Shooting dogs

[Fadcode]

it's when you read threads like this, especially when they point to a common problem, like livestock being harassed by dogs, you realise just how bad some of the Laws are in the UK, as it stands now the Law is totally inadequate in dealing with this situation and in fact passes the wrong onto the livestock owner, rather than the dog owner. The recent death of a 86year old woman in her own garden by being attacked by 2 dogs, and the ultimate death of a seal which was attacked by a dog, as well as many instances of children being attacked, show that for some reason the dogs seem to have more rights than the victim. Why the law would expect a farmer to stand and watch his livestock being terrified by a loose dog, because he feared a civil prosecution or the loss of his FAC or shotgun license, if he took action, defies belief. (even though in most cases he would have a legal defense )
Now just because people like CP can have things changed because of the pressure they put on the Govt, maybe it's time for the farming community to put pressure on the Govt to have these Laws changed, perhaps everyone should bombard their MP requesting changes, or maybe a petition should be started, the dogs of today are so inbred that they can be dangerous from the start, the majority of dogs are mongrels and have mixed temperaments, you hear stories of people buying little pups after being told they only grow a little and will be a miniature dog, only to find they grow larger than expected. The trade in dogs should be fully monitored to ensure the theft of dogs is stopped, there is so much to do in relation to dogs, to ensure peoples safety and the safety of livestock.

 

[gixer1]

Sorry but that is rubbish. If you have a dog worrying and killing sheep you need to deal with the problem. You HAVE a defense in law if you shoot a dog either in the act of worrying and you have no other means of stopping it.

A dog that has its blood up is not going to run way if you say "shoo" and may well turn on you if you try to catch it

You may have a defence in law, but it’s a poor one if you can’t demonstrate you tried other methods before getting trigger happy. Guns are unpopular in society, that’s just the way it is, any dog shot will usually be portrayed as a lovable family pet that “just liked to run around”.....but if you feel confident, shoot away.

 

[gixer1]

it's when you read threads like this, especially when they point to a common problem, like livestock being harassed by dogs, you realise just how bad some of the Laws are in the UK, as it stands now the Law is totally inadequate in dealing with this situation and in fact passes the wrong onto the livestock owner, rather than the dog owner. The recent death of a 86year old woman in her own garden by being attacked by 2 dogs, and the ultimate death of a seal which was attacked by a dog, as well as many instances of children being attacked, show that for some reason the dogs seem to have more rights than the victim. Why the law would expect a farmer to stand and watch his livestock being terrified by a loose dog, because he feared a civil prosecution or the loss of his FAC or shotgun license, if he took action, defies belief. (even though in most cases he would have a legal defense )
Now just because people like CP can have things changed because of the pressure they put on the Govt, maybe it's time for the farming community to put pressure on the Govt to have these Laws changed, perhaps everyone should bombard their MP requesting changes, or maybe a petition should be started, the dogs of today are so inbred that they can be dangerous from the start, the majority of dogs are mongrels and have mixed temperaments, you hear stories of people buying little pups after being told they only grow a little and will be a miniature dog, only to find they grow larger than expected. The trade in dogs should be fully monitored to ensure the theft of dogs is stopped, there is so much to do in relation to dogs, to ensure peoples safety and the safety of livestock.

I completely agree, however the petition would be a waste of time, as the majority would petition against it and as a rule, shooting and guns owning people are a minority and the public’s ignorance will always side with the fluffy dog! Completely wrong, but just the way it is due to the increasingly lefty liberal society.

 

[Scandially]

An alcoholic woman four down from me has a black lab that escapes for fun and has been in several pounds and all over FB. It has killed and injured sheep on a nearby farm that i have the fox shooting on. Farmer is at his wits end, should it pass her information on to him?

 

[Mossypaw]

S. S. S.

 

[Bowland blades]

The dog needs to go end of if it worries stock ! As the sheep owner you can get it with tge shotgun without extra conditions or do it if your genral terms of use allow, just phone your feo if in doubt about the licensing issues regards the rifle
Might be worth a chat with the owner of the dog , making your point clear before putting the sheep out?

 

[Twodogs]

One of the problems problems we have with our legislation Is because it’s a mix of statute I.e. made by parliament, common law and court derived interpretations of such. The making of statute and the interpretations are only concerned with the matters under consideration and cannot possibly account for its impact on every other piece of legislation/interpretation hence we have the sort of situation under discussion here, besides legislation is written by lawyers for lawyers. This area needs rewriting, as do many others, taking into account all the relevant legal, social and moral arguments, but how likely is that?

A further problem faced by any potential shooter in trying to do the right thing is being able to identify the dog and/or the owner. Probably a lot easier if the owner/dog are local but if the livestock is on in an area where lots of visiting dog walkers use, perhaps only once, it becomes just about impossible. Could also be used as part of the rationale for shooting?

The bottom line is that the shooter has a defence, in law, to every other offence discussed, however the onus is placed squarely on the shooter to justify, which can be a nightmare. It is not fair but it’s the system we have, compounded by living in a litigious society.

Rant over.

 

[Twodogs]

From a dog walkers perspective.
Recently walking on a well known long distance footpath through a farm, a farmer got very irate because my dog was not on a lead. Well behaved, no livestock or other animals and not legally required to be. Farmer stated quite clearly that if I did not put my dog on a lead he would let his dogs loose to attack mine. The farmer was totally irrational and inflaming his own situation. Finally he threatened clearly and loudly he would go and get his gun and shoot my dog. He then got his quad bike and followed us, fortunately without any gun. Just the sort of case CP would love to champion.

Hopefully this farmer was a one off total idiot, but when dog walkers are presented with such it does nothing to endear relations and any farmers legitimate cause.

Anecdotally, a acquaintance told me they were aware of a conversation where a farmer said that he couldn’t wait for his bitch to come into heat so he could release her and get some target practice on the visiting dogs. If, and if, this is true it does nothing to support all the legitimate complaints that many farmers have.

 

[Woodsmoke]

I have this sign no my pasture fence, adjacent to where dog walkers emerge from the forest. What's been remarkable is the reduction in numbers since the signs went up . . .

 

[Mossypaw]

I have this sign no my pasture fence, adjacent to where dog walkers emerge from the forest. What's been remarkable is the reduction in numbers since the signs went up . . .

More graphic ones work even better.....
but must be securely fixed.

 

[Cottis]

pretty big jump to assume that i 'may be guilty of allowing their dogs to roam uncontrolled' just because you have seen my location as london fella

It is quite clear he is not referring to you but is making a generalistion. Believe me, land owners have major issues with many dog walkers. Not all and quite possibly not you either. That was not what WS was saying.

 

[Highfield]

It is quite clear he is not referring to you but is making a generalistion. Believe me, land owners have major issues with many dog walkers. Not all and quite possibly not you either. That was not what WS was saying.

fair point, lets say that we are generous and put that down to a 50:50 misunderstanding, how do we get from there to a threat to put a boot on someones neck in the space of two comments? any lawyer worth his salt, when faced with a 'shooting dogs' case (from either side) is going to google the subject and find themselves here in one click. do we think comments like this and all the ones saying shoot shovel shut up ect are showing shooters in a good light

 

[long_range_rob]

If it were me I would inform the police of the issue and the background along with the owners details. I would then inform the owners that you are prepared to ‘deal’ with their problem dog if it attacks your livestock. Then they can either take responsibility for their pet or loose it.

 

[slider]

You may have a defence in law, but it’s a poor one if you can’t demonstrate you tried other methods before getting trigger happy. Guns are unpopular in society, that’s just the way it is, any dog shot will usually be portrayed as a lovable family pet that “just liked to run around”.....but if you feel confident, shoot away.

Given the rise in dog worrying events in recent time (made worse by lockdown restrictions) there is a real political will ( in Scotland anyway) and to drive home the message that dog worrying is unacceptable and has deadly consequences to the dog. Politicians and the Police have been very supportive of the shooter in many recent cases.

Given the Police support and reluctance of procedures to bringing proceedings against shooters I thing the defence is pretty sold (providing the shooter is acting reasonably).

A new Bill has just passed through the Scottish Parliament and is now awaiting Royal Assent which with strengthen the position

 

[Cottis]

fair point, lets say that we are generous and put that down to a 50:50 misunderstanding, how do we get from there to a threat to put a boot on someones neck in the space of two comments? any lawyer worth his salt, when faced with a 'shooting dogs' case (from either side) is going to google the subject and find themselves here in one click. do we think comments like this and all the ones saying shoot shovel shut up ect are showing shooters in a good light

Any lawyer worth their salt knows not to argue against a case where a dog has been shot by a land owner when livestock were being attacked or worried. It happens with more frequency than some might suspect and I know of no examples locally where the farmer has been in trouble, mostly because many are dog owners themselves and hate the thought of pulling the trigger on a dog. Sometimes they are forced to and it is always down to the selfish and/or careless actions of dog owners.

We have issues with dogs off leads on the land. Mostly it is them chasing rabbits, setting upon me when I am carrying rabbits or sometimes getting in the way of machinery while agricultural work is going on. They are a nuisance more than an actual danger to our livestock and under no circumstances would I shoot a dog unless I was absolutely forced to. For me personally, that would be actually physically attacking sheep or clearly worrying a field full of pregnant ewes. All other incidents, in my view, are not acceptable. I include pheasants in that. I am not shooting a dog because they chase or kill our pheasants. That is madness in my view.

Farmers need to integrate with the public and pass on information and clear instructions when difficulties are encountered. Keeping it simple, sticking to the right of way and keeping the dog on the lead while on private land is a good start. Some folk like to let their dog off a lead on private land. I say they are taking a risk by doing that as I am yet to meet any dog that 100% listens to its owner over and above its natural instincts or what its belly urges it to do.
It is definitely an emotive subject as can be seen from various contributions on this thread. Some think it is 100% ok to shoot dogs, some think it is never ok and some are in the middle. What is without question, is that a dog that is under control will do no harm and will almost certainly come to no harm. The ball is always going to start off in the court of the dog owner. How they choose to hit that ball will determine the overall chance of their animal enjoying safe passage.

So if a lawyer or anyone else happens across my contributions, hopefully it can help them understand both sides.

 

[slider]

If it were me I would inform the police of the issue and the background along with the owners details. I would then inform the owners that you are prepared to ‘deal’ with their problem dog if it attacks your livestock. Then they can either take responsibility for their pet or loose it.

You should never inform the owner that you are prepared to deal with the dog. By doing that any subsequent shooting may be construed as premeditated and you could be in a whole world of trouble.

Simply inform of their responsibility as a dog owner and the legal rights of a livestock owner

 

[Scandially]

A local gamekeeper warned two bobbly hats that he would be within his rights to shoot their dog as it was running wild in amongst sheep. One hour later his guns and ammunition was gone due to them phoning in that he had threatened to shoot them too. Be careful.

 

[jer]

I think your safest bet would be to outline the position and pose the question to your FEO in an e mail and ask for a response, that way you should be covered if and when the inevitable sh*te storm ensues.

 

[bobthedug]

Given the rise in dog worrying events in recent time (made worse by lockdown restrictions) there is a real political will ( in Scotland anyway) and to drive home the message that dog worrying is unacceptable and has deadly consequences to the dog. Politicians and the Police have been very supportive of the shooter in many recent cases.

Given the Police support and reluctance of procedures to bringing proceedings against shooters I thing the defence is pretty sold (providing the shooter is acting reasonably).

A new Bill has just passed through the Scottish Parliament and is now awaiting Royal Assent which with strengthen the position

I agree with your comment that here in Scotland there will not be the much mentioned "sh#t storm" in store for the farmer or landowner who shoots a dog worrying their livestock.
I know of a farmer nearby who has suffered several recent losses of stock due to dog worrying. The issue was reported to the police who have locally launched a publicity campaign warning that dogs found worrying sheep can be shot.
The farmer was also advised to try to be in a position to immediately shot the dog responsible if he catches it.

 

[Sinistral]

A new Bill has just passed through the Scottish Parliament and is now awaiting Royal Assent which with strengthen the position

I've been following this for a while.
There is no legislation yet, so no change to the law in Scotland.
There is a consultation under way which ends this month.

Criminal law - dealing with dangerous dogs: consultation

This discussion paper seeks views on steps that might be taken to improve the way in which the criminal law may deal with dog owners where their dogs act in a dangerous way.

www.gov.scot