."
"There are a lot of people who feel they have an inalienable right to shoot dogs (as if) it's in the Second Amendment," he said.
Garvin was surprised by the ruling, saying he had been told by the sheriff's department for years that he could shoot a dog if it was bothering his cattle. He appealed Stadler's ruling, but it was upheld by District Judge Michael Keedy.
Neighboring rancher Paul Tutvedt was also surprised at the court decision. Until that time, "we thought that after you've found a dog chasing cattle and you've warned the people a time or two, you've got to defend your own property."
Tutvedt said contacting the owner has usually resolved any problems he's encountered. "It really to us isn't a big problem, but it's very upsetting when it does happen," he said.
Although he would be reluctant to shoot a dog, "we do need some method that we can protect ourselves from that, as more and more people are moving into these various communities," Tutvedt said.