Farmers shooting dogs

[upinwath 10]

In true definition he didn't let the dog run free at all as it was in his own garden. It was the dogs 'decision' to leave that space.

I would say the objectionable part of your post was to call the owner daft. As far as he was concerned the dog was secured.

 

OK, let's look at the OP without all the smoke and moaning.

 

i have had my dog shot dead by a farmer that was keeping sheep on land he was renting,

 

17 year old collie...decided to make a bolt out the driveway and ran up the road

 

we put the two younger dogs in the back garden

 

my 15 month old timberland ..... decided to jump the fence at the back into this field

 

distracted by the sheep in the field and worried them,

 

That's edited out all the crap so we can see the basic facts.

 

The OP failed to secure the dogs, knowing there were sheep around.

The hound went into the field and worried the sheep.

The farmer shot the threat to his sheep.

This happened, according to the OP, because he failed to look after one of his other dogs.

 

How does that make the owner anything better than foolish?

He totally failed to look after two of his dogs.

One ran into the road and the other worried sheep because the OP failed in his duty as an owner.

 

The idea of a petition to stop farmers protecting their animals is nothing short of pure stupidity. It is my opinion, any owner who fails to look after his animals properly, in this case resulting in the death of the dog, should be in court for maltreating said mutt.

Perhaps we could have had a double moaning thread if the older mutt had been run over.

Maybe a petition to ban cars because they kill dogs when crap owners don't look after their pets.

 

Having a 17 year old Collie also, shows some capability in looking after his animals I would say.

 

Given one dog could easily have been killed by a car or caused a serious accident, and the other was killed while attacking sheep, how exactly do you work that out?

[peewee84 10]

"Sheep worrying" is a specific term.

It is also wording in the Act.

The OP knows what it means and he acknowledged what happened.

 

Go and look it up.

 

I have looked it up thanks, I did beforehand, however there seems to be a bit of contradiction with the term “worrying” on this forum. I understand it as the dog is chasing/nipping/rounding up the sheep for it’s own amusement. However, apparently the sheep can get “worried” at the mere sight of a dog but that’s not “worrying” as it is defined in agricultural terms is it, because the dog is not actually doing anything, just being there standing still (as what seemed to happen in this case and it was still shot) so it’s not actually “worrying” them is it?

 

Hence my post, I was referring to this specific situation in the original post..

[Conrod 10]

was a greenbelt field at the back of my house in fife, surrounded by houses, dont know yet if the land is registered for agriculture use as it was owned by the coal board, and this guy was just renting this field, and gun laws state he must be land owner to use a gun on agriculture land, but do the police want to help, it also must state on his gun license a rifle must be conditioned for the shooting of vermin and pests and would not be conditioned to shoot a dog unless the certificate had it printed on it, as dogs are not vermin but will the police also check this out will they hell

My bold. No, the laws do not say that. Anybody appropriately licensed can shoot on land with the permission of the owner, and in many cases the granting of that permission is delegated form the owner to the tenant. If he had used a firearm illegally the Police would be very excited about it.

 

I love my dogs, and the situation you describe is sad because you did nothing irresponsible, it was just bad luck, but you state yourself that the dog was worrying the sheep. Even when it's not lambing time, farmers lose stock to dogs and they can't know whether a dog is just excited and unlikely to cause harm, or likely to injure or kill. They have to be able to protect their stock, by shooting dogs if necessary, sad though that can be.

[Murphy Jnr 10]

It was the dog's 'decision' as you say, to chase and worry the sheep.

 

The owner accepts his responsibility.

 

Why can't you?

 

I have and I don't have a problem with the farmer exercising his right to shoot, i've not said otherwise if you read my posts.

[Murphy Jnr 10]

 

That's edited out all the crap

 

 

I'm not interested in disecting and analysing each detail of a post, that is your forte. The dog escaped, the dog was shot. Farmers can do this and as I have mentioned I go out of my way to make sure one of them will never be mine. I have no argument with the law as it stands and as said already IF it gets reviewed and changed fine, but dogs will still not be allowed to run off lead in a field with livestock so there seems little point. I understand why an aggrieved owner feels the need to try however.

