Shooting dog on farmland
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
being loose and not under control in the field is enough reason in the law to shoot it
which direction it's facing at the time is irrelevant
Can you back that up with law please. My recollection is fairly clear (but may well be utterly wrong) that there must be immediate harm to the livestock. And I am thinking of a gamekeeper who was convicted for shooting a GSD or similar that was in the field near the sheep but moving away from them.which direction it's facing at the time is irrelevant
they have the right to shoot a dog that is worrying their sheep (previous incidents being taken into account too)
afaik sheep can panic, injure themselves, abort lambs etc when they are afraid of a dog
the dogs (protection of livestock) acts mentioned above defines 'worrying'
(2)For the purposes of this Act worrying livestock means—
(a)attacking livestock, or
(b)chasing livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering to the livestock or, in the case of females, abortion, or loss of or diminution in their produce.
[F1or
(c)being at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep]
Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Friday 1st May 21:13
rouge59 said:
I have a Patterdale & whilst they are challenging dogs to train, mine would never stray or attack anything without my say so, so the OP is obviously guilty of failing to control his dog & must accept the consequences.
Having said that, apart from if they'd attacked a person, anyone killing either of my dogs would regret it for the rest of their lives.
WellardHaving said that, apart from if they'd attacked a person, anyone killing either of my dogs would regret it for the rest of their lives.
Hugo a Gogo said:
(c)being at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep]
Interesting, I don't recall that in the statute. Do you know which statute they are referring to - the first two parts I agree with as they are clear the animals must be under threat before action can be taken.ETA - not to worry, found it. 1953 Act. But that act in relation to an offence committed by the owner of the dog NOT the right of the farmer to shoot it.
Edited by Jasandjules on Friday 1st May 22:05
ETATA - Found what I was referring to
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nugt7f0bP0AC&a...
Which, unless you have another statute or similar means the farmer is NOT within their rights to shoot the animal and is liable
Edited by Jasandjules on Friday 1st May 22:08
rouge59 said:
Bluebarge said:
Yes. It's completely incomprehensible. You said that if your dogs were killed for any reason (other than attacking a person) you would go all Arnie on the killer but the OP just has to suck it up. Despite your dogs being trained (how well we'll have to take your word for) you have no idea what they'd do if unattended and near livestock.
So - a double standard and a ludicrous statement to boot (who the hell says "extreme sanction"?).
I frequently walk my Patterdale off the lead through fields with sheep & cows in & he stays by my side as I tell him to, but please don't let this fact stop you making ridiculous assumptions about me or my mutt.So - a double standard and a ludicrous statement to boot (who the hell says "extreme sanction"?).
As you appear to be in rather dim I'll spell it out for you once more; my dog is very well trained so would give no one reason to harm him, therefore if anyone did it would be a malicious, unjustified act & that person would suffer for it.
Capiche?
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/1-2/28/s...
Section 1(2)(c) added by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 7 para. 3(1) - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/schedu...
If your dog is not under close control (i.e. on a leash) you cannot predict with 100% certainty that it will obey your command on every occasion without exception. Sheep worrying is serious problem for farmers, especially in the lambing season. That is why the legislation exists.
Capiche?
Dogs worrying/attacking sheep can cause huge damage and distress. I grew up on a small holding on Anglesey. One year in the very early 90's (I think I was 11), my mum, sister and I arrived home from school to find an Alsatian and I think a Jack Russell attacking our small flock (30) of heavily pregnant ewes.
They were attacking ewe after ewe, ripping their throats out before moving on to their next victim. We didn't have a shotgun, but a close neighbour did. By the time he arrived, the dogs were off our land and couldn't be shot. The local police were involved in tracking down the dogs. They were eventually located. The Alsatian belonged to a family with a young baby in the house. The police found the owner of the Alsatian washing the blood off the dog and trying to pretend that nothing had happened...
Both dogs were put down immediately.
Out of our small flock of 30, seven ewes were killed by the dogs, I think another two were put down by the vet and two survived being attacked (I vividly remember helping the vet to stitch the neck of one ewe who survived and the vet pointing out that you could see her brain as he stitched her up). Of the remaining ewes, most of them aborted their lambs due to the distress of running away from the dogs. Two lambs survived the attack: they were found in the middle of a gorse bush unharmed (even though their mother had been killed) and a further five lambs or so were born healthy. My parents were devesated by the destruction and loss. Those hours of arriving home and witnessing the carnage are still ingrained deeply in my memory.
I can well sympathise with any farmer who shoots a dog to protect his livestock.
They were attacking ewe after ewe, ripping their throats out before moving on to their next victim. We didn't have a shotgun, but a close neighbour did. By the time he arrived, the dogs were off our land and couldn't be shot. The local police were involved in tracking down the dogs. They were eventually located. The Alsatian belonged to a family with a young baby in the house. The police found the owner of the Alsatian washing the blood off the dog and trying to pretend that nothing had happened...
Both dogs were put down immediately.
Out of our small flock of 30, seven ewes were killed by the dogs, I think another two were put down by the vet and two survived being attacked (I vividly remember helping the vet to stitch the neck of one ewe who survived and the vet pointing out that you could see her brain as he stitched her up). Of the remaining ewes, most of them aborted their lambs due to the distress of running away from the dogs. Two lambs survived the attack: they were found in the middle of a gorse bush unharmed (even though their mother had been killed) and a further five lambs or so were born healthy. My parents were devesated by the destruction and loss. Those hours of arriving home and witnessing the carnage are still ingrained deeply in my memory.
I can well sympathise with any farmer who shoots a dog to protect his livestock.
rouge59 said:
This thread, and indeed this forum, seems to be populated by people who are unable (or unwilling) to comprehend the most basic intuition or understanding of the English language.
As you were, chaps.
Says the man who has a complete lack of comprehension of the basics of logical reasoning.As you were, chaps.
OP, it's s
tty that you lost your dog in these circumstances. But it also sounds like you understand why, despite your upset.
Perhaps it'd be wise to visit the farmer one evening, armed with nothing but a bottle of decent single malt, and have a talk. Ask after his sheep; offer to compensate any injury caused by your dog as you have done in the past.
All the crap on this thread about going tit for tat with the farmer is moronic. Checking the legality of what happened is wholly justified, but petty revenge (gates open, involving the animal rights mob, etc) achieves nothing. Don't get into a feud, it won't do you or anyone else any good.
tty that you lost your dog in these circumstances. But it also sounds like you understand why, despite your upset.Perhaps it'd be wise to visit the farmer one evening, armed with nothing but a bottle of decent single malt, and have a talk. Ask after his sheep; offer to compensate any injury caused by your dog as you have done in the past.
All the crap on this thread about going tit for tat with the farmer is moronic. Checking the legality of what happened is wholly justified, but petty revenge (gates open, involving the animal rights mob, etc) achieves nothing. Don't get into a feud, it won't do you or anyone else any good.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Baryonyx said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I have no idea of the legalities, being a cat owning city dweller, but if it's revenge you're after, the local press, twitter and facebook love a good dog murdering story.
There will be lots of animal lovers locally who will be furious, even if he was within his rights, and life could become quite unpleasant for him if you advertise what has happened.
I'm not even saying that's the right thing to do, but it's a route that's open to you should you choose it.
What a vile suggestion, that even if the farmer was within his rights, the OP should try to instigate a feeding frenzy through the media to get some comeuppance? I am quite disgusted that you would even endorse such a cowardly course of action. There will be lots of animal lovers locally who will be furious, even if he was within his rights, and life could become quite unpleasant for him if you advertise what has happened.
I'm not even saying that's the right thing to do, but it's a route that's open to you should you choose it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Baryonyx said:
Pardon me, you endorse it with the very suggestion that it is a viable course of action and should be rightly ashamed.
It is a viable course of action, anyone can do it. And people do. So if it can be done, it's viable. But I ask again, where did I endorse it?
You do know what an endorsement is?
.What a f
king coward you are. Sallow and bitter.rouge59 said:
This thread, and indeed this forum, seems to be populated by people who are unable (or unwilling) to comprehend the most basic intuition or understanding of the English language.
As you were, chaps.
You're a pillock and walking your dog off the lead in a field with livestock in it is hostaging it to fortune in a way you have no right to do; you might have the best behaved dog in the world but your training is a paper thin veneer over millions of years of evolutionary tendency. You might well cry a river if Giles offed your dog with his 12 bore because he worried the sheep, but the dog had no choice about being there off the lead. Grow up.As you were, chaps.
