Log in

View Full Version : Farmers rights to shoot dogs...


gruntygiggles
25-10-11, 04:58 PM
I support it. Thread inspired by this story:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-15399558 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-15399558)


So, in my honest opinion, the death of these dogs is not the fault of the farmer...it is the fault of the owner who readily admits that her dogs were off lead, not under her control and in fact, out of sight and in another field.

As dog owners you HAVE to be responsible. Taking away a farmers right to protect his livestock will be a very poor move.

Debate away...

EDIT: I updated the link!

TamSV
25-10-11, 05:11 PM
Heard this on the radio yesterday. Of course he was within his rights.

It's sad for the dog owners but they still don't seem to think anything was wrong with letting their animals loose in a field with livestock. They knew their dogs wouldn't attack a cow - but it's difficult to convince the cow of that.

There were a few people on the radio yesterday saying how their dogs were just like children. I've checked and they're not even similar.

IMO it's much better for both you and the dog if you treat them like dogs, not like people.

Kilted Ginger
25-10-11, 05:14 PM
As usual, we only know what the reporter wants us to think about the story. if the dogs were a regular nuisance, worrying cattle on more than one occasion then its sad but definitely the owners fault, however if this was the case the farmer is duty bound to report the incidents to the police before taking law into his own hands. If it was a one off then..... if for example one of my dogs slipped its lead and before i could catch him was shot by a farmer i would be in jail.

TamSV
25-10-11, 05:21 PM
The woman herself was interviewed on radio yesterday and confirmed her dogs were regularly in that field, off the lead. Her husband was some distance away, in a different field. This was how they chose to exercise their dogs.

She still appeared to see nothing wrong with that. She thought it was the farmers responsibility to track them down and tell them to stop letting their dogs run free in a field of livestock.

yorkie_chris
25-10-11, 05:25 PM
"gentle natured creatures", who were "our children"

Obviously a blithering idiot.

I'm with the farmer, the BBC are a set of pr*cks for reporting it in this fashion which will see the do-gooder "animals are more important than people" eejits out in force. IMO you should be able to shoot them if they're seen near your livestock, probably after worrying them in a different way, wierdos...

Nobbylad
25-10-11, 05:33 PM
I would almost expect him to be allowed to shoot the owners.

What kind of responsible dog owner would allow their dogs to roam, off lead, out of sight on a field where livestock are known to be?

gruntygiggles
25-10-11, 05:34 PM
As usual, we only know what the reporter wants us to think about the story. if the dogs were a regular nuisance, worrying cattle on more than one occasion then its sad but definitely the owners fault, however if this was the case the farmer is duty bound to report the incidents to the police before taking law into his own hands. If it was a one off then..... if for example one of my dogs slipped its lead and before i could catch him was shot by a farmer i would be in jail.

True...but I am not taking the farmers argument or the BBC's opinion from which to make my own opinion here. I am taking it from the words of the female owner of the dogs that were shot. A farmer should not have to leave his livestock to track down an owner to tell them to get their dog on a lead.

Yes, I would love for a farmer to do that and I would have questions over a farmer just shooting as soon as he saw dogs running, but in this case, it is admitted by the owner that the dogs are regularly in that field, running around and unsupervised. I sish the dogs hadn't been shot but this woman should NOT be calling for a change in the law.

It is VERY rare for a farmer to shoot a dog, but taking away their right to do so is inherently wrong.

Stuuk1
25-10-11, 05:57 PM
Haven't read the story on the website but guessing its the same as what was on radio 2 the other day. Farmer is totally right to do what he did.

He said he has had to put 2 cows down in the past due to injuries from dogs and each cow is around £5000.

That is his livelihood, without those he doesnt eat... Dog owners should be more careful!

suzukigt380paul
25-10-11, 06:11 PM
correct me if im wrong but i think the law says you have to keep a dog on a leed on a puplic footpath or bridalway.and just because a footpath goes across someones land doesn't give them the right to do what they like with there dogs,in the case of most farm land it might be a public footpath but it is still on privatly owned land

Biker Biggles
25-10-11, 06:14 PM
Dont know about this case,but Id like to see a bit more supervision and investigation when serious weapons get used like this.Does sound like it was justified,but give a man a gun and its like a big willy to some,and gets overused accordingly.

timwilky
25-10-11, 06:49 PM
In years gone by I have had arguments on this very forum due to irate dog owners who feel their pet should not be threatened for being out of control amongst livestock.

I have gone on record to say I have shot dogs that have been causing havoc.

The most significant incident would be when I was about 14, a local busybody let his dog out of control and it killed one of our geese.

About 2 days later he knocked on the door and asked if we had seen his dog and I said it was in the shed. After an argument he agreed when he paid £5 for the goose he could have his dog. Off he went for the money and when he returned I gave him his dog in a sack. He called the police who simply said "was it the dog?", "yes he had the goose in its mouth when I shot it!" Fair do then.

It does annoy me that people think that they can have free reign with their dogs amongst livestock. Have people seen the result of a dog in with sheep, aborting with the distress, throats ripped. It is horrid having to shoot your own sheep just to put them out of their misery.

My granddaughter now lives on a farm. I go up there to shoot rabbit/foxes. I am already under instruction as is my ex daughter in law. Any dogs in the sheep, both barrels.

tinpants
25-10-11, 06:58 PM
Dont know about this case,but Id like to see a bit more supervision and investigation when serious weapons get used like this.Does sound like it was justified,but give a man a gun and its like a big willy to some,and gets overused accordingly.

Are you for real?

The dogs were on private property, off a lead with the owners nowhere in sight. As the law stands the farmer is within his rights to summarily shoot any dog that is "worrying" his livestock. I believe the police only have to get involved once the dog has been shot which, in this case, I have a feeling they were. It is NOT an offence to discharge a shotgun on private land so what sort of investigation would you like to see, exactly?

Willy waving? Bleeding heart "I have no idea about guns so no-one can have one" twaddle.

I've shot dogs that have been worrying livestock, and have no problem at all with it. The countryside is there for all to enjoy - I have no issue with that - but people have to understand that you can't just walk where you want or let your dogs run free across fields. It just ain't on.

