Shooting dogs worrying sheep

[iworkwhippets 12,542]

How many folks go out and purchase a dog for pet or work, then let the bugger loose to run amok, i bet it never enters their heads to livestock train em

[pegleg33 134]

How many folks go out and purchase a dog for pet or work, then let the bugger loose to run amok, i bet it never enters their heads to livestock train em

 

 

Sorry but if your intentions are to work a dog for f**k sake break it to livestock .A pet i can sort of understand as some people are unaware of the countryside but a working dog NO

[chimp 299]

so if a dog is having a go at the sheep , get your phone out and take a pic and then give it a barrel . job done

[TWOTWOTHREE 152]

......

Edited October 12, 2011 by Malt
removed at members request

[Night Hunter 109]

I have had an in depth discussion with my local chief constable and was advised that if a dog is in a field with livestock and the owner is not either in close control of the dog or the dog is not on a lead then is resonable to asume that the dog is "out of control"in the eyes of the law and hence could legaly be shot by the landowner or a person acting on behalf of the landowner.

 

The landowner I shoot for has had various problems with dogs worrying livesock,she has put up signs thoughout her property,she also has a couple of sheep in certain fields to encorage people to keep thier dogs either under close control or on a lead as she rides her horses in these fields and has almost been thrown off her horse due to an out of control dog,the dog owner who thought it was funny stood and laughed,he didnt laugh as loud when I spotted his dog among the sheep.......I dont condone the shooting of dogs but it is one of the conditions that I agreed to when I took on that particular permision and is clearly stated on my letter of permition. I always try to give dog owners a warning in the first instance but this as you can understand is not always possible.

 

I was out shooting with my mate and I asked one guy to put his dog on a lead as it was running all over the place and he didnt even have one with him,he got all agresive and argumentative so I simply took a photo of him and his dog and advised him to keep his dog under control or to at least carry a bag to take it home in...I have not seen him since.

 

There are unfortunately still some owners that open thier door in the local village and let thier dog walk itself,If I can catch these dogs up then that is my prefered option,first time I take them to the local pound then if caught again its off to a pound much further away I find this works for me.

[CharlieT 32]

Night Hunter

 

You state:

 

"I have had an in depth discussion with my local chief constable and was advised that if a dog is in a field with livestock and the owner is not either in close control of the dog or the dog is not on a lead then is resonable to asume that the dog is "out of control"in the eyes of the law and hence could legaly be shot by the landowner or a person acting on behalf of the landowner."

 

 

 

I would therefore suggest your Chief Constable is a fool and an idiot and should take the trouble to read up on the act and perhaps take some legal advice.

[halloween man 12]

The law on shooting dogs is quite specific and shooting a dog leaves the shooter open to a civil claim for damages. It is up to the person who shoots the dog to prove that he did so justifiably and therefore has no claim for damages to answer. There is no right to shoot a dog rather the law states that it is defensible under certain circumstances. As well as being a civil matter the police may treat it as a criminal offense if the dog's owner reports the shooting to the police and makes a complaint.

 

The law states:

 

Worrying livestock is defined as:

 

1.attacking livestock; or

2.causing it injury or suffering or, in the case of females, abortion or loss of, or injury to, their offspring through being chased; or

3.not being on a lead or under close control, in a sheep field or enclosure.

You can shoot any dog worrying livestock if:

 

1.the dog is worrying (see the definition above) or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or

2.the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity, and is not under the control of any person and there are no practical means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.

However you must be able to prove that shooting the dog was necessary to protect your livestock and that you reported the incident to the police within 48 hours.

 

Protecting game is rather different. To avoid criminal liability, you have to prove that the shooting of a dog that was worrying game, was taken to protect your own property or your interest in that property. To do this, you need to demonstrate that you honestly believed that, at the time, the game was in immediate need of protection and that, under the circumstances, you used reasonable means.

 

In addition, to avoid civil liability, you will need to prove that the dog was either actually in the process of attacking the animals or, without the intervention, would renew its attack so that the animals would be left in a real and imminent danger.

 

Bearing in mind that shooting dogs should always be the last resort, however if your livestock is being worried, you can take action. However, you need to exercise more caution where game is concerned, as all relevant circumstances will be taken into account to establish if there was an imminent threat.

Can of worms or what Charlie T spot on ,DogMagic :crazy: i think you should seek some professional help as soon as

[billy_wizz 2]

Never mind the legal point of veiw here, are any of you really thick enough to believe that you will get away with shooting someones dog? I can assure you if anyone shot my dog i would be looking for payback in a VERY VERY big way but i certainly wouldnt be involving the police and if other members of your household happened to be in at the time then the whole lot of them would be toast! Think about it! Im far from the only dog owner in the world that would react in such a way. As has been said, i/ we love my/our dogs as if they were our kids. If some c**t shot your kid what would you do? Take them to court? I dont think so.

 

 

So your ANIMAL is more important than some poor farmers ANIMAL! so your saying if someone Else's dog gets in your garden and rips your dog apart you wouldn't shoot it if you could? do you realize how much of a prick you make yourself sound like?

[Ideation 8,216]

I hunt my dogs, and as such they sometimes cross land boundries, so there is a real chance that if quarry went through a hedge, into a field of sheep owned by someone else, then dog/s might/should follow. If they then proceeded to chase sheep and pin one, fair enough, if you cant shout them off, shoot them, but if they are just mooching up the hedge trying to find quarry, or crossing back across the field having lost the quarry . . ... and someone shot them.

 

 

They might have to seriously worry about their livelihood.

 

 

Yes dog owners need to be considerate of farmers, and build a good relationship, but that works both ways.

[Night Hunter 109]

The law on shooting dogs is quite specific and shooting a dog leaves the shooter open to a civil claim for damages. It is up to the person who shoots the dog to prove that he did so justifiably and therefore has no claim for damages to answer. There is no right to shoot a dog rather the law states that it is defensible under certain circumstances. As well as being a civil matter the police may treat it as a criminal offense if the dog's owner reports the shooting to the police and makes a complaint.

 

The law states:

 

Worrying livestock is defined as:

 

1.attacking livestock; or

2.causing it injury or suffering or, in the case of females, abortion or loss of, or injury to, their offspring through being chased; or

3.not being on a lead or under close control, in a sheep field or enclosure.

You can shoot any dog worrying livestock if:

 

1.the dog is worrying (see the definition above) or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or

2.the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity, and is not under the control of any person and there are no practical means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.

However you must be able to prove that shooting the dog was necessary to protect your livestock and that you reported the incident to the police within 48 hours.

 

Protecting game is rather different. To avoid criminal liability, you have to prove that the shooting of a dog that was worrying game, was taken to protect your own property or your interest in that property. To do this, you need to demonstrate that you honestly believed that, at the time, the game was in immediate need of protection and that, under the circumstances, you used reasonable means.

 

In addition, to avoid civil liability, you will need to prove that the dog was either actually in the process of attacking the animals or, without the intervention, would renew its attack so that the animals would be left in a real and imminent danger.

 

Bearing in mind that shooting dogs should always be the last resort, however if your livestock is being worried, you can take action. However, you need to exercise more caution where game is concerned, as all relevant circumstances will be taken into account to establish if there was an imminent threat.

 

I think that you should read my full post mate,I can asure you I do not take shooting dogs lightly and I do comply completely if the need should arrise also re your comment about the chief constable perhapse he just read the red extract from the piece that you posted mate,but at the end of the day I have had no repercussions whatsoever.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Night Hunter

[masmiffy 82]

mike i would rather shoot at a zx10 then i would a dog (gixer lad thru and thru me lol)

 

hopefully i wont have too shoot a dog as its only a village and the news would spread fast about the bad guy with the gun

 

Oh dear my reputation goes before me as 'the guy with the gun' so you may escape scott free!!

Must be the early morning forays, carrying the bunnies home on the bike and meeting those dog walkers I recon

 

Just a thought on this what about if the 'worrying animal' was one of the famous 'big cats' now that would be interesting!!

Edited April 3, 2011 by masmiffy

[chartpolski 23,480]

I've read this thread with great interest; because back in the very early 70's a "gamekeeper" shot one of my dogs. There was no stock involved, he shot it because "it was on his land" ! Not running wild, but with me, my brother and another dog ! Now, apart from getting the hiding of his life; he was charged with, and found guilty of, unlawfully killing a dog ! He lost his job, FAC,SGC, and had a hefty fine; as well as having to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life ! Remember, this was when gun laws were far more relaxed than they are today ! So, although I support shooting a PROVEN stock worrier; any farmer or keeper who fires a gun at a dog these days, had better have a good lawyer !

 

Cheers.

Edited April 3, 2011 by chartpolski

[halamrose 24]

The word according to BASC: http://www.basc.org.uk/download.cfm/docid/9F65FF5E-4A24-4411-9040F0825D4B8B8C

[chartpolski 23,480]

The word according to BASC: http://www.basc.org.uk/download.cfm/docid/9F65FF5E-4A24-4411-9040F0825D4B8B8C

 

 

As with all these laws, look at the wording; "may be" "could be" etc, etc. !! Who could prove the liability of an owner if they simply deny they ALLOWED their dog, or had any knoweldge of it stock worrying ? As I said, a good lawyer, for either side, would decide a case !

 

Cheers.

[gez_lewis 0]

i had a lot of trouble with dogs killin my sheep this year so i went round all the houses around my land and said if i see any dogs loose in my fields i would shoot it. after that as if by magic i didnt loose any more. it wasnt as if they were small either they were big rams that i lost.