Farmers shooting dogs !
Discussion
jatopack said:
Cyrus1971 said:
Full bore rifle for bunnies - what calibre do you use ? You call of course and I do get the better range arguments about full bore, but rimfire has a nice flat trajectory and plenty of punch at up to 200 M (for cute bunnies) so full bore seems a bit OTT - all IMHO, of course.
.22-250 Remington Varmint Barrel - Anything under 75 yards it just makes a hell of a bang - after 200 yards it comes into its own. If zeroed for 150 - it is only an inch or so down at 250 - and is good for 300 - after that this shooter aint that good. Though I now have suspicians on the ammunition - I have been given some good hand loads - that seem to be uncanny at 350 - about 5-6 inch down.I started on .22LR - but my first pay check at age 16 - went on a .22 Magnum - and that was a massive improvement over the .22LR. I do understand though that the new .17 calibres etc are an improvement even more.
Perhaps this thread should be returned to the Why? of shooting a dog and the shooting guys head over to the Thread in the Lounge?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Engineer1 said:
The answer is don't let your dog off the lead round livestock
^^This^^. Period.Engineer1 said:
unless it is perfectly behaved and trained, even then keep an eye on it and be prepared to call it back.
Cloud cuckoo land. Few, if any, pet dogs are properly trained and even with those that are, the risk is still there. You can call until you're blue in the face to no avail. The chase instinct is potent. Once your pet is off the lead you have little or no effective means of restraining it.It is no coincidence that the majority of working sheepdogs are Collies (usually Border), a breed which has a herding instinct. Even then it takes a great deal of training before one can be put to work and some don't make the grade. I have yet to meet a domestic pet owner who has trained their pooch to work with livestock.
ClaphamGT3 said:
I assume you're not that familiar with firearms?
A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
I am very familiar with firearms. A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
Yes a marksman could make the shot however in this case the marksman is a 70yr old farmer. The dogs are, according to the shooter, worrying some livestock and he managed to get 2 shots into the chest of 2 seperate dogs when they are bouncing/running around lviestock? I seriously doubt it. I suspect the comment is indeed accurate and that the farmer called the dogs to get an easier shot. If this is the case then the dogs were not out of control and where not infact worrying any livestoct therefore the shooting is unlawful and the farmer should pay the full penalty of the law.
Sexual Chocolate said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I assume you're not that familiar with firearms?
A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
I am very familiar with firearms. A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
Yes a marksman could make the shot however in this case the marksman is a 70yr old farmer. The dogs are, according to the shooter, worrying some livestock and he managed to get 2 shots into the chest of 2 seperate dogs when they are bouncing/running around lviestock? I seriously doubt it. I suspect the comment is indeed accurate and that the farmer called the dogs to get an easier shot. If this is the case then the dogs were not out of control and where not infact worrying any livestoct therefore the shooting is unlawful and the farmer should pay the full penalty of the law.
Quite pathetic really.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Sexual Chocolate said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I assume you're not that familiar with firearms?
A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
I am very familiar with firearms. A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
Yes a marksman could make the shot however in this case the marksman is a 70yr old farmer. The dogs are, according to the shooter, worrying some livestock and he managed to get 2 shots into the chest of 2 seperate dogs when they are bouncing/running around lviestock? I seriously doubt it. I suspect the comment is indeed accurate and that the farmer called the dogs to get an easier shot. If this is the case then the dogs were not out of control and where not infact worrying any livestoct therefore the shooting is unlawful and the farmer should pay the full penalty of the law.
Quite pathetic really.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Sexual Chocolate said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I assume you're not that familiar with firearms?
A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
I am very familiar with firearms. A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
Yes a marksman could make the shot however in this case the marksman is a 70yr old farmer. The dogs are, according to the shooter, worrying some livestock and he managed to get 2 shots into the chest of 2 separate dogs when they are bouncing/running around livestock? I seriously doubt it. I suspect the comment is indeed accurate and that the farmer called the dogs to get an easier shot. If this is the case then the dogs were not out of control and where not in fact worrying any livestock therefore the shooting is unlawful and the farmer should pay the full penalty of the law.
Quite pathetic really.
ClaphamGT3 said:
I think that you are totally guessing and the only thing that you are adding to this debate is how far some people will go in distorting/manipulating facts to try and win an argument.
Quite pathetic really.
Pathetic as in I presented the facts in way that doesn't please you? Quite pathetic really.
wildcat45 said:
Belive me, there have been times when he's considered getting an air rifle to finish off the local cats.
I do not think it is acceptable that they should kill pets for the sake of sheep.
What a contraditory view? If it's not acceptable to kill dogs (as pets), when is it acceptable to kill cats (also pets)?I do not think it is acceptable that they should kill pets for the sake of sheep.
Your Dad either needs better fencing / security or better still, not to keep birds in cages (cruel and selfish).
