# farmer shoots 2 dogs



## Kivasmum (Aug 4, 2011)

dont really know the ins and outs, but i am at work listening to the radio, 88.8fm   dunno what station that is ha ha 
and they have just been on about a farmer that has shot 2 dogs dead, a whippet and a beagle, while they were on an offlead walk with their owner and his other 2 dogs on the farmers land  as i said dont know any more than this but they did say that they will be talking to the dog owner and farmer, but didnt hear when??

eta its bbc radio 2


----------



## WelshYorkieLover (Oct 16, 2011)

Sick f****r! But unfortunately farmers have every right to shoot a dog thats off the lead on their land. My sister two staffies escaped from her house and ran up into a farmers field and he shot them dead too!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

I wa;k on private land a lot, my farmer is friendly, BUT I have been told by some to keep my dogs on lead and tie a big yellow ribbon half way down the lead so that it can be seem!

Back on topic! what a horrible thing for the poor owner to have to witness whilst out on a walk. Cannot remember the current legisation regarding this happening but seem to think that farmers are within their rights to shoot dogs on their land and that they have to aim to kill! I would have thought worrying life stock yep - or a danger to lifestock even - but on an innocent walk - please!!


----------



## waggy Tailz (Sep 14, 2011)

They were shooting up the fields by me this week, so kept the dog out of that field!! Unfortunately farmers do have the right to shoot dogs on their land, we as owners just need to be cautious as to where we take our dogs!


----------



## Kivasmum (Aug 4, 2011)

they did say on the radio, the bit i heard, that the farmer had a sign up saying if your dogs bother my livestock they will be shot, but said the owner was walking his 4 dogs, heard 2 shots and turned round to see his whippet and beagle had been shot dead  thats so sad, especially if they werent bothering anything. i get that its private land and the farmer may of been within his rights, but its a dog that is only going where its master takes it, why not shoot the owner!! i could more understand it if it were a stray but, why not shout a 'get off my land' warning first?? its just sad


----------



## waggy Tailz (Sep 14, 2011)

Kivasmum said:


> they did say on the radio, the bit i heard, that the farmer had a sign up saying if your dogs bother my livestock they will be shot, but said the owner was walking his 4 dogs, heard 2 shots and turned round to see his whippet and beagle had been shot dead  thats so sad, especially if they werent bothering anything. i get that its private land and the farmer may of been within his rights, but its a dog that is only going where its master takes it, why not shoot the owner!! i could more understand it if it were a stray but, why not shout a 'get off my land' warning first?? its just sad


I agree, seems the farmer just has issues!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

waggy Tailz said:


> I agree, seems the farmer just has issues!


Sadly it is not a rare occurance either! I personally know someone whose dogs met the same fate! we as dogs walkers need to adapt our attitudes accordingly when walking on farmland .


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

You never know whether there was any history behind it. 

A ridgie was shot and killed last year near where I worked and sometimes walked Kilo. This dog had chased the farmer's sheep on a few occasions and even killed one; the farmer had been very reasonable and given the owner a warning and just accepted the price of the sheep. On the day that the dog was shot, he was again offlead around the livestock. It is very, very sad for the owner and I couldn't imagine witnessing my dog shot BUT the owner could have kept the dog on a lead and the farmer was acting well within his rights and I fully understand why he did it. You don't know whether something like this had occurred previously with the dogs you are talking about.


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

I think this must be the incident you mean..

Burton News & Staffordshire Newspaper | Burton On Trent Local Newspaper Headlines | Daily Mail | Shot dead by farmer's gun


----------



## xshelly_stanliex (May 4, 2010)

The way i see it is the dog always suffers this time with their lives because of irresponsible owners.


----------



## peanut651 (Oct 7, 2011)

we cant go judging just yet without knowing the whole story. sad enough as it is and its not a nice thing to hapen. at the end of the day farmers do have their rights. but were the dogs actually doing anything wrong? or did the farmer even see the owner with the dogs...we just dont know


----------



## PennyGC (Sep 24, 2011)

Farmers only have the right to shoot dogs if they're actually threatening their livestock! They don't have the right to shoot dogs on a walk over their land. Discharging a firearm near a public right of way without heed of the humans (and innocent dogs) is probably an offence as well. Poor dogs. I wouldn't want livestock hurt or frightened, but really this is outrageous - if they weren't chasing sheep - and the farmer needs to be prosecuted.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Landowners can't just shoot dogs for being on their property. That is false and incorrect information.

This is what the law states:



> Animals Act 1971
> 3)Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person killing or causing injury to a dog shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if, either
> (a)the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or
> (b)the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

From the article (Daily Fail granted) it does seem as if there is a history behind all this though.


----------



## Kivasmum (Aug 4, 2011)

I didnt hear the full story as i said, and if the owner had been warned before, or was allowing his dogs to bother the farmers livestock then shame on the owner!!! but i still think he should of shot the owner not the dogs


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

The law is quite clear

*Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953*

Penalty where dog worries livestock on agricultural land. (England and Wales)

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, if a dog worries livestock on any agricultural land, the owner of the dog, and, if it is in the charge of a person other than its owner, that person also, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

(2)For the purposes of this Act worrying livestock means-

(a)attacking livestock, or

(b)chasing livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering to the livestock or, in the case of females, abortion, or loss of or diminution in their produce or

(c)*being at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep]*

I am afraid that several times a year dog walkers ignore signs and fail to obey the Countryside Code and/or the law and thus jeopardise not only a farmer's livelihood but the lives of other animals, the lives of their own dogs.

*Animals Act 1971*

Protection of livestock against dogs England and Wales

Killing of or injury to dogs worrying livestock.

(1)In any civil proceedings against a person (in this section referred to as the defendant) for killing or causing injury to a dog it shall be a defence to prove-

(a)that the defendant acted for the protection of any livestock and was a person entitled to act for the protection of that livestock; and

(b)that within forty-eight hours of the killing or injury notice thereof was given by the defendant to the officer in charge of a police station.

(2)For the purposes of this section a person is entitled to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if-

(a)the livestock or the land on which it is belongs to him or to any person under whose express or implied authority he is acting; and

(b)the circumstances are not such that liability for killing or causing injury to the livestock would be excluded by section 5(4) of this Act.

(3)Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person killing or causing injury to a dog shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if, either-

(a)the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or

(b)the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.

(4)For the purposes of this section the condition stated in either of the paragraphs of the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that it was satisfied and had reasonable ground for that belief.

(5)For the purposes of this section-

(a)an animal belongs to any person if he owns it or has it in his possession; and
(b)land belongs to any person if he is the occupier thereof.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

I always wait to judge in these sort of circumstances as you never get the full story to start with. Your dogs may be your babies but not everybody sees them that way. A farmers livestock are not just under his duty, care and responsibilty, they are also his livelihood! It can be a hard life trying to make money as a farmer and if irresponsible dog owners are causing your livestock to worry and even abort their young then can you blame them! A decent, understanding farmer would give due warning (and it seems this one did) but they are under no obligation to do so.

The only bit that confuses me is the description of their bodies... their legs were blown off in addition to head shots ? A farmer is within his rights but it should be done humanely!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Kivasmum said:


> I didnt hear the full story as i said, and if the owner had been warned before, or was allowing his dogs to bother the farmers livestock then shame on the owner!!! but i still think he should of shot the owner not the dogs


Shooting people is illegal, shooting dogs is not (provided the criteria mentioned in the two relevant Acts are met)


----------



## Jasper's Bloke (Oct 30, 2009)

I was also under the impression that a dog could only be shot if it was actually threatening livestock. If the dogs were just on a walk and not chasing then there is always the risk that there is an owner somewhere nearby and that has the potential for disaster written all over it.

I fully appreciate that farmers need to protect their livestock but the simple answer for all concerned is not to walk your dogs across farmers land, especially not off lead. Even if you have 110% recall or a dog that has no interest whatsoever in livestock, a farmer isn't to know that and may well assume the worst, and by then it is too late. Is it worth the risk?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Jasper's Bloke said:


> I was also under the impression that a dog could only be shot if it was actually threatening livestock. If the dogs were just on a walk and not chasing then there is always the risk that there is an owner somewhere nearby and that has the potential for disaster written all over it.
> 
> I fully appreciate that farmers need to protect their livestock but the simple answer for all concerned is not to walk your dogs across farmers land, especially not off lead. Even if you have 110% recall or a dog that has no interest whatsoever in livestock, a farmer isn't to know that and may well assume the worst, and by then it is too late. Is it worth the risk?


The dogs that I was aware of were certainly NOT worrying the sheep! BUT they had in the past! And what a lot of people forget is that if sheep are chased when in lamb they can and do abort! The owners did start a private prosecution but lost! This farmer was 73 at the time and has since died.

DT


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

If what the Daily Mail says is correct, then the farmer has had trouble with these dogs before, and he's perfectly within his rights to shoot dogs on land where cattle and/or sheep graze if he thinks there is a problem.

I think there should be a law that dogs must be on leads when in fields with livestock. That would prevent any dogs being accidentally shot. Unless cattle chase a person, (which they recommend you let the dog go), the dog should be on lead.

I never walk in fields with cattle or sheep (and Ollie always on lead anyway), but its just not worth the risk.


----------



## emmar (Aug 1, 2008)

PennyGC said:


> Farmers only have the right to shoot dogs if they're actually threatening their livestock! They don't have the right to shoot dogs on a walk over their land. Discharging a firearm near a public right of way without heed of the humans (and innocent dogs) is probably an offence as well. Poor dogs. I wouldn't want livestock hurt or frightened, but really this is outrageous - if they weren't chasing sheep - and the farmer needs to be prosecuted.


we walk our dogs on farmers fields ( crop fields not livestock fields) ..if farmer is out on the land we dont ..but yes i heard a farmer can shoot to kill if and only if the dogs are chasing livestock , farmer needs proscuting


----------



## sunshine80 (Jan 25, 2010)

I would not walk my dog in a field with any cattle in it if I could help it and if the farmer had the sign up about shooting dogs then I would stay well clear of any of their fields - and if I had to go through the dogs would be on leads.

That being said it is a shame that the dogs involved got killed but I think without knowing the full story it is hard to judge who was a fault. 

I was walking Sonny in a field the other day which had been empty and the gate shut (he was on the long line) only to get down to the gate and realise that it was now open and the sheep and cattle could have got in if they had wished. Needless to say I did not stay in the field long and watched out for any livestock coming in. Sonny is scared of both sheep and cattle as they are bigger than him  but I was not taking any chances. Despite anything else by the sounds of things it was beef cattle and if they were pregnant/had young they could have easily turned on the dogs and owner.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

sunshine80 said:


> I would not walk my dog in a field with any cattle in it if I could help it and if the farmer had the sign up about shooting dogs then I would stay well clear of any of their fields - and if I had to go through the dogs would be on leads.
> 
> That being said it is a shame that the dogs involved got killed but I think without knowing the full story it is hard to judge who was a fault.
> 
> I was walking Sonny in a field the other day which had been empty and the gate shut (he was on the long line) only to get down to the gate and realise that it was now open and the sheep and cattle could have got in if they had wished. Needless to say I did not stay in the field long and watched out for any livestock coming in. Sonny is scared of both sheep and cattle as they are bigger than him  but I was not taking any chances. Despite anything else by the sounds of things it was beef cattle and if they were pregnant/had young they could have easily turned on the dogs and owner.


Or aborted. Most livestock when pregnant will abort if they are worried and chased about.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm not going to comment on this case as I don't know all the ins and outs. However, what I am going to say is in England you do not have the right to go into just any old field. If there is no right of way (public footpath or bridleway) across a field you have no right to go there without the landowners permission. I'm sure you'd be displeased if random people decided to walk or exercise their dogs in your place of business.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

moonviolet said:


> I'm not going to comment on this case as I don't know all the ins and outs. However, what I am going to say is in England you do not have the right to go into just any old field. If there is no right of way (public footpath or bridleway) across a field you have no right to go there without the landowners permission. I'm sure you'd be displeased if random people decided to walk or exercise their dogs in your place of business.


I have to admit, this never fails to amaze me. The same with letting their dogs run through crops, causing damage.

People seem to also be under the impression that if a footpath goes across a feild, it means they have the right to access the whole of it, and traipse off around the edges.

It really is no wonder so many landowners dislike walkers and dogs.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

Nonnie said:


> I have to admit, this never fails to amaze me. The same with *letting their dogs run through crops, causing damage.*
> 
> People seem to also be under the impression that if a footpath goes across a feild, it means they have the right to access the whole of it, and traipse off around the edges.
> 
> It really is no wonder so many landowners dislike walkers and dogs.


Not to mention the ones that think it is ok to let their dogs take a dump amongst crops and leave it there !


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

emmar said:


> i dont if there is crops growing ...just ploughed field  sorry


Ploughed is different. Ill let mine wander off the path onto a ploughed area, although they tend not to as its far too muddy and uneven for their precious feet.
But ive seen people throwing balls into crops, letting their dogs roll and flatten them, and having no respect that thats someones income that they are wrecking.

Same with leaving crap, especially in hay fields.


----------



## ewelsh (Jan 26, 2011)

My small home town in Wales, is so used to this... Sheep everywhere.. when some city folk come to play country bumkins at weekends and bring their dogs, some fools allow their dogs to bother sheep, the hills are never ending and they think no one will see, the sheep will abort if worried. But people don't see the distress a sheep goes through...

Farmers in Wales have had it so tuff with foot & mouth price of lamb etc the last thing to tolerate is having sheep bothered by dogs. It can be avoided if only people kept the dogs on leads it's not hard!!!!

It's the owners fault simple as that. I am so sorry for the dogs. 

I have also said that the farmers should have plastic bullets and aim at the owners!!! which would do a bit of damage I know, but I bet they would never worry sheep again...


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*The farmer and one of the owners of these dogs have just been on radio 2...The farmer said the dogs were in his fiels,the owner could not be seen,its not the 1st time these dogs have botherd his cattle.Two weeks ago he lost 2 calves because of dogs,they had to be aborted because the mum had been bothers by dogs.I don't blame him i blame the owners of the dogs.*


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

ewelsh said:


> My small home town in Wales, is so used to this... Sheep everywhere.. when some city folk come to play country bumkins at weekends and bring their dogs, some fools allow their dogs to bother sheep, the hills are never ending and they think no one will see, the sheep will abort if worried. But people don't see the distress a sheep goes through...
> 
> Farmers in Wales have had it so tuff with foot & mouth price of lamb etc the last thing to tolerate is having sheep bothered by dogs. It can be avoided if only people kept the dogs on leads it's not hard!!!!
> 
> ...


There will be another outcry about guns. Nothing surer. if a person likes animals and I guess you do, if your a dog owner, then why wouldn't you show respect to others peoples animals. Be it livestock or other dogs. Beats me every time. If the owner has had warnings then they have only themselves to blame. Unfortunately dog owners are not the respectable people we all think they are.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> I have to admit, this never fails to amaze me. The same with letting their dogs run through crops, causing damage.
> 
> People seem to also be under the impression that if a footpath goes across a feild, it means they have the right to access the whole of it, and traipse off around the edges.
> 
> It really is no wonder so many landowners dislike walkers and dogs.


This is true, however from the other side of it, when I was younger I woudl frequently walk or ride through fields and many times I had irate farmers driving their tractors over to me claiming I was not on the footpath. It didn't seem to matter where I was, if I was following the direct line of the footpath sign they decided that was wrong, if I went round the edge of the field out of a desire to keep away from their crops, that was wrong. If my dog was off the lead (in a field with crops not livestock) that was wrong. One even claimed that riding a bicycle on a bridlepath was not permitted. Once when a farmer started yelling at me for being in the wrong place I asked him where the footpath went and he just kept yelling at me telling me to buy a map (as if the map would tell me something that the sign which pointed diagonally across the field would not tell me). Eventually I concluded that their problem was that they objected to footpaths and bridlepaths and saw repeated harrassment of walkers and riders as the best way to make sure people didn't use these paths.

As for this case, there's no way for any of us to know the truth, it's one person's word against another and so the police will not do anything.

Liz


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

Some people shouldn't be allowed to own dogs :mad2:

I keep mine on a lead anyway but wouldn't dream of allowing them to roam near livestock... they'd never dream of bothering cattle as both are scaredy cats but I don't trust farmers 

RIP peace lil ones


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

PennyGC said:


> Farmers only have the right to shoot dogs if they're actually threatening their livestock! They don't have the right to shoot dogs on a walk over their land. Discharging a firearm near a public right of way without heed of the humans (and innocent dogs) is probably an offence as well. Poor dogs. I wouldn't want livestock hurt or frightened, but really this is outrageous - if they weren't chasing sheep - and the farmer needs to be prosecuted.


Why is it outrageous. The dogs were in a field of livestock. He had had trouble with dogs before and had lost calves. Why on earth should he tolerate dogs that are out of control and trespassing.


----------



## Spud the Bull Terrier (Jun 19, 2011)

I don't know any of the detials of this story so want comment on it, but in genral I think farmers have a hard enough time of it without idiots letting there dogs harras live stock 

I was speaking to one of the local farmers a few weeks ago, he was telling me over the last year he has lost 12 sheep to dog attacks. He seemd quite reasonable in that if someone is walking their dog off the lead he will ask them to put the dog on the lead, and will give them the oppertunity to get their dog back . but if there is any sign of them harrasing his sheep he will shoot the dog.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

Set_Nights said:


> I always wait to judge in these sort of circumstances as you never get the full story to start with. Your dogs may be your babies but not everybody sees them that way. A farmers livestock are not just under his duty, care and responsibilty, they are also his livelihood! It can be a hard life trying to make money as a farmer and if irresponsible dog owners are causing your livestock to worry and even abort their young then can you blame them! A decent, understanding farmer would give due warning (and it seems this one did) but they are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> The only bit that confuses me is the description of their bodies... their legs were blown off in addition to head shots ? A farmer is within his rights but it should be done humanely!


I believe the article also said the farmer didn't actually see the dogs doing anything he took his wifes word for it and went for the shotgun - I agree by the state of the dogs it appears that he was being revengeful. I think farmers with livestock should be made to put up signs warning dog walkers of the consequence of dogs chasing livestock. In many cases I believe dogs get the blame for foxes killing sheep etc.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

912142 said:


> I believe the article also said the farmer didn't actually see the dogs doing anything he took his wifes word for it and went for the shotgun - I agree by the state of the dogs it appears that he was being revengeful. I think farmers with livestock should be made to put up signs warning dog walkers of the consequence of dogs chasing livestock. In many cases I believe dogs get the blame for foxes killing sheep etc.


Yes, as none of us were there and it is really just the farmers word against the owners then we will never truly know what happened. I just don't think it's right to jump straight to the conclusion that the farmer is the one in the wrong just because we are all dog lovers. If it's true about the state of their bodies though it does make one wonder! If they both had clear head shots (as it says they did) then there would be no reason for them to have other wounds like that.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Are there signs on the motorway that say "_If you speed you will get fined and points on your licence"_?

No

Why not?

Because it is the responsibility of the driver to know the law and how it affectes them.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If people were required for example to participate in schemes like the KCGCDS they would need to acquaint themselves with the law and the possible consequences for themselves and their dogs.

At the end of the day, dog owners should not need a separate sign to tell them for instance "_if you have no recall and your dog runs across a road/railway line/cliff your dog will probably die_".

People have rights, but they also have responsibilities.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Are there signs on the motorway that say "_If you speed you will get fined and points on your licence"_?
> 
> No
> 
> ...


this is more a moral question,than one of law....legally he was in the right...morally......not so sure.....if he done it to my dog..it would be the last time he done it!


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Are there signs on the motorway that say "_*If you speed you will get fined and points on your licence*"_?
> 
> No
> 
> ...


I agree with most of your post however I think there is a slight difference when it comes to an individual with the use of a firearm.


----------



## mama_abz (Apr 27, 2011)

when i last visited my mum my 22 year old brother, 6 year old daughter and myslef walked my mums 2 dogs for her (mia a sibe and poppy a chi x jrt) while walking beside a fenced off field containing cattle mia managed to slip her collar and bolted over fence and into the field and started chasing the cattle. she was not being aggressive she was just playing but still the cattle did not know this. 
We was lucky i left my daughter at the gate with poppy and my brother and myself chased mia away from the cattle and managed to corner her. the farmer arrived just as i got her back on lead. We apologised a great deal and explained what happened and he said has he arrived before we caught her he would of shot her!! 
Just the thought of having to explain that to my mum was very upsetting but at the same time i could understand the farmer having to take this action. 

I just hope these dogs really did "deserve" as such to be dealt this fate.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> this is more a moral question,than one of law....legally he was in the right...morally......not so sure.....if he done it to my dog..it would be the last time he done it!


I wonder if you think it is morally right for a dog to be allowed to harass and frighten other animals and cause them psychological terror and physical harm, including the loss of their offspring?

If you do feel that is morally right, then I assume that you would extend that moral right to dogs who do the same to other dogs and humans including children?

And thus those dogs who kill or maim children should not be killed?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

912142 said:


> I agree with most of your post however I think there is a slight difference when it comes to an individual with the use of a firearm.


In what way? If the dog(s) are causing psychological and physiological distress and destruction what would you suggest as an alternative?

If the owner has a firearms licence and he is acting within the law, what is the issue?

Is there some subtle difference between the death of a dog/dogs and the death of sheep/lambs/cows/calves etc?


