Shooting dog on farmland
Discussion
.the farmer's defence is that his property was under immediate threat. The dog being loose in the field with the sheep is part of the definition of 'worrying' that's the immediate threat. He convinces the police or the court of that, he's innocent
jasandjules you mentioned the gamekeeper earlier, loose game animals or birds are considered wild and not protected property, however valuable they may be
jasandjules you mentioned the gamekeeper earlier, loose game animals or birds are considered wild and not protected property, however valuable they may be
Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Saturday 2nd May 10:34
HQ2 said:
Jasandjules said:
If the farmer said the dog was running away then my understanding is that he was not entitled to shoot it.
If a dog runs into a field, kills all the sheep then starts to leave the farmer can't shoot it? Rather obviously, you cannot shoot the poor thing when it is in amongst the livestock and you cannot know that is is actually running away. Ergo, the only course of action is to take a shot at the first suitable opportunity that it is clear.
It's a s
t situation for the owner but unfortunately the dog had previous form of harassing livestock and actually damaging them and that is probably the specific reason why, when the dog was known, it was dealt with in this manner. DonkeyApple said:
It's a s
t situation for the owner but unfortunately the dog had previous form of harassing livestock and actually damaging them and that is probably the specific reason why, when the dog was known, it was dealt with in this manner. Mave said:
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.
If anything, the laws should be simplified to help farmers protect their livestock, simply if a dog is unattended in a field with sheep the farmer should be allowed to shoot it. Put the onus on the dog owners to control their pets, not on the farmer to decide if his sheep are being distressed.
DonkeyApple said:
More to the point, anyone who has watched dogs playing knows they run out and back in etc.
Rather obviously, you cannot shoot the poor thing when it is in amongst the livestock and you cannot know that is is actually running away. Ergo, the only course of action is to take a shot at the first suitable opportunity that it is clear.
Impressive reasoning DA. This situation is akin to frequent questioning of a Police officers actions when under attack "Why didn't he just shoot the attacker in the leg?" Rather obviously, you cannot shoot the poor thing when it is in amongst the livestock and you cannot know that is is actually running away. Ergo, the only course of action is to take a shot at the first suitable opportunity that it is clear.
A farmer arriving at a scene where a dog is threatening or attacking his livestock will not have the luxury of analysing the events to the nth degree and choosing - what in hindsight - is the most appropriate time to act, he or she has to nullify the threat immediately. Because of this there will always be situations where things could have handled better, it's the nature of it, so taking responsibility to prevent these things happening in the first place is far more important. The onus is heavily on the dog owner I'm afraid.
HQ2 said:
Jasandjules said:
If the farmer said the dog was running away then my understanding is that he was not entitled to shoot it.
If a dog runs into a field, kills all the sheep then starts to leave the farmer can't shoot it? Countdown said:
DonkeyApple said:
It's a s
t situation for the owner but unfortunately the dog had previous form of harassing livestock and actually damaging them and that is probably the specific reason why, when the dog was known, it was dealt with in this manner. One thing for anyone who owns dogs by open land that is a pain is that I belive those shock collars have been banned in recent years. They were a perfect way to simply reinforce the concept of boundaries from a young age.
And while any dog can go awol and do damage you might not buy a breed like a terrier or Jack russel etc which have been genetically created to chase etc. I would er more towards a gun dog breed etc so as to minimise that risk.
Approximately three years ago when on holiday in Dorset, walking along the coastal path with my GSD. As were other dogs, my dog was also off her lead, then from no where a startled sheep dashed out of a cluster of bushes. My dog immediately giving chase, which ended up with my dog attacking the sheep by the neck.
By the time I reached my dog and the sheep, a crowd had formed and the farmer had by now been contacted. The farmer pointed out that it was a regular occurrence, and we agreed a financial settlement of £200. I personally felt the farmer was not too bothered, he received a good payment, and there were more lamb chops for the dinner table.
In my case, and possibly if there was previous history in the OP's case, then farmers have the right to shoot the dog.
By the time I reached my dog and the sheep, a crowd had formed and the farmer had by now been contacted. The farmer pointed out that it was a regular occurrence, and we agreed a financial settlement of £200. I personally felt the farmer was not too bothered, he received a good payment, and there were more lamb chops for the dinner table.
In my case, and possibly if there was previous history in the OP's case, then farmers have the right to shoot the dog.
HQ2 said:
If a dog runs into a field, kills all the sheep then starts to leave the farmer can't shoot it?
Absent anyone posting up any law to the contrary, that is my understanding of the legal position. There must be a clear danger AND the farmer must shoot only as a last resort (though practically speaking if it is a big f***er of a dog you aren't going to grab it etc). Which means the farmer was not entitled to shoot it.Particularly at this time of year (lambing) if you are out with your dog try to remember ITS NOT YOUR LAND. Stay away, if you must use footpaths accross fileds with stock in them; keep to path, put fido on a lead, follow the footpath to an area where your dog will not be a threat.
Bear in mind that sheep are controlled by sheepdogs, this only works as they have a fear of them, if you let fido near pregnant sheep they can/will get stressed and abort. Farmers have a tough enough time as it is without Joe public seeing the countryside as being there purely for their benefit and being thoughtless on someone elses property.
Bear in mind that sheep are controlled by sheepdogs, this only works as they have a fear of them, if you let fido near pregnant sheep they can/will get stressed and abort. Farmers have a tough enough time as it is without Joe public seeing the countryside as being there purely for their benefit and being thoughtless on someone elses property.
Jasandjules said:
Absent anyone posting up any law to the contrary, that is my understanding of the legal position. There must be a clear danger AND the farmer must shoot only as a last resort (though practically speaking if it is a big f***er of a dog you aren't going to grab it etc). Which means the farmer was not entitled to shoot it.
Yup. The CCTV footage or the letter from the dog to the farmer saying it was going home should be sufficient evidence. 
Jasandjules said:
Absent anyone posting up any law to the contrary, that is my understanding of the legal position. There must be a clear danger AND the farmer must shoot only as a last resort (though practically speaking if it is a big f***er of a dog you aren't going to grab it etc). Which means the farmer was not entitled to shoot it.
Animal Act 1971. Its been mentioned on this thread numerous times.s9 said:
Killing of or injury to dogs worrying livestock.
(1) In any civil proceedings against a person (in this section referred to as the defendant) for killing or causing injury to a dog it shall be a defence to prove—
(a) that the defendant acted for the protection of any livestock and was a person entitled to act for the protection of that livestock; and
(b) that within forty-eight hours of the killing or injury notice thereof was given by the defendant to the officer in charge of a police station.
...
(3) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person killing or causing injury to a dog shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if, either—
(a) the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or
(b) the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.
(4) For the purposes of this section the condition stated in either of the paragraphs of the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that it was satisfied and had reasonable ground for that belief.
The issue the farmer has here is that he seemingly knew who the dog belonged to. Had he not I don't see how civil blame could be attached. All on balance of probabilities.(1) In any civil proceedings against a person (in this section referred to as the defendant) for killing or causing injury to a dog it shall be a defence to prove—
(a) that the defendant acted for the protection of any livestock and was a person entitled to act for the protection of that livestock; and
(b) that within forty-eight hours of the killing or injury notice thereof was given by the defendant to the officer in charge of a police station.
...
(3) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person killing or causing injury to a dog shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if, either—
(a) the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or
(b) the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.
(4) For the purposes of this section the condition stated in either of the paragraphs of the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that it was satisfied and had reasonable ground for that belief.
Unless you can find any specific offence I'd imagine shooting a dog would come under general animal cruelty legislation (assuming relevant).
allergictocheese said:
The issue the farmer has here is that he seemingly knew who the dog belonged to. Had he not I don't see how civil blame could be attached. All on balance of probabilities.
Unless you can find any specific offence I'd imagine shooting a dog would come under general animal cruelty legislation (assuming relevant).
But the Animal Act does not offer a defence for the farmer. As you agree I feel. Therefore we are still in the position where given the circumstances the OP can sue the farmer. No-one has managed to find any lawful ground for the farmer.Unless you can find any specific offence I'd imagine shooting a dog would come under general animal cruelty legislation (assuming relevant).
I think it would come under general cruelty legislation if the animal was not swiftly killed. There may be firearms offences as well I think, subject to the gun used.
So all in all it would appear in summary:
1. OP is liable for an offence in "allowing" his dog to act that way
2. Farmer is liable for killing the dog in the circumstances the farmer admits to
Why on earth would you sue a farmer over the value of a dog (assuming it's not one that spits out Crufts winners on a regular basis)?
Especially when it would have been in the course of your own criminal behaviour (I'm thinking civil legal principles around refusal to allow benefit from criminal acts).
Notwithstanding the farmer can just say that the dog was worrying his livestock at the time, or that it was still in the vicinity and he didn't recognise it and, as you can see from the legislation, he enjoys a huge benefit of the doubt with regard to reasonable belief, on top of the court being able to consider on balance of probabilities.
It's sad for the OP, but if you allow your dog to roam free on land containing livestock, there is a very real chance it'll get shot.
Especially when it would have been in the course of your own criminal behaviour (I'm thinking civil legal principles around refusal to allow benefit from criminal acts).
Notwithstanding the farmer can just say that the dog was worrying his livestock at the time, or that it was still in the vicinity and he didn't recognise it and, as you can see from the legislation, he enjoys a huge benefit of the doubt with regard to reasonable belief, on top of the court being able to consider on balance of probabilities.
It's sad for the OP, but if you allow your dog to roam free on land containing livestock, there is a very real chance it'll get shot.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff