Please read this and if anyone has any advice please contact me on here. A friend's little rescue dog Sally was { as yet not explained ) let out of her secure garden on Wednesday. The owner lives in an estate cottage belonging to Apley Hall the game keeper pulled up in his car and told the owner " You better hope you get to her before I do " The owner could not follow him as the day before her car was damaged and was not drivable.When she went to the police they questioned the game keeper he admitted that he had shot the poor dog, he took the wpc to where he had dumped her body. The wpc was so distressed by what she saw she took her coat of and covered little Sally. The police and the R.S.P.C.A could not do anything the dog had been shot in the stomach and both her back legs were BROKEN, and she had only been in a potato field. This dog was number ELEVEN that had gone missing four dogs and six cats had all vanished without a trace. in an eleven month period none of the other pets were reported missing although the owners felt there pets had met the same fate as Sally. This is a complicated situation due to the pet owners being afraid of loosing their homes if they report their pets missing this is just awful of coarse there is no admission of guilt regarding the other ten pets but he has ADMITTED SALLY'S MURDER so please anyone if you know what we can do or just support this poor owner who had rescued this little dog out of a bad bad situation please reply. Thank you.

I HAVE POSTED THIS FROM ANOTHER SITE BUT WE CAN STILL WRITE TO ESTATE AND GET THIS GUY SACKED

Thank you all for your replies the owners are joining the site now and will be able to answer all the questions you have the police and the media will only write that a dog was shot by a gamekeeper and they will not name him. The idea of sending letters to the owners of this estate is an excellent one and maybe the owners of this wealthy estate will be forced to do the right thing and get rid of this evil evil man who I agree seems to be hiding behind his job. The address will be easy to find and the owners are very very grateful for any of you who could write and tell these people what they think of this poor dogs murder. Thank you for your kind words and if you could cross post this we would be grateful once again thank you all.Doing this will not break any laws unless the letters contain a threat so if you do write please register your disgust in manner that is not a threat we do not want anyone to get into trouble.

Apley park is one of the finest settings in the county due to the careful stewardship of Apley Estates who are most anxious to preserve the privacy and integrity of the landscape surrounding the hall. The estate is private and not open to the public.

Access to the hall is strictly by appointment with the owners, who may be contacted at :

Apley Hall Restoration Ltd.

Apley Estate, Norton

Bridgnorth

Shropshire, WV15 5ND

Hi

Whilst it is very sad that your friend's dog was shot by a gamekeeper and you and they feel aggrieved about what has happened (and I would too, particularly given his threat about hoping the owner got to the dog before he did) you will probably find that the estate only pay, at best, lip service, to your concerns. Especially as you mention that folk who have had animals disappear over the last year don't kick up as they are in fear of losing their home, that mentality smacks that the "la di dah's" don't care about the "peasants".

Gamekeepers are employed for a reason and, if there were rearing pens nearby for example, they could argue that the dog was, in their (the game keeper) opinion, posing a threat to the livestock and was shot to curtail that threat - nasty but perfectly legal, hence the police reticence to act.

I hope that, in the future, your friend can, at least, find a small crumb of comfort in knowing what happened to her dog, and not having the awful situation of constantly wondering where she is.

I think this is awfull! It has really upset me, i think i would do time if anybody hurt any of my dogs! I hope this man gets his just deserts!

If he has admitted killing the dog unlawfully he can be prosecuted for animal cruelty and he could also be done for firearms offences.

That has made me feel quite ill.. Ba#@%rd!!!! Wish I'd not read it :'-(

What I really dont understand about this is. If the land owner doesnt like pets and animals occasionally escaping onto his land why did he allow his tenants to keep pets. Surely its easier for him to not let them have pets than it is to have to chase the down later?

My understanding is that, under the 1971 animals act, pheasants are only classed as "livestock" if they are "in captivity". If the dog was worrying pheasants that had been released from the rearing areas, then I would guess that the owner would have a case to sue the gamekeeper. I'm awaiting advice from the police & Defra on this. Will keep you posted.

The Apley estate office can be contacted on the following e-mail address:
apleyest@btconnect.com

If he has admitted killing the dog unlawfully he can be prosecuted for animal cruelty and he could also be done for firearms offences.


how could he be done for firearm offence's :huh:
gamekeeper's have to have a licence for their gun's, he could only get done for animal cruelty but i cant imagine how hard that would be to prove as it's his story against theirs + this place sound's pretty expensive so there going to have alot more money to fight a legal battle than most.
best thing to do is tell your friend to either move or dont have any outdoor pet's !

See www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/dangerous/index.htm for info on the law.

Extract below:

Under the Act there is a defence available to someone who is the subject of civil proceedings for killing or injuring a dog that was worrying or about to worry livestock. The defence can be used where there were no other means of ending or preventing the worrying or where the dog that had done the worrying was still in the vicinity and not under control and there were no practicable means of establishing ownership.
The definition of livestock in the 1971 Act is wider than in the 1953Act. Here it includes pheasants, partridges and grouse whilst in captivity.

how could he be done for firearm offence's :huh:
gamekeeper's have to have a licence for their gun's, he could only get done for animal cruelty but i cant imagine how hard that would be to prove as it's his story against theirs + this place sound's pretty expensive so there going to have alot more money to fight a legal battle than most.
best thing to do is tell your friend to either move or dont have any outdoor pet's !

Because the dog was killed unlawfully and it has to be actually bothering livestock :huh::huh::huh::huh::huh:

But I guess I know nothing seeing as not only do I have a shotgun licence but a rifle licence too and if you unlawfully kill any animal it classes as a firearms offence.

The op pointed out that the gamekeeper took pleasure in informing the owners he was off to shoot the dog and then dumped the body.

See www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/dangerous/index.htm for info on the law.

Extract below:

Under the Act there is a defence available to someone who is the subject of civil proceedings for killing or injuring a dog that was worrying or about to worry livestock. The defence can be used where there were no other means of ending or preventing the worrying or where the dog that had done the worrying was still in the vicinity and not under control and there were no practicable means of establishing ownership.
The definition of livestock in the 1971 Act is wider than in the 1953Act. Here it includes pheasants, partridges and grouse whilst in captivity.

Well this falls flat as the gamekeeper called at the house to taunt the dog owners knowing they wouldnt be able to get their first

Because the dog was killed unlawfully and it has to be actually bothering livestock :huh::huh::huh::huh::huh:

and like i said in my post how would you prove that it was'nt bothering livestock :roll:


But I guess I know nothing seeing as not only do I have a shotgun licence but a rifle licence too and if you unlawfully kill any animal it classes as a firearms offence.

yes and like stated earlier how would you prove that he killed the dog unlawfuly ? he could just say the dog was bothering livestock and the police would say the dog should not have been on its own to wander under the circumstance's thus i believe he could not get done for killing the dog unlawfully. so whether you have a firearm's licence or not you cant prove anything :roll:

The op pointed out that the gamekeeper took pleasure in informing the owners he was off to shoot the dog and then dumped the body.

and where did he tell them he was off to shoot the dog :huh:
i believe he said ' better hope you find it first' which although threatening is not actually saying im going to shoot your dog.

In situations like this it helps if you no someone who can make this man suffer jst like the pets have. Police in this situation are useless cos they dont have the laws to support them, getting him sacked (although doubt this will happen) wont be substantial punishment as far as Im concerned. I hope someone approaches him and breaks both his legs beyond repair, and I say that from the bottom of my heart.

and where did he tell them he was off to shoot the dog :huh:
i believe he said ' better hope you find it first' which although threatening is not actually saying im going to shoot your dog.

Well I would have thought it more than obvious that a game keeper wh has threatened to shoot the dog knocks on the door and says you better get it before I do and then speeds off knowing that they cant.

It isnt rocket science really is it

Well I would have thought it more than obvious that a game keeper wh has threatened to shoot the dog knocks on the door and says you better get it before I do and then speeds off knowing that they cant.

It isnt rocket science really is it


no it's not rocket science and we all know what he meant but he did'nt actually say that so he could'nt get done for saying that could he !

it's not rocket science :roll:

no it's not rocket science and we all know what he meant but he did'nt actually say that so he could'nt get done for saying that could he !

it's not rocket science :roll:

why you arguing about whether or not he could get done for SAYING he would shoot the dog, when he DID shoot the dog. Forget what he said and look at what he did, which just happens to coincide with what he said.

why you arguing about whether or not he could get done for SAYING he would shoot the dog, when he DID shoot the dog. Forget what he said and look at what he did, which just happens to coincide with what he said.


yes but unless you cant read i said that you could'nt prove it was an unlawful killing !
wether he admitted to killing the dog or not / or killed the dog or not he could just say it was bothering livestock which in turn means he could not get done for killing the dog.
maybe if you actually read my post's you would know that. And at no point did i say if he could get done for SAYING he would shoot the dog, i just answered carpetviper's post where he sed the gamekeeper could get done for it !

:roll:

yes but unless you cant read i said that you could'nt prove it was an unlawful killing !
wether he admitted to killing the dog or not / or killed the dog or not he could just say it was bothering livestock which in turn means he could not get done for killing the dog.
maybe if you actually read my post's you would know that. And at no point did i say if he could get done for SAYING he would shoot the dog, i just answered carpetviper's post where he sed the gamekeeper could get done for it !

:roll:

The old 'rolleyes' wow, that reallt gets to me. how does it go......:roll:

I hope someone maks this man suffer.

Looked at the original post today and they have received over 150 letters and the person has been suspended so a result but he should still be done for cruelty