How legal is this sign?

[Nigel Worc's]

simoid said:

Us urban types don't understand

I know, I removed a shotgun from a farmer once, as the cretin had it loaded on a public highway (it was a country lane).

There were two very different camps, as far as thoughts on what I'd done, some thought fair enough, others thought I wasn't used to Country ways.

Either way I caused him a whole load of st, he had his licence removed and had to re-apply.

I hate guns, I worry about the people that wish to own them !

[anonymous-user]

I was recently helping a friend who has a farm to clear rooks from his fields. We walked around the fields and along and across the lanes, each carrying a shotgun and cartridges. We carried them weapons broken. When we found rooks, we loaded up and shot at them, and even hit a few, although not enough to make a decent pie. Were we cretins? I add that I was taught gun discipline and weapons handling as a child, and have never forgotten my lessons about guns and the very real dangers which they pose.

I support strong gun control, and think that no one who does not have a sound business or sporting reason for possession of a gun should have one. Certainly, hand guns and automatic weapons should not be permitted in private hands. Shotguns, however, are working tools in the country.

[Hoonabator]

Have people totally missed the "Playing fields" part of my first post.

This has nothing to do with worrying livestock and the rights and wrongs of shotgun ownership.

I posted in the "Law" section to try and get an factual answer.

To clarify......

1. The sign is no where near sheep, goats, horses, cows, donkeys. Yes maybe my uncontrollable dogs might spot the sheep on the hillside 2 miles away and head straight there a maul them but I'm sure they'll come across a person with treats before canage occurs.

2. The signs are on posts along side a pathed public footpath that runs along the edge of 3 "playing fields"

3. You can walk onto these playing fields from 3 places and not encounter the signs.

4. Should there be information stating the area covered, this path runs for 2 miles and apparently once away from the playing fields you can let your dogs off again.

5. Do the signs need to display the byelaw they are upholding along with the fact a fine could be incurred?

6. Also it's nothing to do with dog mess there is a separate bye law stated on another sign covering this.


Basically what I would like to know is can an on the spot fine be issued on the basis of these signs.

[JumboBeef]

Gaspode said:

The Protection of Livestock Act 1971 gives farmers the right to shoot dogs who are loose in the same field as their livestock. We had a woman walking her dog off the lead amongst our sheep some years ago (a public footpath crosses the field). Needless to say, the bloody thing started chasing our sheep all over the place, and a few of them had nasty injuries. A neighbour saw it and called the cops before they called us.

The police turned up very promptly - in fact so promptly he must have been passing. The woman had managed to get her dog under control by then, protesting 'He's never done it before' I was shouting at her, giving her a right blocking, and Mrs Gaspode was trying to get the injured ewes into the shed so she could treat them.

The cop just walked up to the woman, took the dog from her, brought it over to me and said "Do you want to shoot it now, or shall we let the vet do it?" No messing, no listening to the woman's side of the story, nothing.

I said I was happy for the vet to do it painlessly, no point in the dog suffering, and it was duly put down within the hour.

So no, maybe the council couldn't do anything legally like fining you, but if your dog came within eyeshot of a farmer with gun, you'd probably have one less pet to feed...

Hahahaha, you got me there, for a minute. I actually thought you were serious

A farmer can shoot (or injure) a dog to STOP it from injuring or killing their livestock. What they cannot do is to shot it for revenge!

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yb4...

And yes, I 1/ have dogs and 2/ live in a very rural area.

[anonymous-user]

Hoonabator said:

Basically what I would like to know is can an on the spot fine be issued on the basis of these signs.

To answer that question, we need to know the precise location and need to know what byelaws, if any, have been made in respect of the location.

Is this an urban or a rural area? I struggle to understand why anyone keeps a dog in an urban setting, or why any dog should ever be off a lead anywhere where children may be encountered. I am not anti-dog, but I am realistic about them, and think that no almost dog is to be trusted with any child. Humans take priority over other mammals. That may be tough on the other mammals, but they should have evolved faster, so that they would be making the rules, and not us.

Also, they shouldn't have been so tasty. Yum, yum. I haven't been to Korea, but I might pop over there to try some local cuisine one of these days. Apparently, we are quite tasty too, but I'm not going there, and the other mammals will have to run faster or arm up if they want to eat us these days. Attempted eating of small humans by dogs is not a good idea, so put them on a lead near the playgrounds, please.

PS: before the yoghurt huggers start, I love fluffy animals, and think that mammals should be treated with care and respect, but they still come below us in the pecking order on this harsh and unfair planet. We are, to paraphrase Iain M Banks, top monster on a planet full of monsters. Our gaff, our rules.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 4th May 08:25

[herewego]

Hoonabator said:

Have people totally missed the "Playing fields" part of my first post.

This has nothing to do with worrying livestock and the rights and wrongs of shotgun ownership.