We used to have our horses in a field that had a footpath running across it. No problem, or so you might think. We used to strip graze the field as one of the nags was prone to laminitis so we had to restrict the grass available to graze. Anyway, I was up there one morning moving the fences a bit when a bloke walks up to the stile, climbs over with his dog then lets his dog go running off across the field. When I pointed out that there were horses in the field as well as sheep and could he please keep his dog under control, I got a mouthful of abuse back like you wouldn't believe. Now, those on here that know me know that I'm quite an easy going chap with quite a long fuse!!? Anyway, I explained to this eejit in words of one syllable that if he let his dog loose on our land again then I would shoot it. Haven't seen him since.

The point I'm trying to make is that people just don't understand the wheres and whyfores of the countryside. And before I get flamed by the "right to roam" lobby, that particular law only applies to land over 300m above sea level.






Sorry. Rant over. And breathe!!!

yorkie_chris
25-10-11, 07:05 PM
The point I'm trying to make is that people just don't understand the wheres and whyfores of the countryside.

It's not like there are lots of them, just don't be a c*** and everyone gets on just fine...

maviczap
25-10-11, 07:06 PM
Having heard and seen this woman on the Tv & radio I can understand why she can't understand whats she's done wrong, she's what I'd describe as a typical townie, with no concept of where her food comes from or how hard that farmer has to work.

I've heard his side of the story and he has said he has done everything to comply with the law. He said enough was enough and he HAD to do something at the time.

Interestingly the husband has given no interviews, why? Probably because he knows he was in the wrong. She said her husband was toooooo upset. Man up man!

missyburd
25-10-11, 07:07 PM
Sad as it is for the owners, I'm definitely on the farmer's side, he has every right to protect his livelihood. The owners should have known better if they were responsible dog owners. We have never let our GSD off the lead on farmland unless absolutely certain there is nothing else in the field and we can see the dog at all times and he never goes far from our sides anyway. Yes it was only a little spaniel and whippet cross but two animals is even worse than one in some cases. They should count their blessings they still have the one pet left.

As for wanting the law changing, how ridiculous. Why put other farmers in the situation where they cannot act if a dog, stray or otherwise is loose on their land and worrying their livestock, if not worse? These people clearly have no idea.

MisterTommyH
25-10-11, 07:24 PM
Ha ha, "The law was written all the way back in 1976 when there were packs of stray animals roaming the country".

Alright, bit of an exaggeration, but does she really think the law was written for any other purpose than to allow farmers to protect their livestock?

Biker Biggles
25-10-11, 08:12 PM
Are you for real?

The dogs were on private property, off a lead with the owners nowhere in sight. As the law stands the farmer is within his rights to summarily shoot any dog that is "worrying" his livestock. I believe the police only have to get involved once the dog has been shot which, in this case, I have a feeling they were. It is NOT an offence to discharge a shotgun on private land so what sort of investigation would you like to see, exactly?

Willy waving? Bleeding heart "I have no idea about guns so no-one can have one" twaddle.

I've shot dogs that have been worrying livestock, and have no problem at all with it. The countryside is there for all to enjoy - I have no issue with that - but people have to understand that you can't just walk where you want or let your dogs run free across fields. It just ain't on.

We used to have our horses in a field that had a footpath running across it. No problem, or so you might think. We used to strip graze the field as one of the nags was prone to laminitis so we had to restrict the grass available to graze. Anyway, I was up there one morning moving the fences a bit when a bloke walks up to the stile, climbs over with his dog then lets his dog go running off across the field. When I pointed out that there were horses in the field as well as sheep and could he please keep his dog under control, I got a mouthful of abuse back like you wouldn't believe. Now, those on here that know me know that I'm quite an easy going chap with quite a long fuse!!? Anyway, I explained to this eejit in words of one syllable that if he let his dog loose on our land again then I would shoot it. Haven't seen him since.

The point I'm trying to make is that people just don't understand the wheres and whyfores of the countryside. And before I get flamed by the "right to roam" lobby, that particular law only applies to land over 300m above sea level.






Sorry. Rant over. And breathe!!!

Nice rant,but you put plenty of words into my mouth that I didnt say.
What I said was it was probably justified in this case but we didnt know enough about it.I didnt say the farmer had broken any law.As for your I dont know about guns so no one else can comment you dont know me so dont make assumptions.I wont make any about you.I used to shoot but dont now.I have also had the misfortune to find myself looking down the wrong end of one so I have every right to my opinions thank you.And Im not a member of the right to roam lobby or anything similar.
You have your experience and I have mine.That includes experience of people who treat a gun as a willy extension.

454697819
25-10-11, 09:15 PM
i cant see the problem.. I would have probably shot them in the **** but I know its not easy to hit things with a shotgun..I would feel differently if it was my dog, but I wouldn't let my dogs (if I ever get one) worry cattle...

**** happens...

did you know there has been a terrible earthquake in turkey, a drought in africa and people living on the streets just down the road from you? ffs

Bibio
25-10-11, 09:17 PM
what about dogs in fields where there is no livestock, do you think that it's ok for a farmer to threaten to shoot the dog?

Sid Squid
25-10-11, 09:28 PM
The farmer was quite correct, the law does NOT need to be changed - it is quite correct as it is.

But then of course I'm a townie, so what do I know? I know enough to realise I shouldn't be asked about how things are done in a circumstance I know nothing of - much like the lady who's dogs were shot.
But I'm not as daft as her to think there will never be any consequences of stupidity and selfishness, which is what her actions were. And why she thinks that this should not happen - pure selfishness.

fizzwheel
25-10-11, 09:33 PM
I'm with the farmer on this one, in fact any farmer.

I dont take Jake & Tess anywhere where there is livestock. They are OK with cattle, TBH, but I'd never take them in a field with sheep in and let them off the lead thats just asking for trouble. Especially around us there are so many places to walk them where there are no livestock in the vicinity.

I think the law is a sensible one, its the farmers livelyhood IMHO they are within their rights to protect it.

DJFridge
25-10-11, 09:44 PM
I'm with the farmer completely (and that's having grown up as a "townie", I might add). And to put it in a town context, if you had rabbits in the back garden of your suburban semi and a neighbours dog got in and started attacking them, who out there wouldn't batter seven shades out of the dog if necessary?

