Shooting dog on farmland
Discussion
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 
If there dog was on a lead there would never of been a problem would there.If the sheep were in lamb being chased can lead to them aborting.
But no couldn't be your friends fault in anyway could it, far easier to blame someone else.
egor110 said:
If there dog was on a lead there would never of been a problem would there.
If the sheep were in lamb being chased can lead to them aborting.
But no couldn't be your friends fault in anyway could it, far easier to blame someone else.
I Can tell you're a farmer by your spelling i can.... ooh arrgghh!!! If the sheep were in lamb being chased can lead to them aborting.
But no couldn't be your friends fault in anyway could it, far easier to blame someone else.
zulash said:
egor110 said:
If there dog was on a lead there would never of been a problem would there.
If the sheep were in lamb being chased can lead to them aborting.
But no couldn't be your friends fault in anyway could it, far easier to blame someone else.
I Can tell you're a farmer by your spelling i can.... ooh arrgghh!!! If the sheep were in lamb being chased can lead to them aborting.
But no couldn't be your friends fault in anyway could it, far easier to blame someone else.
Once again just in case your a bit simple, if the dog was on a lead or under control it wouldn't of been chasing sheep and wouldn't of been shot.
egor110 said:
You could try defending your friends maybe?
Once again just in case your a bit simple, if the dog was on a lead or under control it wouldn't of been chasing sheep and wouldn't of been shot.
It's late... i'm about to go to bed. you have probably just got up to go to the barn to shoot your new born freishian bull calves through the skull... and you dare to suggest that I'M simple! Once again just in case your a bit simple, if the dog was on a lead or under control it wouldn't of been chasing sheep and wouldn't of been shot.
You are simple; the farmer was protecting his livestock and his livelihood, as is his right in law. Your response to a legal act(shooting a dog worrying livestock) against an illegal act(allowing a dog to worry livestock) is more illegal acts and attempted murder. You might not like it but it's the law. Dogs don't have to physically attack livestock to cause death or injury and the farmer has the right to protect his living.
zulash said:
egor110 said:
You could try defending your friends maybe?
Once again just in case your a bit simple, if the dog was on a lead or under control it wouldn't of been chasing sheep and wouldn't of been shot.
It's late... i'm about to go to bed. you have probably just got up to go to the barn to shoot your new born freishian bull calves through the skull... and you dare to suggest that I'M simple! Once again just in case your a bit simple, if the dog was on a lead or under control it wouldn't of been chasing sheep and wouldn't of been shot.
I trust your friends regret letting the dog off lead in a field of lambs.
hidetheelephants said:
You are simple; the farmer was protecting his livestock and his livelihood, as is his right in law.
I think we've established that in the circumstances of this case the farmer does not in fact have a defence to a claim and accordingly his conduct was not lawful under the relevant Act. We've also established that the OP is also liable under a different Act. Sorry for your loss OP in any event.
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
hate to break it to you sheep worrying is referred to as such as the sequalae present without physical attacks ...if i were you i;d stick to the 911 forum
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
Why were they on his land in the first place ? poo at Paul's said:
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
Why were they on his land in the first place ? Next time I walk my pet lions though someone else's land, off their lead of course, got help any homeowners who have their dogs chased by my lions!
If anyone laid a finger on my lions, I'd burn their house down. And create extreme sanctions. With extreme prejudice.
zulash said:
HQ2 said:
Wow, I'd stick to the 911 forum. The 'harm' doesn't have to be physical attacks.
Oh really!!.... i would've burned the farmhouse down had the prick shot one of my dogs! 
Dog not being on a lead and allowed onto someone else's land is the fault of the dog owner.
zulash said:
egor110 said:
You could try defending your friends maybe?
Once again just in case your a bit simple, if the dog was on a lead or under control it wouldn't of been chasing sheep and wouldn't of been shot.
It's late... i'm about to go to bed. you have probably just got up to go to the barn to shoot your new born freishian bull calves through the skull... and you dare to suggest that I'M simple! Once again just in case your a bit simple, if the dog was on a lead or under control it wouldn't of been chasing sheep and wouldn't of been shot.
egor110 said:
If the sheep were in lamb being chased can lead to them aborting.
But no couldn't be your friends fault in anyway could it, far easier to blame someone else.
Why would the farmer feel the need to shoot the dog if it wasn't physically attacking the sheep? But no couldn't be your friends fault in anyway could it, far easier to blame someone else.
If the sheep did abort then the farmer has suffered a loss but it wont do any lasting damage to the sheep (I assume) so it will be down to the dog owner to pay for the loss.
