Farmers shooting dogs

[hard2miss]

Well Im not sorry your dog was shot, if it was in a field full of sheep then it deserved it.

 

I am not saying this to wind anyone up but having this law probably keeps a hell of a lot of dogs from worrying sheep, so if its animal welfare that people are concerned about then its a good thing that the odd dog gets shot every now and then to highlight the point.

 

Anyone daft enough to own a dog and let it get into a position where it can get shot is needs to look at themselves and their own responsibility. Anyone that thinks that they have the right to attack the farmer for shooting their dog should think of what happened to the dog. Its no coincidence that most shotguns have 2 barrels...

[cgksheff]

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

 

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

 

The owner accepts his responsibility.

 

Why can't you?

[upinwath]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

 

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]

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]

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]

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.