[Masthead] Overcast ~ 55°F  
Wind Advisory
Monday, Jan. 23, 2017

Elvis has left the building, probably

Posted Friday, November 16, 2007, at 9:24 AM

This week's Friday Five:

*As if the majority of the world actually cares, the Elvis is Alive Museum is moving from Missouri to Mississippi soon.

The museum's current owner claims he has a DNA report indicating Elvis isn't in the grave, conveniently not explaining that Presley would have to be exhumed to confirm that statement. As far as I know, that hasn't happened -- but would the public know if it did?

I'd be amazed if Elvis is still alive. As Elvis fans insist, I'm sure, he's probably singing in heaven now.

*Speaking of celebrities, is anyone else tired of hearing about O.J. Simpson? As long as he doesn't kill anyone I really don't care what he does. Seems like quite a few folks are gunning for Simpson to spend part of the rest of his life in jail.

*Middle Tennessee State University's coming up in the world.

They'll host Mississippi State on Oct. 17, 2009. It's the first SEC school to visit Murfreesboro for a football game.

I can see the Blue Raiders at some point moving from the Sun Belt to a more major football conference. Problem is, it's rare for any school to leave a major conference, and too much competition when a rare slot opens.

*Bedford County deputies shouldn't have to spend as much time as they do running loose cattle and horses off rural roads -- and by "rural" I'm including major highways.

Seems like they're called several times a day.

Animals will get naturally get loose in rural areas, but it seems like it goes to an extreme here. Officers have more important things to do.

*From the Associated Press: "A congressional advisory panel said Thursday that Chinese spying represents the greatest threat to U.S. technology and recommended counterintelligence efforts to stop China from stealing the nation's manufacturing expertise."

Two thoughts here:

1) The counterintelligence efforts might as well start in the halls of American industry, since so many are already working directly with the Chinese.

2) Will warmonger Dick Cheney see the report and start planning an attack on China?

Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

Good neighhbors make good fences,too,so there can be discussions over what each side desires.

The ones with the strongest needs usually pays the most.

If an owner wants a certain type of fence for aesthetics or function,he pays at least the lion's share.

The other owner (who may have another set of criteria) goes along with that unless there is no compatability between their choices.

Then it can become a bidding war or the kind of fuss that winds up in a t.v. courtroom.

Basically,it's more important that animal owners keep their stock in than for neighbors to keep the stock out.

The animal owner has to make sure his beasts don't get out and get hurt,do damage to other folk,have inappropriate romantic liasons,etc.

It's more important that his fencing fulfill his responsibility toward his critters than whether it is stone,white planks,hedging,etc.

He'd probabably lean toward plain wire that would be high enough,deep enough and with an adequate apron to discourage predators and escapees.

He has every right to object to barbed wire or other hazards.

The neighbors have every right to protest if the animals are getting out or if their view is unnecessarily hampered.

Sensible landowners will think of their neighbors' welfare at least as much as their own and not ask anyone to ignore his own needs or assume more of the costs than necessary.

There are too many options out there to ignore the other fellow.

A talk with landscapers,agriculture or wildlife expert can offer suggestions that might keep things fair and friendly if the concerned parties can't come up with workable solutions on their own.

We usually put up the fencing,gates and stock gaps we required and tried to keep it all secure and attractive.

The neighbors tended to pitch in toward basic maintenance and would pay for anything that only benefitted them.

I'm not sure what the legal demands were.

We just operated on common sense and courtesy.

Modern day covenants and such might make folks put more thought into these arrangements than what I observed on my family's farm.

I know we had great people surrounding us and no one ever seemed to have a major difficulty with anyone else.

I think it was because everyone seemed to be wise and considerate and didn't assume that a lack of complaint meant that there wasn't room for improvement.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Sun, Nov 18, 2007, at 11:48 PM

Sounds like a common sense approach.

Several of you own field animals. Any comment on what we were told years ago about neighbors who do not have any animals, but adjoin neighbors who do?

We were told that we owed for half the upkeep on the fencing even though we had no animals. Somehow that did not make common sense to us, so we ignored it, but.......

-- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Nov 18, 2007, at 2:01 PM

When one of our heifers decided to play chicken,we paid for the damage to the vehicle and driver.

We'd have had to pay vet bills if she had not died instantly.

When a fellow who'd chemically altered his perspective mistook our farm's driveway for a track at Mooresville,slammed into our lower barn then partially submerged his vehicle in our cowpond,he assumed all expenses for the accident.

(Well,almost all...

I couldn't get anyone to agree that the ducks and horses needed psychological counselling.)

-- Posted by quantumcat on Sun, Nov 18, 2007, at 11:12 AM

If one gets hit by a vehicle, who is responsible for the damage and injury?

-Since Tennessee was not free range territory last time I heard an update I would assume the owner of the cattle would be responsible. If not the owner definately the owners insurance company.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Nov 16, 2007, at 3:14 PM

It may take an electrified fence to do the trick.

We tried every other solution we could think of (apart from cloning the Great Wall of China) to keep our critters in and other animals out but the electrified fence worked best.

(It worked-period.)

The shock used was far less than that received from static electricity but it startled the beasts enough to remind them of our 'house rules'.

(It also worked well on the humans who used to enter our property and leave the gates open. ;) )

By now,our four-legged family members 'forget' the juice and touch it but remain at home anyway.

The cost was much less than having to pay fines,vet bills,damages due to their trespasses,and the amount of worry we endured getting them back home before they got lost or died.

(Sometimes,some of the wanderers never made it back...)

I know that folks didn't used to have to have fancy fencing,shelters,i.d.,etc. for their animals nor were they made to have helmets and car seats for their children,either.

We are now held to higher standards for protecting and controlling those in our care.

The responsibilities are what we pay for the privilege of having charge of these precious lives.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Nov 16, 2007, at 3:00 PM

Besides the annoyance and taking up the officer's time, it can also be a major safety (life & death) situation. Maybe we should start fines for owners who do not keep their animals off the roadways.

I am all for the farmer, but I know how many times we have to chase them off our back roads and nothing seems to be done. If one gets hit by a vehicle, who is responsible for the damage and injury?

Speaking of restraining farm animals, when we moved to our 66 acres we were told that we had to pay for half of the up-keep on the fences surrounding us. Since we are not trying to keep anything out or in, we questioned the wisdom of that. Any opinions?

-- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Nov 16, 2007, at 2:26 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.