Thought so.

The Idle Biker
25-10-11, 09:53 PM
Dogs did you say? Rabbits? Heres one of my dogs with a Wild Rabbit this week. I go out with them in the country at the weekend, sometimes we stray into fields with livestock. When we do, we get out.

http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd400/IdleBiker/sv650/Willowrabbit.jpg

-Ralph-
25-10-11, 10:17 PM
I'm going to make the assumption that lots of stuff spouted in this thread is bollox as we know nothing about this case other than what has been reported in the media.

Putting this case aside, yes, farmers should have the legal right to shoot a dog that is worrying livestock, but ONLY if they had absolutely no other course of action available in order to prevent imminent harm to their livestock. IMO each and every case should be subject to investigation, in order that farmers know that they are not simply immune from prosecution. If police can prove that the farmer acted inappropriately he should be liable to prosecution.

The sheep got a bit scared by a dog off the lead on the other side of the field is not good enough reason.

Big willy farmer toting a gun does of course exist, just like big willy policeman exists, or big willy truck driver exists. A friends dog was shot by one about 15 years ago whilst he was walking the dog in the same field with no livestock present. A number of local witnesses testified that they had not seen any livestock kept in the field where the dog was shot for weeks. The farmer claimed he had livestock in the next field and the gate was open (untrue), but the police still said they had insufficient evidence to prosecute (ie: they couldn't be bothered).

Like anything, you give Joe Bloggs a bit of power and it will get abused from time to time. Joe Bloggs shouldn't be free to decide what is just and what is not just under the law, that is what we have a court system for, and why we have police to investigate and report crime.

gruntygiggles
25-10-11, 11:15 PM
did you know there has been a terrible earthquake in turkey, a drought in africa and people living on the streets just down the road from you? ffs

Yes.

I'm going to make the assumption that lots of stuff spouted in this thread is bollox as we know nothing about this case other than what has been reported in the media.

.

Normally would agree with you on this but no in this case as most opinions in this thread, including my own have been formed from hearing the words of the dog owner and the farmer from their own lips...not from a manipulated media angle.

Agree with latter part...willy waving will always exist, but that doesn't mean we should change this law. There would be much more harm done to animals AND farmers without this law than with it.

-Ralph-
25-10-11, 11:27 PM
have been formed from hearing the words of the dog owner and the farmer from their own lips...not from a manipulated media angle

So was the radio broadcast live interviews where both sides were given time to make their case? Or do you know these folk have you spoken to both sides in person?

If the radio interview was live, has everyone who has posted an opinion on it listened to the broadcast?

'From their own lips' is not relevant if the media selected which quotes to publish/broadcast, or if someone has only read or heard those quotes.

myfirstsv
25-10-11, 11:44 PM
Dont know about this case,but Id like to see a bit more supervision and investigation when serious weapons get used like this.Does sound like it was justified,but give a man a gun and its like a big willy to some,and gets overused accordingly.
Too right.

And here's a a couple of thoughts which the "story" doesn't address:

If the Farmer had to put 2 cows down because they had been worried by dogs why hadn't he involved the Police to try and prosecute the owners?

If these owners walked their dogs in his fields regularly why hadn't her warned them?

Any proof that these dogs were the ones that worried the cows anyway?

Conclusion: knee jerk by the farmer and stupid dog owners makes a great story on a quiet news day.

I have a Border Collie and the closest he'd get to worrying Sheep would be to say "Mint Sauce" to them. He's a total Wuss but I keep him on the lead when there is Livestock around cos I don't want some Red Neck shooting him.

Bibio
26-10-11, 02:06 AM
has anyone ever seen how some farm working dogs treat livestock?

i have and on occasion they bite and nip at legs sometimes causing serious damage. it seems that farmers don't care if the dog is causing harm or not they just want to exercise their rights be it right or wrong.

nobody needs a gun in this country and the less there are lying around the better.

Specialone
26-10-11, 05:49 AM
I haven't read the story fully or listened to the broadcast but generally I'm not sure they should have the right to shoot dogs willy nilly in their fields.


If the cows were 'worried' ( wtf does this mean and why do they need to be put down?), then the damage was done, then it was revenge rather than prevention.

Dogs generally are with owners even if a distance away so they could warn them first and give them the opportunity to get the dog out of the field.

He could fire a warning shot, the dog would crap itself at the stage so bugger off more than likely, but would this warning shot also 'worry' the livestock ?
In fact, when the farmer killed the dogs, how do we know the livestock wasn't affected by the gunshots?

Too many variables in these cases, not enough restrictions on what they can and can't do, it's pure 'don't mess with me' show of power IMO by some and half of them hate the fact they have byways etc on their land, so use this as a deterrent, and lets face it, some of them aren't the sharpest knife in the draw are they.

I can understand foxes etc but not peoples pets, there is other methods,

454697819
26-10-11, 06:48 AM
what about dogs in fields where there is no livestock, do you think that it's ok for a farmer to threaten to shoot the dog?

iffy ground, why are you on his land? why are you no longer in control of the dog, I think threaten is fine as you can take this as a warning and walk the dog elsewhere, to shoot a dog for no reason is outside the law as the law states it has to be worrying cattle IIRC.

Its a big grey area but in this case I would deem it the right thing to have done... (sort off)

454697819
26-10-11, 06:48 AM
has anyone ever seen how some farm working dogs treat livestock?

i have and on occasion they bite and nip at legs sometimes causing serious damage. it seems that farmers don't care if the dog is causing harm or not they just want to exercise their rights be it right or wrong.

nobody needs a gun in this country and the less there are lying around the better.

how am I supposed to shoot clay pigeons without a shot gun.. elastic bands just dont cut it..

timwilky
26-10-11, 06:56 AM
This thread is emotive and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on the part some people.

Firstly we had a public footpath on some of our fields. People were quite welcome to use it. FFS we even built and maintained styles and kept the paths clear. That does not give them the right to wander off the path, to ride bicycles, motorcycles etc that damage the paths, to park your car on our drive whilst you walk the path. To exercise your dog off the lead and let it crap all over the fields. You walk the path, you pick up your litter and dog crap, you close gates behind you. You keep the noise down and you respect the fact we don't mind you walking down our drive, past our house, gardens and yards. You do not walk into the sheds, private gardens, yard etc.