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> I wonder if you think it is morally right for a dog to be allowed to harass and frighten other animals and cause them psychological terror and physical harm, including the loss of their offspring?
> 
> If you do feel that is morally right, then I assume that you would extend that moral right to dogs who do the same to other dogs and humans including children?
> 
> And thus those dogs who kill or maim children should not be killed?


im not defending the dogs or their owners....i havnt read the article...was there any evidence these dogs actually done any harm?my point is,i would imagine a shot in the air would of been sufficient to scare the dogs away....killing family pets,that are loved..seems unnecasary


----------



## hazel pritchard (Jun 28, 2009)

I wonder if in these very tight moneywise times farmers like most of us are worried about loss of money, and dogs straying onto their land will cause loss of life to their stock, so in a way some farmers will react in a different way to the way they used to,,,,,,, if i am anywhere near fields where i see live stock my dogs go on the lead and i will find somewhere else to walk.


----------



## Snippet (Apr 14, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> im not defending the dogs or their owners....i havnt read the article...was there any evidence these dogs actually done any harm?my point is,i would imagine a shot in the air would of been sufficient to scare the dogs away....killing family pets,that are loved..seems unnecasary


The dogs had been caught chasing livestock before and where apparently doing so again when the owners where out of sight (according to the news story anyway). If that is to be believed, then I can't blame the farmer for shooting those dogs. If something was chasing your dog around and caused it to abort litter how would you react?

I think the owners of the dogs that where shot are at fault here. The farmer was doing right by his livestock, which at the end of the day are his means of surviving. If the dogs had a history of chasing cattle then they should never of been off lead anywhere near them as this would of been a likely ending.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

Snippet said:


> The dogs had been caught chasing livestock before and where apparently doing so again when the owners where out of sight (according to the news story anyway). If that is to be believed, then I can't blame the farmer for shooting those dogs. If something was chasing your dog around and caused it to abort litter how would you react?
> 
> I think the owners of the dogs that where shot are at fault here. The farmer was doing right by his livestock, which at the end of the day are his means of surviving. If the dogs had a history of chasing cattle then they should never of been off lead anywhere near them as this would of been a likely ending.


i agree with you,but wouldnt a shot in the air of done the trick?the dog owners were obviously morons...but to kill 2 dogs seems extreme!


----------



## Snippet (Apr 14, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> i agree with you,but wouldnt a shot in the air of done the trick?the dog owners were obviously morons...but to kill 2 dogs seems extreme!


If a dog was intent of killing something then I wouldn't of thought a shot in the air would distract them. And I wouldn't of expected a farmer who's faced with losing one of his herd to try scaring the dog off before shooting at it. If scaring them didn't work then the dogs could of killed their prey in the time it takes to reload.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

Snippet said:


> If a dog was intent of killing something then I wouldn't of thought a shot in the air would distract them. And I wouldn't of expected a farmer who's faced with losing one of his herd to try scaring the dog off before shooting at it. If scaring them didn't work then the dogs could of killed their prey in the time it takes to reload.


I know what your saying,you maybe right....not sure how many dogs actually kill livestock.....im afraid i wouldnt take the farmers word for it either.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> I know what your saying,you maybe right....not sure how many dogs actually kill livestock.....im afraid i wouldnt take the farmers word for it either.


well i know how many dogs DO kill livestock and its not a rare occurance im afraid, and the owners are usually nowhere to be seen..


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

Elzz said:


> well i know how many dogs DO kill livestock and its not a rare occurance im afraid, and the owners are usually nowhere to be seen..


so if one of our dogs....got offlead...and ran onto farmers field......you would feel the farmer is justfied to shoot and kill your dog?


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> so if one of our dogs....got offlead...and ran onto farmers field......you would feel the farmer is justfied to shoot and kill your dog?


if they were charging towards livestock with the intent to kill, i do think most farmers know the difference to be honest


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

Elzz said:


> if they were charging towards livestock with the intent to kill, i do think most farmers know the difference to be honest


well youve got more faith in them than i have!


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> well youve got more faith in them than i have!


where i live you have too


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

Elzz said:


> where i live you have too


why?you dont have to have faith in them do you?


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> I know what your saying,you maybe right....not sure how many dogs actually kill livestock.....im afraid i wouldnt take the farmers word for it either.


My SIL's Sibe has on numerous occasions 'escaped' I can't talk about how because it's a banned subject. She will not listen to sense or reason. So far this sibe has been witnessed attempting to get into one of their neighbours chicken run on a number of occasions, A pen of phesants has been killed and the hair caught on the fence was sibe in colouring rather than a foxy red. Sibe came home covered in blood. Most recently she killed 2 sheep the farmer was out, at the time his wife witnessed it and again the sibe returned home covered in blood.

In a climate where farms that supported extended families a decade or 2 ago, now only bring in 15K farmers just can't afford to lose any of their livelihood.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> why?you dont have to have faith in them do you?


no of course not


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

Elzz said:


> no of course not


cant you answer the question?


----------



## Kivasmum (Aug 4, 2011)

I totally understand it from the farmers point of view, livestock are animals too and don't deserve to be frightened/hurt by out of control, unsupervised dogs. But I just think its sad that 2 dogs were killed (and not too cleanly by the description, if it is to be believed) when they were only there in the first place because thats where their owner took them  
As I said earlier, I think the owner of the dogs is at fault for them being there in the first place, I hope he thinks twice about where he will walk his remaining dogs.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> cant you answer the question?


ffs......
the farms here their incomes have lowered dramatically over the past few years, they dont have as many animlas as they did this time 10 years ago, so the few they do have they need to loook after...
soo yes i DO have faith in them as they know its their lively hood, this farmer who shot these dogs may well have been shouting blue murder at the dogs first to get them away and still they were charging you werent there neither was i 
thats all i have to say on the matter


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

Elzz said:


> ffs......
> the farms here their incomes have lowered dramatically over the past few years, they dont have as many animlas as they did this time 10 years ago, so the few they do have they need to loook after...
> soo yes i DO have faith in them as they know its their lively hood, this farmer who shot these dogs may well have been shouting blue murder at the dogs first to get them away and still they were charging you werent there neither was i
> thats all i have to say on the matter


thats right neither of us know...we wernt there......i understand its their livelhood....thats stating the obvious....and they may behaving hard time (who isnt)....why this means you have to have faith in them...ive no idea.

to me farmers look at their animals as pound notes....and therefore imo will act over the top in these situations!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Farmers are not equipped with crystal balls and it is irrelevant if the dogs are bound on killing livestock by primary intent.

If they cause alarm and distress the animals can die of shock and/or abort their offspring thereby reducing not only the income of the farmer through sale of stock but also the breeding stock.

Whether or not the dogs intend to kill livestock or not, the impact on them and the farmer is the same, as it is for the dogs and owner.

If my dogs escaped from me and were found in a field with livestock I would not blame the farmer for protecting his livelihood and his animals by shooting them. He would be fully justified.

The cause of their death would be my negligence.

I would not gamble with my dogs' lives nor the lives of other animals.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

BBC News - Farmland dog shootings prompt call for change in law

The bbc report. It seems the owner thought they were chasing rabbits in the field behind their home.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> thats right neither of us know...we wernt there......i understand its their livelhood....thats stating the obvious....and they may behaving hard time (who isnt)....why this means you have to have faith in them...ive no idea.
> 
> to me farmers look at their animals as pound notes....and therefore imo will act over the top in these situations!


I find that statement rather interesting.

In a previous post you said:

_Originally Posted by albert 1970 
this is more a moral question,than one of law....legally he was in the right...morally......not so sure.....if he done it to my dog..it would be the last time he done it!_

So am I right in understanding that you believe that a farmer protecting his livestock is "_acting over the top_" by shooting a dog threatening his animals, but stating that "_it would be the last time he done it_" if he shot your dog is NOT "_acting over the top_".

In other words his actions you deem unreasonable but yours entirely reasonable?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elles said:


> BBC News - Farmland dog shootings prompt call for change in law
> 
> The bbc report. It seems the owner thought they were chasing rabbits in the field behind their home.


So in other words their dogs were in a field unsupervised by their owners who did not have a clue as to what they were up to.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> I find that statement rather interesting.
> 
> In a previous post you said:
> 
> ...


the queston is...were is stock in danger...we dont know....and also nowhere did i say i would behave in a reasonble manor if my dog was shot


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> the queston is...were is stock in danger...we dont know....and also nowhere did i say i would behave in a reasonble manor if my dog was shot


That is exactly my point................

So why do you think the farmer was unreasonable.?

Any time untrained dogs are in a field with livestock the livestock are in danger.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

The owners admit their dogs were in the field with the cows, but that they thought the dogs were chasing rabbits. Nowhere have I read that they saw the dogs being shot. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the dogs were loose and unsupervised in a field of cattle.

If they should have been there at all the dogs should be under close control and I suspect that for lurchers and a beagle cross that would mean on leads, not running loose out of sight of their owners. 

I don't understand why the reports are not emphasising the need to keep dogs under close control where there are livestock.


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Your livelihood .................. Or control the dogs that are killing off your livelihood....


Seriously.I am on good terms with all the local..... Would I let my dogs risk the farmers likelihoods..... errrrrrrrrrrr NO! 

Would I risk my dogs lives .... errrrrrrrrrrrr NO!

Each field I go into.. I know the farmers who work/own the land..


----------



## CreativeLC (Aug 13, 2008)

I would never walk my dogs on farmland as our dog Rosie aged only 4 died after picking up some poison from a field whilst we were on holiday.
To be fair in this situation if the farmer had put signs up then the dog walker should respect that and go somewhere else. Although I do feel sorry for the dog owner to have to witness that.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

albert 1970 said:


> this is more a moral question,than one of law....legally he was in the right...morally......not so sure.....if he done it to my dog..it would be the last time he done it!


Oh, so your violence would be justified!



albert 1970 said:


> i agree with you,but wouldnt a shot in the air of done the trick?the dog owners were obviously morons...but to kill 2 dogs seems extreme!


Not at all. And I am sure there was history here. Not many people walk around with a shotgun and look for dogs to shoot so I imagine he had gone home and got his gun and the dogs were still there out of control.



albert 1970 said:


> I know what your saying,you maybe right....not sure how many dogs actually kill livestock.....im afraid i wouldnt take the farmers word for it either.


Why wouldnt you take the farmers word for it. What an ignorant *** you are. Why should dogs be allowed to trespass on someone else's land and harass their livestock. I have had dogs among our sheep, it is horrible. No, most dogs do not actually kill livestock because they are not good at killing but they chew them up alive and they cause them to abort if they are pregnant.



albert 1970 said:


> so if one of our dogs....got offlead...and ran onto farmers field......you would feel the farmer is justfied to shoot and kill your dog?


of course. It would be my fault. A lot of dogs round here have been shot in the past and my dogs have wandered off sometimes and I am terrified they will be shot.



Elzz said:


> ffs......
> the farms here their incomes have lowered dramatically over the past few years, they dont have as many animlas as they did this time 10 years ago, so the few they do have they need to loook after...
> soo yes i DO have faith in them as they know its their lively hood, this farmer who shot these dogs may well have been shouting blue murder at the dogs first to get them away and still they were charging you werent there neither was i
> thats all i have to say on the matter


I dont know where you live but round here livestock farmers have INCREASED their stock dramatically just to keep their income up. But it is nothing to do with numbers, if a dog is chasing your stock, even if they are worthless tiny cast ewes, then it will get shot.



albert 1970 said:


> thats right neither of us know...we wernt there......i understand its their livelhood....thats stating the obvious....and they may behaving hard time (who isnt)....why this means you have to have faith in them...ive no idea.
> 
> to me farmers look at their animals as pound notes....and therefore imo will act over the top in these situations!


Oh so I must remember that one. If ever I meet you I can hit you over the head and steal your money because it is only pound notes. I have never heard such total rubbish.

What gets me most over this whole thing is why it hit the news. It is so common why is it newsworthy.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Oh, so your violence would be justified!
> 
> Not at all. And I am sure there was history here. Not many people walk around with a shotgun and look for dogs to shoot so I imagine he had gone home and got his gun and the dogs were still there out of control.
> 
> ...


i shant stoop to your level of personal insults....the facts are noneof us know what really hapened and whether it was justified.....if the dogs were attacking livestock..fair enough.....if they were just of lead on his land near livestock......then no it wasnt.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

dogs don't have to be in a field to worry livestock. This can occur in countrylanes and footpaths that run alongside livestock fields. It all a matter of 1, common sense on behalf of the owner and 2, respect for the farmers and how they work their farm. Be it livestock or crops. I know of gamekeeprs that have shot dogs because they were chasing pheasants. It's all crop, its all livestock, and it's all a mans livelyhood. 
What right does a dog owner have to let their dog off the lead on private land? Any private land, not just farmland. Some people think they have a god given right to let their dogs of and run wild all over the place. I've recently had to put up signs in parts fo the forest restricting dogs to leads at ALL TIMES because of complaints from families that they have been terrified by dogs running about and barking. NOT NICE when a family decide to go for a walk and a picnic and are harrassed by uncontrollable dogs. And recently there was a thread on here that said something about councilcs tightening up laws on dog walking in local parks etc. AND then people wonder why. Uncotrollalbe dogs and disrespectful dog owners are causing issues that will eventually be stamped out by law or by laws, but the responsible dog owner will suffer. Because I can see a day when all dogs will be on lead all of the time , and in every location. 
Landowners are already starting this, by putting signs up. DOG ON LEADS. and if they are not, then suffer the consequences. 
And finally, farmers are reasonable people, but they also are human and patience can run out.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> i shant stoop to your level of personal insults....the facts are noneof us know what really hapened and whether it was justified.....if the dogs were attacking livestock..fair enough.....if they were just of lead on his land near livestock......then no it wasnt.


They don't need to attack the livestock to harm it. Chasing a sheep or a cow can cause it to abort.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Oh, so your violence would be justified!
> 
> Not at all. And I am sure there was history here. Not many people walk around with a shotgun and look for dogs to shoot so I imagine he had gone home and got his gun and the dogs were still there out of control.
> 
> ...


It's newsworthy because in these days with the increase in gun crime anyone that has a permit for a firearm should be of sound mind and not shoot to kill through revenge - this case needs to be investigated in-depth in my view because from what I read the farmer did not see the dogs actually do anything he merely took his wife's word for it - and as has been said before - one shot would have been enough but to put a bullet into their heads and then blow their legs off - was I think you will agree extreme and therefore I believe this farmers mental status should be examined more thoroughly.

Shotguns as you know dispel pellets, which carry for some distance and the next time it could be a human caught in the crossfire.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

912142 said:


> It's newsworthy because in these days with the increase in gun crime anyone that has a permit for a firearm should be of sound mind and not shoot to kill through revenge - this case needs to be investigated in-depth in my view because from what I read the farmer did not see the dogs actually do anything he merely took his wife's word for it - and as has been said before - one shot would have been enough but to put a bullet into their heads and then blow their legs off - was I think you will agree extreme and therefore I believe this farmers mental status should be examined more thoroughly.
> 
> Shotguns as you know dispel pellets, which carry for some distance and the next time it could be a human caught in the crossfire.


Its not always shotguns that farmers use. A rifle is more deadly and more accurate at distance and will have a telescopic sight fitted. These are used for killing vermin/pests on the farm or estate. They will also have a moderator fitted to deafen the sound. It is on these occasions that "pests" will be despatched as this is more humane than a shot gun. Having said that If a shot gun is to be used, it needs to be at the right range and have the right TYPE of cartridge loaded. You can stop a fox with a shotgun at the right range, but invariably in the case of a fox, you may well use 2/3 cartridges more to ensure it is despatched.


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

912142 said:


> It's newsworthy because in these days with the increase in gun crime anyone that has a permit for a firearm should be of sound mind and not shoot to kill through revenge - this case needs to be investigated in-depth in my view because from what I read the farmer did not see the dogs actually do anything he merely took his wife's word for it -


How can it be investigated when the only witness was the farmer.



912142 said:


> and as has been said before - one shot would have been enough but to put a bullet into their heads and then blow their legs off - was I think you will agree extreme and therefore I believe this farmers mental status should be examined more thoroughly.
> .


A single shot from a shotgun at 40 yards will put pellets in a dogs head and take legs off.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

Must remember to keep thoughts to self next time


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Elzz said:


> Must remember to keep thoughts to self next time


If it encourages jsut one dog owner to keep their dogs out of fields where they have no right of way and on lead around livestock where they do. It's well worth putting your head above the parapet. No farmer wants to shoot someones treasured pet and if it prevents him being put in this horrible situation be proud you took a little forum flaming.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

hawksport said:


> A single shot from a shotgun at 40 yards will put pellets in a dogs head and take legs off.


How? Not questioning the truth of your statement but as I have no experience of guns/ballistics I'd honestly like to know why it would cause this?


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Set_Nights said:


> How? Not questioning the truth of your statement but as I have no experience of guns/ballistics I'd honestly like to know why it would cause this?


At 40 yards the circle of pellets from a shotgun is approximately 36 inches in diameter depending on what choke they have in the shotgun.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

Set_Nights said:


> How? Not questioning the truth of your statement but as I have no experience of guns/ballistics I'd honestly like to know why it would cause this?


i wouldnt know either...im pleased to say....dont understand peoples fascination with guns and hunting.....strange to me!


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> i wouldnt know either...im pleased to say....dont understand peoples fascination with guns and hunting.....strange to me!


I don't understand the fascination with Eastenders or reality TV but each to their own eh!


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

grandad said:


> I don't understand the fascination with Eastenders or reality TV but each to their own eh!


me neither!


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

I have seen the awful results of 3 dogs getting into a herd of sheep it was truly horrific.We have right of way across farm fields and that means keep to the path with dog on a close lead but do some people do it no!!they let there dogs run across crops, bark at cows and sheep


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

albert 1970 said:


> i wouldnt know either...im pleased to say....dont understand peoples fascination with guns and hunting.....strange to me!


Guns and hunting are often used to stop rabbits eating all the crops that we need for our food


----------



## kat&molly (Mar 2, 2011)

We are surrounded by sheep here, we never go in the fields[unlees they're empty] just stick to the tracks, 3 of mine go offlead and I keep the Teckel on. I worry a sheep could abort just with us walking past as sheep being sheep they all panic and run.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

suewhite said:


> Guns and hunting are often used to stop rabbits eating all the crops that we need for our food


a farmer can lose 20% + of his crops with rabbits if they are not kept under control.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

hawksport said:


> How can it be investigated when the only witness was the farmer.
> 
> I meant his mental status.
> 
> A single shot from a shotgun at 40 yards will put pellets in a dogs head and take legs off.


I believe the statement said it was a shot to the head of each dog and legs blown off. Now given that in his statement post the incident he said that he only took 2 cartridges - how would it be possible to shoot two dogs with a shot to each of their heads and then blow their legs off?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

912142 said:


> I believe the statement said it was a shot to the head of each dog and legs blown off. Now given that in his statement post the incident he said that he only took 2 cartridges - how would it be possible to shoot two dogs with a shot to each of their heads and then blow their legs off?


Where does the 'and then' bit come in? From what I've read of the thread, the shot to the head also damaged their legs, as a shot gun will do at short range.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

912142 said:


> I believe the statement said it was a shot to the head of each dog and legs blown off. Now given that in his statement post the incident he said that he only took 2 cartridges - how would it be possible to shoot two dogs with a shot to each of their heads and then blow their legs off?


You can be pretty sure if he had had a 3rd cartridge he would have shot the second lurcher that was out there as well. I'm sure, he took no joy whatsoever in this.

On previous occurences he had shouted at the dogs, had chased these same dogs off, had thrown things at them and 2 of his cows had aborted. Had these loving responsible owners been in 'close control' (as required by the country code) Surely they would have witnessed this previous occurence and learned their lesson.

If private land is a free for all ... I wonder if people will mind the owners of Max and Flax bringing them around to mow an overgrown lawn.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> You can be pretty sure if he had had a 3rd cartridge he would have shot the second lurcher that was out there as well. I'm sure, he took no joy whatsoever in this.
> 
> On previous occurences he had shouted at the dogs, had chased these same dogs off, had thrown things at them and 2 of his cows had aborted. Had these loving responsible owners been in 'close control' (as required by the country code) Surely they would have witnessed this previous occurence and learned their lesson.
> 
> If private land is a free for all ... I wonder if people will mind the owners of Max and Flax bringing them around to mow an overgrown lawn.


Imagine them charging around your back garden and worrying your pregnant dog. What would you do? Bull in a china shop? not really nice eh! but when dogs go into the farmers garden (fields) it seems to be alright. Thanks to moonviiolet for fantastic pics. apologies for using them in this context.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I suppose one thing this thread has highlighted is the huge difference between townies and country folk. Unfortunately though townies can and do visit or live in the country and bring their ignorance with them with tragic consequences.

Incidentally a friend of mine recently lost her dog when it had gone through a field of sheep. She has never found out what its fate was but when she confronted the farmer she and her husband ended up in court and the court was not sympathetic to her allowing her dog in the field in the first place.
They are farmers themselves and have sheep - but accidents happen.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

912142 said:


> It's newsworthy because in these days with the increase in gun crime anyone that has a permit for a firearm should be of sound mind and not shoot to kill through revenge - this case needs to be investigated in-depth in my view because from what I read the farmer did not see the dogs actually do anything he merely took his wife's word for it - and as has been said before - one shot would have been enough but to put a bullet into their heads and then blow their legs off - was I think you will agree extreme and therefore I believe this farmers mental status should be examined more thoroughly.
> 
> Shotguns as you know dispel pellets, which carry for some distance and the next time it could be a human caught in the crossfire.


But dogs are being shot every week somewhere in the country - it is not news. If your dog is around livestock either out of control with you present or unaccompanied it is at high risk of being shot.
At least it might bring home to dog owners that their behaviour in using farmers land for their own pursuits is just not on.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Blitz said:


> But dogs are being shot every week somewhere in the country - it is not news. If your dog is around livestock either out of control with you present or unaccompanied it is at high risk of being shot.
> At least it might bring home to dog owners that their behaviour in using farmers land for their own pursuits is just not on.


Unfortunately it is not just farmers fields. As I said earlier, the forests ar full of unruly dogs causing concern for families with young children and this is alienating young families from visiting woods/countryside, having picnics or nature walks with their kids. i have recently put up signs saying ALL dogs must be on leads at ALL times in a woodland area. And this has been done because of complaints from family's that HAVE BEEN frightened by dogs tear arsing around, barking and out of control.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

grandad said:


> Unfortunately it is not just farmers fields. As I said earlier, the forests ar full of unruly dogs causing concern for families with young children and this is alienating young families from visiting woods/countryside, having picnics or nature walks with their kids. i have recently put up signs saying ALL dogs must be on leads at ALL times in a woodland area. And this has been done because of complaints from family's that HAVE BEEN frightened by dogs tear arsing around, barking and out of control.


I see your point on this but it is very sad. A lot of dogs are probably exercised daily in the woods whatever the weather and then the sun comes out and a dogless family chooses to go to a dog walking area and then complains because there are dogs!
I used to walk in a park at least twice a day regardless of weather or time of year - so every single day of the year. I never saw anyone but other dog walkers. Then a sunny Sunday out would come the hordes and kick up a fuss about the regular users (dog walkers). So should the park be maintained for two nice Sundays a year or should it be used all day every day by dog walkers.
Same with your woods - is it fair to make all dogs stay on leads because of the rare time that a family turns up that does not like dogs.

It is a very difficult one.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

grandad said:


> Imagine them charging around your back garden and worrying your pregnant dog. What would you do? Bull in a china shop? not really nice eh! but when dogs go into the farmers garden (fields) it seems to be alright. Thanks to moonviiolet for fantastic pics. apologies for using them in this context.


I think it was the perfect context to use them in and these two are tiny consider them the Chihuahua's of the beef cattle world!


----------



## Spud the Bull Terrier (Jun 19, 2011)

This article seems to set out what happened, to me it sounds like the farmer was both legally and morally right to shoot the dogs BBC News - Farmland dog shootings prompt call for change in law

what annoys me about this and generally about our society is a failure of people to take responsibility for their own actions. If Spud had been shot by a farmer for chasing livestock, I would be furious, but not at the farmer, I would be furious at myself for my own stupidity and for letting Spud down. Rather then blaming the farmer this woman should be looking at her own actions


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I suppose one thing this thread has highlighted is the huge difference between townies and country folk. Unfortunately though townies can and do visit or live in the country and bring their ignorance with them with tragic consequences.
> 
> Incidentally a friend of mine recently lost her dog when it had gone through a field of sheep. She has never found out what its fate was but when she confronted the farmer she and her husband ended up in court and the court was not sympathetic to her allowing her dog in the field in the first place.
> They are farmers themselves and have sheep - but accidents happen.


what tragic consequences?.....you love putting people down dont you......still easy online eh?


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

Blitz said:


> But dogs are being shot every week somewhere in the country - it is not news. If your dog is around livestock either out of control with you present or unaccompanied it is at high risk of being shot.
> At least it might bring home to dog owners that their behaviour in using farmers land for their own pursuits is just not on.


I am not disagreeing with you I am merely saying that anyone with a firearms certificate should be checked out and should be mentally sound. In my opinion this farmer seems to have acted in rage and therefore may not have been of sound mind (by the way he shot the dogs) There are also holes in his story - he said he only had two cartridges and if he had had a third he would have shot the other dog - what I can't understand is how do you shoot both dogs through the head and then blow their legs off if you only have two cartridges?

In my opinion the law needs to be reviewed because you could potentially have a farmer shooting a dog for just looking at other animals and clearly that would be wrong.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> The law is quite clear
> 
> *Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953*
> 
> ...


But the 1953 act imposes a fine of £50 not a dead dog! The dog can be at large but if the farmer shoots it (or at it - intent) without reference to the 1971 act (viz its worrying or attacking animals and he's tried everything else "reasonable") then the farmer is liable to prosecution.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I see your point on this but it is very sad. A lot of dogs are probably exercised daily in the woods whatever the weather and then the sun comes out and a dogless family chooses to go to a dog walking area and then complains because there are dogs!
> I used to walk in a park at least twice a day regardless of weather or time of year - so every single day of the year. I never saw anyone but other dog walkers. Then a sunny Sunday out would come the hordes and kick up a fuss about the regular users (dog walkers). So should the park be maintained for two nice Sundays a year or should it be used all day every day by dog walkers.
> Same with your woods - is it fair to make all dogs stay on leads because of the rare time that a family turns up that does not like dogs.
> 
> It is a very difficult one.


I agree with this - in fact I find that the woods are used only on certain days i.e., sunshine out and in fact it is the families that are unruly and don't look after the woods and not the regular dog walkers. Dogs must have somewhere to run free - there is room for everyone.

It really annoys me that some people with children think it is okay to have children running around screaming at the pitch of their voices jumping up and down and generally making a nuisance of themselves but of course that is 'play' if it were a dog all hell would be loose.

Most serious dog walkers avoid parks - they leave them to families to enjoy and rather find out of the way places so that their dogs are not regarded as a nuisance.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

I live in a Farming community, crops, cattle, and bison ranches. You don't let your dogs off lead on these properties unless you know the farmer/rancher. We have coyotes, foxes etc in the area and it does not make any sense to put your own at risk. A farmer/rancher has to protect his livelihood end off really. My dogs go to a dog park or to a farmers field who knows me and I have permission to be there..A small sable sheltie looks like a small red fox when its running, a small shepherd, sibe looks like a coyote from afar. We also get the occasional Cougar in the area...


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But the 1953 act imposes a fine of £50 not a dead dog! The dog can be at large but if the farmer shoots it (or at it - intent) without reference to the 1971 act (viz its worrying or attacking animals and he's tried everything else "reasonable") then the farmer is liable to prosecution.


We have already ascertained that the farmer has been more than reasonable and the owners are totally irresponsible by not knowing where there dogs are or what they are doing.

If they had not been shot by the farmer, they would have been run over by a car sooner or later.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> We have already ascertained that the farmer has been more than reasonable and the owners are totally irresponsible by not knowing where there dogs are or what they are doing.
> 
> If they had not been shot by the farmer, they would have been run over by a car sooner or later.


you and a few others have ascertained the farmerwas reasonable...not all...yes the dog owners were morons...thats a fact......i get the feeling the farmer was only too pleased to do it!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> you and a few others have ascertained the farmerwas reasonable...not all...yes the dog owners were morons...thats a fact......i get the feeling the farmer was only too pleased to do it!


Hmmmmmm so anyone involved in pest control (whether it be wasps, rats, foxes, or livestock worry sheep) should NOT be pleased at a job well done?

Nobody can prevent readers inferring what they like from the written word, however I have yet to see anything in print which demonstrates that the farmer expressed joy at his acts?

I have no doubt he is pleased that none of his animals are put at risk any more, I would feel the same way if a dog that had attacked my dog was put under a Court Order; it would mean the safety and welfare of my dog was assured.

Does the farmer not deserve to feel that the safety and welfare of his stock is also assured?


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

912142 said:


> I am not disagreeing with you I am merely saying that anyone with a firearms certificate should be checked out and should be mentally sound. In my opinion this farmer seems to have acted in rage and therefore may not have been of sound mind (by the way he shot the dogs) There are also holes in his story - he said he only had two cartridges and if he had had a third he would have shot the other dog - what I can't understand is how do you shoot both dogs through the head and then blow their legs off if you only have two cartridges?
> 
> In my opinion the law needs to be reviewed because you could potentially have a farmer shooting a dog for just looking at other animals and clearly that would be wrong.


And waste more taxpayers money? What direction should the review take? I think this is a little bit of a knee jerk reaction isn't it?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

albert 1970 said:


> what tragic consequences?.....you love putting people down dont you......still easy online eh?


No, I dont love putting people down - but I cannot understand you. What tragic consequences do you think I mean! Dead livestock and dead dogs of course.



912142 said:


> I am not disagreeing with you I am merely saying that anyone with a firearms certificate should be checked out and should be mentally sound. In my opinion this farmer seems to have acted in rage and therefore may not have been of sound mind (by the way he shot the dogs) There are also holes in his story - he said he only had two cartridges and if he had had a third he would have shot the other dog - what I can't understand is how do you shoot both dogs through the head and then blow their legs off if you only have two cartridges?
> 
> In my opinion the law needs to be reviewed because you could potentially have a farmer shooting a dog for just looking at other animals and clearly that would be wrong.


I know nothing about shotguns but some posters on here that do say that one shotgun pellet through the head could also damage the legs.


----------



## beris (Aug 30, 2010)

Blitz said:


> I see your point on this but it is very sad. A lot of dogs are probably exercised daily in the woods whatever the weather and then the sun comes out and a dogless family chooses to go to a dog walking area and then complains because there are dogs!
> I used to walk in a park at least twice a day regardless of weather or time of year - so every single day of the year. I never saw anyone but other dog walkers. Then a sunny Sunday out would come the hordes and kick up a fuss about the regular users (dog walkers). So should the park be maintained for two nice Sundays a year or should it be used all day every day by dog walkers.
> Same with your woods - is it fair to make all dogs stay on leads because of the rare time that a family turns up that does not like dogs.
> 
> It is a very difficult one.


Imo, if the owner of fields, parks or woodlands state that dogs should be on leads that is their perogative, it doesn't matter if the owner is the local Council, national trust or privately owned. We are being allowed to walk our dogs with their permission and we have to respect their request, no matter how many people use the area. All land belongs to someone, we don't automatically have the right to walk or exercise our dogs, where we want to, or would like to.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

912142 said:


> I agree with this - in fact I find that the woods are used only on certain days i.e., sunshine out and in fact it is the families that are unruly and don't look after the woods and not the regular dog walkers. Dogs must have somewhere to run free - there is room for everyone.
> 
> It really annoys me that some people with children think it is okay to have children running around screaming at the pitch of their voices jumping up and down and generally making a nuisance of themselves but of course that is 'play' if it were a dog all hell would be loose.
> 
> Most serious dog walkers avoid parks - they leave them to families to enjoy and rather find out of the way places so that their dogs are not regarded as a nuisance.


To my knowledge children don't bite are not frightening. And everyone has the right to access to the coutryside, even if they only visit once in their lifetime. And then landownersn have a duty of care to all users.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I keep my horses on a farm that backs onto a housing estate. People drive down the lane to the top of the drive to the farm, open their car doors and let their dogs out.

They will look embarrassed and try to get their dogs back when they realise there's actually someone attending the horses that are in the field they just let them into, but it doesn't stop them and their dogs will often be galloping about barking at the horses.

I would not be at all surprised to learn that more than one of these pet dogs have been injured or killed by the horses, who are not afraid of dogs and quite likely to fight back if the dogs chase them. As there are cattle in the adjoining fields too, our farmer would be quite entitled to shoot their pets if they are running around loose and harassing the animals. 

Many people are lazy, selfish, careless and ignorant. 

I would not be at all surprised if we later learn that the dog owners let their dogs out to run loose on the fields that the report explains back onto their house and heard the shots from the comfort of their sitting room. Hopefully not, but it is quite plain that the dogs were not under supervision and as the farmer was the only person who saw them, we have to take his word that they were and had been harassing his animals. 

Let us all make certain that a farmer will not risk shooting our dogs, by being so close to them he'd risk shooting us too and by not walking them where we shouldn't be in the first place.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> We have already ascertained that the farmer has been more than reasonable and the owners are totally irresponsible by not knowing where there dogs are or what they are doing.
> 
> If they had not been shot by the farmer, they would have been run over by a car sooner or later.


What other actions had the farmer taken? Were they worrying the sheep?

"and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying".

Sounds like the farmer went to have his tea... not exactly trying to ensure the safety of his animals?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> What other actions had the farmer taken? Were they worrying the sheep?
> 
> "and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying".
> 
> Sounds like the farmer went to have his tea... not exactly trying to ensure the safety of his animals?


what do you mean, he went to have his tea! We keep our livestock in fenced fields in this country, not wandering around the countryside with a herding boy. Why shouldnt he have his tea!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> What other actions had the farmer taken? Were they worrying the sheep?
> 
> "and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying".
> 
> Sounds like the farmer went to have his tea... not exactly trying to ensure the safety of his animals?


I think you will find that for practical purposes FENCES ensure the safety of animals, both in the farming and domestic context.

Or do you stay outside at all times when your dogs are in the garden to ensure the safety of your dogs when they go out to urinate or defecate for example?

I wonder where the farmer should be, on a watchtower equipped with searchlights and loudspeakers looking through binoculars 24/7?

Perhaps moats should be employed and of course I wonder who is going to milk the cattle, silage the grass, whilst the farmer is watching oer his flock (with no sleep of course).


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> I think you will find that for practical purposes FENCES ensure the safety of animals, both in the farming and domestic context.
> 
> Or do you stay outside at all times when your dogs are in the garden to ensure the safety of your dogs when they go out to urinate or defecate for example?


Fences are not "*all* reasonable" attempts to prevent any worrying (if there was any).

I do not watch my dogs all the time they are in the garden but neither would I shoot a stray sheep if it came into my garden.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Blitz said:


> what do you mean, he went to have his tea! We keep our livestock in fenced fields in this country, not wandering around the countryside with a herding boy. Why shouldnt he have his tea!


Because he was apparently concerned about his sheep. The family of the dog were out looking for their dog... not at home having their tea (as I understand it).

The farmer returned to see the dogs still there and shot both. There was no mention of him making any other attempt to get rid of the dogs other than shoot them.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I know nothing about shotguns but some posters on here that do say that one shotgun pellet through the head could also damage the legs.


There would be no such thing as one shotgun pellet, shot gun cartridges contain many pellets and I think, are sorted by weight, although I really am no expert. Depending on the weight, and on the individual gun, that sets the pattern as to how wide, and how quickly the pellets will disperse. You can imagine at short range, this will do a lot of damage.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Fences are not "*all* reasonable" attempts to prevent any worrying (if there was any).
> 
> I do not watch my dogs all the time they are in the garden but neither would I shoot a stray sheep if it came into my garden.


Would you like to list what ARE reasonable attempts to prevent worrying?

Also whose job IS it to prevent livestock worrying, the owner of the livestock or the owner of the dogs which are doing the worrying?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Because he was apparently concerned about his sheep. The family of the dog were out looking for their dog... not at home having their tea (as I understand it).
> 
> The farmer returned to see the dogs still there and shot both. There was no mention of him making any other attempt to get rid of the dogs other than shoot them.


What attempts should a farmer make to get rid of the dogs that are worrying his sheep?

How much time would you allow for these attempts to be successful?

How many calves/lambs need to be aborted, sheep/cows killed or maimed before shooting is an option?

What experience have you had with livestock being worried by dogs?


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

If I was a farmer, I'd shoot dogs that were on my land after clearly displaying signs that I would if I saw any.

Yes it may be sad, but that owner of the dogs had no respect for the farmers land. It's not like farmer's get paid millions so they need to protect what they have.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> What attempts should a farmer make to get rid of the dogs that are worrying his sheep?
> 
> How much time would you allow for these attempts to be successful?
> 
> ...


That' a whole lot of (pointless) questions and no answers ...

so let's try..
How much time would you allow for these attempts to be successful? - A: A reasonable amount as opposed to the "no time" the farmer allowed.

How many calves/lambs need to be aborted, sheep/cows killed or maimed before shooting is an option? A: How many suffered this before the dogs were shot? (none)

What experience have you had with livestock being worried by sheep? A: I have never known livestock to be worried by sheep. I also have little experience of answering odd and meaningless questions ..

... I have , however, had sheep wander into the garden.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

NicoleW said:


> If I was a farmer, I'd shoot dogs that were on my land after clearly displaying signs that I would if I saw any.


Which would leave you liable to prosecution.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> There would be no such thing as one shotgun pellet, shot gun cartridges contain many pellets and I think, are sorted by weight, although I really am no expert. Depending on the weight, and on the individual gun, that sets the pattern as to how wide, and how quickly the pellets will disperse. You can imagine at short range, this will do a lot of damage.


The way I shoot there could be five million shot in their and I'd still miss.

Even if I agreed with dogs being shot as a first resort (as it seems to be in the instant case), you do not shoot an animal the size of a dog with a shotgun. There are numerous restrictions on the type of gun you can shoot animals with and a fox (normally smaller than a dog) can only be shot with the appropriate rifle (not shotgun) as a shotgun is more likely to simply give serious wounding than a clean kill.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But the 1953 act imposes a fine of £50 not a dead dog! The dog can be at large but if the farmer shoots it (or at it - intent) without reference to the 1971 act (viz its worrying or attacking animals and he's tried everything else "reasonable") then the farmer is liable to prosecution.


The farmer had, according to reports, said they had previously shouted at the dogs to try and deter them. So it seems they were left with no option but to shoot the dog(s) to prevent further damage to livestock. Personally, I'd prefer the option of shooting the owners, who seem to have little or no idea where their dogs were at the time, other than chasing rabbits, which is apparently acceptable, although hunting with dogs, and hare coursing is banned. So I'm not sure where your argument lies in this instance (we had to disagree at some point).


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> That' a whole lot of (pointless) questions and no answers ...
> 
> *Well I did not want you to be alone! *
> 
> ...


Neither have I, but I made a typo, so I shall ask the question again, how much experience have you had with livestock being worried by dogs?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> That' a whole lot of (pointless) questions and no answers ...
> 
> ... I have , however, had sheep wander into the garden.


Yep and THEN your dog can savage the sheep away with impunity!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The farmer had, according to reports, said they had previously shouted at the dogs to try and deter them. So it seems they were left with no option but to shoot the dog(s) to prevent further damage to livestock. Personally, I'd prefer the option of shooting the owners, who seem to have little or no idea where their dogs were at the time, other than chasing rabbits, which is apparently acceptable, although hunting with dogs, and hare coursing is banned. So I'm not sure where your argument lies in this instance (we had to disagree at some point).


I think the report said he shouted at them and they went away. He went to have his tea (which was not ready) so came back to find the dogs there again (obviously the owners had not found them) so he shot them.

What he doesn't say is that the dogs were worrying his livestock (although the law is loose and says "or about to" worry) and there is no mention of how the dogs got through his "reasonable attempt" at a fence. The sheep round here are penned in fields that only the tallest and most athletic of high hurdling dogs could get into (without bolt crops of course).


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Yep and THEN your dog can savage the sheep away with impunity!


I was simply reasonable about it. And "convinced" the sheep to go back to the field. I could have shot it, but it wasn't my sheep and I don't consider trespass a capital offence


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm sorry, but my show bred Labs can easily clear a stock fence, Indie could, in her prime, clear a 6' scale, and any dog intent on chasing can and will get around an obstacle. 

Whatever has happened, whether this case is right or wrong, the onus should be on dog owners to ensure their dogs are kept in sight, and enclosed, as much as it's the farmers responsibility to also ensure their livestock are enclosed. It's about respect both sides, and dogs running free within areas where livestock are kept does not speak of respect to me from the side of the dog owner.


----------



## Spud the Bull Terrier (Jun 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The way I shoot there could be five million shot in their and I'd still miss.
> 
> Even if I agreed with dogs being shot as a first resort (as it seems to be in the instant case), you do not shoot an animal the size of a dog with a shotgun. There are numerous restrictions on the type of gun you can shoot animals with and a fox (normally smaller than a dog) can only be shot with the appropriate rifle (not shotgun) as a shotgun is more likely to simply give serious wounding than a clean kill.


So what you are saying is that the farmer should have gone home, got a diffferent gun then returned and if the dogs where still there then shoot them?

anyway not that it matters but whether shotgun will cleanly kill a dog is largley dependant on the type of shot being used.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Cocker spaniels regularly scale 6ft in Working Trials and so do other small breeds, larger ones can scale 8/9 ft or higher (regularly seen in lurcher competitions at country shows) 

And the farmers fences are designed to keep livestock IN, not dogs OUT. THAT is the job of the owner(s).


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Neither have I, but I made a typo, so I shall ask the question again, how much experience have you had with livestock being worried by dogs?


The sheep round here are in fields that the dogs can't get in.... I'll try and find a pic


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I was simply reasonable about it. And "convinced" the sheep to go back to the field. I could have shot it, but it wasn't my sheep and I don't consider trespass a capital offence


A sheep eating your lawn or flowers does not result in a loss of livelihood, aborted offspring, maimed or dead breeding stock.

And actually you could NOT have shot a sheep in your garden!  (legally)


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Cocker spaniels regularly scale 6ft in Working Trials and so do other small breeds, larger ones can scale 8/9 ft or higher (regularly seen in lurcher competitions at country shows)
> 
> And the farmers fences are designed to keep livestock IN, not dogs OUT. THAT is the job of the owner(s).


Not according to the farmer in question (the one near me). A fairly flimsy fence will keep a sheep in (actually a ditch will do it most times).


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The way I shoot there could be five million shot in their and I'd still miss.
> 
> Even if I agreed with dogs being shot as a first resort (as it seems to be in the instant case), you do not shoot an animal the size of a dog with a shotgun. There are numerous restrictions on the type of gun you can shoot animals with and a fox (normally smaller than a dog) can only be shot with the appropriate rifle (not shotgun) as a shotgun is more likely to simply give serious wounding than a clean kill.


Actually, that's not entirely correct, many shoots allow ground game to be shot, including foxes, with shot guns, although depending on the gun, they may or may not take the shot 

For example, the OH won't shoot hares, although he's particularly partial to hare pie.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> A sheep eating your lawn or flowers does not result in a loss of livelihood, aborted offspring, maimed or dead breeding stock.
> 
> And actually you could NOT have shot a sheep in your garden!  (legally)


And in the instant case, your rather dramatic use of language didn't apply either. The dogs were not attacking the livestock... there is no accusation of that. I don't believe the farmer shot the dog legally.

If you'd like to point me to the statute that says I couldn't shoot the sheep I would be interested to see it.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I thought it was cattle not sheep? We don't have stock fencing near the cattle or horses, as they can get their feet trapped in it. 

Up on Dartmoor it would be impossible and probably illegal to use stock fencing on most of it to keep the ponies, cattle and sheep enclosed. The public are expected to take due care. Of course they don't, so now there's speed bumps, speed limits and signs asking people not to feed the ponies and encourage them near to the road. Should all be common sense really. 

If it was cows, we just had a discussion about how cows might be dangerous and kill you or your dog, so even if they hadn't been shot, they could have been trampled, especially if the cattle were still there when they calved the calves that hadn't aborted.


----------



## Spud the Bull Terrier (Jun 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I think the report said he shouted at them and they went away. He went to have his tea (which was not ready) so came back to find the dogs there again (obviously the owners had not found them) so he shot them.
> 
> What he doesn't say is that the dogs were worrying his livestock (although the law is loose and says "or about to" worry) and there is no mention of how the dogs got through his "reasonable attempt" at a fence. The sheep round here are penned in fields that only the tallest and most athletic of high hurdling dogs could get into (without bolt crops of course).


A farmer should only have to put up fences to keep his/her livestock, most dogs will be capable of wriggling under or jumping over such fences. I cant see why a farmer should have to build fences to try and keep out dogs.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Actually, that's not entirely correct, many shoots allow ground game to be shot, including foxes, with shot guns, although depending on the gun, they may or may not take the shot
> 
> For example, the OH won't shoot hares, although he's particularly partial to hare pie.


Fair point... I replace "can" with "should". Pigeonwatch says both barrels at close range (36g or higher) (even if you're convinced you got it with the first)... I tend to use those guys (and girls) as a benchmark :thumbup:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Another thread I wished I'd never bothered with.

Fine... y'all shoot the dogs and I'll try and scare them off first. Jog on...


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> And in the instant case, your rather dramatic use of language didn't apply either. The dogs were not attacking the livestock... there is no accusation of that. I don't believe the farmer shot the dog legally.
> 
> If you'd like to point me to the statute that says I couldn't shoot the sheep I would be interested to see it.


Animal Welfare Act 2006

A sheep is a protected animal, ie it is of a kind comonly domesticated in the British Isles and is under the control of man. A person commits an offence if his act causes an animal to suffer and the suffering is unecessary.

Shooting a sheep on your land would be considered unecessary etc etc


----------



## OllieBob (Nov 28, 2010)

Blitz said:


> I know nothing about shotguns but some posters on here that do say that one shotgun pellet through the head could also damage the legs.


A shotgun cartridge is filled with lots of small lead balls(shot), so not a single pellet.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

grandad said:


> And waste more taxpayers money? What direction should the review take? I think this is a little bit of a knee jerk reaction isn't it?


I don't believe that by reviewing firearms regulations a waste of taxpayers money nor is it in my opinion a knee jerk reaction. This incident has only reminded people how dangerous a shotgun in an individuals hand who is fuelled by rage can be.

There are lessons to be learned on both sides.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> There would be no such thing as one shotgun pellet, shot gun cartridges contain many pellets and I think, are sorted by weight, although I really am no expert. Depending on the weight, and on the individual gun, that sets the pattern as to how wide, and how quickly the pellets will disperse. You can imagine at short range, this will do a lot of damage.


thank you for correcting me and explaining. It is many years since my husband had a shot gun license and I only ever had one go at shooting. It scared me so much I threw the gun at the rabbit - and that had more chance of killing it than the ammo I think 



Elmo the Bear said:


> I think the report said he shouted at them and they went away. He went to have his tea (which was not ready) so came back to find the dogs there again (obviously the owners had not found them) so he shot them.
> 
> What he doesn't say is that the dogs were worrying his livestock (although the law is loose and says "or about to" worry) and there is no mention of how the dogs got through his "reasonable attempt" at a fence. The sheep round here are penned in fields that only the tallest and most athletic of high hurdling dogs could get into (without bolt crops of course).


I have yet to see sheep fence that would keep a determined dog out - but in any case we are talking about cattle here and so the normal fence would be barbed wire which a dog could walk through.



Elmo the Bear said:


> I was simply reasonable about it. And "convinced" the sheep to go back to the field. I could have shot it, but it wasn't my sheep and I don't consider trespass a capital offence


If you shot the sheep you would have ended up in court.



Elmo the Bear said:


> Not according to the farmer in question (the one near me). A fairly flimsy fence will keep a sheep in (actually a ditch will do it most times).


So in one breath no dog could get through or over any sheep fence around you and in the next a fairly flimsy fence will keep it in or even a ditch. What are you talking about and in any case what does sheep fencing have to do with the case in question - or any case of livestock worrying by dogs.

tbh very few farmers either have guns or would use them but they are quite within their rights and it sounds like these dogs were persistent offenders so their time on this earth was very limited. If he had not shot them then his other option would have been to catch the dogs and call the police and then the owners could have been taken to court and the dogs ordered to be destroyed. A very long winded way to the same end.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

OllieBob said:


> A shotgun cartridge is filled with lots of small lead balls(shot), so not a single pellet.


Is it likely that both dogs would have a single entry to the head and legs blown off with two cartridges? I think not as he used a 16 bore shotgun.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

Blitz said:


> thank you for correcting me and explaining. It is many years since my husband had a shot gun license and I only ever had one go at shooting. It scared me so much I threw the gun at the rabbit - and that had more chance of killing it than the ammo I think
> 
> I have yet to see sheep fence that would keep a determined dog out - but in any case we are talking about cattle here and so the normal fence would be barbed wire which a dog could walk through.
> 
> ...


Not as barbaric though! At the end of the day it has happened and I am sure the farmer did try all avenues but I am equally sure that given the strong feelings shown by the public so far they will sway this one on whether or not the law requires to be changed.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I really don't get it.  If he'd shot pet dogs when they were on the lead and walking on a footpath I could see the issue, but he didn't, he shot 2 out of 3 dogs that were running loose and had been harassing his stock. He wasn't even carrying his gun, but had to go back to get it. 

If I was the farmer myself I would probably have tried to catch at least 1 of the dogs and had a rant at the local police force before shooting them if I saw them again, but that's just how I would feel and I'm not a farmer. I don't see from any reports so far that the farmer did anything wrong tbh. The owners haven't said that their dogs were supervised, nor have they denied that their dogs were ever there before have they? It really does seem as though the owners often let their dogs run unsupervised.

If people believe that farmers should not be permitted to shoot dog regardless of what they are doing, then they would need to campaign for a change in the law and I think that really would be a separate and more general thread?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

912142 said:


> I don't believe that by reviewing firearms regulations a waste of taxpayers money nor is it in my opinion a knee jerk reaction. This incident has only reminded people how dangerous a shotgun in an individuals hand who is fuelled by rage can be.
> 
> There are lessons to be learned on both sides.


I must have missed that part of the report which stated that the farmer was "fuelled by rage".


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

912142 said:


> Not as barbaric though! At the end of the day it has happened and I am sure the farmer did try all avenues but I am equally sure that given the strong feelings shown by the public so far they will sway this one on whether or not the law requires to be changed.


Nothing barbaric about pest control and the chances of the Livestock Act being changed at the moment are between slim and zero........


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

some have different views on the value of animals..simple as really!


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> some have different views on the value of animals..simple as really!


So your pet should be allowed to cause others not to be able to put food on their tables?


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

grandad said:


> To my knowledge children don't bite are not frightening. And everyone has the right to access to the coutryside, even if they only visit once in their lifetime. And then landownersn have a duty of care to all users.


I am not disputing that everyone has the right to access the countryside I am merely pointing out that many dog walkers indirectly feel they must walk their dogs outwith a park situation because of families with children using parks - I'm not saying there is anything wrong in that but it does seem that the squeeze is being put on owners and their dogs. They too have rights.

Your comment about children not being frightening - you must live in a fantastic area unfortunately children these days can be very threatening and yes at times frightening as can the parents of unruly children.

You appear to want to nit pick others opinions - again others are allowed opinions.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> So your pet should be allowed to cause others not to be able to put food on their tables?


ive given my opinions on it plenty of times.....we,re not talking abut my pet.i wouldnt allow him to do that,the owners are morons...i believe killing 2 dogs was ott...and a shot in the air would of done the trick,then a stern word with the owners when they showed up,but said farmer is probably used to shooting foxes,rabbits etc...so doesnt mean much to him.


----------



## BeagleOesx (Oct 9, 2009)

I heard this on the news on Radio 2 on Friday when we were travelling in the car - at first I was absolutely appalled at it and was saying to my hubby how upset & devastated I would be if my dogs got shot and I was really on the owners side. 

Later on they had the farmer himself on the phone & the wife of the man who was walking the dogs. The farmer said that he had on numerous occasions had problems with these dogs and had spoken to the owners before as they had caused some of his cattle to abort. He shot them as a last resort as he was at the end of his tether with them (& the owners) when he saw they again running rampage in his field, totally unsupervised as they normally were. Every time one of his cattle aborted it cost him £5,000. He looked for the owners but they were nowhere in sight, he said it wasn't a decision he took lightly but he had to put his livestock first.

The owner of the dogs then got her chance to speak and she said that her husband had taken them out for their walk as normal and as usual they disappeared under a hedge chasing rabbit scents and he lost sight of them. She didn't deny that they always do this and that they allow them to run on the farmers land but she admitted that they weren't on leads and weren't supervised.

Tbh by the end of the call I was totally in agreement with the farmer and could understand how he felt. It isn't fair that 2 dogs lost their lives thro the ignorance of their owners but surely it was the owners responsibility to have them on leads especially taking into account the type of dogs they were.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> ive given my opinions on it plenty of times.....we,re not talking abut my pet.i wouldnt allow him to do that,the owners are morons...i believe killing 2 dogs was ott...and a shot in the air would of done the trick,then a stern word with the owners when they showed up,but said farmer is probably used to shooting foxes,rabbits etc...so doesnt mean much to him.


If the dogs were so valuable to the owners, they should have taken better care of them, the way the farmer did, taking care of HIS animals.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> If the dogs were so valuable to the owners, they should have taken better care of them, the way the farmer did, taking care of HIS animals.


ITS NOT THE DOGS FAULT IS IT!!!!!thats what im saying...theowners are idiots,im not defending them.:mad2:


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> ITS NOT THE DOGS FAULT IS IT!!!!!thats what im saying...theowners are idiots,im not defending them.:mad2:


exactly it waant the dogs fault but the owners... it waant the farmers either as he was protecting his own... as i would do anything to protect my own too


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

round and round...i give up.:mad2:


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> round and round...i give up.:mad2:


good sings song of Hallelujah :thumbup:


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> I must have missed that part of the report which stated that the farmer was "fuelled by rage".


Did I say he was fuelled with rage? Read the post again I said an individual fuelled with rage.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Oh so it was another individual that was fuelled with rage and had a gun, not the farmer then?


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Oh so it was another individual that was fuelled with rage and had a gun, not the farmer then?


If you say so - read the posts.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

It is not me that is saying so, I did not mention any individual fuelled with rage in any of my posts........


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> It is not me that is saying so, I did not mention any individual fuelled with rage in any of my posts........


I did not say the farmer was fuelled with rage - he may well have been but I did not say he was - This incident will remind others that a gun in the hands of someone who is fuelled by rage or not of sound mind is dangerous and I believe the firearms law should be reviewed. Had you been following my posts you would have realised what I was saying.

People are entitled to their opinion and have a right to speak up without posters like you seeking to belittle or nit pick.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> ive given my opinions on it plenty of times.....we,re not talking abut my pet.i wouldnt allow him to do that,the owners are morons...i believe killing 2 dogs was ott...and a shot in the air would of done the trick,then a stern word with the owners when they showed up,but said farmer is probably used to shooting foxes,rabbits etc...so doesnt mean much to him.


Have you ever met or talked to a farmer? I'm going to lay all my cards on the table here. I am a farmers daughter. My dad has a small holding now because there was insufficient income in the family farm to continue the day the dairy herd was sold him and his 2 brothers and sister wept. Yet if you theory on only seeing the livestock as money is to be believed they would have all been rubbing their hands together in glee at all the lovely cash. Everything was sold up it is now a very swish equestrian establishment.

On his small holding he has a very small pedigree herd of Dexters small beef cattle, ( pedigrees like dogs with shows and precious bloodlines) a couple of house sheep and some rescued battery hens. Theres a fox or 2 on his land, but as he says as long as they stick to the rabbits i'll leave them be. He works another job to pay the bills, but in his heart and in his soul he belongs to the land. He would stay up all night to take care of a sick animal, He loves and respects and does right by all the animals he owns. Always has and always will.

There are no rights of way through his fields and yet he has still had a few walkers with and without dogs in them. He has politely asked them to leave and thankfully they all have without too much fuss.The new owners of the cottage whose garden back onto one of his fields were another story, but he used his charm and patience to help them understand, He would truly have been devastated to have been pushed to the point by repeated worrying occurences by the same group of dogs, repeated appeals to the owners that he felt he had no other way to go.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> Have you ever met or talked to a farmer? I'm going to lay all my cards on the table here. I am a farmers daughter. My dad has a small holding now because there was insufficient income in the family farm to continue the day the dairy herd was sold him and his 2 brothers and sister wept. Yet if you theory on only seeing the livestock as money is to be believed they would have all been rubbing their hands together in glee at all the lovely cash. Everything was sold up it is now a very swish equestrian establishment.
> 
> On his small holding he has a very small pedigree herd of Dexters small beef cattle, ( pedigrees like dogs with shows and precious bloodlines) a couple of house sheep and some rescued battery hens. Theres a fox or 2 on his land, but as he says as long as they stick to the rabbits i'll leave them be. He works another job to pay the bills, but in his heart and in his soul he belongs to the land. He would stay up all night to take care of a sick animal, He loves and respects and does right by all the animals he owns. Always has and always will.
> 
> There are no rights of way through his fields and yet he has still had a few walkers with and without dogs in them. He has politely asked them to leave and thankfully they all have without too much fuss.The new owners of the cottage whose garden back onto one of his fields were another story, but he used his charm and patience to help them understand, He would truly have been devastated to have been pushed to the point by repeated worrying occurences by the same group of dogs, repeated appeals to the owners that he felt he had no other way to go.


no ive never met a farmer....im sure some are very pleasant.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> no ive never met a farmer....im sure some are very pleasant.


Actually he can be stubborn and cantankerous with humans at times.... he does remind me of someone.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Animal Welfare Act 2006
> 
> A sheep is a protected animal, ie it is of a kind comonly domesticated in the British Isles and is under the control of man. A person commits an offence if his act causes an animal to suffer and the suffering is unecessary.
> 
> Shooting a sheep on your land would be considered unecessary etc etc


Not if it was worrying my dog. The act is reciprocal; and a dog is domesticated so my burden of proof would be the same the farmer.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Hmmm. I'm getting confused. Would that then mean that if another dog worried your dog you could shoot it?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Blitz said:


> thank you for correcting me and explaining. It is many years since my husband had a shot gun license and I only ever had one go at shooting. It scared me so much I threw the gun at the rabbit - and that had more chance of killing it than the ammo I think
> 
> I have yet to see sheep fence that would keep a determined dog out - but in any case we are talking about cattle here and so the normal fence would be barbed wire which a dog could walk through.
> 
> ...


It was sheep not cattle.

The point I made clearly (and you missed, clearly) was that the fence is not simply there to keep the sheep in as a ditch would suffice.

I didn't say "no dog" could over the fence (you just made that bit up).

If the farmer had caught the dogs they would most likely not have been ordered destroyed but the owner fined.

If he had not shot them his other option would have been to scare them off. If he now claims to complained to the owner before why did he not seek an injunction against the owners to have the dogs restrained?

I'm the one with the reputation for talking nonsense and I have no intention of letting you steal that crown... please litter your posts with some facts in future :aureola:


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Not if it was worrying my dog. The act is reciprocal; and a dog is domesticated so my burden of proof would be the same the farmer.


Ah the dog has only just appeared in the equation, it did not exist in your previous post.

I think the words "if ifs and ands were pots and pans" come to mind!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Elles said:


> Hmmm. I'm getting confused. Would that then mean that if another dog worried your dog you could shoot it?


My dog is not livestock. I believe the act applies to livestock (not my area of law really).

I wouldn't shoot a sheep (or a dog) I credit myself with enough common to be able to scare one off... especially if I have a very loud gun in my hand


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I'm the one with the reputation for talking nonsense and I have no intention of letting you steal that crown... please litter your posts with some facts in future :aureola:


Relax, your posts in this thread demonstrate you have not lost your grasp of nonsense, in fact the only person who needs to be worried is Edward Lear................. ROFLMAO


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> My dog is not livestock. I believe the act applies to livestock (not my area of law really).
> 
> I wouldn't shoot a sheep (or a dog) I credit myself with enough common to be able to scare one off... especially if I have a very loud gun in my hand


Unless of course the gun triggered the dog to attack you!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Ah the dog has only just appeared in the equation, it did not exist in your previous post.
> 
> I think the words "if ifs and ands were pots and pans" come to mind!


Sorry have you been out for a sly drink.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry have you been out for a sly drink.


there is no need to apologise, you can't help it.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Unless of course the gun triggered the dog to attack you!


If I'd been to Tenerife you'd have to Elevenarife wouldn't you ?

Do you just keep adding in unrealistic points to try and make it sound like you're talking sense?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> If I'd been to Tenerife you'd have to Elevenarife wouldn't you ?
> 
> Do you just keep adding in unrealistic points to try and make it sound like you're talking sense?


Half a pound thinly sliced please.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Relax, your posts in this thread demonstrate you have not lost your grasp of nonsense, in fact the only person who needs to be worried is Edward Lear................. ROFLMAO


Ooh poetry. That's where your creative writing comes from I guess?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Ooh poetry. That's where your creative writing comes from I guess?


I pale into insignificance next to your fabrications..........


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Like every one else has said I do not know the whole story either, and as some body who walks extensivley through our beautiful countryside it infuriates me that people with or with out dogs do not respect the country code and those that work the land. I have come across farmers anxiously watching us to be sure our dogs are under control and on leads,( of course they are). I have been chased by farmers who have been having problems with another dog of our breed and had to take the abuse on the other persons behalf. Land owners who have to put signs up all along the public foot paths asking for dogs to kept dogs on leads, I don't want my dogs to be at risk nor do I want them to cause damage.

*It may be our right to roam but it is our duty to respect.*


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

912142 said:


> I did not say the farmer was fuelled with rage - he may well have been but I did not say he was - This incident will remind others that a gun in the hands of someone who is fuelled by rage or not of sound mind is dangerous and I believe the firearms law should be reviewed. Had you been following my posts you would have realised what I was saying.
> 
> People are entitled to their opinion and have a right to speak up without posters like you seeking to belittle or nit pick.


As part of the application for a FAC or shotgun certificate, individuals go through a thorough police check which includes allowing access to your medical records. So the police can check for mental instability or depression.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Elles said:


> Hmmm. I'm getting confused. Would that then mean that if another dog worried your dog you could shoot it?


A dog is not classed as livestock


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Guns are apart of a farmers tool bag. They are used for a reason. In the main for "PEST" control. Be it foxes, deer, rabbits, squirrels, rats, pigeon, crows, rooks etc and if the pest becomes a dog, then what is he supposed to do? 
Farmers have to put up with a lot. As I stated earlier rabbits can cause a farmer to lose up to 30% of his crop. Deer are over populating the country to the tune of 800,000 and can severly damage crops and woodland. Foxes cause untold damage and will happily take new born lambs. And yet we see more and more urban foxes caught by pest control company's released into the countryside, instead of being despatched. 
I have a farmer friend who lost 200 chickens to a fox in one night. And recently we lost 15 partridge to a fox. 
I have also seen cows abort because of worrying. Another farmer friend of mine had a cow lose twin calves and the mother died to, even though the vets tried for two days to try and to save the mother. So he lost three cows on that particular occasion. 
Diary farmers are giving up at the rate of 10 a week, because the price of milk is so chep they cannot make a living out of it. And so the next move for cheap milk is battery cows. Cows that won't even see the light of day and be kept in vast sheds. Like they have in the USA. 
There is talk of phasing out the CAP which means subsidies will go. On top of that farmers are the custodians of the countryside. The next time you see a load of rubbish dumped in the entrance to a field, ask your self who is going to shift it? and how much will it cost? and then there is the competition, I think a lamb from New Zealand costs the supermarkets £15. do you think that the farmer in the UK can compete with that. An organic chicken bred properly, killed humanely and dry plucked (which is healthier for the consumer, but cost £4.50 a bird) will retail at between £14 - £15. How many people will purchase that chicken. NOT many is the answer when you can buy 2 for a fiver in a supermarket. 
I'm a little off subject here now, but if a farmer has given you warning and you pay no heed then the consequences are in your hands. He has a livelhood to protect and as the LAW states HE is within his RIGHTS.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

grandad said:


> Guns are apart of a farmers tool bag. They are used for a reason. In the main for "PEST" control. Be it foxes, deer, rabbits, squirrels, rats, pigeon, crows, rooks etc and if the pest becomes a dog, then what is he supposed to do?
> Farmers have to put up with a lot. As I stated earlier rabbits can cause a farmer to lose up to 30% of his crop. Deer are over populating the country to the tune of 800,000 and can severly damage crops and woodland. Foxes cause untold damage and will happily take new born lambs. And yet we see more and more urban foxes caught by pest control company's released into the countryside, instead of being despatched.
> I have a farmer friend who lost 200 chickens to a fox in one night. And recently we lost 15 partridge to a fox.
> I have also seen cows abort because of worrying. Another farmer friend of mine had a cow lose twin calves and the mother died to, even though the vets tried for two days to try and to save the mother. So he lost three cows on that particular occasion.
> ...


I don't know if you get The Field, but there's an article in there this month about urban foxes being released into the wild; one photograph shows a recently shaved fox with an amputated rear leg, absolutely appalling that people would do that to an animal, dump it somewhere where it has no concept of how to survive. Another shows 15 foxes shot in one night on a permission, they have to have come from somewhere, foxes don't migrate in herds, so someone must know where the increase in numbers suddenly came from.

Anyway, slightly OT but worth mentioning, as you say, there's an awful lot more behind the story of just how much farmers have to put up with behind the scenes.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Just going back to the cow that lost the twins and to give you some more graphic detail.
This happened in a field, so not a cosy, comfy, cow shed. The weather was attrocious, it was non stop rain. We had to get cover in to protect her as she lay in the field and also temporay fencing to keep the rest of the herd away. She aborted the calves and they were taken away. Because she aborted she was bleeding internally. The vets tried to stop the bleeding and admininstered drugs for her. But basically she was dying. We kept an eye on her for two days we gave more drugs. For two days she lay in that field, because we couldn't move her, to move her would have been dangerous. but after two days we had to give up and put her out of her misery. Basically a bolt gun to the head, in field, pissing down with rain. So not had she lost two calves her life was now at an end. Two days previously she had been a nomal cow, grazing in a field, with out to much worry. Did she deserve to die that way? If I could have shot the dog, do you think I would have done? Did the police want to know? No. Did we ever see the dog again? No


----------



## beris (Aug 30, 2010)

albert 1970 said:


> ive given my opinions on it plenty of times.....we,re not talking abut my pet.i wouldnt allow him to do that,the owners are morons...i believe killing 2 dogs was ott...and a shot in the air would of done the trick,then a stern word with the owners when they showed up,but said farmer is probably used to shooting foxes,rabbits etc...so doesnt mean much to him.


Speaking from experience. If you had seen the devastation two dogs can do in a field of sheep, I think you might have a different view. Dogs don't always kill sheep they leave them half dead. Sheep can have a heart attack being chased by a dog. You can warn some people but they don't listen.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Nothing barbaric about pest control and the chances of the Livestock Act being changed at the moment are between slim and zero........


Crystal ball springs to mind!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

BeagleOesx said:


> I heard this on the news on Radio 2 on Friday when we were travelling in the car - at first I was absolutely appalled at it and was saying to my hubby how upset & devastated I would be if my dogs got shot and I was really on the owners side.
> 
> Later on they had the farmer himself on the phone & the wife of the man who was walking the dogs. The farmer said that he had on numerous occasions had problems with these dogs and had spoken to the owners before as they had caused some of his cattle to abort. He shot them as a last resort as he was at the end of his tether with them (& the owners) when he saw they again running rampage in his field, totally unsupervised as they normally were. Every time one of his cattle aborted it cost him £5,000. He looked for the owners but they were nowhere in sight, he said it wasn't a decision he took lightly but he had to put his livestock first.
> 
> ...


*As i said pages back,i too heard the phone in on radio 2..And i whole heartedly agree with the farmer.
If the owner of the dogs had thought that much about their dogs he would not have allwed them off lead where there were cattle.*


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

912142 said:


> Not as barbaric though! At the end of the day it has happened and I am sure the farmer did try all avenues but I am equally sure that given the strong feelings shown by the public so far they will sway this one on whether or not the law requires to be changed.


I seriously hope not. Our laws should not be changed because of the ignorant media inflamed public.



albert 1970 said:


> some have different views on the value of animals..simple as really!


That is obvious. But most of us have very high values on all animals and sheep and cattle come before dogs in these sad cases.



Elmo the Bear said:


> It was sheep not cattle.
> 
> The point I made clearly (and you missed, clearly) was that the fence is not simply there to keep the sheep in as a ditch would suffice.
> 
> ...


Well you are certainly keeping up your reputation if that is the case :scared:

I understood it was cattle that had aborted previously because of these dogs chasing them and that it was cattle in the field.

You must have the strangest sheep around you if a ditch keeps them in. That is an absolutely hilarious statement! I can assure you that if there was a gap big enough for a dog to get into the field then the sheep would be out. Fencing sheep in is a nightmare and the only thing that keeps them in safely is stock fencing right to the ground. Because the ground is uneven though there is often a gap that they can crawl under if they are determined enough. There is absolutely no reason for a farmer to fence their land to keep dogs out - which would be totally impossible anyway! And as it appears these dogs were being walked on the farmers land anyway fences are rather immaterial as no doubt the owner had opened the gate and let them in in the first place!

And before you start saying I am talking nonsense I am a farmer and I have had dogs in my sheep. I didnt have a gun and managed, with the help of my sheepdog, to get the sheep in a corner so I could grab one of the dogs and chase the other away and then call the police. But this is not always possible and I would definitely have shot the dogs if I had had a gun - and if it had not been pitch dark!
One of the sheep had been really badly injured. The dogs had got her down and chewed her leg so it looked like a sunday roast. And chewed all round her neck. 
And do you know something, we kept her, we gave her a name and we nursed her. Was it economical - hell no. It would have been far less of a loss to put a bullet in her head but I love all my animals and she could be saved so we saved her.
Currently we have a cow that we are very fond of. She has bad feet and she cannot live on the slats with the other cows. We could shoot her but no, we, at great expense and a lot of work, keep her in a bedded pen on her own getting far more feed than the other cattle. Do we do that because we will make money out of her - of course not, we do it because we are very fond of her. It might seem a bit soft but you would be amazed how many farmers have one or two cows that they cant bear to part with and are kept into old age in luxury.

So dont anyone DARE to say that livestock are just pound notes and that an out of control dog that is harrassing them has more right to live.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I seriously hope not. Our laws should not be changed because of the ignorant media inflamed public.
> 
> That is obvious. But most of us have very high values on all animals and sheep and cattle come before dogs in these sad cases.
> 
> ...


Blitz, all farmers care for their animals welfare. Obviously, people do not appreciate the work or the hours that go into caring for them.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> all farmers care for their animals welfare


"All" is a bit too generous Grandad. Many, or most maybe, but not all.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

beris said:


> Speaking from experience. If you had seen the devastation two dogs can do in a field of sheep, I think you might have a different view. Dogs don't always kill sheep they leave them half dead. Sheep can have a heart attack being chased by a dog. You can warn some people but they don't listen.


dont sheep farmers use dogs themselves?:confused1:


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

albert 1970 said:


> dont sheep farmers use dogs themselves?:confused1:


Very, very well trained herding dogs . Very different from an untrained, unfamiliar, over-excited dog running riot


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Albert - you admit you have not met a farmer, they are not all millionaire tories you know. 

Loose dogs running round playing frightening livestock = worrying. This is not a new thing, I have known since childhood a farmer has the right to shoot a dog worrying livestock, it does not have to be ripping the animals throat out before he can take action. Reading here the owner admitted the dogs frequently ran off into the field out of their sight so they had plenty of opportunity to stop it happening but did not.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

albert 1970 said:


> dont sheep farmers use dogs themselves?:confused1:


I have always been aware that there must be people out there with no idea of how things work on farms but to think a sheep dog is the same as a pet dog running riot really takes the biscuit - for a dog owner.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

Blitz said:


> I have always been aware that there must be people out there with no idea of how things work on farms but to think a sheep dog is the same as a pet dog running riot really takes the biscuit - for a dog owner.


Indeed. If you've ever seen a working sheep dog in action (which as a farmer I guess you must have ) it is amazing! I'd never seen anything like it.


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

912142 said:


> I believe the statement said it was a shot to the head of each dog and legs blown off. Now given that in his statement post the incident he said that he only took 2 cartridges - how would it be possible to shoot two dogs with a shot to each of their heads and then blow their legs off?


 There is obviously quite a bit of exageratiiom by the dog owners. The dogs were shot with a shotgun then laid dead in a field untill the owner then collected them in a wheelbarrow. Then they tell us that after all this time 2 small dogs still bled enough to half fill the wheelbarrow with blood. I don't believe that for 1 second and it makes me wonder exactly what they mean when they say their legs were blown off


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The way I shoot there could be five million shot in their and I'd still miss.
> 
> Even if I agreed with dogs being shot as a first resort (as it seems to be in the instant case), you do not shoot an animal the size of a dog with a shotgun. There are numerous restrictions on the type of gun you can shoot animals with and a fox (normally smaller than a dog) can only be shot with the appropriate rifle (not shotgun) as a shotgun is more likely to simply give serious wounding than a clean kill.


I think you will find the only animal that has laws on what calibre rifle they can be shot with are deer


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

hawksport said:


> I think you will find the only animal that has laws on what calibre rifle they can be shot with are deer


I did stand corrected earlier on this.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I understood it was cattle that had aborted previously because of these dogs chasing them and that it was cattle in the field.
> 
> You must have the strangest sheep around you if a ditch keeps them in. That is an absolutely hilarious statement!


It was sheep in the field and the dogs hadn't touched any of them (according to the court report).

The sheep near me looked normal (white, wooly, four legs, head at the front butt at the back...took a look this morning... not just at their butts you understand). They were the other side of the ditch. Pretty big (ish) ditch (6ft maybe)... but a ditch none the less. I waited for them to cross.... they did not.... but I'll admit they looked at me as if to say "see that ditch, we could cross that if we wanted to"


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I did stand corrected earlier on this.


Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread

For those that don't know about shooting and to try and clear up about the legs being shot off

A shotgun certificate
This anyone can apply for and the police have to have a reason to refuse it. You don't need to give a reason to apply for one. This is the one that most farmers have

A firearms certificate
To apply for this you have to state where you are going to use it and what you are going to use it for. It is much harder to get. Not many farmers have these
A shotgun cartride is a plasic tube full off small lead pellets. The smaller the individual pellet the more there are. The further away the target the more the pellets spread. At 40 yards a shotgun will put pellets all over a dog. that's why you use a shotgun for running or flying game and a rifle for stalked game that is stood still


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Ditches will not keep sheep from leaving the field, any more than cattle grids keep out all animals, some sheep and horses have figured out a way of getting over grids by lying down and rolling over them in areas such as Dartmoor and the New Forest.


----------



## Forlyfe (Oct 23, 2011)

I think that's disgraceful. That farmer must have a problem since I could never shoot a dog, nor a cat. The thought of it sickens me


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Forlyfe said:


> I think that's disgraceful. That farmer must have a problem since I could never shoot a dog, nor a cat. The thought of it sickens me


*You might think differently if your livelyhood depended on farming.*


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

This might a daft question but why has this case attracted so much attention, I would have thought it's something that does happen several times a year?

When OH was a child his family had a destruction order on their pet dog, he doesn't know the whole story as he feels he wasn't told the truth. They had a Collie x who started to round up some sheep, someone reported it and the dog was PTS. He doesn't think he was shot by the farmer.

Consequently we are both paranoid about being around livestock. Once OH was in a field with a footpath through, he always checked for sheep but one day he didn't see them right up in a corner. Fortunately Zimba took no notice and was swiftly put on a lead. It really shook up OH though :frown:


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Polimba said:


> This might a daft question but why has this case attracted so much attention, I would have thought it's something that does happen several times a year?
> :


I think the owners went to the Press expecting all the sympathy to be with them


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

hawksport said:


> Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread
> 
> For those that don't know about shooting and to try and clear up about the legs being shot off
> 
> ...


I would say that, when I applied for mine, the FAO came round and quizzed me for an hour about what I'd be using it for, who I'd be shooting with etc etc. I think it differs in each county. Guys I shoot with say that that the further west you travel the easier it is to get one.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I have always been aware that there must be people out there with no idea of how things work on farms but to think a sheep dog is the same as a pet dog running riot really takes the biscuit - for a dog owner.


i have no idea how thigs work on a farm...and i dont really care...what i care about is animals well being....what i do know is most farmers dont give a toss about animals...just the £ they can make out of them.....tally ho!


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> i have no idea how thigs work on a farm...and i dont really care...what i care about is animals well being....what i do know is most farmers dont give a toss about animals...just the £ they can make out of them.....tally ho!


babe your so wrong there, 90% of farmers here love their animals and breed them... yes they make a living out of it of course they do thats what most farmers have been brought up to know... but your wrong in thinking most dont give a damn about their animals


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

albert 1970 said:


> i have no idea how thigs work on a farm...and i dont really care...what i care about is animals well being....what i do know is most farmers dont give a toss about animals...just the £ they can make out of them.....tally ho!


How can you state that you don't know how things work on a farm then say that you know most farmers don't give a toss about their animals?? :confused1:

All the farmers I have known have cared a great deal about their animals.


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

Horrified by this!!!

The simple and ONLY answers is the owners we're at fault. And anyone who says otherwise is clueless !!!

I ALWAYS keep Ripley on lead near any field with livestock. 

I know for a FACT she would chase them. (not thati have ever let her... But i know my dog ) Hurt them I don't Know I'd like to say no

The simple answer is respect. Respect for the other animals and the farmers.

I would not let her harrass another dog so why would horses ... Cows or sheep be any different.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> i have no idea how thigs work on a farm...and i dont really care...what i care about is animals well being....what i do know is most farmers dont give a toss about animals...just the £ they can make out of them.....tally ho!


So no one should make money out of animals and the whole world Albert included should be veggie and we should concrete over the contryside so noone gets muddy feet?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> i have no idea how thigs work on a farm...and i dont really care...what i care about is animals well being....what i do know is most farmers dont give a toss about animals...just the £ they can make out of them.....tally ho!


You don't know any farmers, you don't know or care how things work on a farm but do know farmers don't give a toss about animals - you are being silly now


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> So no one should make money out of animals and the whole world Albert included should be veggie and we should concrete over the contryside so noone gets muddy feet?


im sorry...where hve i said anything like this......cos i dont think shooting 2 dogs is right?a lot of people in the countryside dont think normal morals apply to them...and when questioned....pull out the same tired line of...townies are ignorant...dont understand the counryside etc!zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> You don't know any farmers, you don't know or care how things work on a farm but do know farmers don't give a toss about animals - you are being silly now


i knw how ive seen animals treatd at cattle markets....i know farmers shoot animals......i know their primary thing is making money!......when the mad cow thing happened...how many farmers were bothered about the animals...none i saw interviewed.....just the money!


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

albert 1970 said:


> i knw how ive seen animals treatd at cattle markets....i know farmers shoot animals......i know their primary thing is making money!......when the mad cow thing happened...how many farmers were bothered about the animals...none i saw interviewed.....just the money!


I saw many farmers in tears over what was happening to there cattle, farm animals are not pets so there is a different attitude to them there has to be.


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> im sorry...where hve i said anything like this......cos i dont think shooting 2 dogs is right?a lot of people in the countryside dont think normal morals apply to them...and when questioned....pull out the same tired line of...townies are ignorant...dont understand the counryside etc!zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


I think you have a lack of understanding. If the owners had. It let their dog into this situation it would not have happened.

The law exists to protect farmers and it is justified. No dog has a right to harrass or injure another persons animal!!!

That's is the be all and end all

Ps I'm a "townie"


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> im sorry...where hve i said anything like this......cos i dont think shooting 2 dogs is right?a lot of people in the countryside dont think normal morals apply to them...and when questioned....pull out the same tired line of...townies are ignorant...dont understand the counryside etc!zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


I have met lots of people in the country who are visiting from town and have educated themselves, who even went to the trouble of going to the farmhouse to clarify where a footpath went and what it's condition was and to ask if there was livestock along it.

It's not a townie thing it's an ignorance and arrogance thing.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

if you dont know how farms work or how farmers act then to me this thread is not one for you.... you can have an opinion, but i feel to have an informed one, you should KNOW how farms work and how FARMERS treat their animals, something that is NOT learnt from telly and films, but from first hand experience


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

albert 1970 said:


> i have no idea how thigs work on a farm...and i dont really care...what i care about is animals well being....what i do know is most farmers dont give a toss about animals...just the £ they can make out of them.....tally ho!


I 100% respect that you have made the moral decision to be a vegan and feed your dog that way (which of course you do right? I can't imagine you would be so ridiculously ignorant and hypocritical to slag off the way in which farmers care for their animals and run their business and then eat the products they provide for you!). However I think it is pretty poor of you to generalise all farmers when you admit yourself that you haven't met a single one!!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Set_Nights said:


> I 100% respect that you have made the moral decision to be a vegan and feed your dog that way (which of course you do right? I can't imagine you would be so ridiculously ignorant and hypocritical to slag off the way in which farmers care for their animals and run their business and then eat the products they provide for you!). However I think it is pretty poor of you to generalise all farmers when you admit yourself that you haven't met a single one!!!


oh he has met one... very unknowingly :aureola:


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Set_Nights said:


> I 100% respect that you have made the moral decision to be a vegan and feed your dog that way (which of course you do right? I can't imagine you would be so ridiculously ignorant and hypocritical to slag off the way in which farmers care for their animals and run their business and then eat the products they provide for you!). However I think it is pretty poor of you to generalise all farmers when you admit yourself that you haven't met a single one!!!


the usual veggie type response


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Elzz said:


> if you dont know how farms work or how farmers act then to me this thread is not one for you.... you can have an opinion, but i feel to have an informed one, you should KNOW how farms work and how FARMERS treat their animals, something that is NOT learnt from telly and films, but from first hand experience


so does that mean you cant comment on say....prisons...cos you havnt been in one,,,etc...ridiculous arguement!


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> the usual veggie type response


You don't like admitting when you're wrong do you.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Zoej82 said:


> You don't like admitting when you're wrong do you.


theres no right or wrong.....its an opinion!


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> so does that mean you cant comment on say....prisons...cos you havnt been in one,,,etc...ridiculous arguement!


its not a ridiculous argument at all, your saying all farmers dont care about their animals, that too me is a ridiculous statement ... people are in prison for a reason the justice system saw fit to place them in there, your claiming all farmers are millionaires and just in it for the £££££ 
thats ridiculous


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

albert 1970 said:


> the usual veggie type response


Yes, I wonder why. Where do you think the meat you eat comes from ? You don't think any animals were shot to provide it? I cannot understand at all how you can think it's wrong to shoot an animal but it's ok to eat meat?! I'm not even talking about the dogs shot in this circumstance, I'm talking about your extremely opinionated views on how cruel farmers are because they are capable of shooting animals! So you're saying that its ok for animals to be shot to feed you, but the person that did it was cruel ?


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> so does that mean you cant comment on say....prisons...cos you havnt been in one,,,etc...ridiculous arguement!


No but you can't call it an informed comment


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Elzz said:


> its not a ridiculous argument at all, your saying all farmers dont care about their animals, that too me is a ridiculous statement ... people are in prison for a reason the justice system saw fir to place them in there, your claiming all farmers are millionaires and just in it for the £££££
> thats ridiculous


you clearly havnt read my posts...your adding your own bits


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Zoej82 said:


> No but you can't call it an informed comment


ive called it an opinion.....nothing more....nothing less


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> you clearly havnt read my posts...your adding your own bits


nope im not im reading your posts but your ill informed on farmers...

edit rolleyes back at ya matey


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> theres no right or wrong.....its an opinion!


I think you are very unable to look at the bigger picture with regards to this story .


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Set_Nights said:


> Yes, I wonder why. Where do you think the meat you eat comes from ? You don't think any animals were shot to provide it? I cannot understand at all how you can think it's wrong to shoot an animal but it's ok to eat meat?! I'm not even talking about the dogs shot in this circumstance, I'm talking about your extremely opinionated views on how cruel farmers are because they are capable of shooting animals! So you're saying that its ok for animals to be shot to feed you, but the person that did it was cruel ?


ive got nothing against killing for food......i have for fun!


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Zoej82 said:


> I think you are very unable to look at the bigger picture with regards to this story .


likewise!............


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> ive called it an opinion.....nothing more....nothing less


Ok an Ill informed "opinion "


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

moonviolet said:


> I have met lots of people in the country who are visiting from town and have educated themselves, who even went to the trouble of going to the farmhouse to clarify where a footpath went and what it's condition was and to ask if there was livestock along it.
> 
> It's not a townie thing it's an ignorance and arrogance thing.


Completely agree. I moved to the countryside last year & have contacted the local farmers/landowners to ask about walking my dogs on their land & if there is any livestock about I should be aware of.

All I have spoken to have been lovely & have been fine about me walking on their land. I have been made aware of a wooded area that is used to rear game birds & have agreed that if we do walk there then I will leash both dogs so they don't chase the birds.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Elzz said:


> nope im not im reading your posts but your ill informed on farmers...
> 
> edit rolleyes back at ya matey


in your opinion.......im happy with mine!


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> likewise!............


Oh please enlighten me!!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Zoej82 said:


> Ok an Ill informed "opinion "


zzzzzz...in your opinion!