My relative had a similar situation where his two dogs escaped and killed two sheep. The farmer didn't kill the dogs but both were put down by my relative anyway and he had to pay the farmer for his loss.
sugerbear said:
egor110 said:
If the sheep were in lamb being chased can lead to them aborting.
But no couldn't be your friends fault in anyway could it, far easier to blame someone else.
Why would the farmer feel the need to shoot the dog if it wasn't physically attacking the sheep? But no couldn't be your friends fault in anyway could it, far easier to blame someone else.
If the sheep did abort then the farmer has suffered a loss but it wont do any lasting damage to the sheep (I assume) so it will be down to the dog owner to pay for the loss.
My relative had a similar situation where his two dogs escaped and killed two sheep. The farmer didn't kill the dogs but both were put down by my relative anyway and he had to pay the farmer for his loss.
Because you can put up all the polite notices asking owners to keep dogs on lead as its lambing season and people just ignore them, eventually you have to take drastic action to get people to control there dogs.
If people took responsability and kept there dogs on lead then none of this would happen.
The farmer is in the right 100%.
If a dog is tresspassing on private land with or without it's owner and a hunter is being threatened by a dog or dogs as was in my case, and you are fearfull of injury from the said dogs, you may deal with them in any safe way, either by slitting their throats if you are ok with getting up close and personal with an attacking dog or by shooting it when they get close. The owner would also be liable to prossicution under the dangerous dogs act.
A dog must be on a leash or at heal when on both public or when tresspassing on private land, however on private land you may encounter hunters.
If a dog is tresspassing on private land with or without it's owner and a hunter is being threatened by a dog or dogs as was in my case, and you are fearfull of injury from the said dogs, you may deal with them in any safe way, either by slitting their throats if you are ok with getting up close and personal with an attacking dog or by shooting it when they get close. The owner would also be liable to prossicution under the dangerous dogs act.
A dog must be on a leash or at heal when on both public or when tresspassing on private land, however on private land you may encounter hunters.
Jazzman1960 said:
The farmer is in the right 100%.
If a dog is tresspassing on private land with or without it's owner and a hunter is being threatened by a dog or dogs as was in my case, and you are fearfull of injury from the said dogs, you may deal with them in any safe way, either by slitting their throats if you are ok with getting up close and personal with an attacking dog or by shooting it when they get close. The owner would also be liable to prossicution under the dangerous dogs act.
A dog must be on a leash or at heal when on both public or when tresspassing on private land, however on private land you may encounter hunters.
If you slit a dog's throat you will find yourself prosecuted for cruelty to animals rather quickly.If a dog is tresspassing on private land with or without it's owner and a hunter is being threatened by a dog or dogs as was in my case, and you are fearfull of injury from the said dogs, you may deal with them in any safe way, either by slitting their throats if you are ok with getting up close and personal with an attacking dog or by shooting it when they get close. The owner would also be liable to prossicution under the dangerous dogs act.
A dog must be on a leash or at heal when on both public or when tresspassing on private land, however on private land you may encounter hunters.
And no, no you may shoot or kill a dog if you feel under threat. At least not in the UK you can't.
Jasandjules said:
I think we've established that in the circumstances of this case the farmer does not in fact have a defence to a claim and accordingly his conduct was not lawful under the relevant Act. We've also established that the OP is also liable under a different Act.
Sorry for your loss OP in any event.
Only just found this and skimmed through the non legal discussion.Sorry for your loss OP in any event.
Based on the alleged facts being entirely correct then the above post seems to potentially be an accurate answer the OP's original question.
Rgadless of circumstances I too am sorry to learn of the sad loss here.
Jasandjules said:
I think we've established that in the circumstances of this case the farmer does not in fact have a defence to a claim and accordingly his conduct was not lawful under the relevant Act. We've also established that the OP is also liable under a different Act.
Sorry for your loss OP in any event.
That's a bit too much like the Belgrano argument; the main fact is the dog being loose in the field with livestock, arguing about direction of travel seems like hair-splitting. In the moment the farmer has little time to ponder whether the dog is fleeing or just running amuck and will circle back for more, resulting in livestock being in the line of fire and preventing a clean shot. Sorry for your loss OP in any event.
sugerbear said:
Why would the farmer feel the need to shoot the dog if it wasn't physically attacking the sheep?
If the sheep did abort then the farmer has suffered a loss but it wont do any lasting damage to the sheep (I assume) so it will be down to the dog owner to pay for the loss.
The trauma of having a dog loose in the same field can be enough to abort lambs and/or kill the sheep through shock; physical attack is not necessary to cause harm.If the sheep did abort then the farmer has suffered a loss but it wont do any lasting damage to the sheep (I assume) so it will be down to the dog owner to pay for the loss.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff