Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1 2
4 5 ... 9 10
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

wildoliver

7,389 posts

100 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
I can't believe the (I hope) blatant trolling on this thread, I say I hope because if it isn't trolling then the IQ of PH has taken yet another turn for the worst.

If your dog is on a farmers land worrying his livestock expect it to get shot. It's the law live with it. Want to avoid it happening? Easy keep the dog off his land, that is where the kennel was negligent and I presume now liable to damages from the dog owners (and the farmer if the animals caused a problem before shot).

It's nothing like scaring chavs off from vandalism or any other absurd suggestion on this thread because it's a dog, not a human, argue why the dog does what it does till your blue in the face it doesn't matter, what matters is there is a law there that won't be getting repealed any time soon.

Jasandjules

50,665 posts

113 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
POORCARDEALER said:
Why do farmers have special dispensation?
Never really looked into it but my guess would be because the land used to be owned by the rich people who also made the laws........

Also, the chap thinking he is Dirty Harry should possibly check

(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

And Farmer Giles has to report it to the police within 48 hours as well. Wonder if he did in this case.

CharlieCrocodile

681 posts

37 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
Genuine question:

There's a wood close to me where pheasants are raised, if my dog were to go in there could the gamekeeper legally shoot my dogs? Are pheasants covered under the livestock rule?


Red Devil

5,944 posts

92 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
POORCARDEALER said:
never really got this business where a farmer can blow someones dog to bits, because its worrying cattle worth ££££'s. I own greyhounds, some of which are worth tens of thousands of pounds, if a dog comes onto my land and starts "worrying" one of the greyhounds, I have no legal right to shoot the dog, even though my financial loss would be far in excess of the farmers.

Why do farmers have special dispensation?
Maybe because your greyhounds are not part of our food chain?

Engineer1

10,409 posts

93 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
The point is that the shotgun is a farmer's tool the livestock are his products, if a dog gets in amongst his sheep it can kill and injure a lot of his livestock specially if they run scared, one animal lost isn't just the value of that animal it's the money it can earn as well, so sheep, wool, lambs, milk etc. The point being the law allows a farmer to protect their livestock by shooting dogs, foxes etc. that worry their livestock.
Advertisement

hidetheelephants

7,780 posts

77 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
A spectacular array of strawmen being lined up here on both sides; if you don't like the fact that farmers have the right to shoot dogs worrying their livestock, lobby your MP to have the law changed. Anything else is pointless, but admittedly quite entertaining. hehe

4rephill

1,980 posts

62 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
wildcat45 said:
If the dog is at fault then yes, persue tem through the courts, take them for what they owe you plus compensation.

We do live in a civilised world. Resorting to guns to speed up the process is the world of gangsters and is simply not acceptable.
What sort of fantasy World do you live in where this is so easily achievable?

And whilst the uncontrolled dogs are rampaging round the fields attacking the livestock, what's the farmer supposed to do to protect his animals? - run round the field trying to catch the dogs? Give it a go sometime, I think you'll find dogs are pretty bloody quick on their feet!, and here's heads up for you, they don't tend to just come wandering up to you if they don't know you, so just how is the farmer supposed to catch them to find out who the owner is?

Try watching this to examine how easy it is to try to control a dog chasing livestock (and this is the dogs owner trying to get the dog back, someone they know and not a complete stranger!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GRSbr0EYYU

(Wow, look at how quickly that dog comes straight back to its owner on command! rolleyes )

Or are you suggesting that the farmer should simply wait for the dogs to finish having their fun, biting chunks out of their livestock legs and throats, and then simply pop round to the owners house with a bill for the loss?
(Ah!, but of course, in your fantasy World all the farmer has to do is call: "Here puppy!", and the dog will automatically come wandering over so the farmer can get the owners details!)

wildcat45 said:
But to farmers, its a business loss. How much is a sheep worth? You kill them in the end when you've had use from them. Nothing wrong with that.

Farming is just a business.
What a load of bcensoredks! You obviously have no concept of how farmers care about their livestock!

Yes farming is a business, but that doesn't automatically mean that farmers don't give a rats arse about the welfare of their livestock as you seem to be suggesting!


wildcat45 said:
In any other business, if stock was damaged would the business owner have the right to exercise instant violence?
Apples and oranges!

However, if someone tried to rob your shop with a weapon (not to simply damaged stock but to steal money/stock), you have a right to defend your property, and that includes using violence if you deem it suitable and safe enough to do so!

If shop owners had to just stand there and allow the robbery to happen, they wouldn't stay in business very long!

wildcat45 said:
You'd not use a gun to scare a car vandal off.
Apples and oranges yet again! rolleyes

However, take a read here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/95441...

Basically, a couples house was being burgled and the owner of the house fired upon the burglars with a legally owned shotgun, hitting a couple of the burglars.

Yes, the owner of the house was initially arrested pending an investigation, the outcome of which was:

"The case sparked outrage however when Mr and Mrs Ferrie were also arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm and questioned by police for almost three days.

