Shooting dog on farmland

[stitched]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Beartato said:

Twig, you weasely little .

What a fking coward you are. Sallow and bitter.

From the lack of an answer, I take it you can't find my endorsement?

I'm curious why you would put forward a course of action which you then argue you do not endorse.
Ah Because not only are you the type of cowardly st who would follow said course of actions but you would then wish to deny any responsability.
I am actually curious what it is you do with your life.

[01samuelr]

Op here. To finalise this thread. RSPCA state an unlawful killing of the dog. Having spoke to the farmer he acknowledges this and has apologised. So i have dropped all actions against him and have apologised for the actions of my dog to keep things amicable between us as we have other dogs (spaniels that dont give a st about the sheep).

[Shaw Tarse]

OP

[mph1977]

01samuelr said:

Op here. To finalise this thread. RSPCA state an unlawful killing of the dog. Having spoke to the farmer he acknowledges this and has apologised. So i have dropped all actions against him and have apologised for the actions of my dog to keep things amicable between us as we have other dogs (spaniels that dont give a st about the sheep).

RSPCA legal opinion = not fit to wipe your arse with

the RSPCA need stripping of their royal title and the 'Inspectorate' aka Walter Mittys R Us Ltd need disbanding

Edited by mph1977 on Sunday 3rd May 16:12

[Devil2575]

mph1977 said:

RSPCA legal opinion = not fit to ipe your arse with

the RSPCA need stripping of their royal title and the 'Inspectorate' aka Walter Mittys R Us Ltd need disbanding

Please stop talking

[egor110]

Beartato said:

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.

And where did I endorse 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?

Twig, you weasely little .

What a fking coward you are. Sallow and bitter.

Twig- down here we've had people going on social media trying to slag off a farmer due to there dog attacking his sheep and them not liking how the situations been dealt with.

A graphic photo of the dead sheep with there throats ripped normally stops any backing the dog owners managed to gain online.

[mph1977]

Devil2575 said:

mph1977 said:

RSPCA legal opinion = not fit to wipe your arse with

the RSPCA need stripping of their royal title and the 'Inspectorate' aka Walter Mittys R Us Ltd need disbanding

Please stop talking

the RSPCA nationally has shown little inclination for wildlife protection for many years and little interest in animal cruelty prevention

the Inspectorate are well known for pretending they are law enforcement personnel and attempting to use none existant powers ...

[Willy Nilly]

mph1977 said:

Devil2575 said:

mph1977 said:

RSPCA legal opinion = not fit to wipe your arse with

the RSPCA need stripping of their royal title and the 'Inspectorate' aka Walter Mittys R Us Ltd need disbanding

Please stop talking

the RSPCA nationally has shown little inclination for wildlife protection for many years and little interest in animal cruelty prevention

the Inspectorate are well known for pretending they are law enforcement personnel and attempting to use none existant powers ...

dads large animal vet went off one one when he mentioned the RSPCA. Something along the lines of them being a bunch of do gooders that failed vet college and cause a lot of (unpaid) work for vets.

[Martin_M]

01samuelr said:

Op here. To finalise this thread. RSPCA state an unlawful killing of the dog. Having spoke to the farmer he acknowledges this and has apologised. So i have dropped all actions against him and have apologised for the actions of my dog to keep things amicable between us as we have other dogs (spaniels that dont give a st about the sheep).

I don't really know what to say to this - I admire you for being able to forgive this so easily but doesn't the farmer deserve to be punished if his actions were indeed unlawful? We're not exactly talking a minor misdemeanor here are we.

[Sheepshanks]

northwest monkey said:

There was a TV programme recently where this happened - 3 dogs escaping from a garden onto farmland & harassing the livestock (IIRC it killed a couple of birds). The farmer shot and killed all 3 dogs & the woman who owned the dog was outraged & reported it to the Police. They visited the farmer & presumably checked out his licenses etc, but that was it.

Similar happened near us. Owners reported it and made a fuss in the local press - then got done for failing to keep their dogs under control.

Lad I worked with, who was from a farming family himself, had to shoot his own dog after a farmer identified it as having worried his sheep.