When you do transgress and for your own safety we tell you to get out. Do not get into an argument. I do not walk into your place of work or home, dont do it to people who happen to have a footpath past theirs.

It is unhelpful to refer to people protecting their property as "rednecks".

Why shoot a dog after the damage is done. Simple, if you loose 2 calfs by abortion due to the worrying by the dogs and potentially the ability of the cows to further calve you have lost potentially a couple of grand. It is fact that dogs that worry livestock tend to return. You are already out of pocket a couple of grand with sod all ability to recover the loss, are you going to risk loosing more. No ferkin way. Nip the problem in the bud.

timwilky
26-10-11, 06:59 AM
There is a good way to cure a young dog of going anywhere near sheep if you can catch it. Tie it in a pen with a tup. After a good battering it is going to think twice about going near sheep.

Bri w
26-10-11, 08:31 AM
If our dog was off the lead, in a field worrying livestock and was shot its my fault not the farmer's. The law of the land may say I can use a footpath across the field but it doesn't translate into letting the dog roam freely in the field.

And if someone lives in the countryside, or even has a modicum of intelligence, they know the possible consequences of letting their dogs roam. I agree with -Ralph-'s comment re indiscriminate shooting but has the farmer got time to ask the dog what it's intentions are?

missyburd
26-10-11, 08:34 AM
If the Farmer had to put 2 cows down because they had been worried by dogs why hadn't he involved the Police to try and prosecute the owners?



If the cows were 'worried' ( wtf does this mean and why do they need to be put down?), then the damage was done, then it was revenge rather than prevention.

In the case of this story it was a past situation concerning the same two dogs (according to radio) which caused the adult cows not to be put down but to abort their unborn calves. Not a risk he will want to take again.

Dogs generally are with owners even if a distance away so they could warn them first and give them the opportunity to get the dog out of the field.
,

Generally they may be but a farmer can't assume that a dog is accompanied because if it isn't it is an even bigger risk.

At the end of the day, for you to have the privilege of walking on public footpaths which mean you cross farmland with the farmer's permission you are expected to respect the rules, your dog should be on a lead or by your side. You let your dog run away from you at some distance where you yourself are not visible then what the heck is the farmer supposed to think?

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 08:48 AM
Is there some kind of rule that says your dog must be on a lead or by your side when walking a public footpath?

As far as I'm aware the only law regarding dogs on a lead, is that they need to be on a lead when on a designated road, and they must not be dangerously out of control.

I'm a responsible dog owner and would never allow any dog of mine to worry livestock, but if the fields are empty and all the livestock are in the sheds, I don't see an issue with letting a dog have a run off the lead.

Because of my friends experience though, I do worry about a willy waver taking a shot, simply because he sees a dog off the lead in one of his fields and he thinks he's allowed to.

The "Gerroff my land!" reputation doesn't come from nowhere. Specialone had a farmer try to bring him off his bike one day when we were green laning, by throwing a metal footpump into his path and causing him to lock up the brakes.

And I'm not a townie BTW, I've lived in the countryside all my life and my first job as a teenager was as a farm hand. I learned to drive in a Massey 35. I'm just being objective about it, not all farmers are sweetness and light.

Sally
26-10-11, 08:50 AM
This thread is emotive and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on the part some people.

Firstly we had a public footpath on some of our fields. People were quite welcome to use it. FFS we even built and maintained styles and kept the paths clear. That does not give them the right to wander off the path, to ride bicycles, motorcycles etc that damage the paths, to park your car on our drive whilst you walk the path. To exercise your dog off the lead and let it crap all over the fields. You walk the path, you pick up your litter and dog crap, you close gates behind you. You keep the noise down and you respect the fact we don't mind you walking down our drive, past our house, gardens and yards. You do not walk into the sheds, private gardens, yard etc.

When you do transgress and for your own safety we tell you to get out. Do not get into an argument. I do not walk into your place of work or home, dont do it to people who happen to have a footpath past theirs.

It is unhelpful to refer to people protecting their property as "rednecks".

Why shoot a dog after the damage is done. Simple, if you loose 2 calfs by abortion due to the worrying by the dogs and potentially the ability of the cows to further calve you have lost potentially a couple of grand. It is fact that dogs that worry livestock tend to return. You are already out of pocket a couple of grand with sod all ability to recover the loss, are you going to risk loosing more. No ferkin way. Nip the problem in the bud.

What he said, Don't think many people actually grew up on a farm or are from the sticks in here.

There is a good way to cure a young dog of going anywhere near sheep if you can catch it. Tie it in a pen with a tup. After a good battering it is going to think twice about going near sheep.

I bloody hate them things, still scared of them.

Dicky Ticker
26-10-11, 08:54 AM
A good cattle dig may nip the cows legs but after it has had a couple of kicks the tend to snap and bark.Sheep dogs usually work by there presence and I have never had one that bit the sheep or lambs
Working dogs are normally trained for a job as where pets are given all sorts of liberties and a bit more training both to the owner and the dog would be more beneficial.
So far I see no mention of dogs,even ones on a lead,barking at horses,which can be just as dangerous as a lot of horses get spooked and inexperienced riders have a job to control their horse.
I was brought up on a farm and we have had lambs with their throats ripped or sheep chased over craggs by dogs.
Some dog owners are just irresponsible and I don't condone a farmer protecting his livelyhood and even know of cases where the farmer has shot the dogs ,found out who the owners were and sued them for the dead/damaged livestock.
SOME VERY EMOTIVE COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD and as a dog lover myself both with pets and working dogs I have tried to be objective in my comment having seen both sides of the coin

By all means have a dog as a pet,but spend time training it to basic commands so that you can have the confidence to let it off the lead knowing that it will obey commands especially if you are exercising near other animals. Once they have got the taste of the hunt and blooded they will never be stopped from worrying or killing.

missyburd
26-10-11, 08:59 AM
Is there some kind of rule that says your dog must be on a lead or by your side when walking a public footpath?

As far as I'm aware the only law regarding dogs on a lead, is that they need to be on a lead when on a designated road, and they must not be dangerously out of control.

