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.

And to sum it all up, if you are all so au fait with natural selection, then to directly address the OP's concerns about dog poo:

I say, let the cattle eat dog poo, every day, mixed in with their food, supplement all their feeds with dog poo and let every dog walker bring forth their pups on to every green field in the land to run around and defecate to their heart's content. Because, after all, natural selection will select for those 'hardy' cattle that no longer catch dog diseases! And sheep worrying will be a thing of the past ...

Simples!

I think it depends on which web site you use for your synonym search, and how far you want to take the "synonyms mean the same thing" idea.

I'm sure you won't be at all offended if I refer to you as being "enthusiastic" about the subjects we've been discussing. If you search on "enthusiastic" you often get "fervent". Check synonyms for "fervent" and some give "rabid" - which can mean either somewhat fanatical about the subject, or having Hydrophobia aka rabies.

So taking your "synonyms mean the same thing" just a couple of steps, I'm sure you won't object to me using the term "rabid" as equally as I would use the term "enthusiastic" to describe you

I never referred to my cattle as 'my girls' you must be mistaking me for someone else making more stuff up

Why is this thread bothering you so much counter? it's literally become a tirade of misinformation, random English language lessons and personal insults from you directed towards many people who have been very patient with you.

I don't actually know if you even have a dog!!

And to sum it all up, if you are all so au fait with natural selection, then to directly address the OP's concerns about dog poo

Glue is never a good idea.

You've said natural selection was a good thing for animals.
I think it's brutal and inhumane. (You know, not being by humans and not caring if animals suffer or not)
Let me also introduce you to the Red Queen concept. Parasites keep challenging animals, as animals evolve to escape them. Natural selection wouldn't create resistant animals to parasites. It would just keep the arms race. Think Trump vs Kim Jong-Un.

I'll also add that farming is natural. Ants do it.

I called our cattle 'our girls'. We keep a dairy herd. They are all female. They live with us from birth until they are no longer reproductive (8-14 years typically) and then they go for beef, which doesn't bother me because, as dh says, if you are going to raise farm animals then you like to see every bit of the life they give be useful. No doubt you will find this barbaric. They live a good life, outdoors, grass fed. We put them to bulls who give small, easy to deliver calves and they are cross-bred to keep them naturally hardy and healthy. They are our girls. We bred them, we raised them, we helped them give birth. Also, since I live in an all-male household I like to remind myself I'm not the only female on the farm

Anyway, there you have it, Counter. I think it just demonstrates the kind of care and affection farmers have for their animals. I'm sure you'll rip into me now for keeping animals because people like to eat cheese and ice cream, spread butter on their toast, eat chocolate or give their children a glass of milk. If you don't like it, you don't have to consume it, but don't tell me our girls deserve to die or lose their calves because some trespassing dog walker can't be arsed to pick up after their pet.

Lots of craziness here! The vast majority of farm animals are well kept, enjoy a life free of pain, disease, freedom from fear of predators and the ability to express their natural behaviour. They are then slaughtered, as humanely as possible (let's not enter the whole halal debate which most farmers and vets are opposed to)

If you really want to look as bad breeding and selection, look to pet " breeders". There are far more examples of animals being made to suffer due to fashionable breeding. Farmers need to care about the health and longevity of their animals. Pet breeders not so much.

"If you really want to look as bad breeding and selection..."

Like selective breeding doesn't happen in livestock? Inbreeding of 'livestock' is a major problem. It reduces allele frequency and creates animals dependent on bad farming practices.

No matter how expensive antibiotics and other drugs are to use on livestock, it's still cheaper for these farmers to use them so that their cleaning costs are reduced - effectively, livestock farmers can continue keeping animals under unsanitary conditions in overpopulated environments because using antibiotics to keep diseases at bay allows this to continue economically.

Compare organically reared livestock which is so much more expensive even though there is less expenditure on drugs and antibiotics. Reason being that it's the better, more hygienic living conditions that cost the most.

I wondered where you had gone counter!

Here is a question for you. In the UK what is the difference between an organically reared cow and a farm assured reared cow?

I do know that the world of 'farm assured' is full of controversy. The theory and the practice are worlds apart.

Let's face it, most educated people know farming is less than ideal for food production. In time, we shall move away from such uncivilised methods.

Sadly, too many animals will have to continue to suffer until enlightenment comes.

In other words - she hasn't a clue. Which is obvious from the comment about why organic costs more (totally not the reason btw Counterpoint)

In time, we shall move away from such uncivilised methods.

In time, people will starve.

Inspired:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/04/livestock-farming-artificial-meat-industry-animals?

Well it's not that inspired. It's basically the same article he churns out every six months, and he still struggles with basic understanding of how sheep farming works and continues to fail to answer where all this soya that is going to feed the world is going to be grown.

Bit like you really.

I'm guessing that old George has never actually been on a farm. That he never leaves Islington or wherever he lives...

If your only defence is to claim you know more than all others, then you have proved nothing but your arrogance.

And that brings us back to what lies behind the expectations of the op.

If your only defence is to claim you know more than all others, then you have proved nothing but your arrogance. More word salad

If the shotgun doesn't work, throw the dog shit back at them.

Would a large notice advising of an angry bull work? One with an increasing record of the number of dogs it's killed (like they had on WII planes). Borrow a big bull from time to time, so they don't get complacent.

" More word salad"

Yes, rather sad that their only response to a comprehensive article is to claim they know more than others. But, you've happily ignored that.
.

It's not a 'comprehensive' article. It sets up what many might think a false dichotomy - extremes of intensive farming (which no right-minded person approves of) versus some kind of imaginary primitive paradise.

It also appears to ignore a lot of the latest research on conservation grazing (see just two or three refs below).

Left entirely to itself, 'wild' countryside - at least in Scotland - would probably have fewer species, not more. Is that honestly what the writer wants? Take, just as one small example, lapwings and skylarks - wild, native species. They thrive only in short /medium grassland - typically, grassland that has been sustainably grazed.

It's not just me saying this. Have a read of this, from the Wildlife Trusts organisation:
www.wildlifetrusts.org/conservationgrazing

or this:
scotland.forestry.gov.uk/managing/work-on-scotlands-national-forest-estate/conservation/habitats/open-habitats/conservation-grazing

www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/mediafile/100263349/pg-wt-2014-woodwise-2012-autumn.pdf?cb=435a97b193f048419903e8a34c51ea8a

Up here in the Highlands we have Anders Holch Povlsen to contend with as well as George Monbiot. He's buying up the big estates and clearing the sheep off them (currently the second biggest landowner in the UK) - funnily enough he is now having to employ my friend's partner on his latest purchase as an extra gamekeeper because the deer population has exploded and is keeping the hills just as bare. He's a rewilder and wants to reintroduce wolves etc. He's going to have one hell of a fight on his hands from the local crofting population...

Ach! More romantic newcomers. It's horribly cruel to let deer over-multiply until they starve. Proves nothing and is so arrogant. Money doesn't make you right.

The tragedy is that SNP people with power to stop such things such as wrong-headed management of the wild only look so far as the central belt electorate (where the vast majority of safe votes live). They seem to know little and care less.

Flora and NorthCoast - got it in one! Ridiculous so called management policies no better than the highland clearances.

I'm bumping this thread. We had a dog worrying incident the other day.
A dog out of control. No visible harm but the distress to me was awful.
Please keep your dog on a lead near livestock.