[mph1977]

Martin_M said:

01samuelr said:

Op here. To finalise this thread. RSPCA state an unlawful killing of the dog. Having spoke to the farmer he acknowledges this and has apologised. So i have dropped all actions against him and have apologised for the actions of my dog to keep things amicable between us as we have other dogs (spaniels that dont give a st about the sheep).

I don't really know what to say to this - I admire you for being able to forgive this so easily but doesn't the farmer deserve to be punished if his actions were indeed unlawful? We're not exactly talking a minor misdemeanor here are we.

the RSPCA can state what they like, their opinion counts for little in the grand scheme of things, the Police and judiciary have woken up to what Walter Mittys R US ltd does and so have many people in the wider community , unless the police and CPS deem that there is a good chance of conviction it won;t even get to court ....

[mjb1]

Fish said:

...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.

Since the farmer knew who the owner was, he doesn't have valid legal defence for shooting the dog.

[HQ2]

mjb1 said:

Fish said:

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.

Since the farmer knew who the owner was, he doesn't have valid legal defence for shooting the dog.

I would presume that means an immediate establishment of ownership to stop the worrying. In this case the farmer is hardly likely to visit the neighbour and ask that he come and control his dog.

[Red Devil]

Jasandjules said:

Legalities become material if one is sued or prosecuted.

See the link I posted earlier. The farmer was prosecuted yet despite witnesses who asserted the dog was running away he was acquitted. Magistrates in rural areas are, ime, more likely to side with a farmer whose livelihood is threatened than a dog owner whose pet has caused the problem

Jasandjules said:

Sure. I was being pragmatic, rather than dealing with a hypothetical case law concept.

Dog, unaccompanied, worrying sheep in field. NFA.

^^This^^

Prosecutions of farmers do happen but they are more likely to be the exception than the rule. There is a big difference between your average family pet and a working dog. The latter is bred for the purpose and hours of training are invested in ensuring it doesn't step out of line. If it doesn't respond or goes rogue it is a non starter/finished in that role.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/once-a-dog-ha...
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/archive/inde...

Every dog owner should read this, imo - http://www.dog-secrets.co.uk/how-do-i-stop-my-dog-...
However the author goes on about rabbits. The potential for adverse consequences are far higher where sheep are involved. Keep your mutt under control. It's not rocket science.

[gazza285]

Martin_M said:

We're not exactly talking a minor misdemeanor here are we.

Yes, yes we are.

[anonymous-user]

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 wrote, in English, that your dog would NEVER stray. Respectfully, that is an absolute statement and I don't believe it for a second.

Glass houses etc.

[DonkeyApple]

mjb1 said:

Fish said:

...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.

Since the farmer knew who the owner was, he doesn't have valid legal defence for shooting the dog.

That isn't quite corect. The 'practical means of establishing ownership' is about the owner being present and able to take control to halt the damage. It doesn't mean that the dog can continue doing damage while the owner is contacted and asked if they will come and take the dog away.

What needs to be held in mind is that dogs are not all that responsive once the genetic mechanism that makes them chase animals kicks in. The most well trained of animals will become unresponsive.

[GT119]

mjb1 said:

Fish said:

...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.

Since the farmer knew who the owner was, he doesn't have valid legal defence for shooting the dog.

Surely the word 'or' in that final sentence means that it is a legal defence if the farmer felt that 'there was no other means of ending or preventing the worrying'. I believe OP stated this wasn't the first time the dog had been doing this, so farmer was probably within his legal right to take the action that he did. 'Or' vs 'and' obviously being the main distinction here.

[herewego]

Martin_M said:

01samuelr said:

Op here. To finalise this thread. RSPCA state an unlawful killing of the dog. Having spoke to the farmer he acknowledges this and has apologised. So i have dropped all actions against him and have apologised for the actions of my dog to keep things amicable between us as we have other dogs (spaniels that dont give a st about the sheep).

I don't really know what to say to this - I admire you for being able to forgive this so easily but doesn't the farmer deserve to be punished if his actions were indeed unlawful? We're not exactly talking a minor misdemeanor here are we.

The dog has previously attacked the sheep but as far as we know the farmer did not insist that the owner be prosecuted.

[KrazyIvan]

RSPCA can say what they like , it was the police who decided there was no case for the farmer to answer for. Though the OP has got an apology, the best course of action is to move on.