I posted in the "Law" section to try and get an factual answer.

To clarify......

1. The sign is no where near sheep, goats, horses, cows, donkeys. Yes maybe my uncontrollable dogs might spot the sheep on the hillside 2 miles away and head straight there a maul them but I'm sure they'll come across a person with treats before canage occurs.

2. The signs are on posts along side a pathed public footpath that runs along the edge of 3 "playing fields"

3. You can walk onto these playing fields from 3 places and not encounter the signs.

4. Should there be information stating the area covered, this path runs for 2 miles and apparently once away from the playing fields you can let your dogs off again.

5. Do the signs need to display the byelaw they are upholding along with the fact a fine could be incurred?

6. Also it's nothing to do with dog mess there is a separate bye law stated on another sign covering this.


Basically what I would like to know is can an on the spot fine be issued on the basis of these signs.

If you're not sure why the sign is there or think it may be an error why not email the council for an explanation. In the meantime why not treat it as a request and comply, letting the dogs off where you know it isn't a problem.

[Jasandjules]

Gaspode said:

The cop just walked up to the woman, took the dog from her, brought it over to me and said "Do you want to shoot it now, or shall we let the vet do it?" No messing, no listening to the woman's side of the story, nothing.

I do not believe the Officer has any such authority to do that.

As for the sign, there are more and more control orders out there regarding dogs (so much so I think we have voted in a Govt who despite dogs) and they can require a dog to be on lead when asked to do so by an appropriate person IIRC.

ETA - But one thing I would say is where is that sign? If it is on the approach to say farmland where there is a public right of way then I would most certainly have my dogs on lead anyway.

[superlightr]

Breadvan72 said:

Stuff &
Our gaff, our rules.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 4th May 08:25

interesting lemon twist there. I presume The Mice have a different viewpoint.

[anonymous-user]

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

[RB Will]

just a thought maybe the idea is to keep dogs on a lead and maybe to the edge of the playing field so that the dog does not poo on a football pitch for example and if they do poo next to the owner then the owner should notice and pick it up.

[Jasandjules]

Breadvan72 said:

Is this an urban or a rural area? I struggle to understand why anyone keeps a dog in an urban setting, or why any dog should ever be off a lead anywhere where children may be encountered. I am not anti-dog, but I am realistic about them, and think that no almost dog is to be trusted with any child.

It's odd but I hold the same view about horses, quite why anyone allows a child to be near a horse is beyond me, 30 stone plus of nervous animals and children is not a good idea... Why people trust a small child to take a horse out on the roads is utterly beyond me.

[oldsoak]

Red Devil said:

Not it's not. According to Gaspode it was off lead. So what's your point?

Anybody brought up in the countryside knows perfectly well the potential consequences of having a dog off lead in a field where there is livestock. The problem is incomers from urban places. They don't have the first clue about a rural way of life.

You obviously skim read this bit then?

gaspode said:

The woman had managed to get her dog under control by then,

Now your rantings about "incomers from urban places" notwithstanding, My "point" as you call it was as the dog was at the time UNDER control...ergo no longer racing after livestock or causing mayhem and also presumably was then ON A LEAD, the officer had no authority to take said dog.
The proper procedure would have been to report said dog owner for summons and thereafter for the court to decide the dog's fate.
Had the dog not been under control, the farmer would have been well within his rights to shoot the dog (subject to the directions under the Animals Act).
Simply having a dog on farm land is not reason to put the dog down or indeed to take pot shots at it.
The dog needs to be actively attacking livestock or has already attacked livestock or NOT UNDER CLOSE CONTROL and there is no other means to prevent further injury to livestock. FWIW a dog can be off lead AND still be under close control.
Therefore Gaspode's anecdotal recollection of what occurred or what is allowed to occur in such situations is I'm afraid a load of 'cobras'.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/22/pdfs/u...

[daz3210]

If a farmer or a PC took one of my dogs off me when it was under control, whether it was SUSPECTED of previously being out of control or not, with the sole intention of taking it to a vet or shooting it, I am afraid I would not be responsible for my own actions.

We have laws which state a court can order destruction, a single PC does not constitute a court I don't think.

As for the sign, don't know if its legal or not, but would you want to play football on a pitch contaminated by st?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ShampooEfficient said:

If you were to apply proper road sign thinking, the picture by itself would say "walking of dogs prohibited"...

^^^THIS.

That sign means no dogwalking. The sign should be a dog on it's own running with a red diagonal line thru it, and wording underneath to say dogs to be kept on leads.

Some thicko council twit had mocked up that sign.

[andy_s]

Breadvan72 said:

I was recently helping a friend who has a farm to clear rooks from his fields. We walked around the fields and along and across the lanes, each carrying a shotgun and cartridges. We carried them weapons broken. When we found rooks, we loaded up and shot at them, and even hit a few, although not enough to make a decent pie. Were we cretins? I add that I was taught gun discipline and weapons handling as a child, and have never forgotten my lessons about guns and the very real dangers which they pose.

I support strong gun control, and think that no one who does not have a sound business or sporting reason for possession of a gun should have one. Certainly, hand guns and automatic weapons should not be permitted in private hands. Shotguns, however, are working tools in the country.

Bit O/T, but if you have a sound business or sporting reason (target shooting) why shouldn't you be able to have a handgun? An automatic weapon is another kettle of fish, and it was strange to see it used alongside 'handgun' as a 'not permitted in private hands' category of weapon.

[Gaspode]

Jasandjules said:

I do not believe the Officer has any such authority to do that.

As for the sign, there are more and more control orders out there regarding dogs (so much so I think we have voted in a Govt who despite dogs) and they can require a dog to be on lead when asked to do so by an appropriate person IIRC.

ETA - But one thing I would say is where is that sign? If it is on the approach to say farmland where there is a public right of way then I would most certainly have my dogs on lead anyway.

I agree, the officer almost certainly did not have the right to do that. The relevant act only permits farmers to shoot dogs in order to protect their livestock. Had I shot the dog under the circumstances, I suspect the owners might well have had some sort of case against me. As it was, they took it straight to the vets and had it humanely destroyed, and the matter ended there. We did not prosecute the owner as we felt the destruction of their dog was punishment enough. One of the ewes that had been savaged had to be destroyed, and two survived.

[Engineer1]

Jasandjules said:

Breadvan72 said:

Is this an urban or a rural area? I struggle to understand why anyone keeps a dog in an urban setting, or why any dog should ever be off a lead anywhere where children may be encountered. I am not anti-dog, but I am realistic about them, and think that no almost dog is to be trusted with any child.

It's odd but I hold the same view about horses, quite why anyone allows a child to be near a horse is beyond me, 30 stone plus of nervous animals and children is not a good idea... Why people trust a small child to take a horse out on the roads is utterly beyond me.

Conscious decision I put my kid on a horse I assume they can cope with riding on the road. Someone else's dog how do I know it's friendly? How can I be sure? How can my kid be sure? So for the good of other park users all dogs on leads means that you don't get the good dog that does it's first viscous move, or comes bounding up and stops the other side of the now knocked over child. Don't forget for all the sensible responsible dog owners and good dogs there are the crap owners and poorly behaved or trained dogs.

[veryRS]

Gaspode said:

I agree, the officer almost certainly did not have the right to do that. The relevant act only permits farmers to shoot dogs in order to protect their livestock. Had I shot the dog under the circumstances, I suspect the owners might well have had some sort of case against me. As it was, they took it straight to the vets and had it humanely destroyed, and the matter ended there. We did not prosecute the owner as we felt the destruction of their dog was punishment enough. One of the ewes that had been savaged had to be destroyed, and two survived.

Revenge isnt allowed in UK law.

Frankly old chap if it was me and my dog(s) and either you or the plod attempted to abitrarily take them off me when they were under control you'd have had 2 very angry dogs and 1 even angrier owner using self defence laws to contend with.

As for the OP, it looks more like a request to me. And one which any decent dog owner would abide with I should think.

[anonymous-user]

A handgun, like an automatic rifle or sub-machine gun, is designed for the primary purpose of shooting people. It is notable that some (not all) target shooters like to shoot at targets shaped like people, and take courses on combat handgun shooting. In any event, the sport of target shooting can be carried out with the weapons held at the shooting club. By contrast, shotguns and bolt action rifles can be used to shoot people, but that is not their primary or sole function (military bolt action rifles apart). They are also useful, and are mainly used, for pest control, culling, and game shooting. In all societies in which people are allowed to keep handguns and/or automatic rifles at home, the number of gun related homicides is high, relative to population. The gun lobby says that "guns don't kill people. people kill people", to which the answer is "yes, people with guns kill people". Of course, occasionally people who lawfully have shotguns or deer rifles go nuts and shoot people with them, but this is relatively rare in the UK and the sensible bits of Europe. Guns held unlawfully are another problem altogether.

As for horses and children, I agree with the point that placing a child with a horse involves a calculated risk, which is mitigated by training and equipment. A dog presents an unknown risk to a child. I agree with the observations that, whether or not the sign indicates a rule, no reasonable dog owner should object to keeping his or her dog on a lead when at or close to a playing field. Those dog owners who do not poop-scoop should have a special Circle of Hell reserved for them. Those who allow dogs to dump, unscooped, outside schools and playgrounds, should be subjected to a moderate sanction, such as being fed alive to their own dogs on public television.

[singlecoil]

Baffles me why anyone would think that walking a dog on a playing field, even with a lead, is a reasonable thing to do. Surely the sign is there just to back up the obvious. Unless 'playing field' is now taken to mean 'dog playing field'?