I believe this applies

FootpathsThis public right of way is meant for pedestrians only. You are allowed to walk your dog as long as it is under your close control. When walking a dog, you must ensure that it keeps to the public footpath and does not trespass into nearby properties.

Close control does not mean doing laps of the field, you should be sticking to the paths. If the dog is off the lead and running up and down the path in front of you then not necessarily an issue. In my opinion anyway.

I'm a responsible dog owner and would never allow any dog of mine to worry livestock, but if the fields are empty and all the livestock are in the sheds, I don't see an issue with letting a dog have a run off the lead.

But why take the risk? Fair enough if you are in an enclosed field, with no livestock and you can have the dog in your sights at all times then there shouldn't be an issue, you could be at just as much risk as being shot as the dog so it is likely the farmer would come speak to you and advise you rather than blindly wielding a shotgun in your general direction. It is your common sense that dictates in those situations.

timwilky
26-10-11, 09:06 AM
Thanks Sally

Most landowners don't resent there being public footpaths on their property. They do resent them being misused. I had in my youth many arguments with people who thought they could roam willy nilly by virtue of the being a public footpath along the edge of a field.

My younger brother nearly lost his foot by getting in the way whilst I was mowing one meadow. He stepped towards the mower as I passed him to shout something to me. Can you imagine if that was a member of the public. Thank god my mother was a former theatre sister. 18 months in plaster with the extra swing a crutch can add, made him an angry young man to be avoided.

I understand that people may think it is ok for a dog to run in an empty field. It however gives the impression particularly if the owner is not visible that the dog is out of control. It will already have put you on your guard and in my case running for a gun. Not necessarily to then shoot it on the spot. But to be ready for if it does run into an adjacent field where you know there is stock.

yorkie_chris
26-10-11, 09:06 AM
nobody needs a gun in this country and the less there are lying around the better.

Meh, I disagree, I like guns. Don't see why it is anyone else's problem as long as I'm not harming them.

How are you supposed to control rabbits, rats, squirrels etc without one? You rather gas everything?

If the Farmer had to put 2 cows down because they had been worried by dogs why hadn't he involved the Police to try and prosecute the owners?

Go try it, see how far you get.

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 09:07 AM
But why take the risk?

You've just proved my point in spectacular fashion. You're asking me why I would take the risk, so you like me, obviously think that letting the dog off the lead is a risk.

If my dog is running up and down the footpath, in a completely empty field, not worrying any livestock, obeying commands, and accompanied by a responsible owner, why should there be any risk?

As per my first post, the farmer should have the law coming down on him like a ton of bricks, if he shoots a dog when there was no imminent risk to his livestock.

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 09:12 AM
BTW, "dangerously" out of control is entirely subjective. It doesn't apply to any particular situation. If a dog is 100yds away from it's owner, shows no risk of harming anyone or anything, and comes back immediately when called, then it is not deemed to be dangerous, and hence is not "dangerously out of control". On the flip side if a dog is on a lead, but the dog is jumping and leaping all over the place, and the lead is long enough for that dog to run off a pavement into the road, then it is dangerously out of control, despite the lead.

timwilky
26-10-11, 09:19 AM
Ralph

Using your description "If my dog is running up and down the footpath, in a completely empty field, not worrying any livestock, obeying commands, and accompanied by a responsible owner, why should there be any risk?"

A responsible farmer would not view that dog as a Risk, although he may ask you to put it on a lead simply because he does not know the dog. and whilst the field may empty and you and the dog are on the footpath there may well be freshly sown crop that could be damaged by trampling should you or the dog step off the path. He would be aware that there is stock in the adjacent field and want to ensure the dog is on the lead before you are in a position where you have to put it on etc.

Remember most farmers are dog owners, they respect a dog that is obedient and responsive to command. But they also know that they are descended from hunters and that instinct has never been totally eradicated. You only need to see my harmless Jack Russell that would lick you death on the scent of a fox or when he is ratting.

missyburd
26-10-11, 09:19 AM
You've just proved my point in spectacular fashion. You're asking me why I would take the risk, so you like me, obviously think that letting the dog off the lead is a risk.

I have walked through fields full of sheep with my GSD on a short leash. He has walked through next to me acting if anything very bewildered as all the sheep circle us watching. He's more scared of them if anything which is even more of a risk as dogs are at their most unpredictable when scared. He's a townie dog living in the country, scared of cats, geese, sheep, cows. So would I take the risk of letting him walk by my side without a lead, no chance, he's a German Shepherd and therefore stereotypically regarded as a danger to anything :rolleyes: he'd be shot whether in an empty field or not. Would I change my view if I had a poodle, or a labrador? Nope, every dog has the ability to change it's mind and act completely different to how you would expect under normal conditions and is never really under your control when loose, if spooked.

Owenski
26-10-11, 09:38 AM
Firsty before everyone gets thier backs up:
In this case with the information shown by the media then yes I think the farmer acted in a justified manor. The dog owners were completely iresponsible and seem quite clueless about the relevence of thier attitude even now. Becuase of this I'd actually go one step further and say that IMO the courts/RSPCA should actually remove their ability to own pets, much like they do for animal abusers.

Now to the thread title and for those I quote please excuse the selective references but this post would be massive if I quoted your full post.

Dont know about this case,but Id like to see a bit more supervision and investigation when serious weapons get used like this.Does sound like it was justified,but give a man a gun and its like a big willy to some,and gets overused accordingly.


Big willy farmer toting a gun does of course exist, just like big willy policeman exists, or big willy truck driver exists.

Of course they do, as one who has been on the end of those threats from one of these very ego mentalists I've proberbly got more right to post on this than most even if only to testify that there is at least one of the willy/gun waving f**k d**k p***k f**kers knocking about, and if there is one there's unfortunatly going to be more than that.

In years gone by I have had arguments on this very forum due to irate dog owners who feel their pet should not be threatened for being out of control amongst livestock.

Either you dont mean the thread relating to me and Miya:
http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=132183
or your memory has edited the events. Miya was in an empty feild indeed even the adjacent fields were empty.
In the events which followed that morning I posted about in the above thread the police recognised the farmer had no right to act as he did. The police were quite helpful in following up the complaint, even walking the same route with me back onto his land to confirm had there been anything in there I would have seen it - further action was taken against the farmer but Im unaware if this ever lead to him having his licence revoked.