Welsh Pirate said:
Dogs worrying/attacking sheep can cause huge damage and distress. I grew up on a small holding on Anglesey. One year in the very early 90's (I think I was 11), my mum, sister and I arrived home from school to find an Alsatian and I think a Jack Russell attacking our small flock (30) of heavily pregnant ewes.
They were attacking ewe after ewe, ripping their throats out before moving on to their next victim. We didn't have a shotgun, but a close neighbour did. By the time he arrived, the dogs were off our land and couldn't be shot. The local police were involved in tracking down the dogs. They were eventually located. The Alsatian belonged to a family with a young baby in the house. The police found the owner of the Alsatian washing the blood off the dog and trying to pretend that nothing had happened...
Both dogs were put down immediately.
Out of our small flock of 30, seven ewes were killed by the dogs, I think another two were put down by the vet and two survived being attacked (I vividly remember helping the vet to stitch the neck of one ewe who survived and the vet pointing out that you could see her brain as he stitched her up). Of the remaining ewes, most of them aborted their lambs due to the distress of running away from the dogs. Two lambs survived the attack: they were found in the middle of a gorse bush unharmed (even though their mother had been killed) and a further five lambs or so were born healthy. My parents were devesated by the destruction and loss. Those hours of arriving home and witnessing the carnage are still ingrained deeply in my memory.
I can well sympathise with any farmer who shoots a dog to protect his livestock.
Sort of puts it in perspective. They were attacking ewe after ewe, ripping their throats out before moving on to their next victim. We didn't have a shotgun, but a close neighbour did. By the time he arrived, the dogs were off our land and couldn't be shot. The local police were involved in tracking down the dogs. They were eventually located. The Alsatian belonged to a family with a young baby in the house. The police found the owner of the Alsatian washing the blood off the dog and trying to pretend that nothing had happened...
Both dogs were put down immediately.
Out of our small flock of 30, seven ewes were killed by the dogs, I think another two were put down by the vet and two survived being attacked (I vividly remember helping the vet to stitch the neck of one ewe who survived and the vet pointing out that you could see her brain as he stitched her up). Of the remaining ewes, most of them aborted their lambs due to the distress of running away from the dogs. Two lambs survived the attack: they were found in the middle of a gorse bush unharmed (even though their mother had been killed) and a further five lambs or so were born healthy. My parents were devesated by the destruction and loss. Those hours of arriving home and witnessing the carnage are still ingrained deeply in my memory.
I can well sympathise with any farmer who shoots a dog to protect his livestock.
Out of interest it doesn't seem to be quite as clear cut as I thought..here is the BASC guidance on the topic..
DOGs, LIVESTOCK AND GAME
At sometime or another many farmers and landowners will have experienced problems with
dogs on their land disturbing their livestock or chasing and attacking game. It is a commonly
held belief that a person has a right to shoot a dog if it is worrying livestock but this is not
necessarily the case. It is better to seek a resolution with the owner of a problem dog than to
immediately take matters into your own hands.
Issues of dogs on land and livestock are complex. This guidance sheet aims to clarify the civil
and criminal law relating to dogs.
An overview of dogs and trespass
In civil law a dog owner commits trespass if he or she deliberately sends a dog on to another
person's land.
If a dog, of its own accord, enters land without permission but does no more, its owner is not
liable under civil law for trespass; nor is it a criminal offence unless there is a contravention of
regulations made under the Control of Dogs Order 1992.
Under civil law it is possible that the dog's owner would be liable for any damage which it is in
the nature of a dog to commit.
Property
The definition of property is substantially the same as the Theft Act 1968; consequently, wild
animals can only be damaged if tamed in captivity. For this reason a person killing game can
only be prosecuted for poaching and not criminal damage, unless the damage or destruction
takes place in a breeding pen or release pen, for example, where the birds are captive prior to
release.
Dogs are property and therefore capable of being stolen, damaged through injury, or destroyed
by killing.
CRIMINAL LAW
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 (England, Wales and Scotland)
Under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 the owner and anyone else who is in control
the dog at the time will be guilty of a criminal offence if it worries livestock on agricultural land.