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> in your opinion.......im happy with mine!


wooooooopppppppp :thumbup: :lol:


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Come on then Albert what do you suggest the farmer should have done? According to the articles he had already had calves aborted because of these dogs chasing his cattle, had previously tried scaring them off yet there they were loose again in his field with no owners. How should he have safeguarded his cattle?


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Zoej82 said:


> Oh please enlighten me!!!


whilst i may be a bit ott against the farming community...you dont seem to think they can do any wrong...imo..lots of farmers view animals lives...as far less important than i do.hence shooting 2 dogs dead.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

albert 1970 said:


> ive got nothing against killing for food......i have for fun!


Riiiight. Farmers are cruel because they can shoot vermin and therefore don't value animal life... but you kill for fun, not even for food. I see, it all makes sense now. At that last part I am afraid I'm just going to have to retire from this thread . No point continuing this discussion.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Come on then Albert what do you suggest the farmer should have done? According to the articles he had already had calves aborted because of these dogs chasing his cattle, had previously tried scaring them off yet there they were loose again in his field with no owners. How should he have safeguarded his cattle?


well this is assuming what he say is true......if it were me...i would of scared the dogs off with a shot in the air......waited for the owners to turn up...and sorted it with them.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

If whats being said is farmers dont care about there animals as pet as we do then no they dont!,a friend of ours is a farmer he has 2 pet dogs who live in the house spoilt rotten he has 4 working Collies who live out and work,he is up at hours we would'nt dream of to care for his cattle ect until such time as they go to market to feed us and our pets,he also shots on his own land to be able to grow crops once again for us to eat.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> whilst i may be a bit ott against the farming community...you dont seem to think they can do any wrong...imo..lots of farmers view animals lives...as far less important than i do.hence shooting 2 dogs dead.


Ahh i think i have an answer... i believe Rotties were bred as herd protectors? maybe you should have Albert on call..


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Set_Nights said:


> Riiiight. Farmers are cruel because they can shoot vermin and therefore don't value animal life... but you kill for fun, not even for food. I see, it all makes sense now. At that last part I am afraid I'm just going to have to retire from this thread . No point continuing this discussion.


ffs!no,i said i hve no problem with animals killed to eat...i do have a problem wit people hunting for fun!!!!!!!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> well this is assuming what he say is true......if it were me...i would of scared the dogs off with a shot in the air......waited for the owners to turn up...and sorted it with them.


& because they obviously live in a farming area where used to hearing shots & it had no affect and still continued to worry the livestock, what then?


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> ffs!no,i said i hve no problem with animals killed to eat...i do have a problem wit people hunting for fun!!!!!!!


calm down calm down... we knew what you meant :thumbup: IYO of course


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

I'd like to know how I'v missed the bigger picture.

Dog harrasing farm animal = consequence

The dogs could have been saved from this situation by their owners.

I would and could never kill a dog. But a farmer has to have the right to protect their livelihood and animals

I remember Vividly as a child a German Shepard chasing My kitten into my house and ripping it to shreds. I was very young maybe six or seven. My bedroo. Was covered in blood. The dog was doing what it dogs do. They're an animal.

The owner of the dog was responsible as are all dog owners and that is my point and my understanding


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> & because they obviously live in a farming area where used to hearing shots & it had no affect and still continued to worry the livestock, what then?


no your right...blowing them both to bits was the only answer!


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Zoej82 said:


> I'd like to know how I'v missed the bigger picture.
> 
> Dog harrasing farm animal = consequence
> 
> ...


dont disagree with anything your saying.........if said moron dog owner let their dog run in the road in front of me...id still swerve to avoid it.....even though its not my fault..nd could cause me more harm to avoid t!


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> whilst i may be a bit ott against the farming community...you dont seem to think they can do any wrong...imo..lots of farmers view animals lives...as far less important than i do.hence shooting 2 dogs dead.


They are the farmers life and property no one has a right to damage it.

Just as much as no one has a right to hurt my dog!!!!!!! But if my dog is harrasing an animal that is protected by law that's my responsibly for the outcome!!!!!!!

Simple


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> no your right...blowing them both to bits was the only answer!


what is yours though


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> dont disagree with anything your saying.........if said moron dog owner let their dog run in the road in front of me...id still swerve to avoid it.....even though its not my fault..nd could cause me more harm to avoid t!


You're example is not of the same scale


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> whilst i may be a bit ott against the farming community...you dont seem to think they can do any wrong...imo..lots of farmers view animals lives...as far less important than i do.hence shooting 2 dogs dead.


Why are the lives of cattle and unborn calves less important than of pet dogs. maybe he should have chased and poked the dogs until they died of terror?


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> Why are the lives of cattle and unborn calves less important than of pet dogs. maybe he should have chased and poked the dogs until they died of terror?


there is noevidenc to suggest the dogs done any harm...so it wasnt a them or us situation!


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Zoej82 said:


> You're example is not of the same scale


it is......im a taxi driver...therefor would incurr financial costs to my busness,or kill the dog....its the same!


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

albert 1970 said:


> there is noevidenc to suggest the dogs done any harm...so it wasnt a them or us situation!


But it might have been next time


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> there is noevidenc to suggest the dogs done any harm...so it wasnt a them or us situation!


these same dogs had harrased and worried his cattle on previous occasions and caused 2 of his cattle to abort....


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> Why are the lives of cattle and unborn calves less important than of pet dogs. maybe he should have chased and poked the dogs until they died of terror?


Very well said


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> there is noevidenc to suggest the dogs done any harm...so it wasnt a them or us situation!


The owners were not even with the dogs so cannot know how much harm was done. Had the herd stampeded & trampled the dogs to death they would no doubt have had as much to say about that. Whatever the outcome the owners are 100% to blame, dogs should not have been offlead around the livestock


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

suewhite said:


> But it might have been next time


maybe...we will never know...i think saving 2 dogs lives is worth the risk!


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> The owners were not even with the dogs so cannot know how much harm was done. Had the herd stampeded & trampled the dogs to death they would no doubt have had as much to say about that. Whatever the outcome the owners are 100% to blame, dogs should not have been offlead around the livestock


i agree!......


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> i agree!......


 Good :thumbup:

Perhaps it is a lesson to everyone who walks dogs on farm land - it is your responsibility to keep both your dog and any livestock safe by keeping your pet on lead. If you do not a farmer does not need to give you a second chance (or how ever many in this case) he can shoot your dog. It does not need to have physically attacked, you may consider it just "playing" the famer probably will not so do not risk it if you value your pet.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Good :thumbup:
> 
> Perhaps it is a lesson to everyone who walks dogs on farm land - it is your responsibility to keep both your dog and any livestock safe by keeping your pet on lead. If you do not a farmer does not need to give you a second chance (or how ever many in this case) he can shoot your dog. It does not need to have physically attacked, you may consider it just "playing" the famer probably will not so do not risk it if you value your pet.


dont disagree with anything you say......other than thinking its ok for the farmer to kill the dogs.


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> it is......im a taxi driver...therefor would incurr financial costs to my busness,or kill the dog....its the same!


You're insured. And a car is hardly an animal.

I would do everything I could to avoid hitting a dog. I even slow down for pigeons.!!!

But as stated. Not the same scale.

Your taxi would not be terrified of a dog

And I can garantuee there is no one here who would put their their dog willingly into tht position.

But again it's a consequence that may happen due to the owners mistake


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> dont disagree with anything you say......other than thinking its ok for the farmer to kill the dogs.


You're not going to get off your merry go round !!!!

Many many people have given you reasons why the law exists.

Yes it's awful no one denies that


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Zoej82 said:


> You're insured. And a car is hardly an animal.
> 
> I would do everything I could to avoid hitting a dog. I even slow down for pigeons.!!!
> 
> ...


its exactly the same....end result...financial loss for my bussness...same as the farmer!


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Zoej82 said:


> You're not going to get off your merry go round !!!!
> 
> Many many people have given you reasons why the law exists.
> 
> Yes it's awful no one denies that


i know....i dont agree with it...ok....is my opinion.


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> its exactly the same....end result...financial loss for my bussness...same as the farmer!


Will your car loose it's unborn ....... Or suffer Pain or fear .........NO


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Some time ago I remember seeing a film clip of pet dogs chasing round a field of sheep & the carnage they caused. Wish someone could find it for Albert to watch so as he knows its a bit more unpleasant than a dented wing on your car


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Some time ago I remember seeing a film clip of pet dogs chasing round a field of sheep & the carnage they caused. Wish someone could find it for Albert to watch so as he knows its a bit more unpleasant than a dented wing on your car


im talking from the farmers perspective..not the cattle!im talking fiancial loss,which keps being brought up .


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Off subject for a mo! we have managed to have a good debate without getting personal Alberts held is own even if we dont agree well done guys:thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

suewhite said:


> Off subject for a mo! we have managed to have a good debate without getting personal Alberts held is own even if we dont agree well done guys:thumbup:


woooop!!!!......im a good boy!!!!:thumbup:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

albert 1970 said:


> i have no idea how thigs work on a farm...and i dont really care...what i care about is animals well being....what i do know is most farmers dont give a toss about animals...just the £ they can make out of them.....tally ho!


*And what about cows that are pregnant,as 2 of this farmers were?What about their well being?*


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> im talking from the farmers perspective..not the cattle!im talking fiancial loss,which keps being brought up .


I just don't have any comprehension of how you can compare an animal to a car!!!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *And what about cows that are pregnant,as 2 of this farmers were?What about their well being?*


i do care about them....i think there was a better way of dealing with it,than blowing 2 dogs to bits...thats all


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

suewhite said:


> Off subject for a mo! we have managed to have a good debate without getting personal Alberts held is own even if we dont agree well done guys:thumbup:


sorry to disagree i disagree


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I would say that, when I applied for mine, the FAO came round and quizzed me for an hour about what I'd be using it for, who I'd be shooting with etc etc. I think it differs in each county. Guys I shoot with say that that the further west you travel the easier it is to get one.


Not having a specific reason or place to use one isn't a reason for refusal. All you have to tel them is you want to take part in shooting sports. Totally different to a firearms certificate


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Zoej82 said:


> I just don't have any comprehension of how you can compare an animal to a car!!!!


please read what im saying......the financial burden to the farmer has been brought up...im just comparing my bussness..thats all .


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

Elzz said:


> sorry to disagree i disagree





albert 1970 said:


> i do care about them....i think there was a better way of dealing with it,than blowing 2 dogs to bits...thats all


As a dog and animal lover so do BUT I very much agree that farmers need to protect their livestock.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Elzz said:


> sorry to disagree i disagree


Thats OK you can disagree what I meant was often threads get closed when people feel strongly about a subject


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Zoej82 said:


> As a dog and animal lover so do BUT I very much agree that farmers need to protect their livestock.


i do too.....but im sure theres better ways.thats my point.


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

albert 1970 said:


> i do too.....but im sure theres better ways.thats my point.


Give us some examples of better ways


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

hawksport said:


> Give us some examples of better ways


i have...firing blanks in the air...also he shot from 40 yds...are we really saying this was the only way!


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> please read what im saying......the financial burden to the farmer has been brought up...im just comparing my bussness..thats all .


It's not comparable. Not when a living animal is involved.

Yes the farmers care about the money. But these are animals not objects

Your letting your judgement about the financial side of things to a farmer rule what you are saying.

I am a vegetarian and disagree with farming BUT that is my opinion and I admit it is flawed.!!! I eat chocolate and cheese and other dairy products.

To admit when one has a a flaw can open you up to looking at the the other side


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

albert 1970 said:


> i have...firing blanks in the air...also he shot from 40 yds...are we really saying this was the only way!


OK so you fire blanks in the air and that scares them away. What are you going to do next time their owners let them out and you are 5 miles away ploughing field over yonder or at market or asleep or anywhere else?


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

hawksport said:


> OK so you fire blanks in the air and that scares them away. What are you going to do next time their owners let them out and you are 5 miles away ploughing field over yonder or at market or asleep or anywhere else?


i woul be having strong words with the owners when they showed up..to prevent it!


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Albert I walk my dogs through fields with people shooting guns it doesn't effect them at all they certainly aren't scared


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

albert 1970 said:


> i woul be having strong words with the owners when they showed up..to prevent it!


So after you had scared them away by firing blanks in the air you would run after them untill they went home?


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

albert 1970 said:


> i woul be having strong words with the owners when they showed up..to prevent it!


But according to the farmer he'd already done this and they still were not controlling their dogs - so then what?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

albert 1970 said:


> i have no idea how thigs work on a farm...and i dont really care...what i care about is animals well being....what i do know is most farmers dont give a toss about animals...just the £ they can make out of them.....tally ho!





DoodlesRule said:


> You don't know any farmers, you don't know or care how things work on a farm but do know farmers don't give a toss about animals - you are being silly now





albert 1970 said:


> i knw how ive seen animals treatd at cattle markets....i know farmers shoot animals......i know their primary thing is making money!......when the mad cow thing happened...how many farmers were bothered about the animals...none i saw interviewed.....just the money!





albert 1970 said:


> it is......im a taxi driver...therefor would incurr financial costs to my busness,or kill the dog....its the same!


ah a taxi driver - I think that says it all. And a taxi driver with time to sit on a forum talking drivel all day.

Can this get closed before someone says something they might regret. As a farmer I find a lot of what this idiot is saying is very offensive.


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

albert 1970 said:


> i have...firing blanks in the air...also he shot from 40 yds...are we really saying this was the only way!


Who knows!!!!!!

There may be better ways.... But the simple crux of the argument is that farmers need to be able to protect their livestock against other ANIMALS

Sady.... Very sadly this time it was dogs.


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

Blitz said:


> ah a taxi driver - I think that says it all. And a taxi driver with time to sit on a forum talking drivel all day.
> 
> Can this get closed before someone says something they might regret. As a farmer I find a lot of what this idiot is saying is very offensive.


Agreed.

If you do't have the knowledge at least admit when you need to re think


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Of course what's also really sad here is the lives of those dogs. 

They were both quite young and at least one of them came from a rescue. So they were dumped by previous owners, taken to a rescue kennels then placed with people who were irresponsible and negligent and didn't supervise them properly. So much so, that they end up dead in a farmer's field, reportedly having chased his livestock. 

As it has been reported by the farmer that their other dogs had also previously chased his livestock, I wonder if anything has been done to ensure the other dogs' safety?

I don't know that I'd trust the owners to be any more careful with their other two, as they do seem to think they've done nothing wrong letting their dogs run unsupervised and out of sight in a field of livestock.


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

Elles said:


> Of course what's also really sad here is the lives of those dogs.
> 
> They were both quite young and at least one of them came from a rescue. So they were dumped by previous owners, taken to a rescue kennels then placed with people who were irresponsible and negligent and didn't supervise them properly. So much so, that they end up dead in a farmer's field, reportedly having chased his livestock.
> 
> ...


Would bet they still have the dog ..... !!

It's the damage cattle can do to the animal too!!!!

Poor judgement would hope they and other people have learnt from it

And cattle and dogs saved

Even if it this thread makes one person change their ways it has been worthwhile.

Their are some people even a tank to the head wouldn't make them rethink


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> ah a taxi driver - I think that says it all.


Says it all what?? Now come on, that is uncalled for. 



> Can this get closed before someone says something they might regret.


Hopefully you just did Blitz. There has been a lot of support for the farmer in this thread.


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

Elles said:


> Says it all what?? Now come on, that is uncalled for.
> 
> Hopefully you just did Blitz. There has been a lot of support for the farmer in this thread.


Certain people have a habit on this forum of being Prickly and coming across as trying to be antagonistic.


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

Personally I think this is one if the best threads I've read in a while

If keeping it open means saving animals lives for a few people hurt feeling then so be it. I'm all for saving the animals lives

I'm all for education and making people think...... Responsibility

That's what this all comes down to


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

I just wonder what everyone who disagrees would have the farmer do - should he patrol the fields 24/7 with a water pistol and a can of pebbles to shake at roaming dogs?

I just re-read one of the news articles and had not spotted before that the male owner used to be a farmer! He really should have known better then and makes him doubly irresponsible


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Blitz said:


> ah a taxi driver - I think that says it all. And a taxi driver with time to sit on a forum talking drivel all day.
> 
> Can this get closed before someone says something they might regret. As a farmer I find a lot of what this idiot is saying is very offensive.


thats out of order, he hasnt said anything about anyone in person yet you find the need too, and who are you too suggest anything about why he is at home right now?? do you know why?? no then you shouldnt comment on such things..
whats wrong with cab drivers, are they not as valued as you then ??

and can i say your the first person to bring this thread down to personal attacks


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

So it's ok for one member to make sweeping generalisations about how farmers are uncaring and only care about the finances, but it's not ok for a member who happens to be a farmer to allude to some reason why that stance makes sense coming from a taxi driver?

Six of one and half a dozen of the other, if you post an opinion on a set of people based on nothing but what you think personally, then you have to be prepared to receive the same sort of opinion back.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So it's ok for one member to make sweeping generalisations about how farmers are uncaring and only care about the finances, but it's not ok for a member who happens to be a farmer to allude to some reason why that stance makes sense coming from a taxi driver?
> 
> Six of one and half a dozen of the other, if you post an opinion on a set of people based on nothing but what you think personally, then you have to be prepared to receive the same sort of opinion back.


i dont think he has made a personal attack on anyone, yes his opinion is way off the mark IMO but too say a taxi driver says it all?? thats a rude thing to say and one with too much time on their hands, i didnt realise said person had a crystal ball too know why he was home with time on his hands right now... talk about sweeping generalisation as you said


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

As my grandfather always said ( god rest his soul) Farmers and Soldiers are only cared about in times of war.

God help us if we are ever in a siege type situation like WW2. We are so far from self sufficient now.


----------



## Zoej82 (Apr 19, 2011)

Exactly if are challenging people's opinions be prepared to hear and listen to what people have to say. Good or bad


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> As my grandfather always said ( god rest his soul) Farmers and Soldiers are only cared about in times of war.
> 
> God help us if we are ever in a siege type situation like WW2. We are so far from self sufficient now.


If all the transport stopped right now and nothing could get into Britain. We have about 4/5 days worth of food to feed the country. Think of the times recently when panic buying has taken place and think about what would happen if those shelves didn't get re-stocked. I know its off subject, but a valid point that you make.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elzz said:


> i dont think he has made a personal attack on anyone, yes his opinion is way off the mark IMO but too say a taxi driver says it all?? thats a rude thing to say and one with too much time on their hands, i didnt realise said person had a crystal ball too know why he was home with time on his hands right now... talk about sweeping generalisation as you said


You're right, they're both unfair statements, so why is one worse than the other? I haven't seen anything personal at all, just an assumption based on a career, which is what said taxi driver posted about farmers, an assumption based on their career.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You're right, they're both unfair statements, so why is one worse than the other? I haven't seen anything personal at all, just an assumption based on a career, which is what said taxi driver posted about farmers, an assumption based on their career.


well i think it was more of a personal attack myself... but thats my opinion especially the too much time on their hands... it did seem to attack an individual not a group of people... but this is my opinion..


----------



## beris (Aug 30, 2010)

Originally Posted by beris 
Speaking from experience. If you had seen the devastation two dogs can do in a field of sheep, I think you might have a different view. Dogs don't always kill sheep they leave them half dead. Sheep can have a heart attack being chased by a dog. You can warn some people but they don't listen.


albert 1970 said:


> dont sheep farmers use dogs themselves?:confused1:


I can't believe you wrote this. A dog owner not knowing the difference between farm dogs and pet dogs. Unbelievable.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elzz said:


> well i think it was more of a personal attack myself... but thats my opinion especially the too much time on their hands... it did seem to attack an individual not a group of people... but this is my opinion..


I think it's pretty unfair to say farmers don't care about animals at all, that's quite a personal accusation (how would you feel if that were posted about your role/job sector), and all the other stuff posted about them, particularly as they openly admit to knowing b*gga all about farming, or farmers, and I know I'd feel pretty peeved if I were a farmer at someone having that attitude about *me*. I've already been peeved by one thread today that makes assumptions about people, well, two actually, but I just can't be bothered to bring myself to respond, I've got a thick skin


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

"Do I buy Country Life butter to support our hardworking British Farmers?" "No, it's their career choice." 

Sorry, SL, your post just reminded me of the ad.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think it's pretty unfair to say farmers don't care about animals at all, that's quite a personal accusation (how would you feel if that were posted about your role/job sector), and all the other stuff posted about them, particularly as they openly admit to knowing b*gga all about farming, or farmers, and I know I'd feel pretty peeved if I were a farmer at someone having that attitude about *me*. I've already been peeved by one thread today that makes assumptions about people, well, two actually, but I just can't be bothered to bring myself to respond, I've got a thick skin


Don't let it get to you SL. Anyone can be a taxi driver, not everyone can be a farmer.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Elles said:


> "Do I buy Country Life butter to support our hardworking British Farmers?" "No, it's their career choice."
> 
> Sorry, SL, your post just reminded me of the ad.