Because of the person I am and having had that experiance I did a lot of reading relating to the acts and laws surrounding the right to shoot dogs.
I emerged in support of it, in the right circumstance where no other option is available or indeed if the dog is caught red handed then YES the farmer should shoot the dog, he should then give the owner a right royal ear bashing for been such an irresponsible tool.
However, farmers who shout threats and intimadate those abiding by the laws and acts should also feel a consiequence to their bully-ish behvaiour. Just because they've a right to shoot neusence dogs does not give them a right to shoot any dog and it certianly gives them no right to harrass and intimidate.

In a perfect world there would only be responsible dog owners, but then again in perfect world there would be no firearms which leaves us with this crappy world where the inevitable truth will be that these situations will continue to happen until one of the 2 imperfections becomes erased.

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 09:52 AM
Nope, every dog has the ability to change it's mind and act completely different to how you would expect under normal conditions and is never really under your control when loose, if spooked.

Which is why the law makes the distinction "dangerously" out of control, not simply "out of control". It makes this distinction to allow people to exercise their dogs off the lead. If it didn't it would become illegal to have a dog off the lead full stop.

Of course a dog which is not dangerous can become dangerous, regardless of breed dog DNA is about 99% Wolf, but does that mean we should suddenly be forced to keep them on a lead?

If that's the case lets ban all people over 60 from driving a car because although they are perfectly safe normally, they are more likely to have a heart attack at the wheel than a younger person, so they could become dangerous.

There has to be some common sense involved, and as a responsible owner who has some common sense, and knowing my dog as I do, I'm happy to let him off the lead on occasion in a farmers field. I shouldn't have to worry about him being shot.

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 10:05 AM
A responsible farmer would not view that dog as a Risk

Absolutely, but they are not all responsible, just like not all dog owners are responsible. There are laws to deal irresponsible dog owners and they are enforced, IMO the law should deal with irresponsible farmers who shoot first and ask questions later, when there is no imminent danger to the livestock

"Was the dog within 100 yds of your livestock sir?"

"No, the livestock were in the next field"

"In that case sir, I'm arresting you on suspicion of..."

timwilky
26-10-11, 10:13 AM
We did have signs on our styles requesting people kept their dogs on a lead. We would much prefer people enjoy their walk than us having to start panicking at the sight of a loose dog.

Some of our fields were in the region of 10 acres, just because there is no stock visible this side of the hill from where you are on the path. Who is to say that when your dog runs up the hill what he can then see. Some dogs (I have one) can be quite obedient until a greater distraction interrupts the small space between their ears.

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 10:24 AM
If I can't see the whole field I won't let the dog off the lead, there could be a farmer with a gun over that hill and he really misses his fox hunting, but shooting dogs is still legal!

It's been pheasant shooting season near me this month though, so all those blood thirsty farmers will probably be fairly satisfied!

;-) :lol:

gruntygiggles
26-10-11, 12:05 PM
Ah...so many posts and not much time...lol.

I see little point in arguing "out of control" v "dangerously out of control" as this thread is about a farmers right to shoot a dog...and the law defends this right where the dogs are worrying livestock.

Yes, I will stand by forming my opinions on what the owner said from her own lips because no amount of media angle or manipulation will change the fact that the owners admitted that those two dogs were regularly in the field in which they were shot, where they knew there was livestock and where they knew they were out of control as they were not even able to see them. So, I don't think this was a case of willy waving. It is known from the owners that those dogs were a repeated nuisance so what is a farmer supposed to do? You cannot expect a farmer to have to go trapsing across his land looking for owners when they are not visible. That would mean leaving your livestock with the very dogs that were causing them distress and even if the dogs are only chasing rabbits...there is no way to know that they won't leave the rabbits and start after the livestock. So, I support the right that farmers have as they should be allowed to protect their livestock.

I have agreed in this thread that there will always be willy wavers and I also agree that the law should come down on any farmer that shoots a dog outside of the parameters of worrying. However, I could never ever suppport a change in the law that removed this option for farmers. The repurcussions of that would be huge and farmers would be left powerless to protect their livestock. It doesn't matter a jot what breed or size a dog is or whether it has ever attacked or worried before. There are a heck of a lot more irresponsible dog owners around than there are irresponsible "willy waving" farmers.

We'd be left with farmers having to call the police or dog wardens, who would have little to no interest in getting involved unless a person was bitten.

It comes down purely to responsibility and the responsibility for dogs lies with the owners...not the farmers. Willy waving or not, if you are in control of your dogs, they will most likely not get shot...because it is common sense.

My dogs don't give any attention livestock...they really don't care, but does that mean I know that they will never do anything? No...I can never know that, because they are dogs and they are unpredictable, so why, as an owner, would you ever take the chance.

Those dogs didn't die because of the farmer...they died because the owners were repeatedly and admittedly irresponsible and rather than accept that responsibility and change their ways so it doesn't happen to their other dogs, they are putting all the blame on the farmer. This is wrong.

If those dogs were mine, I would be blaming myself and living with the guilt the rest of my life because when you decide to bring a dog into your family...you are responsible for it's health and safety. If anything happens to it when it is in your care, it is you that is to blame and nobody else. Don't want your dog to get shot by a farmer? Keep it away from livestock and for goodness sake, don't let it out of sight!

What if these dogs had run blindly into that field, owner not present and met an aggressive dog also off the lead that attacked and killed them? WHo would the owners blame then? The other owners of course because people like this will just not accept responsibility. That is not a good enough reason to have necessary laws changed.

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 12:46 PM
I see little point in arguing "out of control" v "dangerously out of control" as this thread is about a farmers right to shoot a dog...

People have said the dog should be kept on a lead in a farmers field. I disagree and have pointed out the legislation that relates to this. This legislation applies whether you are in a farmers field or a public park. Totally relevant to the thread IMO.

I'm going to summarise my issue with the current situation and then say no more on these points as they've all been said in different posts


I DONT allow my dog to worry livestock
I DONT put my dog in a position where he might be tempted to worry livestock
I DONT allow my family or my dog to trample crops
I DONT disrespect the countryside, or farmers property
I DONT leave gates open
I DONT leave designated foothpaths, brideways or byways
I DONT think I should have to have my dog on the lead under all circumstances
I DO still have to worry about my dog being shot despite all of the above, and it spoils my enjoyment of the countryside

And my issue is right there in RED, a farmer can just decide to lift his gun and shoot my dog, and though that COULD (cough) result in prosecution, the perception is there with a lot of farmers that it is legal and the police won't do anything about it anyway. Farmers should be in a position where they want for their own benefit to think twice before shooting.

Nobbylad
26-10-11, 01:01 PM
If you're dog is on a lead and by your side on a designated footpath, I don't think it would get shot.

As for your comment 'I DONT put my dog in a position where he might be tempted to worry livestock' that's a good thing and I would assume therefore that it would be on a lead and by your side on a designated footpath.

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 01:11 PM
If you're dog is on a lead and by your side on a designated footpath, I don't think it would get shot.

As for your comment 'I DONT put my dog in a position where he might be tempted to worry livestock' that's a good thing and I would assume therefore that it would be on a lead and by your side on a designated footpath.

Please can you explain to me why you assume being on a public footpath with my dog off a lead, automatically means he will be tempted to worry livestock?

Nobbylad
26-10-11, 01:16 PM
Errr...because he's a dog and therefore has the potential to disobey your command if his instinct gets the better of him?

BTW - I didn't say it automatically means he will be tempted to worry livestock, however he has far more potential to.

I really don't think you have to worry about your dog being shot if it's by your side on a lead. I also think a farmer would not have to worry about/consider shooting your dog if it was on a lead by your side. If however, your dog is off a lead, not by your side, then I think the farmer would be more concerned that he may worry livestock.

I can't understand why anyone would take a dog on a lead or not through a field with livestock in....doesn't make much sense to me and that's what we're talking about here isn't it...fields with livestock in?

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 01:26 PM
and that's what we're talking about here isn't it...fields with livestock in?

Errr, no, there's been lots of talk in this thread about fields without livestock in, livestock in the next field, fields of 10 acres that perhaps you can't see the whole field.

It's perfectly feasible to walk around the countryside, for instance through an area of arable land, without the dog being tempted to worry livestock, because there is no livestock there to tempt him. So long as you clip the dog back onto the lead before you get near a field which is used for grazing. My friends dog was shot in a field that was grazing land, but it and it's surrounding fields were empty, and the livestock had been in the winter sheds for weeks.

Nobbylad
26-10-11, 01:32 PM
I'm hoping to get a dog in the New Year, I can guarantee you that I won't take it on a field that may have livestock in it or is near adjoining fields that do, or are likely to have livestock in them.

I don't think it will spoil my, or my future dog's enjoyment of the countryside, however it will guarantee that my future dog will not get shot by a concerned farmer.

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 01:37 PM
I'm glad it won't spoil your enjoyment. My dog likes to get off the lead wherever possible. If I had to keep him on the lead the whole time, I don't see why I'd bother taking him out into the countryside, I could just walk him down the road.

gruntygiggles
26-10-11, 01:53 PM
People have said the dog should be kept on a lead in a farmers field. I disagree and have pointed out the legislation that relates to this. This legislation applies whether you are in a farmers field or a public park. Totally relevant to the thread IMO.

I'm going to summarise my issue with the current situation and then say no more on these points as they've all been said in different posts


I DONT allow my dog to worry livestock
I DONT put my dog in a position where he might be tempted to worry livestock
I DONT allow my family or my dog to trample crops
I DONT disrespect the countryside, or farmers property
I DONT leave gates open
I DONT leave designated foothpaths, brideways or byways
I DONT think I should have to have my dog on the lead under all circumstances
I DO still have to worry about my dog being shot despite all of the above, and it spoils my enjoyment of the countryside

And my issue is right there in RED, a farmer can just decide to lift his gun and shoot my dog, and though that COULD (cough) result in prosecution, the perception is there with a lot of farmers that it is legal and the police won't do anything about it anyway. Farmers should be in a position where they want for their own benefit to think twice before shooting.

And that is all well and good for YOU Ralph. You are being a responsible owner. Not everyone is. Any one of us responsible owners will have cause, probably not uncommonly to moan about the many irresponsible owners we come across when walking our dogs. That is the point, not all owners are responsible for their dogs and farmers should IMO opinion retain the right to protect their livestock against these dogs when they are worrying the livestock.

Yes, I agree, any dog shot where it is not worrying livestock should result in the farmer feeling the full force of the law.

I am not surprised about your feelings in light of what happened to your friends dog and I support your views on that. It seems it was a completely unecessary shooting and given that there are now special units in the police investigating dog theft and the courts are giving harsher sentences for these crimes...it is more likely now that such a case would at least stand a chance of getting a result.

I cannot comment on your friends dog as I wasn't there, and if you weren't either, then I have to believe that you trust your friend gave an honest account and so I really do feel for his/her loss.

But, the occasional and rare shooting of this kind should not put an end to the law. The greater evil is that of irresponsible dog owners.

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 01:59 PM
I'm haven't suggested it should put an end to the law, I'm suggesting the law should work and be enforced both ways.

Absolutely, but they are not all responsible, just like not all dog owners are responsible. There are laws to deal irresponsible dog owners and they are enforced, IMO the law should deal with irresponsible farmers who shoot first and ask questions later, when there is no imminent danger to the livestock

"Was the dog within 100 yds of your livestock sir?"

"No, the livestock were in the next field"

"In that case sir, I'm arresting you on suspicion of..."

Farmers should be in a position where they want for their own benefit to think twice before shooting

There are farmers out there who don't think twice. Until a few farmers have been prosecuted for inappropriate shootings, that won't change.

gruntygiggles
26-10-11, 02:17 PM
I'm haven't suggested it should put an end to the law, I'm suggesting the law should work and be enforced both ways.





There are farmers out there who don't think twice. Until a few farmers have been prosecuted for inappropriate shootings, that won't change.

