Putting a bull in a feild with a public footpath isnt very sportsperson like

[DyslexicScientist]

I spend time planning a circular route so that my walks are interesting. 90% of the way through there is a feild with a bull, there is a sign up saying "caution bull in field", well thanks!

I'm going to try to do it but it is annoying. Its bad enough a field of cows who start to run towards you, that scares me shirtless.

If you don't hear from me again

Ok lordbrightside

Some farmers have guns for the following reasons:

Rabbit control
Crow control
Fox control
Humane disposal of injured livestock without delay
Dog control

Scaring ramblers (joke)

Farmers that don't have guns tend to have tenanted farms where a gamekeeper is employed by the landowner to do this job or where a gun certificate can't be obtained (rare) or where the farmer prefers not to own a gun and swaps skills/ services with someone who does.

If you have seen the damage to livestock from crows/ foxes/ dogs you would understand. If you saw the pain caused to rabbits from mixi you would understand.

Farmers are the custodians of the countryside. Sometimes that means using a firearm.

Hi AdorabelleDearheartVonLipwig Hope you don't mind me addressing you fully, love the name! It's not an image that I take delight in sharing hence my statement that I understand in sharing. It's what happens all too frequently when people allow dogs to chase and 'play' with sheep. Being from the country it's something that resonates with me, or also have seen tragic outcome when dogs have got into fields with ewes in lamb and they loose the lambs from being chased. Had gone rather off topic I know- so do apologise for this!

Lose not loose!

Self appointed custodians. I think the countryside is overfarmed.

Guns are not necessary to control foxes or rabbits. Appropriate fencing for foxes and government agencies to manage diseased rabbits. Guns are definitely not required to control crows. Scarecrows, dogs, screamers etc are viable alternatives.

As for a farmer shooting a dog because it is bothering livestock, that is ridiculous. The dog should be brought under control and any damage caused should be paid by the owner or an appropriate insurance policy. Dog owners who cause livestock issues should also face prosecution depending on the situation.

I am too tired, I meant my statement in understanding if post removed!

lordbrightside are you being deliberately obtuse? Maybe if you demonstrated some of your credentials, perhaps your work on a farm or your study of farming or your friends who are farmers maybe?

My parents had some sheep mauled by dogs, they ran off before they could be shot so it was just the sheep that needed shooting. Can you educate me as to how the dogs could have been brought under control and how I could track down the owners? Thanks ever so.

Am really sorry to hear that MrsMerton. I just think it's hard for people who don't have contact with the back breaking often thankless slog of farming understand.

lord if you knew anything about the countryside you'd know that firstly farmers can only shoot dogs when there is no alternative. Do you suggest they stand by and watch the flock demolished and then prosecute? Secondly it's not something any farmer I've met would exactly enjoy having to do.

I'm highly amused by your fox proof fencing and government agencies, do you think m15 can just pop out with a rifle when needed? Ever seen a mixy rabbit? It's not pretty and they need to die quick. Not hang around waiting hours and days lest some townie feel offended. What about suffering livestock, should they wait too?

I suggest you direct your anger towards people who trespass, dump rubbish that can kill, let their dogs and kids mess with animals, break fences, trample crops, leave gates open and the rest.

If farmers are so lucky then feel free to take it up

"My parents had some sheep mauled by dogs, they ran off before they could be shot so it was just the sheep that needed shooting. Can you educate me as to how the dogs could have been brought under control and how I could track down the owners? Thanks ever so."

Phone the police in that circumstance and claim on the insurance. It's not justification for discharging a firearm.

"I suggest you direct your anger towards people who trespass, dump rubbish that can kill, let their dogs and kids mess with animals, break fences, trample crops, leave gates open and the rest. "

My anger is directed at these people, much more than it is at farmers. People who behave like that are utter low lives.

Givernment agencies to manage diseased rabbits??

What planet are you on??

It's is anyone's right to walk where there is a right of way.

That same anyone judges the risk of taking that right of way.

You chose accordingly.

This is how I view walking through farm, or any other land.

Personal responsibility is just that.

A public field with a footpath where I am from has a null it's been there for years.
Didn't know it was illegal

My very own felid has kept me awake with constant mewling and demands for food. If you want to put a bull in her op please feel free.

a castrated male is a bullock surely No, surely it's a no-bullocks!

How do you milk a Dairy Bull

My fear with a farmer discharging a firearm at a pet dog is that they may end up hitting a human. I imagine that unless the farmer permanently has a rifle on him, he would not be able to shoot the dog in time.

The problem with farmers having guns is that it makes suicide easier. Farmers are under a lot of stress.

I'm sure the police would drop everything to rush out to bring a dog under control and I'm sure the owners would wait around politely to be questioned.

You'd love a farmer local to me, OP - he is particularly curmudgeonly (which I know as he rents a field beside our house for dry stock, and occasionally rings the doorbell to grumble about the universe) and, in a large field with a footpath running through it, keeps a combination of any or all of the following, depending on time of year - cows with calves (particularly lethal, in my experience), a bull, herds of particularly skittish bullocks, and a flock of geese. No signs, and as the ground is hilly, it's not possible to see from the stile what is actually in there at any one point to make a risk assessment.

The real snag is that the field is in an area which has very few footpaths, and is one of the few places where you can cross a big A road to get back to where I live. If you get to the field and decide it's not safe to cross (it's very big, and bounded by ditches and big overgrown hedges you can't hop over), you have to backtrack across fields a good mile and a half or two miles to get to a road, and adds a good three miles to the walk home.

Any responsible gun owner would not discharge the gun without having a clear view of the target.
We had some trouble with dogs attacking sheep, the dogs came back again and again and a couple of chaps patrolled the fields with their shotguns. They saw the dogs more than once but could not take a shot as the dogs were not close enough. A shotgun does not have the range of a rifle and you would need to be quite close to the target to stand any chance of hitting it.
It is not permitted to fire a gun near, or in the direction of, a footpath or road.
I think that the chance of hitting a human would be very small.

"dogs, two had got on to his land due to broken fencing"

Indeed, and in such a circumstance surely the farmer is at least equally responsible. For farmers to have the moral high ground in these issues they need to properly maintain their boundary fences.

Shooting a dog on a foot path is scary. If he has early dementia he should not be allowed a gun. An angry farmer with dementia could end up shooting an annoying child. I feel that there should be a way of anomenously reporting concerns about the mental health of someone who owns a gun.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3393628/Davina-McCall-puts-sign-urging-locals-not-use-path-country-home-toilet.html

Sure Davina is just tempting people to shit on the public foot path going through her land?