“Livestock” includes cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses and poultry. For ‘cattle’ the legislation
means bulls, cows, oxen, heifers or calves. ‘Horses’ includes asses and mules, and ‘poultry
means domestic fowl, turkeys, geese or ducks. Game birds are not included unless the birds
are taken into possession i.e. in a release pen or laying pen, once released from a pen they are
considered wild and therefore they do not belong to anyone.
Agricultural land includes land used as arable, meadow or grazing land or for the purpose of pig
or poultry farming, market gardens, allotments, nursery grounds and orchards.
‘Worrying’ is where a dog is;
a) Attacking livestock,
b) Chasing livestock in such a way that it could reasonably be expected to cause injury or
suffering or, in the case of females, abortion or the loss or diminution of their produce
(milk yields etc).
c) Being at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or
enclosure in which there are sheep. Sheep dogs, police dogs, guide dogs, working gun
dogs or a pack of hounds (in Scotland “a dog lawfully used to hunt”) are exempted.
An offence is not committed if at the time of the worrying the livestock were trespassing, the dog
belonged to the owner of the land on which the trespassing livestock were and the person in
charge of the dog did not cause the dog to attack the livestock.
There is no right to shoot a dog under this Act if it attacks livestock merely that the
person in control of the dog has committed an offence.
CIVIL LAW
The Animals Act 1971 (England and Wales) & The Animals (Scotland) Act 1987 (Scotland)
Civil liability arises from the Animals Act 1971. Anyone who is the keeper of a dog that causes
damage by killing or injuring livestock could be financially liable for the damage caused. For the
purposes of the Act the keeper is the owner or the person in possession of the dog. The head
of the household is liable where the owner is under the age of 16.
The keeper of the dog is not liable where the damage is due wholly to the fault of the person
suffering it or if the livestock were killed or injured on land onto which they had strayed and
either the dog belonged to the occupier or its presence was authorised by the occupier.
Under this Act there is a defence available to someone who is the subject of civil
proceedings for killing or injuring a dog that was worrying or about to worry livestock.
This person would have to be the owner of the livestock or someone who was authorised to
protect the livestock if they were not the owner. The defence can be used where there were no
other means of ending or preventing the worrying or where the dog that had done the worrying
was still in the vicinity and not under control and there were no practicable means of
establishing ownership. This means that if a dog were shot whilst worrying livestock and its
owner was in the vicinity the shooter would not necessarily be able to rely on this defence as
ownership had been established.
Note: The person killing the dog must inform the police within 48 hours of the killing or injuring
of the dog.
Control of Dogs Order 1992 (England, Wales and Scotland)
This requires that every dog, while in a public place, wears a collar with the name and address
of his owner inscribed on it or on a disc attached to it. If a collar is not worn when out in a public
place, the dog may be seized by the police and treated as a stray. Also the owner, and any
person in charge of the dog permitting him to be in a public place without a collar, will each be
guilty of an offence and may be prosecuted and fined.
This does not apply to dogs of the following categories:
• Any pack of hounds,
• Any dog while being used for sporting purposes,
• Any dog while being used for the capture or destruction of vermin,
• Any dog while being used for the driving or tending of cattle or sheep,
• Any dog while being used on official duties by a member of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces or
Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise/UK Border Agency or the police force for any area,
• Any dog while being used in emergency rescue work or any dog registered with the Guide
Dogs for the Blind Association.
If your dog does stray, you should immediately contact your local dog warden (through the
Environmental Health Department at your local council) and the local police station. The
Environmental Protection Act 1990 allows for your dog to be seized and sold or destroyed if
unclaimed after a seven day period.
Lawful Excuse
A person shooting a dog without lawful excuse may commit the offence of criminal damage,
however, Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 recognises that a person cannot stand
idly by and watch his property being destroyed. A person will have lawful excuse to damage or
destroy property (a dog) belonging to another if:
1) at the time of the act he believed that the person who owned the dog had consented to its
destruction or would have so consented if he had known of the circumstances. It is very
doubtful, however, that any such owner would consent to its destruction for chasing wild
animals or game, but if the person killing the animal can convince a court that he genuinely
believed this to be the case he will be found not guilty.
2) he was doing it to protect his own property, provided that his property was in immediate
need of protection and the means used to defend it were reasonable.
As game, once it has been released into the wild, is not classed as property the killing of dogs
to protect it is not a lawful excuse.
So, unless there is lawful excuse for killing or injuring a dog, the offence of causing criminal
damage will be committed.
Use of firearms
Using a rifle to shoot a dog worrying livestock may cause the shooter to end up in more trouble
than expected. Firearm Certificates bind the use of a firearm by additional conditions, which
usually only permit their use on specific game and pest species or for target shooting.
The police will rarely agree to add suitable conditions to allow the shooting of dogs when there
is a requirement, as they feel they will be open to criticism. Subsequently if a person is faced
with shooting a dog with a firearm they may be prosecuted for failing to comply with their
certificate conditions. The police should not be prosecuting cases where the Animals Act 1971
defence applies, and where the decision to shoot the dog was in extremis i.e. a last resort in
difficult circumstances.
Please note that there are no additional conditions attached to shotgun certificates. Where
shotguns are employed care must be taken to use them at a sensible range so not to wound
dogs unnecessarily.
DOGs, LIVESTOCK AND GAME
At sometime or another many farmers and landowners will have experienced problems with
dogs on their land disturbing their livestock or chasing and attacking game. It is a commonly
held belief that a person has a right to shoot a dog if it is worrying livestock but this is not
necessarily the case. It is better to seek a resolution with the owner of a problem dog than to
immediately take matters into your own hands.
Issues of dogs on land and livestock are complex. This guidance sheet aims to clarify the civil
and criminal law relating to dogs.
An overview of dogs and trespass
In civil law a dog owner commits trespass if he or she deliberately sends a dog on to another
person's land.
If a dog, of its own accord, enters land without permission but does no more, its owner is not
liable under civil law for trespass; nor is it a criminal offence unless there is a contravention of
regulations made under the Control of Dogs Order 1992.
Under civil law it is possible that the dog's owner would be liable for any damage which it is in
the nature of a dog to commit.
Property
The definition of property is substantially the same as the Theft Act 1968; consequently, wild
animals can only be damaged if tamed in captivity. For this reason a person killing game can
only be prosecuted for poaching and not criminal damage, unless the damage or destruction
takes place in a breeding pen or release pen, for example, where the birds are captive prior to
release.
Dogs are property and therefore capable of being stolen, damaged through injury, or destroyed
by killing.
CRIMINAL LAW
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 (England, Wales and Scotland)
Under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 the owner and anyone else who is in control
the dog at the time will be guilty of a criminal offence if it worries livestock on agricultural land.
“Livestock” includes cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses and poultry. For ‘cattle’ the legislation
means bulls, cows, oxen, heifers or calves. ‘Horses’ includes asses and mules, and ‘poultry
means domestic fowl, turkeys, geese or ducks. Game birds are not included unless the birds
are taken into possession i.e. in a release pen or laying pen, once released from a pen they are
considered wild and therefore they do not belong to anyone.
Agricultural land includes land used as arable, meadow or grazing land or for the purpose of pig
or poultry farming, market gardens, allotments, nursery grounds and orchards.
‘Worrying’ is where a dog is;
a) Attacking livestock,
b) Chasing livestock in such a way that it could reasonably be expected to cause injury or
suffering or, in the case of females, abortion or the loss or diminution of their produce
(milk yields etc).
c) Being at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or
enclosure in which there are sheep. Sheep dogs, police dogs, guide dogs, working gun
dogs or a pack of hounds (in Scotland “a dog lawfully used to hunt”) are exempted.
An offence is not committed if at the time of the worrying the livestock were trespassing, the dog
belonged to the owner of the land on which the trespassing livestock were and the person in
charge of the dog did not cause the dog to attack the livestock.
There is no right to shoot a dog under this Act if it attacks livestock merely that the
person in control of the dog has committed an offence.
CIVIL LAW
The Animals Act 1971 (England and Wales) & The Animals (Scotland) Act 1987 (Scotland)
Civil liability arises from the Animals Act 1971. Anyone who is the keeper of a dog that causes
damage by killing or injuring livestock could be financially liable for the damage caused. For the
purposes of the Act the keeper is the owner or the person in possession of the dog. The head
of the household is liable where the owner is under the age of 16.
The keeper of the dog is not liable where the damage is due wholly to the fault of the person
suffering it or if the livestock were killed or injured on land onto which they had strayed and
either the dog belonged to the occupier or its presence was authorised by the occupier.
Under this Act there is a defence available to someone who is the subject of civil
proceedings for killing or injuring a dog that was worrying or about to worry livestock.
This person would have to be the owner of the livestock or someone who was authorised to
protect the livestock if they were not the owner. The defence can be used where there were no
other means of ending or preventing the worrying or where the dog that had done the worrying
was still in the vicinity and not under control and there were no practicable means of
establishing ownership. This means that if a dog were shot whilst worrying livestock and its
owner was in the vicinity the shooter would not necessarily be able to rely on this defence as
ownership had been established.
Note: The person killing the dog must inform the police within 48 hours of the killing or injuring
of the dog.
Control of Dogs Order 1992 (England, Wales and Scotland)
This requires that every dog, while in a public place, wears a collar with the name and address
of his owner inscribed on it or on a disc attached to it. If a collar is not worn when out in a public
place, the dog may be seized by the police and treated as a stray. Also the owner, and any
person in charge of the dog permitting him to be in a public place without a collar, will each be
guilty of an offence and may be prosecuted and fined.
This does not apply to dogs of the following categories:
• Any pack of hounds,
• Any dog while being used for sporting purposes,
• Any dog while being used for the capture or destruction of vermin,
• Any dog while being used for the driving or tending of cattle or sheep,
• Any dog while being used on official duties by a member of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces or
Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise/UK Border Agency or the police force for any area,
• Any dog while being used in emergency rescue work or any dog registered with the Guide
Dogs for the Blind Association.
If your dog does stray, you should immediately contact your local dog warden (through the
Environmental Health Department at your local council) and the local police station. The
Environmental Protection Act 1990 allows for your dog to be seized and sold or destroyed if
unclaimed after a seven day period.
Lawful Excuse
A person shooting a dog without lawful excuse may commit the offence of criminal damage,
however, Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 recognises that a person cannot stand
idly by and watch his property being destroyed. A person will have lawful excuse to damage or
destroy property (a dog) belonging to another if:
1) at the time of the act he believed that the person who owned the dog had consented to its
destruction or would have so consented if he had known of the circumstances. It is very
doubtful, however, that any such owner would consent to its destruction for chasing wild
animals or game, but if the person killing the animal can convince a court that he genuinely
believed this to be the case he will be found not guilty.
2) he was doing it to protect his own property, provided that his property was in immediate
need of protection and the means used to defend it were reasonable.
As game, once it has been released into the wild, is not classed as property the killing of dogs
to protect it is not a lawful excuse.
So, unless there is lawful excuse for killing or injuring a dog, the offence of causing criminal
damage will be committed.
Use of firearms
Using a rifle to shoot a dog worrying livestock may cause the shooter to end up in more trouble
than expected. Firearm Certificates bind the use of a firearm by additional conditions, which
usually only permit their use on specific game and pest species or for target shooting.
The police will rarely agree to add suitable conditions to allow the shooting of dogs when there
is a requirement, as they feel they will be open to criticism. Subsequently if a person is faced
with shooting a dog with a firearm they may be prosecuted for failing to comply with their
certificate conditions. The police should not be prosecuting cases where the Animals Act 1971
defence applies, and where the decision to shoot the dog was in extremis i.e. a last resort in
difficult circumstances.
Please note that there are no additional conditions attached to shotgun certificates. Where
shotguns are employed care must be taken to use them at a sensible range so not to wound
dogs unnecessarily.
Red Devil said:
However a physical attack is not necessary for the offence to be complete.
For an offence by the OP yes. But we are currently seeking the law upon which a farmer can shoot a dog which is leaving his sheep/moving away - as yet no-one appears to have provided any.
My recollection from reading this law years ago is that the farmer in these circumstances is committing an offence both under civil and criminal law. I am still waiting for someone to provide the legislation or case law to support the farmer. Views such as "of course he can" and "I understand why he did it" doesn't quite cut the mustard.
01samuelr said:
This is what the farmer said happened. It was not the first incident but from reading up it seems that you are not allowed to shoot a dog when it is no longer a threat on the pretence that it would come back.
That speaks volumes doesn't it? Sounds like he already gave you a chance or chances to stop this from happening.Sorry if this has already been mentioned.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff