Has anyone heard of the policy in St Mary's where if your live stock/chickens are killed by an animal the Sheriff's office takes a report and the homeowner submits the bill to the county for reimbursement?

Pretty good return for a private citizen on the tax payers dime.

Thoughts?

Has anyone heard of the policy in St Mary's where if your live stock/chickens are killed by an animal the Sheriff's office takes a report and the homeowner submits the bill to the county for reimbursement?

Pretty good return for a private citizen on the tax payers dime.

Thoughts?

Never heard of it. Do you have a link that shows it actually exsists?

Never heard of it. Do you have a link that shows it actually exsists?

It exists....trust me.

It exists....trust me.

prove it

prove it is there a troll only forum for you..:buddies:

is there a troll only forum for you..:buddies:

nope... now prove it.

nope... now prove it.

Why?

For the trolls amongst us....:killingme

§ 11-508. Compensation for damages by dog

(a)(1) The governing body of a county may provide by local law or ordinance for the compensation of any person whose sheep, poultry, or livestock is destroyed or injured by a dog.

(2) A local law or ordinance enacted under this section may require the sheriff of the county, a county official, or other person to appraise the damages sustained by the person and report the findings to the county governing body.

(b)(1) If the owner of the dog may not be determined, the county governing body may compensate the person in accordance with the appraisal out of a dog license fund established under § 11-507 of this subtitle or out of the general fund of the county.

(2) A sworn report of the appraiser shall be deemed prima facie evidence of the fairness of the award of damages in each instance.

(3) If the county governing body considers the amount of the appraisal unfair, the county governing body may compensate the person an amount that the county governing body considers fair.

(c) If the owner of the dog doing the damage be known, it is the duty of the county governing body to notify the owner to kill the dog immediately. If the owner refuses or neglects to kill the dog upon notice, the owner shall be liable for the damages to the same extent as the owner would be liable in case of negligence or malicious destruction of property. The county governing body may have special officers kill the dog.

(d) If a county governing body does not adopt a local law or ordinance under this section, the county is not required to compensate any person for sheep, poultry, or livestock destroyed or injured by a dog.

For the trolls amongst us....:killingme

§ 11-508. Compensation for damages by dog

(a)(1) The governing body of a county may provide by local law or ordinance for the compensation of any person whose sheep, poultry, or livestock is destroyed or injured by a dog.

(2) A local law or ordinance enacted under this section may require the sheriff of the county, a county official, or other person to appraise the damages sustained by the person and report the findings to the county governing body.

(b)(1) If the owner of the dog may not be determined, the county governing body may compensate the person in accordance with the appraisal out of a dog license fund established under § 11-507 of this subtitle or out of the general fund of the county.

(2) A sworn report of the appraiser shall be deemed prima facie evidence of the fairness of the award of damages in each instance.

(3) If the county governing body considers the amount of the appraisal unfair, the county governing body may compensate the person an amount that the county governing body considers fair.

(c) If the owner of the dog doing the damage be known, it is the duty of the county governing body to notify the owner to kill the dog immediately. If the owner refuses or neglects to kill the dog upon notice, the owner shall be liable for the damages to the same extent as the owner would be liable in case of negligence or malicious destruction of property. The county governing body may have special officers kill the dog.

(d) If a county governing body does not adopt a local law or ordinance under this section, the county is not required to compensate any person for sheep, poultry, or livestock destroyed or injured by a dog.

Need to reference where you copied that from, no source cited. Is this a Md. state law or what?

Has anyone heard of the policy in St Mary's where if your live stock/chickens are killed by an animal the Sheriff's office takes a report and the homeowner submits the bill to the county for reimbursement?

Pretty good return for a private citizen on the tax payers dime.

Thoughts?


Okay, your intial post was a bit vague about "animal", and made it sound like any animal that killed a piece of livestock would get the owner paid by the county. What you've posted, however, is a bit different. And no windfall, since the money comes out of the dog tag fund. Not taxpayer expense at all, so where's the problem? If I can prove my neighbors dog killed my chicken, why not get reimbursed indirectly by him? And if his dog isnt registered, he should be fined by the county.

For the trolls amongst us....:killingme

§ 11-508. Compensation for damages by dog

(a)(1) The governing body of a county may provide by local law or ordinance for the compensation of any person whose sheep, poultry, or livestock is destroyed or injured by a dog.

(2) A local law or ordinance enacted under this section may require the sheriff of the county, a county official, or other person to appraise the damages sustained by the person and report the findings to the county governing body.

(b)(1) If the owner of the dog may not be determined, the county governing body may compensate the person in accordance with the appraisal out of a dog license fund established under § 11-507 of this subtitle or out of the general fund of the county.

(2) A sworn report of the appraiser shall be deemed prima facie evidence of the fairness of the award of damages in each instance.

(3) If the county governing body considers the amount of the appraisal unfair, the county governing body may compensate the person an amount that the county governing body considers fair.

(c) If the owner of the dog doing the damage be known, it is the duty of the county governing body to notify the owner to kill the dog immediately. If the owner refuses or neglects to kill the dog upon notice, the owner shall be liable for the damages to the same extent as the owner would be liable in case of negligence or malicious destruction of property. The county governing body may have special officers kill the dog.

(d) If a county governing body does not adopt a local law or ordinance under this section, the county is not required to compensate any person for sheep, poultry, or livestock destroyed or injured by a dog.That says a "dog", not any animal as your OP implied. It also is a STATE statute that says counties MAY adopt. So my "thought" is that once again you have proven yourself an idiot! Give me back your bullet Barney.

Summary: These statutes comprise Maryland's dog laws. Maryland is unique in that the state law governs the specific licensing and other regulations certain counties may adopt or enforce. Also included are the state rabies provisions and even the law that designates the state dog (the Chesapeake Bay retriever). Maryland Consolidated Dog Laws (http://animallaw.info/statutes/stusmdcode11_501_514.htm)

Has anyone heard of the policy in St Mary's where if your live stock/chickens are killed by an animal the Sheriff's office takes a report and the homeowner submits the bill to the county for reimbursement?

Pretty good return for a private citizen on the tax payers dime.

Thoughts?

Your summary and the actaul code say very differnet things. When you ask a question like this, you should include all of the facts, not just you slanted view.

Interesting. I wonder how much money is in the fund, and how often it is actually used for this purpose.

When I moved here and saw some of the folks that live around here, I was more worried about my sheep being raped versus killed.

When I moved here and saw some of the folks that live around here, I was more worried about my sheep being raped versus killed.

:killingme Great start to my day, thanks.

Good morning all
:coffee:

Wow, this thread is a major fail, lols.

Anyway, if you have a dog, and you paid for a dog license, please reply. If you do not reply I will assume that you have a dog and did not pay the government for a dog license.

He asked if anyone knew about this, then proceeded to find and quote the source.

Answered his own question, he did.

Has anyone heard of the policy in St Mary's where if your live stock/chickens are killed by an animal the Sheriff's office takes a report and the homeowner submits the bill to the county for reimbursement?

Pretty good return for a private citizen on the tax payers dime.

Thoughts?

I think you're talking about the Right to Farm Rule. If livestock are killed as a result of NEGLIGENCE (and its hard to prove) of County Officials, then the County can reimburse market value.

There was a case in Park Hall years ago, where some dogs were getting loose. They killed rabbits and chickens. Multiple reports were made to animal control, but the owner was a friend of someone and had it thrown out. Anyway, the dogs killed about $3k worth of goats, all breeding stock, all pregnant does, with very expensive bloodlines, and the dogs were caught in the pen. The police and County Health agents agreed that it was negligence, and the person was reimbursed for the goats. The chickens and rabbits no. Oh, and the County ended up going after the owner of the dogs for the money too.

That says a "dog", not any animal as your OP implied. It also is a STATE statute that says counties MAY adopt. So my "thought" is that once again you have proven yourself an idiot! Give me back your bullet Barney.

Your right should have said dog. And your point besides being thick? The fact is that our county HAS adopted the policy and has for a long time. Your sadly clueless.....

Your right should have said dog. And your point besides being thick? The fact is that our county HAS adopted the policy and has for a long time. Your sadly clueless.....

you're.....



dummy!

Your summary and the actaul code say very differnet things. When you ask a question like this, you should include all of the facts, not just you slanted view.

Not a slanted view. It was a question about county policy reimbursing people when it is clearly a civil matter.

Your right should have said dog. And your point besides being thick? The fact is that our county HAS adopted the policy and has for a long time. Your sadly clueless.....

You're

Okay, your intial post was a bit vague about "animal", and made it sound like any animal that killed a piece of livestock would get the owner paid by the county. What you've posted, however, is a bit different. And no windfall, since the money comes out of the dog tag fund. Not taxpayer expense at all, so where's the problem? If I can prove my neighbors dog killed my chicken, why not get reimbursed indirectly by him? And if his dog isnt registered, he should be fined by the county.

(b)(1) If the owner of the dog may not be determined, the county governing body may compensate the person in accordance with the appraisal out of a dog license fund established under § 11-507 of this subtitle or out of the general fund of the county.


Can be from either fund. I have no idea where the money comes from. But if a my dog kills your animal there may be a citation and losses should be handled civilly. That's my point. A random dog(no owner) that kills your sheep should not be reimbursed by the county IMHO.

You're

How does a grown adult not get this? Especially when corrected a hundred times!

you're.....



dummy!

Since your clueless, I dont care about your spell checking in a forum. If you want to be the forum grammar professor have at it. :yahoo:

Since your clueless, I dont care about your spell checking in a forum. If you want to be the forum grammar professor have at it. :yahoo:

I'm clueless, yet you use it wrong again? Holy Hell!!!

Phunny tread!

Since your clueless, I dont care about your spell checking in a forum. If you want to be the forum grammar professor have at it. :yahoo:

I'd rather be the forum grammar police :diva:

Your right should have said dog. And your point besides being thick? The fact is that our county HAS adopted the policy and has for a long time. Your sadly clueless.....
Please show that St. Mary's has adopted it. Don't post any more STATE statutes.

And it's "You're".

TuG8m4PL5X0

:killingme GTFOH :-))

LOL :killingme

Okay, your intial post was a bit vague about "animal", and made it sound like any animal that killed a piece of livestock would get the owner paid by the county. What you've posted, however, is a bit different. And no windfall, since the money comes out of the dog tag fund. Not taxpayer expense at all, so where's the problem? If I can prove my neighbors dog killed my chicken, why not get reimbursed indirectly by him? And if his dog isnt registered, he should be fined by the county.

When my neighbors dog attacked my goat they were fined $5,000.00 Not sure if they actually paid it but I did not get a penny for anything. Maybe if I had of pushed it but I was curious where the money went.

This thread is why this forum is awesome (or sad, depending on how you look at it)...

Please show that St. Mary's has adopted it. Don't post any more STATE statutes.

And it's "You're".

First i was asked to provide proof...so i do. I know the county does it. So take that as your proof!!!

First i was asked to provide proof...so i do. I know the county does it. So take that as your proof!!!Oh crap! What was I thinking??? I forgot that anything you post is fact. :doh:

You provided a state statute that I used to show how f*cked up your OP was. You've proven nothing except that Maryland has a statute and you failed 5th grade english.

You've proven nothing except that Maryland has a statute and you failed 5th grade english.

:lmao:

The State does have a program, funded through hunting lincense fees, that reimburses farmers for crop damage and livestock losses caused by animals. It's aimed mainly at Western MD and the bear problem out there.

The State does have a program, funded through hunting lincense fees, that reimburses farmers for crop damage and livestock losses caused by animals. It's aimed mainly at Western MD and the bear problem out there.

From the bear's perspective, it's a human problem.

Wow, this thread is a major fail, lols.

Anyway, if you have a dog, and you paid for a dog license, please reply. If you do not reply I will assume that you have a dog and did not pay the government for a dog license.

I don't let my dog drive


Easy peasy

Oh crap! What was I thinking??? I forgot that anything you post is fact. :doh:

You provided a state statute that I used to show how f*cked up your OP was. You've proven nothing except that Maryland has a statute and you failed 5th grade english.

Archives of Maryland, Volume 0773, Page 3706 - Session Laws, 1994 (http://aomol.net/000001/000773/html/am773--3706.html)

Yes Maryland has a statute and its been adopted in SM. The original assertion was there was no statute.....proven false.:howdy:

I know first hand the county policy is in place because i have seen it. Its ok to be wrong.
:whistle:

For the rest of us who can add to the discussion:smack:, does this seem like a prudent use of time and money? Is it not a civil matter?

Archives of Maryland, Volume 0773, Page 3706 - Session Laws, 1994 (http://aomol.net/000001/000773/html/am773--3706.html)

Yes Maryland has a statute and its been adopted in SM. The original assertion was there was no statute.....proven false.:howdy:

I know first hand the county policy is in place because i have seen it. Its ok to be wrong.
:whistle:

For the rest of us who can add to the discussion:smack:, does this seem like a prudent use of time and money? Is it not a civil matter?
Do you really think anyone cares what the original purpose of the post is? It's reverted to "how many ways can we make FC look stupid", quit while you're ahead (at least not behind any further).

Archives of Maryland, Volume 0773, Page 3706 - Session Laws, 1994 (http://aomol.net/000001/000773/html/am773--3706.html)

Yes Maryland has a statute and its been adopted in SM. The original assertion was there was no statute.....proven false.:howdy:

I know first hand the county policy is in place because i have seen it. Its ok to be wrong.
:whistle:

For the rest of us who can add to the discussion:smack:, does this seem like a prudent use of time and money? Is it not a civil matter?Again you post a state statute!! :killingme

Who asserted there was no state statute? We have asked for and have NOT received any evidence that St. Mary's has adopted this statute.

You are as big on FAIL as Giantone. :dork:

Please show that St. Mary's has adopted it. Don't post any more STATE statutes.

And it's "You're".

See my post. That was in St Marys...and it was after numerous complaints to Animal Control about the loose dogs.

Again you post a state statute!! :killingme

Who asserted there was no state statute? We have asked for and have NOT received any evidence that St. Mary's has adopted this statute.

You are as big on FAIL as Giantone. :dork:

Not just that, but look at the tread title.

Since your clueless, I dont care about your spell checking in a forum. If you want to be the forum grammar professor have at it. :yahoo:

This is why I try to refrain from doing this very thing; being labeled 'spelling Nazi.' I try like Hell to avoid posting corrections anymore.

See my post. That was in St Marys...and it was after numerous complaints to Animal Control about the loose dogs.Ok what is a "Right to Farm Rule"?
Is it a St. Marys code, law or statute (as dum dum's thread title states)?

Since he wanted to rag on the county, all we asked him to do was provide proof that St. Mary's has this law, code or statute on the books. So far he hasn't.

Again you post a state statute!! :killingme

Who asserted there was no state statute? We have asked for and have NOT received any evidence that St. Mary's has adopted this statute.

You are as big on FAIL as Giantone. :dork:

Ignorance is so bliss....what is it like? Let me ask.....what are you going to say when your demonstrated to be wrong? :dingding:

Ignorance is so bliss....what is it like? Let me ask.....what are you going to say when your demonstrated to be wrong? :dingding:

Your title states "Only in St. Mary's." Will you now admit that you were wrong?

Ignorance is so bliss....what is it like? Let me ask.....what are you going to say when your demonstrated to be wrong? :dingding:If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an eternal orgasm!

Wrong about what?? I keep asking you to show where St. Mary's has the rule. Please show my post where I said they didn't.

And AGAIN, it's "you're". :dork:

Ok what is a "Right to Farm Rule"?
Is it a St. Marys code, law or statute (as dum dum's thread title states)?

Since he wanted to rag on the county, all we asked him to do was provide proof that St. Mary's has this law, code or statute on the books. So far he hasn't.

The code says the Sheriff's office is tasked with it......try making a call and letting us all know, Inspector Clouseau:faint:

[/B]QUOTE=Baja28;4866919]If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an eternal orgasm!

Wrong about what?? I keep asking you to show where St. Mary's has the rule. Please show my post where I said they didn't.

And AGAIN, it's "you're". :dork:[/QUOTE]

Your whole mad tirade has been about no evidence. Now your waffling so you dont look like a total moron when i demonstrate that SM does in fact reimburse people.

Your title states "Only in St. Mary's." Will you now admit that you were wrong?

Huh?

Your whole mad tirade has been about no evidence. Now your waffling so you dont look like a total moron when i demonstrate that SM does in fact reimburse people.Not waffling at all. Please do demonstrate it. I'm still waiting.

And you got it wrong AGAIN Einstein! The second one should be "you're". :killingme

Huh?
:whoosh:

Don't even try to get it. You can't. :poorbaby:

The code says the Sheriff's office is tasked with it......try making a call and letting us all know, Inspector Clouseau:faint:The STATE statue says a county MAY adopt it. I'll ask one last time for you to show where St. Mary's has adopted it. Do that and we're done. Easy Peasy.

The STATE statue says a county MAY adopt it. I'll ask one last time for you to show where St. Mary's has adopted it. Do that and we're done. Easy Peasy.

CALL your local Sheriff's office.....

SM 301-475-4040
Calvert 410-535-2800

Are your dense? I provided the state code. I can't find a county specific on line one. However, the local police have POLICY FOR IT. How can I prove that to you? Shall I ask for a copy of the policy so the fool on SOMD can be satisfied? Try calling. Ask for policy 2.06....:doh:

The STATE statue says a county MAY adopt it. I'll ask one last time :blahblah:for you to show where St. Mary's has adopted it. Do that and we're done. Easy Peasy.

Prove it does not have policy! Easy Peasy

Is peasy really a word......OH SNAP! tell your buddy Hank, professor spell check, to check that out for us....:doh::doh:

Prove it does not have policy! Easy Peasy

Is peasy really a word......OH SNAP! tell your buddy Hank, professor spell check, to check that out for us....:doh::doh:


It comes from a 1970's british TV commercial for Lemon Squeezy detergent. They were with a little girl who points out dirty greasy dishes to an adult (mom or relative) and then this adult produces Lemon Squeezy and they clean the dishes quickly. At the end of the commercial the girl says "Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy".

Today it is a silly way to state something was or will be very easy.
"I will be in an out, easy peasy."

Prove it does not have policy! Easy Peasy

Is peasy really a word......OH SNAP! tell your buddy Hank, professor spell check, to check that out for us....:doh::doh:

You really are dense! And you are licensed to carry a firearm? Scary!

It comes from a 1970's british TV commercial for Lemon Squeezy detergent. They were with a little girl who points out dirty greasy dishes to an adult (mom or relative) and then this adult produces Lemon Squeezy and they clean the dishes quickly. At the end of the commercial the girl says "Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy".

Today it is a silly way to state something was or will be very easy.
"I will be in an out, easy peasy."

Oh I see how you got it....:blahblah: What ivy league skool did you go to?

I've always hated the phrase "easy, peazy".

The STATE statue says a county MAY adopt it. I'll ask one last time for you to show where St. Mary's has adopted it. Do that and we're done. Easy Peasy.
Here you go....

http://www.stmarysmd.com/docs/Article1.pdf Page 53-1



Here it is being referenced to by county officials.
Ag Community, Subdivision Residents Spar At Hearing - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News (http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/26022)

Here you go....

http://www.stmarysmd.com/docs/Article1.pdf Page 53-1

Here it is being referenced to by county officials.
Ag Community, Subdivision Residents Spar At Hearing - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News (http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/26022)I appreciate your efforts but the first link you provided only has 14 pages and does not include 53-1.

The second link is not even relevant as it discuses the slaughter house that the Knots wanted to open.

Here you go....

http://www.stmarysmd.com/docs/Article1.pdf Page 53-1



Here it is being referenced to by county officials.
Ag Community, Subdivision Residents Spar At Hearing - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News (http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/26022)

Dont listen to Baja. He is wrong and cant deal with it. A real person realizes when their wrong and apologize for being an idiot.

Dont listen to Baja. He is wrong and cant deal with it. A real person realizes when their wrong and apologize for being an idiot.