Agree with that entirely...always have. What this thread is about is me not agreeing with the law being changed. I would not want to see this farmer prosecuted, but, if your friends dogs was killed as you say, that is a farmer that should feel that force.

suzukigt380paul
26-10-11, 02:19 PM
Now lets get a few things straight,a footpath is a minimum of 1m wide and a bridal way is a minimum of 2m wide and are normaly on some one elses(farm) land, and wether there is livestock on the field next to theses paths or not if you or your dog strays off these footpaths then you are mostlikely tresspassing on some one elses land,so unless you have permission from the land owner to let your dog stray on this private land then you should make sure your dog doesn't, and letting a dog off the lead and letting it run all over a field is very irresponsible and asking for trouble.so in short those people who as soon as they find a footpath across some farmers land and then let there dog of the lead to run far and wide should be made to see the errors of there ways and made to keep there dogs under control and on a lead

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 04:42 PM
Just been on a nearly three hour walk, my dog hasn't strayed across a field once, he likes to have a track to follow. If it were a different dog I may approach it differently, but he's only been on the lead for about 1 hour of that walk at most.

Nobbylad
26-10-11, 05:18 PM
TBH Ralph, I'd be more worried about you worrying my livestock than your dog ;)

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 05:38 PM
TBH Ralph, I'd be more worried about you worrying my livestock than your dog ;)

I'm Scottish, not Welsh! :D

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 05:54 PM
Some pics from today's walk

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/colinbal4/SNC00203.jpg

Farm coming up with grazing land beyond, by the time I'm at the power lines, the dog is on the lead

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/colinbal4/SNC00204.jpg

Oh, look shock horror! The dog off the lead again and sheep in the same photo, ONLY a fields width away (yes those little white dots to the right of the sign!)

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/colinbal4/SNC00207.jpg

Oh no, put me in jail! The dogs off the lead on grazing land. Not a farm animal in sight, obviously! The dog looks like a real livestock worry doesn't he? The rainbow was pretty though eh?

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/colinbal4/SNC00209.jpg

Now, about to enter a field and we can't see what's over the hill. Common sense says it's time to put the dog on the lead.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/colinbal4/SNC00211.jpg

And sure enough, when we climbed that hill, what did we find?

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/colinbal4/SNC00212.jpg

The livestock looks really worried by the dog that was on the lead and sitting at my feet, completely ignoring the bullocks, as I took this photo

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/colinbal4/SNC00213.jpg

A farmer deciding he would shoot my dog at any point during this afternoons walk would be nothing short of target practice, or "sport" on behalf of the farmer.

Specialone
26-10-11, 06:59 PM
Farmers are no more reliable in staying within the law than the rest of the general public, the only difference is the general public haven't got a shotgun.

Col, how many green lanes have we seen blocked off illegally by farmers? Have our bikes spooked livestock before? Good job it's not legal to shoot green laners.

I'll never change my opinions on this tbh but I wonder how many of these shootings have been revenge rather than prevention?

Personally I don't have a dog but I just wouldn't go to places because I'd do something stupid if someone shot my dog whether it was legal or not, some farmers are just pig headed and there ought to be tighter restrictions on what's allowed rather than just their opinions.

That's me done on this.

Dave20046
26-10-11, 07:05 PM
From what the couple have said I agree with them.

And

In the picture the farmer paints in the article I'm with the farmer.


Oh dear.

-Ralph-
26-10-11, 07:19 PM
Col, how many green lanes have we seen blocked off illegally by farmers?

Loads mate. In West Midlands, probably over 50%, rocks placed over tracks to prevent 4x4's and illegally locked gates.

suzukigt380paul
26-10-11, 10:55 PM
Loads mate. In West Midlands, probably over 50%, rocks placed over tracks to prevent 4x4's and illegally locked gates.

but are these green lanes, bridalways or boats(byways, open to all traffic')
if its a bridal way then its as far as the public concerned only open to pedestrians, horses
& push bikes and does not have to have access to cars and motorbikes and can have locked gates as long as you have room to get people horses and pushbikes round them
if its a boat then it should be open to the public in powered vehicles,but what normally happens winter time when it is wet these tracks get cutup by the 4x4 boys making it impossible for others to use these tracks and if this is a farm track which they quite often are then it is more often then not the farmer who has to put this right

-Ralph-
27-10-11, 07:48 AM
Yeah, we know the law on green lanes thanks mate. Many are illegally blocked.

Drew Carey
27-10-11, 08:45 AM
I echo what most people in here have said, farmer is totally within his rights and is covered by the law.....in my opinion.

My family have always owned dogs, my folks live in the middle of the Worcestershire countryside, on a former farm, with green fields as far as the eye can see. However, there is a major lack of footpaths. When they moved to the area, my folks purposely sought out the farmer who owned all the land and asked what footpaths there were. The farmer, not only pointed out where the paths were, he also mentioned that he never kept livestock in the fields behind the house. The farmer has allowed them to walk the dog there ever since, despite the "tenant" for the field changing frequently - it is agreed to be used for hay crop only.

Approx 4-5 years ago, the farmer even agreed to allow my parents to put a proper gateway in the garden leading out to the field. (this is quite a big deal as that is granting formal access to land and was agreed in deads etc, so that if my folks sell the new owner and farmer are covered, and no claim can be made on the field).

I know this is off topic, but it shows that by a simple bit of communication, boundaries are agreed and people know where they can or can't roam. It took my folks 5 minutes of their time and has given their Irish Setter a lifetime of happiness.

I think that all dog owners should ensure that they stick to footpaths along with the dogs - unless it has been agreed with the farmer that you may allow them to roam. Its not your land.

I 100% agree with Mr Wilky on this one - it is someone's land, their living, we have no right to simple wander from footpaths without permission in advance.

Messie
27-10-11, 11:28 AM
I'm just glad to see Ralph's missus has got that tractor safely on a lead!

Nobbylad
27-10-11, 01:02 PM
And she has that look in her eye, "Will you stop taking photos of this and come and spend some time with your son and I, instead of trying to score points on the internet."

;)

Dave20046
27-10-11, 04:32 PM
And she has that look in her eye, "Will you stop taking photos of this and come and spend some time with your son and I, instead of trying to score points on the internet."

;)

:smt043

Bet that's a common look around the house, although I'm just jealous of Ralph's hoard of web points