Farmers shooting dogs

[Agent Orange]

Hmm, from various anecdotal accounts that I've heard it's tended to be more a case of shoot first ask questions later... which to me, spells on a whim

 

If the dog is in the thick of it, then it's almost certainly too late to do anything with a shotgun.. unless you're willing to risk taking out or injuring half the herd with your shot from those 'cartridges'.

 

Or it's more about a revenge shooting after the damage is done.. (which is not unheard of either).

 

Of course a farmer will shoot first, that's what he is entitled to do. It's land and it's his livestock that he's trying to protect. I tell you what, I will cause thousands of pounds worth of damage to your property and when challenged, I will say you challenged me on a whim.

[Swampster]

Of course a farmer will shoot first, that's what he is entitled to do. It's land and it's his livestock that he's trying to protect. I tell you what, I will cause thousands of pounds worth of damage to your property and when challenged, I will say you challenged me on a whim.

 

I call shenanigans, to compare apples for apples.. you'd just have stand on my property, not do any damage at all.. then after I shot you claim I attacked you on a whim...

[Agent Orange]

I call shenanigans, to compare apples for apples.. you'd just have stand on my property, not do any damage at all.. then after I shot you claim I attacked you on a whim...

 

Huh...... ?

[peewee84]

But the farmer does not see the dog as a pet. The farmer will see a dog as a pest, a pest that shouldn't be on his land scaring his animals.

 

Oh, I hate to be pendantic, it's cartridges not bullets

 

But again, that doesn't make it right! I don't care about the farmer's perspective (which is all it is, a perspective) I do see the dog as a pet, MY pet. We all have our different view on things, doesn't everyone's view is right. And to me, his view is wrong..

 

I don't agree with the outcome but I have no argument with the law that's in place either. I have dogs and I feel the same as you do. If it can be tweaked in some way then great but sensibly what are the options!

Fine you disagree with the current law but you have to supply alternatives and as paying for damage is an unlikley one due to irresponsibility then what else?

 

In response to your 'only the farmers opinion matters' yes. If he shot one of mine on his land my only responses given the different natures of the dogs I have would be, 'but she wouldn't have done anything' or; to be honest given that some of them would cause mayhem, hold my hands up and suffer the pain of losing them.

The point is I know the law and as I said I don't put them or myself in the position of breaking it.

If the law changes it wont make any difference to me. They still wont get off all the time there are animals in the field.

 

At the end of the day, either ruling on side of the farmer or on the side of the dog owners is going to have some problems. That's life, not many things are perfect. But there is always a scale between extremes and I'm pretty sure that the law can be tweaked slightly as you put it so it doesn't involve the out-right shooting of a dog regardless. If it was going to do any good, I'd sit down and list all the alternatives and arguements for my case and I do think there would be many..

 

Hmm, from various anecdotal accounts that I've heard it's tended to be more a case of shoot first ask questions later... which to me, spells on a whim

 

Agree.

 

Of course a farmer will shoot first, that's what he is entitled to do. It's land and it's his livestock that he's trying to protect. I tell you what, I will cause thousands of pounds worth of damage to your property and when challenged, I will say you challenged me on a whim.

 

So with your reasoning I can shoot you then?

[Agent Orange]

But again, that doesn't make it right! I don't care about the farmer's perspective (which is all it is, a perspective) I do see the dog as a pet, MY pet. We all have our different view on things, doesn't everyone's view is right. And to me, his view is wrong..

 

 

 

So with your reasoning I can shoot you then?

 

In the eyes of the law, it's right. I really don't understand how you can argue that a farmer is wrong to shoot something that is harming or killing his animals.

 

No, I think you misunderstood my point. Someone said that farmers shoot dogs on a whim. I merely pointed out, that you cannot say preventing serious harm or damage is doing something on a whim.

[Jonny5]

Bottom line is the dog wasn't supervised properly, got onto farm land and could have cost the farmer a lot of money.

 

It a real shame for the dog as it's not its fault, but don't really see how the farmer morally let alone legally in any way wrong.

 

The law is right. Stevie only has himself to blame for not controlling his dog.

[upinwath]

I let my dog loose in a field of sheep and a farmer shot it.

 

Sorry for the dog having such a daft owner.

[XXTickerXX]

Sorry for the dog having such a daft owner.

 

Is there any need at all for that.People like you disgust me.Kicking people when they are down.He is obviously distressed about it.

[Murphy Jnr]

Is there any need at all for that.People like you disgust me.Kicking people when they are down.He is obviously distressed about it.

 

Welcome to 'waths' world.

[Movehut]

she was a very friendly dog would go with anyone and loved playing with everything, she did not maul or kill any sheep

 

So sorry for your loss, as a dog owner I can't even begin to think how it would feel.

 

But unfortunately farmers have the right to shoot even if the dog hasn’t touched the sheep. They can shoot just for a dog distressing the sheep, as many are pregnant and can lose their young.

 

See this article for more information.