Shooting dog on farmland
Discussion
Under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, if a dog worries sheep on agricultural land, the person in charge of the dog is guilty of an offence. The Act considers sheep worrying to include attacking sheep, chasing them in a way that may cause injury, suffering, abortion or loss of produce or being at large (not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep.
“When you take your dog into the outdoors always ensure it does not disturb wildlife, farm animals, horses or other people by keeping it under effective control … It is always good practice to keep your dog on a lead around farm animals … Keep your dog in sight at all times, be aware of what it’s doing and be confident it will return to you promptly on command … Ensure it does not stray off the path or area where you have a right of access.” The Code also reminds walkers that a farmer ‘may shoot a dog which is attacking or chasing farm animals without being liable to compensate the dog’s owner’.
I think that says it all (unless there were witnesses).
“When you take your dog into the outdoors always ensure it does not disturb wildlife, farm animals, horses or other people by keeping it under effective control … It is always good practice to keep your dog on a lead around farm animals … Keep your dog in sight at all times, be aware of what it’s doing and be confident it will return to you promptly on command … Ensure it does not stray off the path or area where you have a right of access.” The Code also reminds walkers that a farmer ‘may shoot a dog which is attacking or chasing farm animals without being liable to compensate the dog’s owner’.
I think that says it all (unless there were witnesses).
R8Steve said:
Shooting someone elses dog vs your own dog being shot - i know what one would feel worse regardless of circumstance.
Yes but this isn't about feeling sorry for yourself. It's about taking responsibility for your own mistakes. I feel every sympathy for the OP. But it's more important to think about other people's feelings than your own.405dogvan said:
At the very least you have to report what happened - at the very least he will get a visit from the Police to check everything is in-order.
01samuelr said:
I have informed the police who have checked the licence and legality of the firearm this is ok.
The OP's post wasn't the longest to have read. The implication lots of 'landowners' have some stash of unregistered firearms is utter rubbish.
01samuelr said:
The dog notices the farmer so stops worrying the livestock and starts running home. The dog has traveled around 15-20meters and this is when the farmer shoots and kills my dog.
If the farmer was 95% legal and right are you still going to make his life hell?
It sounds like you have failed to keep your dog under control and paid a high price. move on
Just to be clear, I have a dog and occasionally she hasn't been under my full control - I guess most owner will know that feeling!
01samuelr said:
My dog goes onto the farmers land and starts worrying the livestock.
Farmer well within his rights as far as I'm concerned, your dogs done it before, you haven't taken stopped this behaviour and kept your dog under control. I think you have a lesson to learn here.I don't think a farmer would take ending a life lightly.
Edited by Foliage on Friday 1st May 11:54
Hugo a Gogo said:
the dog is loose in the field, it can turn and run in circles at any point, jump over a wall and come back in 5 minutes or an hour
It has been a while since I read the legislation and case law but I believe there must be immediate danger of harm to shoot, a dog running away does not qualify. Nor can it be shot "in case it comes back later".DonkeyApple said:
Martin4x4 said:
You are on a hiding to nothing, the law is an ass on this subject.
The farmer only needs to state he has a 'belief' your animal was a risk to his livestock.
He doesn't need any evidence and you need to prove that 'belief' was unfounded.
I don't believe the law is an ass in this instance. The farmer only needs to state he has a 'belief' your animal was a risk to his livestock.
He doesn't need any evidence and you need to prove that 'belief' was unfounded.
In this case the law is rightly protecting a man and his family's livlihood from reckless endangerment.
Everyone knows you don't allow your dog to be a problem for livestock and everyone who lives near farms go to great lengths to train their dogs to not be an issue and also ensure they remain within the confines of their property.
This is a very, very unfortunate event that was 100% the result of repeated poor pet management. Sad but true. And it is 100% correct that the law should protect innocents from the actions or lack of actions of others.
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.
I make no comment on whether or not the shooting was legal. Farmers are quite often corrupt villains who think they can do as they please. However, it would seem the OP has very little in the way of a defence here. Relying on things like 'my dad thought the shot sounded nearer to his position than it would likely have sounded if the farmer had shot the dog where he said he shot it' is not going to get the OP very far.
I could feasibly see in the circumstances, the farmer having his guns and licence checked, and being interviewed voluntarily by the local police's wildlife officer and this whole thing not going much further than that. Much easier to prove would be a claim from the farmer that the OP's dog was lose on his land and worrying the sheep, and the OP getting in bother over that.
The real loser in all of this situation was the dog. We know that dogs are feckless creatures, so why did the OP let it roam or give it the freedom to indulge it's natural predatory desire? Had it been properly supervised, it would not have been shot and the situation would have been avoided.
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.
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?
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?
Devil2575 said:
Not to mention protecting the animals themselves.
Until such a time as they are slung in a truck, driven to a shed, shot in the head, chopped up, cooked and then wolfed down by me and shat out into the sewer. 
A spot of adrenaline tenders the meat. It's why Koreans like to batter their dogs to death with sticks before eating them!
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.
Or - Being a rural area the local press and a majority of locals may well support the farmer and the fact that he acted to protect his livelihood and it could all turn against the OP and his life might become a tad unpleasant - but you didn't think of that did you. It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences or more commonly "Be careful what you wish for ... "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.
CrutyRammers said:
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?
01samuelr said:
Unfortunately the dog escaped of its tether without us realising. My other 2 spaniels are completely obedient and have never left the boundries of my property.
That suggests to me that the OP knew that the dog would go straight for the sheep if it got loose (which it unfortunately did).
When a dog is like this you have 2 choices. Get rid of it or make sure it never gets the opportunity to get free.
If you failed to do either then the farmer has no choice. If he caught it worrying and failed to shoot it this time then as far as he's concerned it's going to happen again.
La Liga said:
405dogvan said:
At the very least you have to report what happened - at the very least he will get a visit from the Police to check everything is in-order.
01samuelr said:
I have informed the police who have checked the licence and legality of the firearm this is ok.
The OP's post wasn't the longest to have read. The implication lots of 'landowners' have some stash of unregistered firearms is utter rubbish.
the countryside is the the farmer's ' office' , 'shop floor' and 'warehouse' ...
Eleven said:
Is he normally like this then?
Quick look at the profile suggests the user does sod all else except post drivel on PH all day long.Regarding the OP - take it as a hard lesson and learn from it... even the most trusting and loyal dog is a wild animal when the blood is up and the sheep are running, I suspect (as you have alluded to) that the farmer has given the dog several chances in the past and this was the final action open to him.
Out of interest, in the previous incidents had the farmer made you aware he would take action if the dog was not restrained?
mph1977 said:
or the typical attitude of townies that don;t see shotguns and firearms as just another tool in the effective management of the countryside ...
the countryside is the the farmer's ' office' , 'shop floor' and 'warehouse' ...
and offices, shopfloors and warehouses are also prone not to keeping all their paperwork up-to-date - they are, fortunately, less prone to killing people's pets (just their workers will to live)...the countryside is the the farmer's ' office' , 'shop floor' and 'warehouse' ...
I grew-up next to a farm where the farmer liked to loose-off a shot-or-2 at anyone near his land - he had an endless array of excuses for what he thought he was shooting at which kept his land free of pretty much everyone - didn't stop him hanging himself, no loss to mankind really.
Thing about a shotgun is that you need to be relatively close to your target for a kill (50m tops?) so he had to know exactly what he was shooting at. Maybe the dog has history and he's within his rights - maybe he's a
neighbour who likes killing people's pets - best check and see there's no people tied-up in the barn or cellar eh?I'm not sure I'm 100% with the revenge campaign but his farm gates would be finding themselves left open a lot - I mean, only good neighbours keep the countryside code eh?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff