Shooting dog on farmland
Discussion
Very sorry to hear about your dog, its a s
t situation for you, the dog and the farmer. I can't imagine he took the decision lightly.
I grew up in the middle of farmland, we had 4 dogs, and we knew that if they were off the lead in a field of sheep, the farmer was allowed to shoot them.
t situation for you, the dog and the farmer. I can't imagine he took the decision lightly.I grew up in the middle of farmland, we had 4 dogs, and we knew that if they were off the lead in a field of sheep, the farmer was allowed to shoot them.
KrazyIvan said:
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.
I did not see that the police had been called? Unless the farmer did it within 48 hours of course he also loses his defence IIRC.Jasandjules said:
KrazyIvan said:
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.
I did not see that the police had been called? Unless the farmer did it within 48 hours of course he also loses his defence IIRC.However there seems to be some misunderstanding and confusion in this thread.
That defence is in respect of civil proceedings.
For example where the dog owner seeks compensation for the loss of his/her pet.
Animals Act 1971 Section 9(1)(b)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/22/sectio...
That is quite distinct from a criminal charge under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/sectio...
See the case I linked to earlier.
https://www.fginsight.com/news/farmer-cleared-of-s...
AFAIK, where the dog's owner has been identified, there is nothing preventing the farmer from suing for his losses.
Something said owner needs to bear in mind before letting his/her mutt run free.
In practice it's rather unlikely though as most farmers recognise that the loss of one's pet is punishment enough.
Owners should also remember that even if the farmer doesn't shoot their pooch a court can still order its destruction.
The number was that high because more than one attack was involved.
All rural areas where sheep farming is carried out are affected.
http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/dog_owners_warned_o...
Attacks happen on a regular basis across the county down here.
http://www.sellingparishcouncil.org.uk/swale-borou...
I don't doubt it is the same in other parts of the country.
Casualties are always higher when ewes are lambing.
It only takes one irresponsible dog owner to cause mayhem.
If ownership of the dog is proved the court is likely to come down on the side of the farmer.
People need to wise up. Especially the deluded ones like rouge59.
Some bedtime reading.
http://naturenet.net/law/dogs.html
All rural areas where sheep farming is carried out are affected.
http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/dog_owners_warned_o...
Attacks happen on a regular basis across the county down here.
http://www.sellingparishcouncil.org.uk/swale-borou...
I don't doubt it is the same in other parts of the country.
Casualties are always higher when ewes are lambing.
It only takes one irresponsible dog owner to cause mayhem.
If ownership of the dog is proved the court is likely to come down on the side of the farmer.
People need to wise up. Especially the deluded ones like rouge59.
Some bedtime reading.
http://naturenet.net/law/dogs.html
La Liga said:
I certainly wouldn't have trust the RSPCA's conclusion if they gave a definitive answer. Have the interviewed the farmer? No? A key piece of the investigation prior to making any conclusion/s is missing if that's the case.
and despite their assertions over their status , they have NO powers to compel anyone to do anything ... just becasue they play at doing contemp notes interviews doesn;t mean they have any powers to actually do anything ( unlike EHOs /HSE enforcement / DWP investigation and even railway staff )
http://the-shg.org/The%20Law%20and%20the%20RSPCA.h...
As always this applies only to England and Wales.
Scotland is another country. The RSPCA has no role there.
The Scottish SPCA's inspectors DO have powers:
Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 Section 49(2).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2006/11/contents
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/farmingrural/Agricultur...
As always this applies only to England and Wales.
Scotland is another country. The RSPCA has no role there.
The Scottish SPCA's inspectors DO have powers:
Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 Section 49(2).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2006/11/contents
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/farmingrural/Agricultur...
kapiteinlangzaam said:
Bloody Hell fire, is that a dog or a Velociraptor? 
You'd be surprised.Two neighbours of mine had a disagreement as a whole shed of 30 chickens were dismembered. The neighbours dog got blamed.
This dog is angelic. I don't trust dogs, but, I trust her with my toddler. So, my neighbour denied that it could be the dog.
...until the following week when the shed is restocked, this time the dog is seen jumping back over the fence. The only chickens living have to be put out of their misery.
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 need stripping of their royal title and the 'Inspectorate' aka Walter Mittys R Us Ltd need disbanding
the Inspectorate are well known for pretending they are law enforcement personnel and attempting to use none existant powers ...
The RSPCA are frankly a disgrace of a charity in my opinion.
They have been utterly lambasted by many judges over the last few years for spending money on court cases on a vast scale (and losing quite often) instead of actually spending it on animal welfare.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2789492/ho...
I would never give them a penny.
NinjaPower said:
+1
The RSPCA are frankly a disgrace of a charity in my opinion.
They have been utterly lambasted by many judges over the last few years for spending money on court cases on a vast scale (and losing quite often) instead of actually spending it on animal welfare.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2789492/ho...
I would never give them a penny.
Rule one: never use the DM to support an argument. It means you've lost. The RSPCA are frankly a disgrace of a charity in my opinion.
They have been utterly lambasted by many judges over the last few years for spending money on court cases on a vast scale (and losing quite often) instead of actually spending it on animal welfare.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2789492/ho...
I would never give them a penny.
However, you are quite correct that the senior echelons of this 'charity' are actually political activists who have hijacked what was a very important entity. It's the same with the RSPB and other charities which since the 90's have more accurately become political lobby groups and party funders and activists.
But, as they are not the law, nor uphold the law, nor define the law, in this particular thread they are utterly irrelevant and their inclusion can only distort true law and reasoning.
I very rarely leave the 911 forum but this caught my eye.I worked with an Irish chap 35 years ago, who told me that he and his brother walked across farm land when their dog (& loving companion) was excited and running after sheep. probably no harm done but the farmer shot the boys dog dead. Devastated the lads carried their dead pet home. Farmers make a living from animals and probably never really bond with a pet as normal people would. Anyway... to cut a long story short, the two lads... Pat & Conny burnt the b@stard's barn to the ground! No less than the heartless C@NT deserved 
zulash said:
I very rarely leave the 911 forum but this caught my eye.I worked with an Irish chap 35 years ago, who told me that he and his brother walked across farm land when their dog (& loving companion) was excited and running after sheep. probably no harm done but the farmer shot the boys dog dead. Devastated the lads carried their dead pet home. Farmers make a living from animals and probably never really bond with a pet as normal people would. Anyway... to cut a long story short, the two lads... Pat & Conny burnt the b@stard's barn to the ground! No less than the heartless C@NT deserved
Wow, I'd stick to the 911 forum. The 'harm' doesn't have to be physical attacks. 
tex200 said:
Farmer has done nothing illegal here.
For the record - I am an animal lover.
I second tex200 here. I have a farmer friend who had an issue with dogs, they had actually killed a few sheep before he happened to catch them in the act.For the record - I am an animal lover.
I have 3 dogs and a field at the bottom of my garden, I do worry about the dogs wondering off as I am painfully aware of the price they would pay if the farmer caught them worrying the livestock but I am also aware it is my responsibility to prevent that situation.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff