Farmers shooting dogs !
Discussion
I can't believe the amount of rubbish being spouted here by certain posters, ironically one or two whose standard answer to the "speeding" thing is "it's the law - get over it, don't speed and you won't get caught" Well here's a sad fact for you, the law says the farmer has a right to shoot dogs to defend his stock, so simple answer is keep your dog on a lead and you have no worries, the law is the law regardless of whether you agree with it, speak to your MP I think is the standard retort? 
jaf01uk said:
I can't believe the amount of rubbish being spouted here by certain posters, ironically one or two whose standard answer to the "speeding" thing is "it's the law - get over it, don't speed and you won't get caught" Well here's a sad fact for you, the law says the farmer has a right to shoot dogs to defend his stock, so simple answer is keep your dog on a lead and you have no worries, the law is the law regardless of whether you agree with it, speak to your MP I think is the standard retort?
Read the legislation. There are requirements for this defence which appear not to have been followed. Therefore it may not be lawful. It's the law, regardless of if you agree with then eh??Sexual Chocolate said:
I suspect when his renewal comes up he won't get it.
I assume you're not that familiar with firearms?A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
ClaphamGT3 said:
I assume you're not that familiar with firearms?
A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
A farmer, even with all the boy scout shooting badges under the sun, will never, ever drop a dog at a mile with a .22. Ever.A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
ClaphamGT3 said:
A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
To be clear, you think you can shoot and kill a dog with a single .22 rifle round to the chest whilst that dog is allegedly tearing a sheep to bits? The only farmers I know get someone to come in to shoot the rabbits because they aren't good enough to kill them. I am a pretty fair shot and I don't think I could take that shot.
donutsina911 said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I assume you're not that familiar with firearms?
A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
A farmer, even with all the boy scout shooting badges under the sun, will never, ever drop a dog at a mile with a .22. Ever.A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
without knowing exactly what the rifle and the round were ...
despite .22 LR being a relatively low powered round it;s still concievable that the it could be used out to 100 or so yards ...
Jasandjules said:
To be clear, you think you can shoot and kill a dog with a single .22 rifle round to the chest whilst that dog is allegedly tearing a sheep to bits? The only farmers I know get someone to come in to shoot the rabbits because they aren't good enough to kill them.
I am a pretty fair shot and I don't think I could take that shot.
If you stop to think about it, the chest is the largest surface area of the dog. A single .22 round penetrating a dog's chest is very likely to be fatal and will certainly put it off its stride. An animal savaging another is also often surprisingly static as it rolls the prey over and starts goring it.I am a pretty fair shot and I don't think I could take that shot.
All in all, I don't think its implausible at all. I do a great deal of lowland stalking and I could quite imagine many of the farmers I stalk with being able to do so.
y2blade said:
Too many assumptions...good old PH. 
Sad that the dogs are dead, tragic that the owners were on holiday at the time.
other than that it is all bla bla bla until we hear the FACTS.
I think you're right.Sad that the dogs are dead, tragic that the owners were on holiday at the time.
other than that it is all bla bla bla until we hear the FACTS.
Just getting a little tired of "the big bad farmer shot cute little fido so we must find a way of twisting it to be his fault" brigade.
ClaphamGT3 said:
I assume you're not that familiar with firearms?
A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
Would not say quite a mile as the trajectory drop for a start would be too much A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
but certainly leathal upto 400-500 yards on a still day...
ClaphamGT3 said:
If you stop to think about it, the chest is the largest surface area of the dog. A single .22 round penetrating a dog's chest is very likely to be fatal and will certainly put it off its stride. An animal savaging another is also often surprisingly static as it rolls the prey over and starts goring it.
All in all, I don't think its implausible at all. I do a great deal of lowland stalking and I could quite imagine many of the farmers I stalk with being able to do so.
From a mile away? BullsAll in all, I don't think its implausible at all. I do a great deal of lowland stalking and I could quite imagine many of the farmers I stalk with being able to do so.
t. A Royal Marine sniper will wet his pants at a 1000m kill with an L115 and serious calibre metal. A .22 is about as useful as tits on a fish beyond a couple of hundred yards or so. Jasandjules said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
To be clear, you think you can shoot and kill a dog with a single .22 rifle round to the chest whilst that dog is allegedly tearing a sheep to bits? The only farmers I know get someone to come in to shoot the rabbits because they aren't good enough to kill them. I am a pretty fair shot and I don't think I could take that shot.
Engineer1 said:
The point is irrespective of it was a shot aimed at the chest that was a brilliant shot or a damned lucky shot that missed the intended target and hit the dog in a way that was fatal is irrelevant. There are 2 ways to hit a bulls eye, one is to be really good and aim at the bulls eye the other is to hit something then draw the bulls eye round it, and without knowing how it happened either is a bulls eye hit.
Not quite. IF the farmer did not need to take the shot i.e. the dogs were called to him or whatever then he has no lawful defence to killing the dogs. donutsina911 said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I assume you're not that familiar with firearms?
A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
A farmer, even with all the boy scout shooting badges under the sun, will never, ever drop a dog at a mile with a .22. Ever.A .22 rifle can carry a lethal round for up to a mile and, last time I looked, the chest was the biggest part of a dog. I don't think you could in any way infer that the marksman would have needed to call the dogs to him to have shot them.
The comment regarding having to call the dog in to use a .22 on it is nonsense. A chest shot at 100 yards is fairly straightforward.
donutsina911 said:
From a mile away? Bullst. A Royal Marine sniper will wet his pants at a 1000m kill with an L115 and serious calibre metal. A .22 is about as useful as tits on a fish beyond a couple of hundred yards or so.
I have seen a guy take out a rabbit with an Anschutz at over 200 yards. Depends on the shooter and the accuracy of the rifle. t. A Royal Marine sniper will wet his pants at a 1000m kill with an L115 and serious calibre metal. A .22 is about as useful as tits on a fish beyond a couple of hundred yards or so. plasticpig said:
donutsina911 said:
From a mile away? Bullst. A Royal Marine sniper will wet his pants at a 1000m kill with an L115 and serious calibre metal. A .22 is about as useful as tits on a fish beyond a couple of hundred yards or so.
I have seen a guy take out a rabbit with an Anschutz at over 200 yards. Depends on the shooter and the accuracy of the rifle. t. A Royal Marine sniper will wet his pants at a 1000m kill with an L115 and serious calibre metal. A .22 is about as useful as tits on a fish beyond a couple of hundred yards or so. jatopack said:
personally I would use a full bore rifle - but that is what I carry for the hares and rabbits.
Full bore rifle for bunnies - what calibre do you use ? You call of course and I do get the better range arguments about full bore, but rimfire has a nice flat trajectory and plenty of punch at up to 200 M (for cute bunnies) so full bore seems a bit OTT - all IMHO, of course.Cyrus1971 said:
Full bore rifle for bunnies - what calibre do you use ? You call of course and I do get the better range arguments about full bore, but rimfire has a nice flat trajectory and plenty of punch at up to 200 M (for cute bunnies) so full bore seems a bit OTT - all IMHO, of course.
.22-250 Remington Varmint Barrel - Anything under 75 yards it just makes a hell of a bang - after 200 yards it comes into its own. If zeroed for 150 - it is only an inch or so down at 250 - and is good for 300 - after that this shooter aint that good. Though I now have suspicians on the ammunition - I have been given some good hand loads - that seem to be uncanny at 350 - about 5-6 inch down.I started on .22LR - but my first pay check at age 16 - went on a .22 Magnum - and that was a massive improvement over the .22LR. I do understand though that the new .17 calibres etc are an improvement even more.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff