Farmer fired shots over my head, what if anything can I do?

[unexpectedplaces]

Can I ask if anyone knows if this is illegal or not in relation to a right of way across a farmers' land?

To explain what happened and give context. I was walking my dog through a field full of sheep and lambs, dog was at my heel the whole time (no issue whatsoever with the livestock) and we were then away from the sheep and heading for a kissing gate which is where the right of way footpath leads. It crosses a small field and ends up in a village, you can also veer to the left of the kissing gate and continue through the same field ending up at the same point near the village.

I elected to take the left hand path which is about 2 feet away from the official path but divided by a hedge because the small field with the footpath was full of sheep and lambs resting by the gate - I didn't want to disturb them.

I was walking into the sunlight so couldn't see properly but could just about make out a figure a short distance away, a shot was fired into the air followed by 3 more as I walked the length of the hedge. I was really quite worried and hurried through the gate at the end whereupon the shots stopped.

I believe that the gun was either a rifle or a shotgun as the report was pretty loud.

I appreciate that I was off the official footpath strictly speaking but was doing so for purely altruistic reasons (of course he didn't know that).

Should I take this further or was the farmer within his rights? I wish he had just approached me and I could have explained what I was doing and why. The whole incident was pretty unnerving if I'm honest.

Have spoken to a couple of locals who say that the farmer is well known for getting irate about people walking off the right of way.

Any advice please gratefully received

Keep your fucking dog away from sheep. Are you nuts!!

I honestly coming from a rural area cannot get over the 'farmers are always right' mentality of mn. Is it people who live in towns and have a rosy view of the countryside?

You were off the path to avoid his sheep and he shot above you? jeepers, he sounds like one of the ones that tries to discourage people ever using public rights of way.

And it isn't unheard of either to do this op. No one reasonable would shoot a small animal near someone in a field.

a farmer can legally shoot a dog if in his field loose which in this case he was... I grow up in the country. No one who lived here ever walked a dog through a field without a lead! Its common sense.

I think if the OP goes to the police she will probably find that the farmer in question has "form". Unfortunately it is unlikely, in the absence of witnesses, that they will be able to do anything until he hurts someone. They should at least be able to check that the gun is owned and stored legally (and I would be astonished if they did not do so).

The OP may have been unwise in having her dog off the lead but the idea that gunshots are an appropriate response is so completely batshit that I can only assume people are trolling.

(Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, gives farmers the right to shoot a dog "simply being “at large”, that is not on a lead or otherwise under close control, in a field or enclosure containing sheep. " and the owner could be arrested and face 2 years in jail.

'london'rach dogs that are bothering sheep can get shot, there is no suggestion that was the case here. There is no suggestion the farmer was trying to anything other than be a total arehole scare the op.

Interestingly enough the only person I know personally who has had a dog shot for this is a farmer. Because their dogs are generally allowed to roam more than the more domesticated ones.

Cherries: the path went straight through where a group of sheep and lambs were resting. She veered to avoid disturbing them!

The OP has lived in the country all her life. If the farmer had shot dead her dog on the spot he would also have taken her leg off as the dog was right at her heel. Would that have your full support, Propelusagain? I suppose it might, but I doubt the police would agree.

Farmers can shoot a dog for being off lead or being "at large" tobysmum.
THe OP was being hugely irresponsible.

off- the farmer didn't shoot the OP though - did he.

OP, I get that you concede the dog should have been on a lead.
But how can you say you are livestock aware and have lived in the country for a long time and not know this?
I had a sheepdog, a border collie who had been trained to work with sheep. He was amazingly obedient, but
A) he was no longer a working sheepdog and
B) I was not the person who had trained him
So he was put on a lead when near livestock. Just in case. Because there was always the risk he could have worried sheep. Not a big risk by any means, but still a risk which I was aware of.
Although your dog is well trained, it's probably nowhere near the level of a sheepdog and therefore always a potential risk. Quite a big risk.
Also, the farmer does not know the dog is well trained, he just sees a dog that is not on a lead in a field of sheep and an owner that does not know the basics of how to behave in the countryside.

the dog was at heel so under 'close control'

No one should be allowed to take dogs into the countryside like that. Next time leave the dog at home.

Why lotus?

The dog was 'under close control' . The OP specifies in her updates that the dog was so close at heel as to be practically tripping her up . And at the time the shots were fired she was nowhere near the sheep. Of course dogs should be in leads in fields, but RTFT.

It's not illegal to stray from a public right of way - the most a landowner can do is approach and request you return to the 'known' pathway - but even if you refuse he cannot take further action.

A trained dog walking at heel IS 'otherwise under control' and OP could not be prosecuted for this. Likewise a landowner can shoot an out of control dog, but will later have to prove his livestock were in danger to the firearms officers. He can lose his shotgun licence otherswise.

Firing a shotgun in an area where the public can reasonably be expected to walk is an offence and again the landowner can be investigated by firearms officers.

Same here Tobysmum, farmers don't have the right to shoot near people, it doesn't matter what they are doing or where they are on his property (think of Tony Martin) the farmer shouldn't be shooting near a person.

Our house backs onto a lake owned by a farmer who holds duck shoots, we've complained to him recently as they were shooting directly over the roof of our house. He apologised profusely and reassured us it wouldn't happen again. (If it does we will be contacting the police)

This is the problem with firing a gun in response to someone doing something you don't like: it's a shit form of communication. We have no idea if his problem related to the dog (less likely) or the path or something else.

Why my london in ''. I grow up in somerset until moving to london 10 years ago. Now left and returned to my rightful place the country for a variety of reasons one of them being cost of houses or flats. I always liked tobymum Comments as one of the regulars. I spent my childhood roaming the countryside. Dogs can be shot if loose. It was drilled into us when growing up. We had policeman come to our school teaching us the countrycode.

yes dogs can be shot if loose. The farmer wasnt shooting the dog though, he was trying to scare the op by shooting over her head when her dog was under control. I just cant see that the two things are connected, that's all.

And I don't want to cause offence re the '' just thought it was in the context of the conversation.

Am astounded that people are having a go at the OP here, when she has gone through what must have been a really frightening experience - as if the farmer's right not to have someone walk on his land is greater and more important than her right not to be shot at/threatened with a gun. However much emphasis one places on property rights, surely, surely anyone can see that that is absurd!

OP, I have on a number of occasions chosen to detour away from a foot path while on someone's land, for example to avoid disturbing livestock as you describe. Sometimes I've even got lost and done it by accident. I don't damage anything, and I would not expect someone to release shots to deter me. If they did, I would report. And I very much doubt that, as a pp suggested, the police will have any concerns about the OP being off the footpath. It's not in the same league as releasing shots to intimidate someone!

Also, I find some of the assertions regarding her dog, and the risk it poses, astonishing. Of course she can know that her dog is under control without it being on a lead. To suggest that is could turn at any second and savage the livestock - logically, it must also be true (and just as likely) that any dog could turn at any second and start to savage people, so therefore they should be on the lead, at all times, both in and out of the home.

I walk my dog off the lead, to heel, through fields with sheep and lambs, on occasion (although, as stated before, I might try to find an off-footpath alternative to avoid disturbing the animals, if I can, like OP did.) I'm very confident in the control my dog is under in these circumstances. I've seen other people do it too, dog under close control but not on the lead. I've even had farmers/ landowners see me do it. Never been shot at. Maybe it's only a matter of time...

Sorry for the rant, but it does make me cross that a poster posts because she's gone through a scary, upsetting experience, and people have a go at her because she was violating the landowners right to not have her walk on the wrong bit of his land. How can there be any comparison?

Dogs cannot be shot if they are loose.

They can be shot if the livestock owner believes it is the only way to stop it worrying his livestock. That is Section 9 of the Animal Act 1971.

If a dog is NOT worrying the livestock it cannot be shot. It's one of the myths perpetrated by people who think they know the law.

This dog was neither "loose" nor worrying livestock. Indeed it's clear from the OP that the dog was only off a public footpath briefly, in order to avoid disturbing a flock of sheep.

The lead issue is a separate one - I'd be inclined to say that use of a lead in this situation would be wise but unless there is a local by-law requiring it then there is no obligation.

The right to use a gun to control animals that worry livestock is strictly regulated and certainly not relevant here.

Thats ok toby i always look for your comments as if toby says that it might be right... You one of my fav...also worral but dont tell her. Have a few...

lol I'm flattered and disturbed I'm spending too much time on mn in equal measure