That does make me laugh every time I see it


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think it's pretty unfair to say farmers don't care about animals at all, that's quite a personal accusation (how would you feel if that were posted about your role/job sector), and all the other stuff posted about them, particularly as they openly admit to knowing b*gga all about farming, or farmers, and I know I'd feel pretty peeved if I were a farmer at someone having that attitude about *me*. I've already been peeved by one thread today that makes assumptions about people, well, two actually, but I just can't be bothered to bring myself to respond, I've got a thick skin


i have never said such thing EVER i come from a family of farmers im the first one who isnt i have supported said farmer all the way through this thread


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

and i know you were on about what the other person said but if your going to say something like that dont quote me in it please


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Anyone can be a taxi driver, not everyone can be a farmer


Anyone with a clean driving licence who passes the tests.  Anyone can be a farmworker. Even I've done my stint with brussel sprouts, turnips and carrots, working part-time for a local farm.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elzz said:


> i have never said such thing EVER i come from a family of farmers im the first one who isnt i have supported said farmer all the way through this thread


I know you have, and I'm not saying you would say anything, just asking how you would feel if someone posted saying *you* and included you in a bunch of people, are uncaring about your dogs/animals? I feel that could be taken as a personal statement, it's not a nice thing to say, particularly if the person saying it openly admits that they know nothing about *you*.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I know you have, and I'm not saying you would say anything, just asking how you would feel if someone posted saying *you* and included you in a bunch of people, are uncaring about your dogs/animals? I feel that could be taken as a personal statement, it's not a nice thing to say, particularly if the person saying it openly admits that they know nothing about *you*.


i understand what your saying as i did to said poster too and felt this thread was going way off topic on most things so i stated my opinion and left it there... i didnt feel hurt by his opinions i felt more, that he had lack of knowledge in this department and would rather try and tell him the who where hows and whys ... thats all


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Elles said:


> Anyone with a clean driving licence who passes the tests.  Anyone can be a farmworker. Even I've done my stint with brussel sprouts, turnips and carrots, working part-time for a local farm.


not the same though is it dear  no responsibilty really.


----------



## Kivasmum (Aug 4, 2011)

Wow who would of thought a thread I started while being bored and listening to the radio at work would be so popular  ha ha 

I don't think the farmer was in the wrong, I don't think the dogs were in the wrong. The person i would hold responsible...........the dog owner. The dogs were his responsibility just as the livestock was the farmers. I am pretty sure I would have no problem shooting a cow if it came into my garden and threatened the life of my dog, its just a shame that the 2 dogs were the ones that paid the price


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Kivasmum said:


> Wow who would of thought a thread I started while being bored and listening to the radio at work would be so popular  ha ha
> 
> I don't think the farmer was in the wrong, I don't think the dogs were in the wrong. The person i would hold responsible...........the dog owner. The dogs were his responsibility just as the livestock was the farmers. I am pretty sure I would have no problem shooting a cow if it came into my garden and threatened the life of my dog, its just a shame that the 2 dogs were the ones that paid the price


i think everyone agrees that the owners are at fault


----------



## Kivasmum (Aug 4, 2011)

Ps my dad is a taxi driver so I'm not even getting into that conversation :nono: :nono: ha ha


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Kivasmum said:


> Wow who would of thought a thread I started while being bored and listening to the radio at work would be so popular  ha ha
> 
> I don't think the farmer was in the wrong, I don't think the dogs were in the wrong. The person i would hold responsible...........the dog owner. The dogs were his responsibility just as the livestock was the farmers. I am pretty sure I would have no problem shooting a cow if it came into my garden and threatened the life of my dog, its just a shame that the 2 dogs were the ones that paid the price


 I personally don't think I could shoot anything but agree with everything else you say 

Does remind me of cottage I lived in number of years ago, had only just moved in and had to ring my Dad asking him to please come quick because there was half a dozen cows in my garden, wasn't a big garden either! He came bless him & moved them on and built me a wall (not instantly obviously)


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> not the same though is it dear no responsibilty really.


True. A self-employed taxi driver would be more on a par with a farmer than a farm worker if you were talking about responsibility.  They'd probably be more responsible, driving in traffic and taking people's kids to schools, or perhaps an elderly person to hospital.


----------



## Kivasmum (Aug 4, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> I personally don't think I could shoot anything but agree with everything else you say


Well I don't have a gun so i couldn't really ha ha but I know what you mean if it came down to it I'm not sure I could either.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Elles said:


> True. A self-employed taxi driver would be more on a par with a farmer than a farm worker if you were talking about responsibility.  They'd probably be more responsible, driving in traffic and taking people's kids to schools, or perhaps an elderly person to hospital.


you really need to get out more. It doesn't even begin to compare. The paperwork alone is a hard work.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> you really need to get out more.


Can't...

Too much paperwork to do.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

Although I now live in the Country I am a Townie really - and London I am from.

Love where I am -the fresh air - the smells, the peace and the lovely walks on my door step and so on.

Now I am aware that it has been established that the owner of the dogs was at fault here.

The farmer did what he had to do to protect his livestock.

However, what I cannot understand is the 'my job is better than your job!'.

I have never been a taxi driver -and don't suppose I ever will be - would get fed up with the 'have you been busy' and 'what time do you finish' questions...

I also have never been a Farmer.


I do know taxi drivers - them that drive the black taxis you see in London...and they have had to do the 'knowledge' and pass! Now I urge anyone to google the 'knowledge' and then to tell me that is easy! Cos it aint!


And farmers well we have a lot to be thank ful for!


So come one lets not be one ups!


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

gorgeous said:


> Although I now live in the Country I am a Townie really - and London I am from.
> 
> Love where I am -the fresh air - the smells, the peace and the lovely walks on my door step and so on.
> 
> ...


the knowledge takes anything from 3 years upwards!:thumbup:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Many of us have difficult and demanding jobs but I tend to stop short of shooting anyone or anything that may cause me to lose money, livelihood or reputation... maybe I'm just too reserved about things.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Many of us have difficult and demanding jobs but I tend to stop short of shooting anyone or anything that may cause me to lose money, livelihood or reputation... maybe I'm just too reserved about things.


I don't think it has anything to do with being reserved but more about protection - not just livelihood or potential income but of an animals welfare.

Tbh if I thought any of my pets lives were in real danger then I would do the same if there were no other options


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Many of us have difficult and demanding jobs but I tend to stop short of shooting anyone or anything that may cause me to lose money, livelihood or reputation... maybe I'm just too reserved about things.


I'm just trying to understand so please do not take offence... What if it was a fox chasing and worrying sheep .. sheep dying of fright or aborting lambs, would you think it was ok for the farmer to shoot the fox?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

moonviolet said:


> I'm just trying to understand so please do not take offence... What if it was a fox chasing and worrying sheep .. sheep dying of fright or aborting lambs, would you think it was ok for the farmer to shoot the fox?


As opposed to people on horse back and half starved baying hounds tearing it apart?.... I suppose it's relative.

I would not shoot anyone or anything to protect my livelihood, which is what this chap was doing. The operative part, in the instant case, of the word livestock is "stock".


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> As opposed to people on horse back and half starved baying hounds tearing it apart?.... I suppose it's relative.
> 
> I would not shoot anyone or anything to protect my livelihood, which is what this chap was doing. The operative part, in the instant case, of the word livestock is "stock".


Are you posing that perspective as an accurate and general view of fox hounds, or is this something that's sprung from your imagination?


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> As opposed to people on horse back and half starved baying hounds tearing it apart?.... I suppose it's relative.
> 
> I would not shoot anyone or anything to protect my livelihood, which is what this chap was doing. The operative part, in the instant case, of the word livestock is "stock".


so is it ok for cows or sheep to be terrorised mauled and injured? do they not have welfare rights?

are you making assumptions about my views on fox hunting?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

moonviolet said:


> so is it ok for cows or sheep to be terrorised mauled and injured? do they not have welfare rights?
> 
> are you making assumptions about my views on fox hunting?


Nope... but you seem to be assuming you know my views of animal welfare.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ask yourself the age old "self defence " question. Reasonable force.... was it? (taking into account all the circumstances etc etc)


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Nope... but you seem to be assuming you know my views of animal welfare.


nope that is in the form of a question, as i am interested in your answer i'm trying to understand your views.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

moonviolet said:


> nope that is in the form of a question, as i am interested in your answer i'm trying to understand your views.


Occupational hazard.

If animals were "being mauled", but they weren't so the point isn't relevant.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Many of us have difficult and demanding jobs but I tend to stop short of shooting anyone or anything that may cause me to lose money, livelihood or reputation... maybe I'm just too reserved about things.


As someone has already stated - it's more about the suffering that dogs can cause to sheep when they "worry" them.

Dog owners might find their opinion changing if they found an lamb that they had bottle fed through the nights, lying in a field with horrible wounds, or a young ewe lying dead after "just" being chased round the field on a hot day, or found their much loved ram, who came over several times a day for a head rub, dead from wounds inflicted by dogs. Believe me - it affects the way you feel and at times even I could pick up a gun and shoot the dogs doing this to my animals


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Occupational hazard.
> 
> If animals were "being mauled", but they weren't so the point isn't relevant.


Sheep don't need to be "mauled" to be killed by dogs ...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> As someone has already stated - it's more about the suffering that dogs can cause to sheep when they "worry" them.
> 
> Dog owners might find their opinion changing if they found an lamb that they had bottle fed through the nights, lying in a field with horrible wounds, or a young ewe lying dead after "just" being chased round the field on a hot day, or found their much loved ram, who came over several times a day for a head rub, dead from wounds inflicted by dogs. Believe me - it affects the way you feel and at times even I could pick up a gun and shoot the dogs doing this to my animals


But that isn't the case here. You could ask the question "someone broke into my house, so I killed them" - Is that right? No it's murder.

"But how would you feel if they broke in an attacked your children and wife?" But they didn't, so it isn't relevant.

We can't just add in evidence that doesn't exist to justify the position.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> Sheep don't need to be "mauled" to be killed by dogs ...


I was quoting the previous poster who asked what I would do if the animals were being mauled which, in this case, they were not.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But that isn't the case here. You could ask the question "someone broke into my house, so I killed them" - Is that right? No it's murder.
> 
> "But how would you feel if they broke in an attacked your children and wife?" But they didn't, so it isn't relevant.
> 
> We can't just add in evidence that doesn't exist to justify the position.


Actually, I believe we can. From what the articles say, these dogs have previously run off, and terrorised the stock, and this is no new occurance. So, when the farmer yet again, saw the same dogs worrying his livestock he took action. Unbeknowing to him, the largest range of numpty types were ready to judge him for doing something that is normal, in everday life.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Actually, I believe we can. From what the articles say, these dogs have previously run off, and terrorised the stock, and this is no new occurance. So, when the farmer yet again, saw the same dogs worrying his livestock he took action. Unbeknowing to him, the largest range of numpty types were ready to judge him for doing something that is normal, in everday life.


So you would use the argument "the man had broken into my house twice before so on the third occasion I shot him and this was justified". 18 years of free food


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So you would use the argument "the man had broken into my house twice before so on the third occasion I shot him and this was justified". 18 years of free food


Would you?


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

If anyone is interested; this is the radio programme that the farmer and the owner of the dogs were interviewed on.

BBC - BBC Radio 2 Programmes - Jeremy Vine, 21/10/2011

The interview is about 1hr 40 mins in and it makes for interesting listening.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But that isn't the case here. You could ask the question "someone broke into my house, so I killed them" - Is that right? No it's murder.
> 
> "But how would you feel if they broke in an attacked your children and wife?" But they didn't, so it isn't relevant.
> 
> We can't just add in evidence that doesn't exist to justify the position.


But it IS the case here - you are the one bringing up irrelevant analogies.

These dogs that the OP refers to had already caused damage to the farmer's stock and had caused cows to abort. The dogs had already caused pain and suffering and were off lead in the same farmer's field. Having very recently stood in a field and sobbed my heart out for my lovely ram, killed by a dog - I understand how someone could shoot a dog. And I wasn't sobbing for the financial loss! I have lost 3 animals due to selfish, stupid dog owners. It's their fault.

My neighbours have started fencing in their footpaths - in all likelihood we'll end up doing the same thing ...


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> As opposed to people on horse back and half starved baying hounds tearing it apart?.... I suppose it's relative.
> 
> I would not shoot anyone or anything to protect my livelihood, which is what this chap was doing. The operative part, in the instant case, of the word livestock is "stock".


I don't think I've ever seen a half starved dog fit enough to run all day


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> But it IS the case here - you are the one bringing up irrelevant analogies.
> 
> These dogs that the OP refers to had already caused damage to the farmer's stock and had caused cows to abort.


None of this is in the court report. Simply says the farmer saw them in the field and shooed them away. Went to have his dinner, came back and they were back running around in the field "worrying" his sheep (although he gives no clear description) so he shot them.

He says he'd warned the family before but I can't find any mention of the stuff you mention,,,, maybe you could point me to the document.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

There is a bigger issue here though. Okay these dogs have been shot and killed and i think the consensus is that the owners acted irresponsibly. 
Unruly dogs and irresponsible owners are unfortunately and everyday occurence. If it's not your own dog being attacked, it is someone elses. (read threads on PF for confirmation) uncontrollalbe dogs are everywhere and it is not just livestock that is at risk, it is children, adults, wildlife and peoples property. 
So were does it all end? Every dog on a lead everywhere unless they have permission from the landowner. Is this why councils are now putting more and more restricitons on dogs and dog owners, because they are getting fed up with the irresponsible. I said earlier, I have put signs up recently in woodland, for all dogs to be on leads, because of complaints from families, frightened by what they percieive as uncontrollabe dogs. Is this why councils have put up fences around toddler playgrounds? 
I for one am out in the countryside all day long, not just for an hour or two. I see what goes on with dog owners and have had to speak to a few in the past. 
Don't think that they they are all animal loving angels. They are not!! They let there dogs do anything, they let them s**t everywhere, some of them don't even know where the dog is, the dogs chase deer, and anything else the owner thinks is fair game. and yet when their dog gets in trouble they are the first to ask for help. And TBH, I am sometimes quite flabbergasted at how ignorant they are. 
Whilst this sort of person exists, there will be attacks on children, attacks on dogs and wildlife and attacks on livestock. However in the case of attacks on livestock there is some re-course and that is the gun. And long may that continue IMO. 
However it is incidents like this that get publicised, and that publicity has an influence on, the powers that be, to influence the changing of laws. So I can see a time when all dogs and dog owners have their freedom limited. And when that time comes, it is going to be a sad day indeed. 
Just train the bloody dog for chrissakes. It's hard work, satisfying and you will get satisfaction from it.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

hawksport said:


> I don't think I've ever seen a half starved dog fit enough to run all day


It's called adrenaline


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> None of this is in the court report. Simply says the farmer saw them in the field and shooed them away. Went to have his dinner, came back and they were back running around in the field "worrying" his sheep (although he gives no clear description) so he shot them.
> 
> He says he'd warned the family before but I can't find any mention of the stuff you mention,,,, maybe you could point me to the document.


According to the news report, the farmer themselves, and the people whose dogs they were, they were charolais cattle, pretty big sheep


----------



## beris (Aug 30, 2010)

grandad said:


> There is a bigger issue here though. Okay these dogs have been shot and killed and i think the consensus is that the owners acted irresponsibly.
> Unruly dogs and irresponsible owners are unfortunately and everyday occurence. If it's not your own dog being attacked, it is someone elses. (read threads on PF for confirmation) uncontrollalbe dogs are everywhere and it is not just livestock that is at risk, it is children, adults, wildlife and peoples property.
> So were does it all end? Every dog on a lead everywhere unless they have permission from the landowner. Is this why councils are now putting more and more restricitons on dogs and dog owners, because they are getting fed up with the irresponsible. I said earlier, I have put signs up recently in woodland, for all dogs to be on leads, because of complaints from families, frightened by what they percieive as uncontrollabe dogs. Is this why councils have put up fences around toddler playgrounds?
> I for one am out in the countryside all day long, not just for an hour or two. I see what goes on with dog owners and have had to speak to a few in the past.
> ...


Completely agree. After reading some of the posts on PF I hope these people read and learn.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I would like to apologise to other posters for what some thought they read into my post that brought up taxi drivers
. I can assure you I have nothing against most taxi drivers and I know a lot socially and it was childish of me to retaliate against someone in this way. 
I would like to point out though that the person in question sent me a very silly and rude pm in reply and I am starting to doubt if he is in fact an adult (and that is not rude or derogatory but it is so common for people on the internet to change their persona that it did cross my mind if he was in fact a teenager).
Incidentally if someone went on and on like he did in real life I would probably eventually crack and retaliate in the same way!

This thread is continuing to be a real eye opener to me -and it is very interesting that the only two posters who seem to really think the farmer was wrong are male (am I right that Elmo is male?).
Apart from these there has been so much common sense posted and I wish the owners of the poor dead dogs could read it.

Now I will await the flack


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I would like to apologise to other posters for what some thought they read into my post that brought up taxi drivers
> . I can assure you I have nothing against most taxi drivers and I know a lot socially and it was childish of me to retaliate against someone in this way.
> I would like to point out though that the person in question sent me a very silly and rude pm in reply and I am starting to doubt if he is in fact an adult (and that is not rude or derogatory but it is so common for people on the internet to change their persona that it did cross my mind if he was in fact a teenager).
> Incidentally if someone went on and on like he did in real life I would probably eventually crack and retaliate in the same way!
> ...


perhaps a look in the mirror would be an idea for you....the childish insults were started by you....most were having an adult debate...which you clearly couldnt handle....i shouldnt react...im annoyed with myself that i did.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

grandad said:


> There is a bigger issue here though. Okay these dogs have been shot and killed and i think the consensus is that the owners acted irresponsibly.
> Unruly dogs and irresponsible owners are unfortunately and everyday occurence. If it's not your own dog being attacked, it is someone elses. (read threads on PF for confirmation) uncontrollalbe dogs are everywhere and it is not just livestock that is at risk, it is children, adults, wildlife and peoples property.
> So were does it all end? Every dog on a lead everywhere unless they have permission from the landowner. Is this why councils are now putting more and more restricitons on dogs and dog owners, because they are getting fed up with the irresponsible. I said earlier, I have put signs up recently in woodland, for all dogs to be on leads, because of complaints from families, frightened by what they percieive as uncontrollabe dogs. Is this why councils have put up fences around toddler playgrounds?
> I for one am out in the countryside all day long, not just for an hour or two. I see what goes on with dog owners and have had to speak to a few in the past.
> ...


I think it's already been said on here (but it's a lot of reading to remember!) that that people seem terribly keen on their rights, without acknowledging their responsibilities. I can see a day when all farmers will fence off every path through their land, to protect themselves and the ignorant public - it will ruin my walks when it happens.
I'm a townie transplanted into sheep country by the way - all the farmers I know love dogs, they all have working dogs. If they had to shoot one it would be with a heavy heart, but they would do what was necessary to protect their stock. If it happened to one of my dogs I would only have myself to blame.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Elmo I think you're looking a different news report to the one we are. There isn't a court report, or sheep. The incident we're discussing happened last week and involved cattle.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

myshkin said:


> I think it's already been said on here (but it's a lot of reading to remember!) that that people seem terribly keen on their rights, without acknowledging their responsibilities. I can see a day when all farmers will fence off every path through their land, to protect themselves and the ignorant public - it will ruin my walks when it happens.
> I'm a townie transplanted into sheep country by the way - all the farmers I know love dogs, they all have working dogs. If they had to shoot one it would be with a heavy heart, but they would do what was necessary to protect their stock. If it happened to one of my dogs I would only have myself to blame.


I have, lets say (stewardship) of 1000 acres woodland and 750 acres of farmland. it's got public footpaths and bridal paths running through it. It also has permissive paths. Permisive paths are paths that the landowner gives "permission" for people to use. All of the paths are abused. By not just dog owners, but by equine people, mountain bikers, general public, and we even have scrambling bikes in there and we have flytipping in the field entranceways. It is PRIVATE land and apart from the paths, anything off the paths is basically trespassing. But how do you police it? and there in lie's the issue. 
Now we have had incidents when we needed to get police involvment. Even an assault on a woman by scramblers. Nothing was forthcoming and they are as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Now I can put signs up all day long, but they will either get removed or ignored. I have had to speak to people in the past that they are off footpath, to be told that I'm wrong and they are right, until physically shown the footpath, to downright abuse to lovely friendly chats with genuine nice people. So a myriad of issues and a myriad of issues to deal with. 
Would I shoot a dog for worrying livestock after giving the owners fair warning. the answer to that question is yes. As i would shoot, and have done any other pest that threatens the livelyhood. Would I call the police to complain about the dogs, probably not, because going on past reference they are not interested. If they ar enot interested in people trespassing, or vandalising the countryside, then they surely ain't gonna get of their arses for a dog. So the farmer has not really got a lot of options. Warn the owners, the owners don't take heed, the dogs get shot. End of issue for the farmer. Simple really. If suggestions came for a change in law, so that farmers had no rights to shoot dogs or other animal pests. I would fight it tooth and nail.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Trespass is of course a civil offence and thus the police would not be interested unless the trespassers committed a criminal offence whilst on private land.

I always think sweeping generalisations are unproductive as well as being untrue.

Statements such as the police are as much use a chocolate fireguard would thus mean that all police over the country in any situation are useless which is evidently (in the true sense of the word) untrue.

You may have poor personal experiences with them, but that is a different issue, clouded perhaps by your own individual circumstances etc.

With the exception of the above I fully concur with your post.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

grandad said:


> I have, lets say (stewardship) of 1000 acres woodland and 750 acres of farmland. it's got public footpaths and bridal paths running through it. It also has permissive paths. Permisive paths are paths that the landowner gives "permission" for people to use. All of the paths are abused. By not just dog owners, but by equine people, mountain bikers, general public, and we even have scrambling bikes in there and we have flytipping in the field entranceways. It is PRIVATE land and apart from the paths, anything off the paths is basically trespassing. But how do you police it? and there in lie's the issue.
> Now we have had incidents when we needed to get police involvment. Even an assault on a woman by scramblers. Nothing was forthcoming and they are as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Now I can put signs up all day long, but they will either get removed or ignored. I have had to speak to people in the past that they are off footpath, to be told that I'm wrong and they are right, until physically shown the footpath, to downright abuse to lovely friendly chats with genuine nice people. So a myriad of issues and a myriad of issues to deal with.
> Would I shoot a dog for worrying livestock after giving the owners fair warning. the answer to that question is yes. As i would shoot, and have done any other pest that threatens the livelyhood. Would I call the police to complain about the dogs, probably not, because going on past reference they are not interested. If they ar enot interested in people trespassing, or vandalising the countryside, then they surely ain't gonna get of their arses for a dog. So the farmer has not really got a lot of options. Warn the owners, the owners don't take heed, the dogs get shot. End of issue for the farmer. Simple really. If suggestions came for a change in law, so that farmers had no rights to shoot dogs or other animal pests. I would fight it tooth and nail.