Jasandjules said:
randlemarcus said:
Interesting definition of the word "facts". I'd say suppositions, or, in the vernacular "wild-ass guesses".
The bodies can easily be checked. Then we will have our answers.If it helps, I have a very well behaved dog, who is always on a leash anywhere near livestock, because I know the rules around worrying. This is extremely sad.
randlemarcus said:
Yes, then we will have facts. Until then, we're all guessing. I'd posit that the police have had a quick look, not found powder burns, and they've moved on.
If it helps, I have a very well behaved dog, who is always on a leash anywhere near livestock, because I know the rules around worrying. This is extremely sad.
I daresay the farmer found it sad too. What a shame that he had to deal with the consequences of irresponsible dog owners and seemingly negligent kennel proprietors.If it helps, I have a very well behaved dog, who is always on a leash anywhere near livestock, because I know the rules around worrying. This is extremely sad.
ClaphamGT3 said:
I daresay the farmer found it sad too. What a shame that he had to deal with the consequences of irresponsible dog owners and seemingly negligent kennel proprietors.
EFA - To be fair, I can't see how the owners were irresponsible. The kennels certainly were (imho) as they didn't even notice the dogs were gone for 20 minutes.Livestock = dog on lead unless you are 100% certain that it won't chase (i.e. prepared to bet on the dog's life).
My 12 yr old lab doesn't go on a lead near sheep anymore because she doesn't show any interest (never has), and I am 100% certain she won't chase them. If she did, then I would find it hard to argue if she was shot.
My pup is an entirely different kettle of fish. The pup is (on the face of it) very well trained - near perfect scores in all her gundog training, and an absolute joy to work. Unfortunately, she has shown far too much interest in sheep, and so is on a lead or long line wherever there is a danger of meeting sheep until such time as we can do some proper livestock training and be certain that she won't chase them, and that will take years.
Of course there is the argument that it is the sheep's fault - after all, who hasn't been tempted to chase them when they start running like that
Sad to see the after affect of going onto a farmers field whilst walking dog:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216273/Pe...
Some people are actually blaming the farmer for not putting up a sign to say its dangerous to go in the field when the cows have calves, so its partly his fault.
No one deserves this, but I wish people would actually think before just entering/trespassing on a farmers field.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216273/Pe...
Some people are actually blaming the farmer for not putting up a sign to say its dangerous to go in the field when the cows have calves, so its partly his fault.
No one deserves this, but I wish people would actually think before just entering/trespassing on a farmers field.
Du1point8 said:
Sad to see the after affect of going onto a farmers field whilst walking dog:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216273/Pe...
Some people are actually blaming the farmer for not putting up a sign to say its dangerous to go in the field when the cows have calves, so its partly his fault.
No one deserves this, but I wish people would actually think before just entering/trespassing on a farmers field.
Tbh i'm surprised the old girl made it to that age. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216273/Pe...
Some people are actually blaming the farmer for not putting up a sign to say its dangerous to go in the field when the cows have calves, so its partly his fault.
No one deserves this, but I wish people would actually think before just entering/trespassing on a farmers field.
Du1point8 said:
Sad to see the after affect of going onto a farmers field whilst walking dog:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216273/Pe...
Some people are actually blaming the farmer for not putting up a sign to say its dangerous to go in the field when the cows have calves, so its partly his fault.
No one deserves this, but I wish people would actually think before just entering/trespassing on a farmers field.
They've really pushed the boat out on that story. A stock picture of a cow and a google image of a random nearby street. Strewth.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216273/Pe...
Some people are actually blaming the farmer for not putting up a sign to say its dangerous to go in the field when the cows have calves, so its partly his fault.
No one deserves this, but I wish people would actually think before just entering/trespassing on a farmers field.
buggalugs said:
Du1point8 said:
Sad to see the after affect of going onto a farmers field whilst walking dog:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216273/Pe...
Some people are actually blaming the farmer for not putting up a sign to say its dangerous to go in the field when the cows have calves, so its partly his fault.
No one deserves this, but I wish people would actually think before just entering/trespassing on a farmers field.
They've really pushed the boat out on that story. A stock picture of a cow and a google image of a random nearby street. Strewth.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216273/Pe...
Some people are actually blaming the farmer for not putting up a sign to say its dangerous to go in the field when the cows have calves, so its partly his fault.
No one deserves this, but I wish people would actually think before just entering/trespassing on a farmers field.
Du1point8 said:
No one deserves this, but I wish people would actually think before just entering/trespassing on a farmers field.
How do you know it was trespass?We have a several public footpaths near us that pass through fields where cows and bullocks are regularly grazed.
In such a situation is there not a duty of care imposed on the farmer to ensure that either the public are safe when exercising their rights to use the public footpath, or in the alternate, are aware that the animals in there may pose an increased danger due to having calves?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff