oooooooooooooooooook , since we just got to do this

Section 3-4-6
Liability of owner of animal breaking into lands not enclosed by lawful fence for trespass or damages; liability of person injuring or destroying such animal.

(a) If any trespass or damage is done by any animal breaking into lands not enclosed by a lawful fence as defined in this chapter, the owner shall not be liable therefor.

(b) If any person injures or destroys any such animal, he shall be liable to the owner for five times the amount of injury done, to be recovered before any court of competent jurisdiction.
(Code 1852, §1100; Code 1867, §1283; Code 1876, §1587; Code 1886, §1365; Code 1896, §2113; Code 1907, §4245; Code 1923, §7975; Code 1940, T. 3, §65.)

oooooooooooooooooook , since we just got to do this

Section 3-4-6
Liability of owner of animal breaking into lands not enclosed by lawful fence for trespass or damages; liability of person injuring or destroying such animal.

(a) If any trespass or damage is done by any animal breaking into lands not enclosed by a lawful fence as defined in this chapter, the owner shall not be liable therefor.

(b) If any person injures or destroys any such animal, he shall be liable to the owner for five times the amount of injury done, to be recovered before any court of competent jurisdiction.
(Code 1852, §1100; Code 1867, §1283; Code 1876, §1587; Code 1886, §1365; Code 1896, §2113; Code 1907, §4245; Code 1923, §7975; Code 1940, T. 3, §65.)

Our research reveals that prior to 1941 Alabama was an open range state where it was lawful for one to allow his livestock to go at large on the lands of another. Under Alabama's open range laws, the owner of livestock was not liable for damages for intrusions of stock on the lands of another.

1201*1201 The burden was upon the crop growing landowner to fence livestock out. Glover v. Pugh, supra; Randle v. Payne, 39 Ala.App. 652, 107 So.2d 907 (1958), cert. denied, 268 Ala. 697, 107 So.2d 913 (1959).

In 1939, the legislature enacted a comprehensive stock law. Under its provisions, which include our present Code sections 3-5-2 and 3-5-3, Alabama was declared a closed range state. See, § 3-5-2(c), Code of Ala.1975. There were, however, provisions whereby a county could elect to become open range. Act No. 368, Acts of Alabama 1939, p. 487.

In 1951, the legislature declared it unlawful to permit livestock to run at large in any county; abolished all open range counties; and repealed the Code sections providing for the creation of open range counties along with "all other laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith." Act No. 53, Acts of Alabama 1951, p. 266.

In other words, the legislature worked a complete change in Alabama's stock laws and in doing so repealed all laws that were in harmony with the concept of an open range. Whereas under prior law the burden was on the landowner to fence stock out, Hurd v. Lacy, 93 Ala. 427, 9 So. 378 (1890); Rowe v. Baber, 93 Ala. 422, 8 So. 865 (1890), the burden is now on the stock owner to fence his stock in. Glover v. Pugh, supra; Randle v. Payne, supra; Revel v. Prince, 37 Ala.App. 457, 69 So.2d 470 (1954); §§ 3-5-2(a) and 3-5-3(a), Code of Ala.1975.

We find § 3-4-6(a) to be in harmony with the concept of open range and in conflict with present law inasmuch as § 3-4-6(a) in effect requires a landowner to erect a lawful fence to protect his crops and shields a stock owner from liability when the landowner has failed to do so. Code section 3-4-6(a) has, therefore, been repealed by the 1951 Act and it is no longer the law of this state.

For this reason, we find the trial court did not err in refusing plaintiff's requested written charges.

More case law. That statute has been repealed...

Sorry Frankie, try again.

Link to Monfee vs. Seymor



Link with even more discussion of Monfee v. Seymore

Title 3, Chapter 4 deals with livestock and only livestock. The title of the Chapter is "Fences and Livestock".

...
Although there is some interpretation of things/laws, I don't believe anyone posting yet, including myself, has the qualifications to do so. At least by my interpretation of the interpretations posted thus far. ...

Just to add a little more fuel to this fire. There is a pre-filed bill for this years legislative session that amends the animal cruelty laws. Ya'll should look that sucker up. I think its HB27

You are correct. The ONLY people who are allowed to professionally interpret laws are Judges who have juristiction over those laws.

Therefore, we must refer to case law to determine how they may be applied.

Looking at the case law involved with the statutes in question, a person can be found guilty of a misdemeanor if they allow their dog to roam on another property not their own. Also, if said dog is threatening any person, animal, or bird, the dog may be shot and the person who shoots them shall not be subject to the statutes regarding Animal Cruelty in Alabama.

It's pretty clear...

Under existing law, a person commits the
9 crime of cruelty to animals if, except as otherwise
10 authorized by law, he or she intentionally or
11 recklessly subjects any animal to cruel
12 mistreatment, subjects any animal in his or her
13 custody to cruel neglect, or kills or injures
14 without good cause any animal belonging to another.
15 Cruelty to animals is a Class B misdemeanor.
16 This bill would add acts that are done
17 knowingly or with criminal negligence to the
18 prohibition and make the crime a Class A
19 misdemeanor.
20 This bill would provide for the crime of
21 aggravated animal cruelty when the act of cruelty
22 or neglect was heinous, atrocious, cruel, or
23 involved infliction of torture to the animal.
24 Aggravated animal cruelty would be a Class C
25 felony.

i'll ask this and thats it , how many hunters do u know that was guilty by law for thier dogs

I believe for what it is worth, the time it takes for me to try to catch dogs running on my property; chase after them; stop them, and then most of the time the dogs run away from me rather than coming to me, (imagine that); holding the dogs while trying to call the law; waiting on the law to get there while holding dogs or transporting the smelly mutts to my house to meet the law; contacting dog owners IF the name tags are even on the collars, and then only having the owners prosecuted for $50.00 is not worth my spare time, let alone the time I would have gotten paid, if I was at work.

It just at times just doesn't seem worth the effort, to try to catch the dogs and only have the owners fined such a measly amount. But I still do it when I'm feeling frisky. Now if the owners had to pay for my lost time in chasing after and rounding the dogs up, and a hefty fine on top of that, I'd be a full time dog chaser.



God Bless,
David B.

I believe for what it is worth, the time it takes for me to try to catch dogs running on my property; chase after them; stop them, and then most of the time the dogs run away from me rather than coming to me, (imagine that); holding the dogs while trying to call the law; waiting on the law to get there while holding dogs or transporting the smelly mutts to my house to meet the law; contacting dog owners IF the name tags are even on the collars, and then only having the owners prosecuted for $50.00 is not worth my spare time, let alone the time I would have gotten paid, if I was at work.

It just at times just doesn't seem worth the effort, to try to catch the dogs and only have the owners fined such a measly amount. But I still do it when I'm feeling frisky. Now if the owners had to pay for my lost time in chasing after and rounding the dogs up, and a hefty fine on top of that, I'd be a full time dog chaser.



God Bless,
David B.

So what you are saying is SSS?

What is going to happen here in the near future, dog hunting will be banned,simply because people can't get along. I am so glad we don't have dog hunting up here...