It's an absolute shame - what I can never, ever work out, is why people go to an area to enjoy its beauty, then set about ruining it. 
There was nearly a woman assaulting a mountain biker in our woods last year - but he did come from behind at speed on a shared path and nearly took out my BC - he didn't stop to argue as I was ready for spilling blood!
I've said it on this forum before, the selfish people will ruin it for the rest of us, then we'll be good little citizens while they continue as before


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Just thought I'd list the type of crimes that get committed........... 

Telehandler (off road fork lift) stolen - 1 
tractor batteries stolen - 3 
partridge pen stolen - 1 
Water butt stolen - 1 
Bales of hay stolen - lost count 
Diesel syphoned off - 1 
flytipping - once a week on average
Stolen aluminium 5 bar gate - 1 
Vandalised kissing gate -1 
Cut wire fences - 4 
Vandalised post and rail fencing - 1 
Scrambling bikes off road - once a month on average 
Camping - I.e. trespassing - 5. Camping wouldn't be an issue, but they leave all their crap, from supermarket carrier bags to cans of beer, down to the needles they use. 
Trespassing in general. Some through ignorance, some through bloody mindedness 
This is just from memory and 1,750 acres of countryside is only a small part of the countryside.
i'm getting of topic here and so this is my last post on this subject.


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2011)

myshkin said:


> It's an absolute shame - what I can never, ever work out, is why people go to an area to enjoy its beauty, then set about ruining it.
> There was nearly a woman assaulting a mountain biker in our woods last year - but he did come from behind at speed on a shared path and nearly took out my BC - he didn't stop to argue as I was ready for spilling blood!
> I've said it on this forum before, the selfish people will ruin it for the rest of us, then we'll be good little citizens while they continue as before


same with most things...a few morons ruin it for the rest.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

One of the reasons a couple of farmers are happy for me to train my dogs on their land is that I am often their eyes and ears with regard to illegal and/or antisocial activity which I can alert them to as obviously they cannot "patrol" their land at all times (the often have to eat, sleep, buy/sell stock/product etc etc ) 

With the advent of mobile phones I have been able to contact them often whilst the activity is in progress as well as take photos of car registrations for the police re fly tipping.

I am sure that if the farmer went off to said individuals' houses and tried to tip the contents of cow byre into their gardens there would be an outcry! :aureola:


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

To be fair, farmers are human too and are not always sweetness and light. The other side of the farm to where I keep my horses is a bridlepath, our farmer will let his very large dogs run about loose by it and they will chase, bark at and harass cyclists and walkers. He also stands a stallion at stud that has an inheritable patella disorder. He has his own mares that he puts him to too. 

So although his dogs might not chase the livestock or the horses, he's just as guilty of loose, unsupervised dogs going where they shouldn't, as the dog walkers are.


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> It's called adrenaline


 A half starved dog can run all day on adrenaline 
That's is one of the dumbest things anyone has said on this thread. Anyone that trains either animals or people to the peak of physical fitness knows the first thing you have to do is get them on a good diet.


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

As an outsider, I think you in the UK are very fortunate to be able to cross private farmland freely to exercise your dogs. 

I feel that with this privilege comes a responsibility on the part of dog walkers to control their animals, keep them leashed or at least ensure that they do not worry livestock.

In this country, free-roaming dogs found on farms would be shot on sight without hesitation and without any legal recourse for the dog owner


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Channel 5 News now


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

HAving watched this, I am in even more agreement with the farmer who has made repeated attempts with these dogs, and the stupid owner who admits the dogs were out of sight yet claims they were only chasing rabbits.

Well unless she has X ray vision, that is obviously a guess, not a fact.

Too late for regrets now, she accused the farmer of being heartless she should have thought of what the potential effects of her irresponsible behaviour might lead to.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I've been reading a few stories of this happening & whilst I feel sorry for all involved I can't believe that in alot cases this isn't a one-off incident. 

The dogs in this case (it has been reported) had been worrying livestock since June - how can the owners really think this is acceptable? Even if they didn't care about the cattle surely for their dogs owne safety they wouldn't let them chase such large animals.

Tbh I feel more sorry for the farmer - what a horrible thing to have to do


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> I've been reading a few stories of this happening & whilst I feel sorry for all involved I can't believe that in alot cases this isn't a one-off incident.
> 
> The dogs in this case (it has been reported) had been worrying livestock since June - how can the owners really think this is acceptable? Even if they didn't care about the cattle surely for their dogs owne safety they wouldn't let them chase such large animals.
> 
> Tbh I feel more sorry for the farmer - what a horrible thing to have to do


i agree with you completely


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Owners now want it to be made illegal to shoot dogs on farmland

BBC News - Farmland dog shootings prompt call for change in law


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

people need to be very careful what they wish for..................

Farmers who were previously happy can decide to become obstructive.......

There are plenty of councils placing Dog Control Orders restricting dog owners being able to exercise their dogs off lead, dog owners may find that landowners may start putting up signs stating that dogs MUST be on the lead as they do in some places.

Then where will these people go?

As usual someone who wants others to pay for their own negligence.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

I wouldn't dare comment on a specific case because I don't feel as though I would ever know enough about it to judge.

What worries me is that I know of farmers who have shot at dogs simply for a one off accidental time of running out onto their (agricultural with no livestock present) land.

It also worries me the amount of people where I go to one walk in particular, it says dogs under close control at all times due to cattle in the meadow. So many are offlead through those fields and go harass the cows :nonod:

Roo is a chaser and not great offlead this kind of thing just turns my stomach and makes me even more careful for fear that he could get shot even if he isn't near livestock. There was a case local to me in the last 18 months where two dogs were shot on a public footpath running through land with no livestock, no idea what the outcome was but I know the farmer was being charged with causing unnecessary suffering.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

smokeybear said:


> people need to be very careful what they wish for..................
> 
> Farmers who were previously happy can decide to become obstructive.......
> 
> ...


That's why I decided to find out who the farmers/landowners were where I live just to double check that it was ok. There were no signs up aboput tresspassing but I still didn't assume it was ok for me to walk there


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> According to the news report, the farmer themselves, and the people whose dogs they were, they were charolais cattle, pretty big sheep


I must be looking at a different case then:

A family have been left devastated after a farmer who shot dead their puppy and wounded another has walked free from court.
Ex-Army marksman Terence John Blackburn, 73, shot and killed ten-month-old Dalmation Bandit, only yards away from her 14-year-old owner Sebastian Beckett, moments after opening fire on the dog's mother.
Scroll down for more...

Farmer Terence John Blackburn walked free from court after shooting at the Beckett family's two dogs and killing one
At the hearing at Bingley Magistrates, West Yorks., Emma Downing, prosecuting for the RSPCA, said Sebastian had lost sight of the dogs, after taking them on moorland at Denholme, near Bradford, and had returned home.
He had been out looking for them again with his younger brothers Todd and Toby, aged seven and six, when they heard the first shot.
Miss Downing said: "Sebastian walked up to higher ground and saw Blackburn firing a shotgun at the puppy, which was only yards from his feet."
A post-mortem examination revealed 90 pellets had entered the dog's body.
The boys' mother, Dot Hardaker, 38, said Dfor was hospitalised for two weeks, after more than 30 pellets were lodged in her body, but survived, although she is unable to eat properly now.
When interviewed by police, Blackburn admitted shooting the dogs on February 13, last year, but said they had been worrying his sheep for about two hours.
He denied two charges of animal cruelty.
Defending Blackburn, from Keighley, West Yorks., Robin Frieze said: "Mr Blackburn must have thought there was a problem with dogs on his land otherwise why would he walk nearly a mile through his fields with two hip replacements and a dodgy knee.
Scroll down for more...

Left to right: Sebastian Beckett (14), Toby Beckett (8), Dfor (4), Dot Hardaker and Todd Beckett (7)
"He felt at the time that it was a necessity as the dogs were presenting a real danger to his sheep."
The farmer, with 60 years experience, gave evidence saying: "I have shot three dogs before but it not something that a farmer wants to do. It is shocking, it's not our job to kill dogs, we keep livestock not kill it.
"I saw the dogs running through my field and scaring the sheep. I shouted at them and they bounded away.
"I went home for my dinner as I was feeling weak due to my diabetes but it wasn't ready so I decided to go back to the farm just to check the dogs had gone.
"I took my Winchester rejecter rifle and three cartridges just in case.
"The dogs were still in the field with no one with them, when I got back to the farm, scaring the sheep; I had no choice but to shoot them both.
"I shot them because they would come back for my sheep again. It's a dog's way, but no one is bothered about my sheep, just those dogs.
"When I saw the little lad walking up the field followed by two others, I couldn't believe it, I thought I can't shoot it in front of a child.
"I had to go because I was really weak by then, but I told the lads to get a vet for the other injured dog and I went home and my wife Myra rang the police."
Chairwoman of the magistrates Glynis Wilkinson said: "The defendant did genuinely and reasonably in all the circumstances believe that his sheep and unborn lambs were in sufficient imminent danger to justify shooting the two dogs. This case has not been proved."
Speaking after the verdict Sebastian's mother Dot Hardaker, said: "We are utterly gutted. This has given farmers a licence to kill. That man terrorises the area and it's not fair.
"I am so proud of my son for standing as a witness because he wanted to tell his side of what happened. He is very upset and saddened, he had come to tell the truth and that's what he did. I would like to thank the RSPCA for everything they have done though."
RSPCA officer Mandi Barr said: "We believe that there was not enough evidence to suggest that the sheep were worried or in danger in this instance.
"But this does not mean that were are opposed to farmers shooting dogs on their land as far as the law allows."


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Yes this is a different case than the one we (or at least most of us) have been discussing.

There were two dogs involved on a cattle farm. 

But thanks for the link, it demonstrates that there are plenty of irresponsible and negligent dog owners about.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I must be looking at a different case then


I think you are 

There's a couple of links now to the radio interview(s) and news articles


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

It was just on Five news. Whilst I do feel sorry for the owners (although they were irresponsible) I still can't comprehend that at no time during the interview did she express any regret that her dogs were chasing livestock :confused1:

She stated that the farmer was 'barbaric' & he should have 'done' something - she really didn't seem to understand that it was her that should have 'done' something as they were her dogs?! 

Such a shame all round really


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> It was just on Five news. Whilst I do feel sorry for the owners (although they were irresponsible) I still can't comprehend that at no time during the interview did she express any regret that her dogs were chasing livestock :confused1:
> 
> She stated that the farmer was 'barbaric' & he should have 'done' something - she really didn't seem to understand that it was her that should have 'done' something as they were her dogs?!
> 
> Such a shame all round really


From the radio interview, the dog owners just seemed to be trying to lay the blame at the farmers feet, no remorse, no common sense, they knew their dogs were in the field out of sight, but it's the farmer's fault.

What gets me is that the owners as well, are trying to say that the farmer should have gone and told them their dogs were a problem?? Surely you should ensure your dogs aren't a problem, not rely on someone to tell you your dogs are a problem, can you please ensure they aren't in the future 

It sounds like a long and complicated issue, with a sad outcome unfortunately, but the farmer was within their rights, although I'd prefer it if it were the owners that had been shot up the backside!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I must be looking at a different case then:."


Yes its a completely different case the one we have been talking about is a couple who kept letting their 3 dogs into the field to worry the livestock claiming they were chasing rabbits, even though they couldn't see them & had been warned. Did wonder where the going home for his tea & the court stuff came from as in this case the police said they would not be pressing charges. In your case, very sad that children witnessed such a thing


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

hawksport said:


> A half starved dog can run all day on adrenaline
> That's is one of the dumbest things anyone has said on this thread. Anyone that trains either animals or people to the peak of physical fitness knows the first thing you have to do is get them on a good diet.


But you assume the dog is at a peak. An over release of adrenaline caused by over anxiety or "prey drive" can take over two weeks for the dog get out of its system... not just one day.

But I'm dumb and you're a vet so you'd know that


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

This case will more than likely go to court because the law is a little odd. Farmers don't have the right to shoot dogs worrying their livestock , what they have is a legal defense if they do. So even cases where it is perfectly clear that they have acted reasonably in defense of their herd or flock can end and do up in court.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

For a case to go to court it has to pass two tests first

a) evidentiary
b) is it in the public interest

So I doubt if the first one can be met, even if someone decides the second one may.


----------



## 8tansox (Jan 29, 2010)

Still a shame that those poor dogs have paid the ultimate price for their owner's lack of thought, care, call it what you want. 

Why oh why do people think it's okay to allow their dogs to go out of sight, or out of control (same thing I know). I feel sorry for some dogs; I despair, I really really do.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

These are some recent comments I found on the net - makes me despair so god knows how farmers feel

could anyone please help me i was recently walking my dog who is a whippet through land i know i am allowed through when a rabbit shot out in front of her and into the adjacent field, bieng a sight hound her natural instincts were to give chase dispite my calling her back. there are no sheep cows pigs chickens horses or any form of farm animals anywhere near just crops. i went through the bushes to retrieve my dog and when i retrieved her two IDIOTS with SHOTGUNS appeared out of nowhere telling me that i was on MR BIGSHOT FARMERs land and that if they saw me again they would shoot my dog!!! i politely informed them that if they did it would be the last thing they would ever do when i went into further detail with the two bellends i found out that it was a game shooting area for pheasants and partridge i appologised for being there and told them it was an accident but they just kept going on about the game keeper who would shoot my dog and be within the rights of the law and if i went to the police they would agree with him and confiscate my dog. Is this rightwould they be allowed to shoot my dog and Could the police confiscate my dog?.

My boxer was walking off the lead and she chased the sheep because she just wanted to play with them. I got her back on the lead and carried on walking. 10 minutes later a quad came speeding past me and suddenly braked. At that time I thought nothing of it until the two farmers got off their quad with shotguns in hand and threatened to shoot my dog where she stood.
I am really angry that they think they have the right to talk to people like this while intimiidating with weapons. Id like to see them acting hard without the weapon on there own.
My Husky dog was shot today just wanted to say to those out there who mentioned farmers kids they know who they are .I have three grandchildren ,my dog loved these children. Just rememember sheep have know personality I would not want to see any animal suffer could the farmer have not send me the bill instead . Big men with big guns who do they think they are ,that was our family pet not some sheep waiting to be slaughtered. Its all money with them and all they do is moan about the weather. Every heard the saying think before you drink. Think before you shoot. We loved our Husky.
I have very recently moved to a rural location. I have 2 dogs which are usually very good and well supervised. I am a very resposible owner but dog are dogs.This morning my younger dog decided to run off and went on the farmers land< hes never done this before and wont again. I fully accept my resposibilites as a dog owner, and as an animal lover i fully understand how loosing sheep could affect a farmers paycheque. I would have said my apologies etc, however Farmer Joe spoke to me(im a very small and approachable lady)like he was going to attack me with a pitch fork and feed me to his livestock. I have never been spoken to with such arrogance and hate. I am ashamed to say i may have let loose a few obsceneties something i never ever do but i was just really threatened by his attidtude. we are his new neighbours and i think may have upset him already now but oh well he needs to treat people with respect.He apparantly has a bad reputation and has cornered off every last millimeter of his land in case someone steps a toe on it.Yes that bitter,miserable speciman of human being.If he upsets me i will fight him with my bare fists as small as i am.grrrr.Fortunately i do believe in what goes around comes around, and he really needs to treat people like he would want to be treated farmer or not.
I am so angry that every single footpath off my village is filled with livestock. Its so hard to let your dog run anywhere incase the are mistaken for threatening livestock.
my dog actually ran in to the farmers garden today and scared a chicken. His garden gate was open and my dog went in. Yeah probably my fault, but shouldnt chickens be kept behind a closed gate, the same as my dog probably should have been on a lead?
I dont know.
but I live in a tiny village where everyone lets their dogs wander around the village without a lead and being threatened by a farmer is the most horrible and intimadating thing.  I will shoot your dog, that is not a threat that is a promise were his exact words shouted in my face (im a tiny 22 year old female.).
You have to walk your dog, and it has to be allowed to run. I dont think threatening behaviour is acceptable. i think both parties need to meet each other half way.. simple.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

And again the rest of us, and our dogs,have to pay the price for these numbskulls!!


----------



## Roobster2010 (Jan 17, 2011)

Blitz said:


> But dogs are being shot every week somewhere in the country - it is not news. If your dog is around livestock either out of control with you present or unaccompanied it is at high risk of being shot.
> At least it might bring home to dog owners that their behaviour in using farmers land for their own pursuits is just not on.


I'd like to know where all you people live. I live in the country & am in control of my dogs round livestock but it seems there are very many trigger happy farmers & unruly dog owners round your way.

Thank fcuk I live in Scotland, nae tresspassing laws round here. Its a free country, come & visit, respect & tatty bye. Surely tae feck that's simple.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Roobster2010 said:


> I'd like to know where all you people live. I live in the country & am in control of my dogs round livestock but it seems there are very many trigger happy farmers & unruly dog owners round your way.
> 
> Thank fcuk I live in Scotland, nae tresspassing laws round here. Its a free country, come & visit, *respect* & tatty bye. Surely tae feck that's simple.


There's your bottom line. I live in North Wales, it's sheep country and farmers love dogs, they all have them. They are more than happy for us to wander around their fields (right of way or not) because they know we have the sense not to walk through fields of cattle, or lambs, or any fields with sheep in them before and during lambing time.
But if I let them charge around out of sight, hassling and harming their stock? They'd have a word, then if I didn't sort it, they'd do what they had to do. Too many people don't know the meaning of respect


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2011)

myshkin said:


> There's your bottom line. I live in North Wales, it's sheep country and farmers love dogs, they all have them. They are more than happy for us to wander around their fields (right of way or not) because they know we have the sense not to walk through fields of cattle, or lambs, or any fields with sheep in them before and during lambing time.
> But if I let them charge around out of sight, hassling and harming their stock? They'd have a word, then if I didn't sort it, they'd do what they had to do. Too many people don't know the meaning of respect


i like north wales :thumbup: glad i live here


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Elzz said:


> i like north wales :thumbup: glad i live here


It's freaking awesome isn't it? I'm from Merseyside, most of my family are there. I lived in Manchester for something like 18 years....funny thing, I didn't get so many visitors when I was 30 miles away from them as I do now I live twice as far away. Half term hits and I'm overun with brothers and sisters and their kids - they're all like, ooh look at nature, chickens in the garden and stuff.....love it!


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2011)

myshkin said:


> It's freaking awesome isn't it? I'm from Merseyside, most of my family are there. I lived in Manchester for something like 18 years....funny thing, I didn't get so many visitors when I was 30 miles away from them as I do now I live twice as far away. Half term hits and I'm overun with brothers and sisters and their kids - they're all like, ooh look at nature, chickens in the garden and stuff.....love it!


hahahahaha its great lived here all my life though, i get scared in the big smoke


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

:laugh:


Elzz said:


> hahahahaha its great lived here all my life though, i get scared in the big smoke


Oh, well it's funny, one of the reasons I wanted to move here was because I felt like the big smoke makes you forget how to relax - it's never dark, there is always noise, always watching people to see if they are going to rob you or something worse. We had a couple of holidays in Scotland where we just went - why are we living like this when we can work from home and live wherever we want to? So I sold my house and came here, and it's the smartest thing I've ever done 
Now when I go back to Manchester to see friends I get all twitchy and jumpy - just crossing the road! It ain't natural all that noise and stuff.
I'll tell you what, this is pretty far off topic, even by my standards!


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2011)

myshkin said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Oh, well it's funny, one of the reasons I wanted to move here was because I felt like the big smoke makes you forget how to relax - it's never dark, there is always noise, always watching people to see if they are going to rob you or something worse. We had a couple of holidays in Scotland where we just went - why are we living like this when we can work from home and live wherever we want to? So I sold my house and came here, and it's the smartest thing I've ever done
> Now when I go back to Manchester to see friends I get all twitchy and jumpy - just crossing the road! It ain't natural all that noise and stuff.
> I'll tell you what, this is pretty far off topic, even by my standards!


it has gone slightly tangerine hasnt it :thumbup:


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Elzz said:


> it has gone slightly tangerine hasnt it :thumbup:


Yeah, but, North Wales, who can argue with that?  Nicest folk I've ever met, and I'm a scouser!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

myshkin said:


> Yeah, but, North Wales, who can argue with that?  Nicest folk I've ever met, and I'm a scouser!


I love wales, been some fancy places abroad but always prefer a holiday in wales to be honest


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Roobster2010 said:


> I'd like to know where all you people live. I live in the country & am in control of my dogs round livestock but it seems there are very many trigger happy farmers & unruly dog owners round your way.
> 
> Thank fcuk I live in Scotland, nae tresspassing laws round here. Its a free country, come & visit, respect & tatty bye. Surely tae feck that's simple.


I also live in Scotland. there might not be trespassing laws but you are still not allowed to walk your dogs off lead through livestock and farmers still can and will shoot your dog if it worries livestock - so not quite sure what your point is.


----------