So, when you wrote the title "Only in St. Mary's" were you wrong that this policy is ONLY in St. Mary's?

Don't listen to Baja. He is wrong and can't deal with it. A real person realizes when theirthey're wrong and apologizes for being an idiot.

By the way, will you please apologize for your butchery of the English language?

CALL your local Sheriff's office.....

SM 301-475-4040
Calvert 410-535-2800

Are your dense? I provided the state code. I can't find a county specific on line one. However, the local police have POLICY FOR IT. How can I prove that to you? Shall I ask for a copy of the policy so the fool on SOMD can be satisfied? Try calling. Ask for policy 2.06....:doh:

I just called. They said you are full of #### and you were never a cop.

So, when you wrote the title "Only in St. Mary's" were you wrong that this policy is ONLY in St. Mary's?

Uh no :killingme. You have misquoted me. It was a question posed. Read the original. Get off the band wagon with the other trolls and add something intelligent to the convo.....

I just called. They said you are full of #### and you were never a cop.

Another troll....lying. shame shame.

There is the old saying that integrity is how you act when no one is watching. These forums act as anonymous outlets. The way the anonymous people say and do is an example of the "character" they portray.

I am glad that when people hurl insults and lies. Because I know that when I am wrong I am always man/women enough to admit it, learn and move on. But their are those that throw the arrows and insults and "truth" and then leave quietly. Never following up or thru on the point they were trying to make. Which is an indicator of a person's real character......:whistle:

There is the old saying that integrity is how you act when no one is watching. These forums act as anonymous outlets. The way the anonymous people say and do is an example of the "character" they portray.

I am glad that when people hurl insults and lies. Because I know that when I am wrong I am always man/women enough to admit it, learn and move on. But their are those that throw the arrows and insults and "truth" and then leave quietly. Never following up or thru on the point they were trying to make. Which is an indicator of a person's real character......:whistle:Speak up son, who are you referring to?? Only thing you admitted is that you cannot prove that St. Mary's has adopted the statute. Good on ya for admitting that you were wrong. :yay:

Here you go....

http://www.stmarysmd.com/docs/Article1.pdf Page 53-1



Here it is being referenced to by county officials.
Ag Community, Subdivision Residents Spar At Hearing - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News (http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/26022)

Ok, I am sorry. I published, when I was supposed to be working. It's section 53-1 in Chapter 5 of the St Marys County Zoning Ordinance. Apparently, my link is not the entire text, however, it is listed in the table of contents.

I believe....this is a complete link.
http://www.co.saint-marys.md.us/docs/CurrentZO.pdf

Speak up son, who are you referring to?? Only thing you admitted is that you cannot prove that St. Mary's has adopted the statute. Good on ya for admitting that you were wrong. :yay:

Uhhhh You for one. Proof is to just.... uh I dunno make a call for yourself :whistle: Instead you spew ignorance on a forum like you know something when clearly you don't.:whistle:

DID YOU CALL YOUR LOCAL PD? wait let me answer that for you....:killingme

Damn, this thread just gets better and better. Where are all those crazy newbies on this one?

:coffee:

Uhhhh You for one. Proof is to just.... uh I dunno make a call for yourself :whistle: Instead you spew ignorance on a forum like you know something when clearly you don't.:whistle:

DID YOU CALL YOUR LOCAL PD? wait let me answer that for you....:killingmeOK shyt for brains let me boil this down for you.

You wanna talk about spewing ignorance??? You started this thread for the sole intention of ragging on St. Mary's County. Deny it and I'll call you a friggin liar! You did not have the information and what you posted was incorrect. When pressed to provide proof, you could not and still have not.

Fortunately everyone reading your posts sees that you're just an LEO wanna be who steps in crap every time you post. Keep up the good work moron. :yay:

Ok, I am sorry. I published, when I was supposed to be working. It's section 53-1 in Chapter 5 of the St Marys County Zoning Ordinance. Apparently, my link is not the entire text, however, it is listed in the table of contents.

I believe....this is a complete link.
http://www.co.saint-marys.md.us/docs/CurrentZO.pdfRed, I searched the document you posted with the words "dog" and "reimburse". Nothing came up stating that the county will do this, however, thanks to a PM from someone who was able to prove it, I know that they do.

My goal here was to enhance foodcritic's making a fool of himself and it worked wonderfully. Thanks for your efforts. :love:

OK shyt for brains let me boil this down for you.

You wanna talk about spewing ignorance??? You started this thread for the sole intention of ragging on St. Mary's County. Deny it and I'll call you a friggin liar! You did not have the information and what you posted was incorrect. When pressed to provide proof, you could not and still have not.

Fortunately everyone reading your posts sees that you're just an LEO wanna be who steps in crap every time you post. Keep up the good work moron. :yay:

Ragging on St Marys...please provide PROOF!. It was a discussion on tax payer money being spent to cover civil losses. You turned it in to ( as usual) a name calling contest. Only to find that I was right the whole time.:yahoo:

Of course, I alredy knew i was right all along. Now you come on here eating crow because your mystery source found proof for you. When your able to step up your ability to engage in a logical discussion holla .....son.:smack:

Because I know that when I am wrong I am always man/women enough to admit it

You're a Transgender/Tranny??? :faint:

Ragging on St Marys...please provide PROOF!. It was a discussion on tax payer money being spent to cover civil losses. You turned it in to ( as usual) a name calling contest. Only to find that I was right the whole time.:yahoo:

Of course, I alredy knew i was right all along. Now you come on here eating crow because your mystery source found proof for you. When your able to step up your ability to engage in a logical discussion holla .....son.:smack:
I missed where this happened?

You're a Transgender/Tranny??? :faint:

Proof....:killingme....you got me kojak

I missed where this happened?

Priceless! Keep reading all your domestic partner's posts.

Ragging on St Marys...please provide PROOF!. It was a discussion on tax payer money being spent to cover civil losses. You turned it in to ( as usual) a name calling contest. Only to find that I was right the whole time. Ummmm you were wrong. It does not use tax payer money. FAIL (again)

Of course, I alredy (already) knew i was right all along. Now you come on here eating crow because your mystery source found proof for you. Wrong again! When your (you're) able to step up your ability to engage in a logical discussion holla .....son.:smack:Now you're just trying to make this funny aren't you?? :killingme

My mystery source did not find proof. No one has provided proof. My source gave me details on how they were reimbursed and I believe them.

Now run along and keep confusing yourself. :buttkick:

Oh and you really should go back to 3rd grade and study english. :yay:

Now you're just trying to make this funny aren't you?? :killingme

My mystery source did not find proof. No one has provided proof. My source gave me details on how they were reimbursed and I believe them.

Now run along and keep confusing yourself. :buttkick:

thanks to a PM from someone who was able to prove it

Absolutely priceless! :killingme

Archives of Maryland, Volume 0773, Page 3706 - Session Laws, 1994 (http://aomol.net/000001/000773/html/am773--3706.html)

Yes Maryland has a statute and its been adopted in SM. The original assertion was there was no statute.....proven false.:howdy:

I know first hand the county policy is in place because i have seen it. Its ok to be wrong.
:whistle:

For the rest of us who can add to the discussion:smack:, does this seem like a prudent use of time and money? Is it not a civil matter?

By your choice of title for this thread, are we to somehow believe that ONLY St Mary's County has adopted a local ordinance that takes advantage of the permission granted by the State of Maryland to impose such an ordinance? Are you going to now prove to that no other county in the State of Maryland has taken advantage of this authority? Lastly, why can you not find evidence that St Mary's county has adopted this ordinance?

Just asking.

Absolutely priceless! :killingmeWooooow!!! I actually mistyped something. :faint: Holy mother of little baby jesus!! :jameo:

I should have typed that they proved it to my satisfaction.

I have almost 20,000 posts. See how many errors you can find.

Lets compare mine to yours. You've made more in this thread alone than I have in 20K posts. :coffee:

By your choice of title for this thread, are we to somehow believe that ONLY St Mary's County has adopted a local ordinance that takes advantage of the permission granted by the State of Maryland to impose such an ordinance? Are you going to now prove to that no other county in the State of Maryland has taken advantage of this authority? Lastly, why can you not find evidence that St Mary's county has adopted this ordinance?Just asking.

If your really just asking.... the thread title was meant to draw a look. Only in St Marys?. The question mark was there for people to answer the question. I have no idea how many counties adopted it. I found the state regs after the fact. I know the county policy exists because of first hand knowledge. I think the county reimbursing people for animals killed by dogs is arcane, inappropriate and lacks fiscal responsibility.

Wooooow!!! I actually mistyped something. :faint: Holy mother of little baby jesus!! :jameo:

I should have typed that they proved it to my satisfaction.

I have almost 20,000 posts. See how many errors you can find.

Lets compare mine to yours. You've made more in this thread alone than I have in 20K posts. :coffee:

:killingme

Is wooooow really a word? Did you spell check that and check with the professor?

Mistyped is your way of saying you lied? Please share with us your PROOF!

If your really just asking.... the thread title was meant to draw a look. Only in St Marys?. The question mark was there for people to answer the question. I have no idea how many counties adopted it. I found the state regs after the fact. I know the county policy exists because of first hand knowledge. I think the county reimbursing people for animals killed by dogs is arcane, inappropriate and lacks fiscal responsibility.

By your inability to produce an ordinance supporting your contention, I would have to say, "The answer is, No."

By your inability to produce an ordinance supporting your contention, I would have to say, "The answer is, No."

I produced a policy number in another post. You can call local PD and verify? I have knowledge of the process being done. You can PM Baja :killingme has all the PROOF.

Or you can try to jump on the bandwagon with the other few fellas....

I produced a policy number in another post. You can call local PD and verify? I have knowledge of the process being done. You can PM Baja :killingme has all the PROOF.

Or you can try to jump on the bandwagon with the other few fellas....

I am jumping on no bandwagon. You have yet to prove this phantom policy exists in St Mary's county. Therefore, unless and until you do produce something (like red was able to do in a very short time) the answer remains, "No."

If your really just asking.... the thread title was meant to draw a look. Only in St Marys?. The question mark was there for people to answer the question. I have no idea how many counties adopted it. I found the state regs after the fact. I know the county policy exists because of first hand knowledge. I think the county reimbursing people for animals killed by dogs is arcane, inappropriate and lacks fiscal responsibility.You are a friggin liar!! And not smarter than a 3rd grader.

You are a friggin liar!! And not smarter than a 3rd grader.

I believe nothing is accomplished by continuing to "Nanny, nanny, boo boo." this topic. It would be best to go on to some thread that is useful. Allow foodcritic to find a St Mary's county policy that enacts the authority given them by the Maryland legislature and let him post a new thread that presents it.

I believe nothing is accomplished by continuing to "Nanny, nanny, boo boo." this topic. It would be best to go on to some thread that is useful. Allow foodcritic to find a St Mary's county policy that enacts the authority given them by the Maryland legislature and let him post a new thread that presents it.I agree Lurk. As they say: "Never argue with an idiot. they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." He won.

I agree Lurk. As they say: "Never argue with an idiot. they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." He won.

It's suppose to be you don't argue with a drunk. Since you have set the standard that you require proof (however you want to define that) for every comment you make....you better live up to your own standards. Which does not mean lying BTW.

And since you have never provided what it was that was "IM" to you proving that I was right, just adds to the fact that you are a disingenuous person, not interested in the truth but casting aspersion and name calling. The funny thing is after all your insults....at the end of the day....I was right all along. Thanks to your own proof or non proof depending on how you "mistype" things.

Thanks for making my case for me :buddies:

It's suppose to be you don't argue with a drunk. Since you have set the standard that you require proof (however you want to define that) for every comment you make....you better live up to your own standards. Which does not mean lying BTW.

And since you have never provided what it was that was "IM" to you proving that I was right, just adds to the fact that you are a disingenuous person, not interested in the truth but casting aspersion and name calling. The funny thing is after all your insults....at the end of the day....I was right all along. Thanks to your own proof or non proof depending on how you "mistype" things.

Thanks for making my case for me :buddies:

Who typed this post for you? :eyebrow: