does your ticket need conditioned for rogue dogs ?

[Scots_stalker]

i was at one of my farms last night , the farmer who doesnt shoot was telling me he had 2 calfs mauled by dog or dogs, he reported this to the local police station who told him he could shoot the dog if he witnessed it in the act , only problem is , the farmer doesnt shoot

if he was to call me in to do it would i get into bother ?

 

[rarms]

i was at one of my farms last night , the farmer who doesnt shoot was telling me he had 2 calfs mauled by dog or dogs, he reported this to the local police station who told him he could shoot the dog if he witnessed it in the act , only problem is , the farmer doesnt shoot

if he was to call me in to do it would i get into bother ?

My ticket says something to the effect of.. 'or other quarry in the upkeep of an estate'

However, I would rather let the RSPCA waste their money live catching it than risk popping someone's pet that has escaped.

 

[VSS]

You are ok to use a shotgun, as quarry doesn't need to be listed on the cert.
Trouble is, shotgun doesn't always result in a dead dog unless you're very close.

Use of rifle could land you in trouble unless specified on ticket, or some words to that effect.

Whatever you do, don't threaten to shoot someone's dog (e.g, "Catch that dog and get out of here, or I'll shoot it!"). Either go ahead and do it, or not. Threatening behaviour with a firearm will place you well and truly in the wrong.

Get 'photos or video of dog doing damage first, if you can. Use phone camera.

It's never nice shooting someone's dog, but really it's no different from shooting any other pest or vermin.

You are ok to do it on behalf of the farmer, if he's specifically asked you to.

 

[mickey308]

Hi Guy's,

Not sure of the law in Scotland but, down here we do not have an automatic legal right to "kill" dogs that are worrying livestock.

But yes, use a shotgun as previously suggested unless you have a condition " For the protection of Animal safety" it reads something like that anyway. If it helps anybody here this is what the law says:

Animals Act 1971

Killing of or injury to dogs worrying livestock.(1)In any civil proceedings against a person (in this section referred to as the defendant) for killing or causing injury to a dog it shall be a defence to prove—

(a)that the defendant acted for the protection of any livestock and was a person entitled to act for the protection of that livestock; and

(b)that within forty-eight hours of the killing or injury notice thereof was given by the defendant to the officer in charge of a police station.

(2)For the purposes of this section a person is entitled to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if—

(a)the livestock or the land on which it is belongs to him or to any person under whose express or implied authority he is acting; and

(b)the circumstances are not such that liability for killing or causing injury to the livestock would be excluded by section 5(4) of this Act.

(3)Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person killing or causing injury to a dog shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if, either—

(a)the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or

(b)the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.
(4)For the purposes of this section the condition stated in either of the paragraphs of the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that it was satisfied and had reasonable ground for that belief.

(5)For the purposes of this section—

(a)an animal belongs to any person if he owns it or has it in his possession; and

(b)land belongs to any person if he is the occupier thereof.
Supplemental10 Application of certain enactments to liability under sections 2 to 4. For the purposes of the Fatal Accidents Acts 1846 to 1959, the M3Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 and [F1the Limitation Act 1980]any damage for which a person is liable under sections 2 to 4 of this Act shall be treated as due to his fault.

A bit complicated but what could arise being a charge of criminal damage. Also the dog owner may subsequently take out a civil action against you.

It certainly is not a nice or indeed pleasant thing to have to do the dog doing what might be coming natural to it.........................Owners, at least they can be held responsible for any losses sustained or incurred.

Might shed a little light for somebody? But there are on here some good legal minds that will go much further than a lay person like myself I'm sure?

Best regards to all,
Mickey

 

[CharlieT]

You would need your fac specifically conditioned, you would also have to be there at the time the dog was attacking the stock and you would be best to have the farmers authority/request in writing.

Remember that if the owner kicks up a stink there is every chance that your authority to shoot the dog and your fac conditions will be looked into. Believe me some owners will create merry hell when their dog has been shot, I've been there.

 

[trouble]

dont do it , no matter what your fac conditions state , you will have your guns confiscated and you will be taken to court , IF you can prove the animal was killing stock you will have to prove you didnt cause unnesecery suffering to the dog . Its a long drawn out process and you will be without your guns while it takes place . Never use a rifle if you must do it use a shotgun up close . Better to let the farmer deal with it . If he knows who own the dog/dogs let the police deal with it .

 

[jamross65]

Couple of points.

My certificate clearly states that the firearms on it can be used for the protection of animals and humans from other animals. It clearly would allow me to shoot dogs attacking a calf.

I agree that the dogs would have to be seen in the act and not simply in the same field as the injured calf after the injuries have been discovered.

And lastly, I don't think it would matter if you used a shotgun or rifle. If the police decide to confiscate your weapon that was used because you are suspected of causing unnecessary suffering, they will take all you own regardless, pending the outcome of the enquiry.

 

[libensvolenspotens]

And lastly, I don't think it would matter if you used a shotgun or rifle. If the police decide to confiscate your weapon that was used because you are suspected of causing unnecessary suffering, they will take all you own regardless, pending the outcome of the enquiry.

+1

 

[Scots_stalker]

some great points there fellas, thanks

 

[Vipa]

Couple of points.

My certificate clearly states that the firearms on it can be used for the protection of animals and humans from other animals. It clearly would allow me to shoot dogs attacking a calf.

I agree that the dogs would have to be seen in the act and not simply in the same field as the injured calf after the injuries have been discovered.

And lastly, I don't think it would matter if you used a shotgun or rifle. If the police decide to confiscate your weapon that was used because you are suspected of causing unnecessary suffering, they will take all you own regardless, pending the outcome of the enquiry.

Jam... my ticket also has such wording..... applying to the expanding ammunition but not to the actual rifles. Does your condition refer to the rifles aswell?

 

[jamross65]

Jam... my ticket also has such wording..... applying to the expanding ammunition but not to the actual rifles. Does your condition refer to the rifles aswell?

I am sure it is a general cover for use of weapons and ammunition. I will check though.

Every time I have applied for a new authorisation or renewed my certificate I have always asked for inclusion of, 'for the humane dispatch of injured or wounded animals...' It has always come back to reflect that condition as well. I mean, how could they refuse....?

 

[al4x1]

There are a few issues not been covered and best place to look is BASC who have a fact sheet on dogs worrying livestock. Firstly its a civil offence for the dog owner so if the owner is known then the police should pay a visit which has a couple of benefits firstly the owner is pre warned and its logged with the police as a problem. Secondly if the farmer is to press for compensation as he should it creates a paper trail. Obviously advice has been given on shooting them and some forces are better than others at backing the farmer simply because they have the problem more often. In your case the BASC advice is interesting it suggests few forces want to give the conditions to allow shooting dogs but its not in the interest of the police if all the conditions are met to go for a prosecution, ie the dogs are in the act and the owner isn't present. Obviously a rifle would be the tool of choice but you have to weigh up your conditions and the requirements of the farmer before doing anything a call to your licensing team is also worth it to check things out first. Shotgun wise its far harder to get near but you lack the conditions issue but just make sure you don't cock it up.
The other option is the do it and make sure the farmer has a JCB on hand and puts them well down.

 

[Si]

Before you contemplate shooting a dog, ask yourself this...

"How long can I manage without a FAC while the court case goes on?"

Is it really worth the hassle?

 

[VSS]

Couple of points.



I agree that the dogs would have to be seen in the act and not simply in the same field as the injured calf after the injuries have been discovered.

.

This is not the case.
You can shoot a dog if you believe that it is about to worry livestock.

Also, you won't be running any risk of having your gun consficated etc etc. Acting on behalf of the owner of the livestock, you would be in the right, no matter what fuss the dog's owner makes.
I know, I have been there.

This has all been discussed on here before, relatively recently.

 

[Shabz]

It says on my certificate: 1c(1) (my .243) the firearm and ammunition shall be used for shooting fox and deer and for zeroing on ranges, or land over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot.8a(3) (expanding ammo)(a) the lawful shooting of deer; (b) the shooting of vermin or, in connection with the management of any estate; (c) the humane killing of animals; (d) the shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans.I'm studying for a dsc l1 course this weekend and the book says in it that the conditions 8a(3) are for the expanding ammunition only and NOT for the rifle. So I can use the rifle to kill fox and deer only.

 

[bewsher500]

Shabz, L&B or Strathclyde?
L&B explained to me that they condition calibres for the largest quarry, should you choose to shoot rats or corws with your .243 that is up to you.
the calibre has been issued with the "good reason" stated as deer and fox

I do not think your interpretation of the expanding ammo is correct, you have authority to "posses, purchase or acquire" expanding ammo in relation to shooting deer. that is the good reason for you to have the ammo, not the limitation.

It does not mean you cannot "humanely kill an animal" because is not listed as the reason you have expanding ammo.
I know that sounds like a double negative but in law the statement must be in the negative rather than implied by omission of the negative.

if you have authority to shoot rampaging dogs you can do so with expanding or non-expanding ammo.

I do not believe you will have you "guns and FAC taken away from you whilst the court case ensues" but I would sure as hell make sure that he pikeys dog was on video and I had the farmer's authority and specific request in writing before they burn his hay stacks down in retribution and he conveniently forgets his request!!

 

[jimo]

The only case I've heard of where someone had their guns taken away after shooting a dog was a farmer who caught the dog, took it home and then shot it so he didn't need to shoot it to stop it. As for rifle/shotgun it depends on the circumstances. Trying to shoot a dog running through a flock of sheep with a rifle is not something I'd be comfortable with especially if it is close to to land with public access.

 

[neil_r]

There may very well be an alternative to shooting the dogs, but If you have really set your heart on it .........

 

[Scots_stalker]

There may very well be an alternative to shooting the dogs, but If you have really set your heart on it .........

whilst this is very true , i cant see the farmer trying to catch a merauding mutt with a doggy buscuit after its ripped the nose off a cow , or forced ewes to abort with stress

 

[jamross65]

This is not the case.
You can shoot a dog if you believe that it is about to worry livestock.

Also, you won't be running any risk of having your gun consficated etc etc. Acting on behalf of the owner of the livestock, you would be in the right, no matter what fuss the dog's owner makes.
I know, I have been there.

This has all been discussed on here before, relatively recently.

Correct, I was referring to this particular incident where an attack has actually taken place. Of course if a dog is about to it would be acceptable as well, fully agree.

However, I still stand by what was said about guns being confiscated should a complaint be made of causing unnecessary suffering if you make a hash of the shot. the guns will be taken as you are now under investigation of being suspected of having committed a crime. The guns would be seen as a production should a report be submitted.

Obviously if the dog is shot and dies immediately there is no unnecessary suffering. You try and argue the case though if it runs home minus a leg or a couple of passerby see it being shot and misread the situation.