Aibu to think I should be ok to exercise my well behaved dog wherever I like in fields

[Scrowy]

I'm not BU because my dog is a farm dog and the fields are my fields.

Sadly however the local dog owners seem to think that our fields (some with footpaths, some without) are fair game and that they have an equal right to use them as they see fit.

This week we have politely asked 6 people with loose dogs to remove themselves from the pasture we have just separated some lambs into. There is no footpath in that field but it has a nice view.

During lambing time this year we lost 4 lambs and 1 sheep to sheep worrying. About 5 years ago one dog killed 24 lambs in one go. Every week we are aware of minor incidents of sheep worrying, fortunatly most don't result in death but do always result in stress on the animals.

Also this week we have sent some older sheep to slaughter. Out of 30 of them 24 of them were condemned due to Echinococcosis, a disease passed on to sheep from dog poo and only identifiable at slaughter.

Neosporosis is another disease passed on from dog poo do cattle. It causes the cattle to abort their calves.

Letting your dogs poo on farmland is directly putting farms out of business.

Letting your dogs 'play' with sheep causes death, even if your dog doesn't actually maul something at the time.

You wouldn't walk into a shop, knock down a display and break stuff without expecting to have to pay for damages. Why do people think that the countryside is fair game?

I'm all for live and let live, I want people to enjoy the countryside and support it. I also want people to realise that it's not just there for their amusement, that some people are trying to make (an increasingly small and desperate) living from it.

Some farmers may have husbands. Just saying.

So back on track there was this letter printed in the farmers guardian yesterday which better explains what I was trying to say about rights of way.

I am not a farmer's wife counterpoint

That's an interesting piece of history Scrowy. I wonder if it in some way explains why some of our footpaths cut diagonally across fields rather than around the field edges?

www.fginsight.com/news/dont-miss/open-letter-vanity-and-bramble-culled-beacuse-someone-couldnt-be-bothered-to-pick-up-their-dog-poo-25353

A very timely article!

Oh yes, I saw that story this week too 😢

Counter - I and many others who observe and understand decent treatment of livestock DO NOT EAT ANIMALS. I don't drink milk, eat butter and consume very little cheese. So stop criticising us for that.

It is - as I and others have said before - not as simple as 'eating animals is bad for them'. An animal who has been free range and well-cared-for for several years before eventual humane local slaughter almost certainly lives a better, less painful, life than many in the wild. Have you seen, for example wild cattle, antelope etc being mauled to death by predators in Africa? Perfectly natural ....We used to have wolves in the UK that behaved like that and sentimentalists would like to see them reintroduced. Yes, they are magnificent but tell that to sheep and calves that they kill. Have you also seen fly-strike (being eaten alive by maggots) on uncared-for wild sheep and goats? - not pretty and very, very painful. I used to keep chickens - delightfully tame and happy and free range - until one by one they were picked off as they wandered around our fields and had their throats ripped out by pine martens. They would have lived years longer if I had kept them crammed in a cage. Which - honestly - would you have told me to do?

To repeat what I said before. If you are genuinely concerned with animal welfare please consider these facts:

• very intensively farmed dairy cattle (for milk cheese etc eaten by vegetarians) suffer a lot more stress and ill-health than free range beef cattle/sheep. And they are treated with lots more antibiotics. On the whole, they are NOT the ones you see on upland pasture - those are long-lived beef cattle, suckler herds and sheep.
• the male offspring of dairy cattle live terribly short lives so that their mothers can produce milk (and eventually cheese) for vegetarian/ human consumption. I don't defend that. But you need to engage seriously in the debate about where in the UK to grow more protein to compensate, if the dairy industry cuts back. It's not easy to find a sustainable answer.
• intensively-farmed chicken (eggs and meat eaten by vegetarians) suffer horribly.
• soya products (eaten by vegetarians/vegans) cause poor developing communities to suffer, destroy rainforests and lead to other environmental damage
• trendy vegan alternatives such as quinoa and avocados distort local markets, contribute to deforestation and - in terms of long distance trade - are ecologically unsustainable.

There's nothing remotely 'anachronistic' or 'ultra-conservative' about all the above. Rather than just hurling insults, do please tell us how you would like the UK farming industry (uplands especially) to move forwards.

The only way to improve 'welfare' for 'livestock' is to stop ............. eating them!

But then they'll go extinct.

Counter, do you have pets?

"Some farmers may have husbands"

Or cows or sheep ........ the possibilities are endless. But, I had to settle on one.

"But then they'll go extinct."

Has every animal we don't eat gone extinct?

That is just infantile.
I'm still waiting to hear how you think UK upland farming should be sustainably, humanely reorganised. Go on. Surely, being so critical, you must have thought about it and come up with some answers?

Has every animal we don't eat gone extinct?

No, but how do you imagine cows will survive if they serve no purpose?

The poor things will actually have to find their own food, and escape predators.

"do please tell us how you would like the UK farming industry...."

To behave in a civilised manner and not use the excuse of a jungle, tooth and claw mentality to justify inhumanity as you so lengthily tried to do,

"The poor things will actually have to find their own food, and escape predators."

"The poor things will actually have to find their own food, and escape predators."

You just don't see your hypocrisy, do you?

Sad, pathetic, shameful.

No hypocrisy at all.

It has already been pointed out to you how much easier life it is for free range farm animals than for wild animals.

You haven't said anything about having pets, though.

Besides, why is it ok to eat plants, but not animals?

Both are groups of living beings.

Counter - please do not put words into my mouth. There is absolutely no way in which I advocated the 'jungle, tooth and claw' mentality, or used it as an excuse for anything.
I pointed out the FACT that well-cared for farmed animals lead longer, healthier lives than many wild ones. I also repeated the FACT that some farming practices advocated by vegans/vegetarians did NOT lead to improved animal welfare or environmental benefits and, in some cases, led to animals - eg the male calves of dairy cattle - living shorter lives.
I asked how you would organise UK upland farming to achieve your aims. You still have not replied.

*"Some farmers may have husbands"

Or cows or sheep ........ the possibilities are endless. But, I had to settle on one.*

No you didn't. You were just assuming that all farmers are straight men.

Counterpoint, you clearly know naff all about antibiotic resistance and the causes of it so I would stop posting about that if I were you. Hint - it's the use of antibiotics in farming in the US and emerging markets, NOT in the UK, that is the issue.

I came to the conclusion quite a while go that counter is just a wind up merchant. I doubt they actually have any interest in farming practices at all as their arguements are just vague and goady. Their user name suggests as much too.

As in previous posts I don't actually mind to an extent, it's given an opportunity for people who DO know how the countryside works to put across an alternative picture to people who otherwise might have believed the ' all farming is bad' lobbies that are prevalent at the moment.

I'm certainly not going to sit here and say all farmers are perfect and all farming practices are perfect, they are not. I have to agree that the consumer has to start playing/paying their part if they want high welfare meat.

But I started the thread to talk about dog poo and a request that people consider the effect that dog poo has on farm animals. Even if only one or two people have realised the possible dangers on the back of this thread, that is enough for me.

Religion or flesh-fest consumption, you have to be sick:

" you must use:
a hand-held knife that’s sharp and large enough for the animal you’re slaughtering
rapid, uninterrupted movements of the knife"

www.gov.uk/guidance/halal-and-kosher-slaughter

Over 20% of scrowy's sheep will probably end up being slowly bled to death (but it's fine because the knife is sharp and the animal is "restrained".

"how the countryside works"

Great euphemism for exploitation and slaughter.

"consider the effect that dog poo has on farm animals."

Please also consider the effect the farmer has on animals.