They were eventually released on police bail pending further inquiries, but were later told they would not face charges as their actions had been within the law"

So yes, in the right circumstances, you can you use a gun to defend your property!


As for your tales of your father in law, the Law doesn't allow him to use a gun in the circumstances you describe, however, the Law does allow a farmer to use a gun if deemed necessary, in the circumstances described in the original post!

Dog owners know what the possible outcome can be if they allow their dogs to be loose amongst livestock, it's not some sort of secret, they know full well that the dog should be on a lead and that if the dog is loose and starts to go after livestock it could cost the dogs life.

In the case reported in the original post, the owners are not to blame, it's fully on the kennels to prevent the dogs from escaping. It's no good them trying to say that the owners still left the dogs with them despite the fact that they knew the dogs could jump the fence - the kennel owners were also aware of this information and yet still accepted responsibility for looking after the dogs!

However, the farmer has done nothing wrong in protecting his livestock, they have a right to be protected, just as much as pets do!



POORCARDEALER

7,063 posts

125 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
4rephill said:
wildcat45 said:
If the dog is at fault then yes, persue tem through the courts, take them for what they owe you plus compensation.

We do live in a civilised world. Resorting to guns to speed up the process is the world of gangsters and is simply not acceptable.
What sort of fantasy World do you live in where this is so easily achievable?

And whilst the uncontrolled dogs are rampaging round the fields attacking the livestock, what's the farmer supposed to do to protect his animals? - run round the field trying to catch the dogs? Give it a go sometime, I think you'll find dogs are pretty bloody quick on their feet!, and here's heads up for you, they don't tend to just come wandering up to you if they don't know you, so just how is the farmer supposed to catch them to find out who the owner is?

Try watching this to examine how easy it is to try to control a dog chasing livestock (and this is the dogs owner trying to get the dog back, someone they know and not a complete stranger!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GRSbr0EYYU

(Wow, look at how quickly that dog comes straight back to its owner on command! rolleyes )

Or are you suggesting that the farmer should simply wait for the dogs to finish having their fun, biting chunks out of their livestock legs and throats, and then simply pop round to the owners house with a bill for the loss?
(Ah!, but of course, in your fantasy World all the farmer has to do is call: "Here puppy!", and the dog will automatically come wandering over so the farmer can get the owners details!)

wildcat45 said:
But to farmers, its a business loss. How much is a sheep worth? You kill them in the end when you've had use from them. Nothing wrong with that.

Farming is just a business.
What a load of bcensoredks! You obviously have no concept of how farmers care about their livestock!

Yes farming is a business, but that doesn't automatically mean that farmers don't give a rats arse about the welfare of their livestock as you seem to be suggesting!
Farmers mostly care about money....they sell the livestock who's welfare they so care for to be butchered in the Halal way......very caring indeed.

wildcat45

3,650 posts

73 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
POORCARDEALER said:
Farmers mostly care about money....they sell the livestock who's welfare they so care for to be butchered in the Halal way......very caring indeed.
I am sure they care about animal welfare. But what you say is also true.

Marf

22,907 posts

125 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
POORCARDEALER said:
Farmers mostly care about money....they sell the livestock who's welfare they so care for to be butchered in the Halal way......very caring indeed.
Uh huh. I guess all farmers sell their meat for Halal slaughter in the same way all car dealers are untrustworthy car clockers?

wildcat45

3,650 posts

73 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
4rephill said:
Apples and oranges yet again! rolleyes

However, take a read here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/95441...

Basically, a couples house was being burgled and the owner of the house fired upon the burglars with a legally owned shotgun, hitting a couple of the burglars.

Yes, the owner of the house was initially arrested pending an investigation, the outcome of which was:

"The case sparked outrage however when Mr and Mrs Ferrie were also arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm and questioned by police for almost three days.

They were eventually released on police bail pending further inquiries, but were later told they would not face charges as their actions had been within the law"

So yes, in the right circumstances, you can you use a gun to defend your property!


As for your tales of your father in law, the Law doesn't allow him to use a gun in the circumstances you describe, however, the Law does allow a farmer to use a gun if deemed necessary, in the circumstances described in the original post!

Dog owners know what the possible outcome can be if they allow their dogs to be loose amongst livestock, it's not some sort of secret, they know full well that the dog should be on a lead and that if the dog is loose and starts to go after livestock it could cost the dogs life.

In the case reported in the original post, the owners are not to blame, it's fully on the kennels to prevent the dogs from escaping. It's no good them trying to say that the owners still left the dogs with them despite the fact that they knew the dogs could jump the fence - the kennel owners were also aware of this information and yet still accepted responsibility for looking after the dogs!

However, the farmer has done nothing wrong in protecting his livestock, they have a right to be protected, just as much as pets do!
Obviously something you feel passionate about. My arguments still hold water however. Gun law clearly rules in rural parts. Apples oranges sheep whatever. Your stock gets damaged, you get your gun.

Kill someones 10k racing dog and I suspect having known people in that business long ago, you'd end up regretting it.

Just for the record, dog owners have a responsibility. Damage to stock is wrong.

mph1977

7,200 posts

52 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
Marf said:
POORCARDEALER said:
Farmers mostly care about money....they sell the livestock who's welfare they so care for to be butchered in the Halal way......very caring indeed.
Uh huh. I guess all farmers sell their meat for Halal slaughter in the same way all car dealers are untrustworthy car clockers?
and I wonder how many of the people who complain aobut halal slaughter methods have

1. seen the so called 'humane' methods in use vs an expert halal slaughterman

2. have the guts to kill it , cook it , eat it at all even if it is just a chicken ...

Jasandjules

50,665 posts

113 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
4rephill said:
Apples and oranges yet again! rolleyes
Why? Simply stating things are different is not putting forth a reasoned arguement. Why are they so different?

Then to suggest that a shop keeper who could use reasonable force to evict a violent robber can equate to a farmer using a shotgun on a dog?!? Seriously? Then even more preposterously you move on to suggest a homeowner defending himself and his human family from robbers is the same as a farmer shooting a dog?!!?

By the way you are right when you say some farmers do care about their livestock. But plenty do not. To put this into context, I know a farmer who travels all around to collect the animals themselves, because the other farmers they used to buy from treat them so badly when transporting them. They've also had animals delivered which have been left in their own s**t with no food for days. Those animals (oh, and I met two yesterday so I've seen it first hand) will take a week or so of their car to get fit enough to be happy.




POORCARDEALER

7,063 posts

125 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
Good and bad in every trade, farming included.


Regarding the slaughter of animals, the "Humane" way particually with pigs is anything but.

Halal should be banned in the uk, no room for such cruelty in todays society.

Jasandjules

50,665 posts

113 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
POORCARDEALER said:
Halal should be banned in the uk, no room for such cruelty in todays society.
Absolutely. Imaginary friends should not trump animal cruelty IMHO.

telecat

6,875 posts

125 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159820/Fu...

Collie Not on the farmers land and shot dead. I expect when this guys certificate comes up for renewal his neighbours objections might stop him getting another one. I get why some farmers shoot at dogs unfortunately I have met a few who I wouldn't trust with a field of wheat let alone livestock and a Shotgun. I've been in areas where I've seen dead Lambs and sheep that the Farmer couldn't be bothered to clear even when he rents the land to the Public. There again Many of them leave them as poison for Birds of Prey so maybe we shouldn't be too surprised when they decide to kill a dog without any evidence it has done harm.

And as for Small Dogs, you haven't met some of the Sheep I've met. I wouldn't trust the Sheep near kids and Cows are well equipped to protect themselves.

Edited by telecat on Saturday 6th October 17:32

Jasandjules

50,665 posts

113 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
telecat said:
I hope to goodness that decision is appealed. This appears to advocate revenge killing of dogs and does not appear to agree with the Act either. Not to mention being on someone else's land with a firearm without permission and discharging it. Should be in jail right now for that alone.

wildcat45

3,650 posts

73 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
I really hope the local ALF don't read that and give the a call.
Referring to the Daily Mail article above.

eldar

8,298 posts

80 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
Jasandjules said:
I hope to goodness that decision is appealed. This appears to advocate revenge killing of dogs and does not appear to agree with the Act either. Not to mention being on someone else's land with a firearm without permission and discharging it. Should be in jail right now for that alone.
You don't consider that Daily Mail article might not be the complete and whole truth?

shoehorn

468 posts

27 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
I have dogs and some livestock,there are many passive protection systems available to protect livestock from dogs and wild animals,I have ultra sonics.
they work without incident and cost little.

If the farmer was at all concerned for the safety of his livestock then surely he would have fitted such devices,
he is situated next to a large dog kennel and you can`t be there 24 hours a day after all.

But it is typical of the 19th century mentality that many farmers still have(that I have met)that this fool thinks it perfectly acceptable to shoot someone else`s animals,Which may not even have been a threat to his,even though they find it perfectly acceptable that their animals can and will escape from time to time and cause mayhem including fatal accidents.
He,after all is the professional animal keeper.
He also should have known that a warning shot would have probably scared them off,bearing in mind he would have had to have been pretty close to them anyway.

Sheep are fond of bringing about their own demise in their desperate attempts to escape from sudden noises,light aircraft etc.
The gunfire probably did more to scare and stress the animals than a couple of collies,which farmers chose for sheep because of their naturally unaggressive nature.

If he is near enough to shoot the dogs with a shot gun then by virtue of the dogs posing a threat by being close to the sheep surely he must have been close to the sheep as well,he would have been left with a few options but chose to blast away.
Its just bloodymindedness from a bitter twisted old fool,plain and simple.
Probably had issues with the kennel owners.
1 2
4 5 ... 9 10
Reply to Topic