The scenario you give involving banning cars is one of your trademark extremes so i'll skip over that.

[Conrod 10]

Your dog didn't do anything wrong and your dog wasn't dangerous so he has got no excuse for his actions hope i wonder how he would react if someone shot his dog which was harmless.

Did you actually read what the OP said? Try this bit:

 

"where she decided to jump the fence at the back into this field in the hope to get to me, and you guessed the rest, got distracted by the sheep in the field and worried them",

[upinwath 10]

The scenario you give involving banning cars is one of your trademark extremes so i'll skip over that.

 

It's just as stupid as a petition intended to stop farmers protecting their livestock, thus contrasting reality from the idiotic idea in the OP.

 

This is just another, "I did something ruddy stupid but can't accept I was an idiot" thread.

I'm truly amazed anyone thinks the OP has any merit or thinks they're responsible owners.

[Murphy Jnr 10]

It's just as stupid as a petition intended to stop farmers protecting their livestock, thus contrasting reality from the idiotic idea in the OP.

 

This is just another, "I did something ruddy stupid but can't accept I was an idiot" thread.

I'm truly amazed anyone thinks the OP has any merit or thinks they're responsible owners.

 

I never said it was stupid, that's a self admission and you're doing well with those of late.

 

I don't know that he's a responsible owner all I said was that in keeping a dog to the age of 17 suggests he's capable of looking after them. He's been unfortunate and possibly naive to think his back garden was secure, we learn by our mistakes.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

Could could could...

If I get drunk and drive my car home safely, I've broken a law. I could've caused some damage, and thus that is why the law is there. We have to take conditions into account when we make laws.

 

A dog in a field of sheep could cause damage - it is an absolute truth.

 

I'm truly amazed anyone thinks the OP has any merit or thinks they're responsible owners.

He sounds like a responsible owner who had some bad luck. It is a situation in which it is hard to blame anyone.

[upinwath 10]

we learn by our mistakes.

 

One dog paid the price for one of his mistakes, the other could have.

Is that acceptable?

 

In my humble opinion; it was less than reasonable to leave the dogs in a situation where they could escape so easily.

 

To lose one dog may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.

 

Plagiarism and bastardisation in one sentence. I'm getting good.

[Murphy Jnr 10]

One dog paid the price for one of his mistakes, the other could have.

Is that acceptable?

 

In my humble opinion; it was less than reasonable to leave the dogs in a situation where they could escape so easily.

 

To lose one dog may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.

 

Plagiarism and bastardisation in one sentence. I'm getting good.

 

Well you know more than I do about the garden so I can't really comment. The standard six foot fence required by most rescues before adopting stops most but the more agile will find a way if it suits them to do so. The facts are that dogs are unpredictable, I know this because I have them and I've worked with dogs for a few years. I've seen large bulky dogs squeeze through bars in a kennel to get somewhere.

Is it acceptable that he lost a dog? I'd say he'll live with it for a while yet but its not as though he was aware of what was about to happen. If he was then the outcome would be unnacceptable. One dog caused a chain of events that ended tragically. Anyone of yours or my actions today may be the cause of a sad ending for someone else, life's like that.

[cgksheff 44]

I have looked it up thanks, I did beforehand, however there seems to be a bit of contradiction with the term “worrying” on this forum. I understand it as the dog is chasing/nipping/rounding up the sheep for it’s own amusement. However, apparently the sheep can get “worried” at the mere sight of a dog but that’s not “worrying” as it is defined in agricultural terms is it, because the dog is not actually doing anything, just being there standing still (as what seemed to happen in this case and it was still shot) so it’s not actually “worrying” them is it?

 

Hence my post, I was referring to this specific situation in the original post..

 

My understanding of the OP is that the dog got loose, and chased the sheep and maybe more ("worried" them).

The OP says so.

 

After that, when the farmer shot the dog it was standing still.

 

No?