My dog has just done the worst thing

[93sdb]

Hes just chased a sheep into a pond in the snow. Im heartbroken.

When he was younger he chased sheep before and he has ALWAYS been on a lead since then. Sheep or not.

We were walking down a field a walk through daily that has never had sheep in in the 20 years I've lived here. He was on his extendable lead and it was on loose but he was right next to me. I opened the gate to go through and felt him pull on the lead. Saw the sheep and put the clip on so he couldn't get any closer and the lead snapped. He chased the sheep and would not come back. One jumped into a pond and I finally got him back.

Another girl from the house nearby helped me get the sheep out but it went into shock but was still breathing. I put my coat around it and sat with her whilst she called the farmer and another lad came over and said the farmer was going to be furious as this had happened earlier this morning. I gave them my number said I would pay any vet bills etc and left it with my coat wrapped around it.

The farmer has just called and spoken to my dad as I was too upset. He's shouted at my dad (understandably) and is threatening to get the police involved and wants immediate compensation and threatened to come and shoot my dog. The sheep is alive and is warming back up in this man's house and is expected to make a full recovery and I am going to walk up there later (WITHOUT THE DOG) to check on it.

I just wanted somewhere to write and be devestated. Im upset how the farmer spoke to my dad as it was a complete and utter accident but I understand his frustration. I wouldn't of even walked in the field with my dog if I had any clue there was going to be sheep in there. He hasn't got excited around them since the first time but I would never risk it.

How did you know it was the same sheep?! They are literally identical!

@mathanxiety
@ErrolTheDragon

Quite. In this case, the dog was on a lead - which broke - as the OP went through the gate into a field with a right of way which she had walked every day and had not been grazed for twenty years.

A sign on a fencepost or gate is not going to stop the idiots and entitled being idiotic and entitled, but it would have been a useful warning in this case (and presumably for the previous dogwalker who went into the field before the OP).

Presumably the NFU and the KC think it's a reasonable idea to put up signs; they're a common sight in the countryside particularly where fields are not grazed all year round or livestock is moved from pasture to pasture.

Look at it also the other way around: if the OP had gone into this field which had been empty for years and been charged by a bull (or cows protecting their calves) you'd be asking why there wasn't a sign...

It was a horrible thing to happen, for everybody. The OP did the best she could given the circumstances and hopefully sheep and farmer will be ok.

I absolutely would not ask why there wasn't a sign if the OP had been charged by a bull. I would ask why the OP hadn't checked first.

There seems to be a huge amount of ignorance about farming here. The biggest misapprehension stemming from that ignorance seems to centre around who owns the land and what they may do with it. Farmers own (or rent) the land they farm. Many have livestock. Farmers may move their livestock around their land. They may plant and harvest crops in any field suitable for that purpose.

They have a right to expect walkers using rights of way to be familiar with the Countryside Code, which explains the need to keep dogs completely under control, to not litter, to refrain from trampling crops, to refrain from feeding livestock, to close gates after them, to not block gates and lanes with vehicles, to not let children play on parked farm vehicles, and more. Are you claiming that farmers need to post all of that on every single field through which there is a right of way? All the information you need can be looked up online.

In particular:
Please respect the local community and other people using the outdoors.
Remember your actions can affect people’s lives and livelihoods.

And here's something many people may not be aware of:
...the access rights that normally apply to open country and registered common land (known as ‘open access’ land) require dogs to be kept on a short lead between 1 March and 31 July, to help protect ground nesting birds, and all year round near farm animals ...

It’s always good practice (and a legal requirement on ‘open access’ land) to keep your dog on a lead around farm animals and horses, for your own safety and for the welfare of the animals. A farmer may shoot a dog which is attacking or chasing farm animals without being liable to compensate the dog’s owner.

The countryside isn't a sanitised theme park. It's other people's working environment and the animals there (and their products) and any crops are what their business produces.

mathanxiety

Excellent post.

@mathanxiety - No one disputes that the field is a working environment or that the animals are there to make money for the farmer.

What some of us find so egregious is the idea that this somehow makes it acceptable for the farmer to threaten to charge round to the OP’s house with a gun.

I own a business, as do millions of other people. If I tried to resolve a business dispute with a gun, I would go to prison for a very long time. A farmer is a business owner, not a cowboy or a gangster. He should be held to account in the same way any other business owner would be.

Violent people like this should not have access to guns.

@Shambolical1 they are not a common sight round here, never seen signs anywhere. I live very rurally. The farmer was obviously extremely cross and agitated, he hasn’t shot the dog.He was just mouthing off. Everything is fine now but the thing we can learn from this is keep your dog on a short lead on countryside walks through rights of way across farmers fields. Not tricky. 70 sheep mauled here in Cumbria in one sitting recently, by a dog. All died.

You should be asking questions if there is a bull in the field and no signpost. I believe its actually a legal requirement to put signs up stating there is a bull in the field.,, and its ILLEGAL to keep bulls of certain breeds in fields with PRoW in!

www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-landowner-responsibilities#livestock-on-land-crossed-by-a-public-right-of-way-banned-animals

Bulls of recognised dairy breeds (Ayrshire, British Friesian, British Holstein, Dairy Shorthorn, Guernsey, Jersey and Kerry) that are over the age of 10 months are banned by law from fields containing a public right of way.

Bulls over 10 months of any other breed must be accompanied by cows or heifers when in fields with public access.

Make sure that any warning notices relating to a bull are displayed only when it is actually present in a field.

@Poorlykitten - No, that’s not what we can learn. Everyone gets that dogs are a threat to sheep. We also accept that the sheep are there to make money for the farmer.

However, people who are ‘cross and agitated’ and who also have access to guns should be held accountable for their actions. It’s clear from the responses on here that anyone who lives in a farming community would consider the farmer’s threat to be proportionate and justified. I think that’s disgusting.

• What some of us find so egregious is the idea that this somehow makes it acceptable for the farmer to threaten to charge round to the OP’s house with a gun.

Which is probably why no one, that I noticed, on this thread had said that it was 'acceptable' for him to do that. I certainly didn't, despite a few attempts to distort what I was actually saying.

Re signs - it's a good idea for there to be some of the sort shown, in particular at the start of popular walks where there may be more people unfamiliar with the countryside. Telling people to keep their dogs on leads but to release if chased by cattle is primarily for peoples safety. But the idea farmers should put signs on all the entrances to each field when they've got stock in (which is what some people seem to want) is unrealistic. The default assumption should simply be that if you're entering a space where animals could graze, assume there may be some, get your dog under close control and keep it that way unless you're sure it's clear. Fields are rarely kept empty for years IME - if they are then they're even more likely to be habitats for wild animals and birds. It's not difficult and it's 100% my responsibility as a dog owner to do so.

I dont know why so many people are adamant the farmer shouldn't be expected to put a sign up.

Several official and legal sources have been posted stating that they're advised to do so to protect themselves and the public.

Surely its common sense that if you put livestock in a field used by dogwalkers thats never had livestock in it? How hard it is to put a sign up saying 'warning, sheep in field' if there's a chance (like the farmer in the OP) that you could lose livestock.

The OP was the second incident that day, so she wasn't the only one that the sudden appearance of sheep took by surprise.

If the sheep is alive (and therefore the incident hasn't cost the farmer any money) then the farmer has to just stuck up the fact of you have a footpath running through your land there will always be problems like this - it's just how it is.

I think you did all you could op.

Farmers may need to put signs up in places, but no, I don't think they should be 'expected' to, except for unusual circumstances such as bulls (or on occasion, stallions). A field may be large and have multiple ways in, not just the gate the farmer has come through.

If the default assumption is always that there may be something living in a field that your dog might chase, that always works. It's the safe approach. If people start to expect there to be signs on fields containing animals, things are more likely to to go wrong if the farmer misses one gate, or if comes adrift. We'd end up with farmers having to permanently attach 'stock in field' signs to all gates and stiles, whether they had anything in there at that time or not.

I hope your coat wasn't expensive - can't believe the farmer kept it! CF!

You mustn’t be able to read, Errol, as the poster I responded to had clearly explained that the farmer only threatened the OP with a gun because he was ‘cross and agitated’.

Oh well, that’s all right then, clearly.

@ErrolTheDragon

I don't think it's about other people's expectations, re signs.

If the farmer cares about their animals, they will risk assess, and put signs up to mitigate the risk of their animals being hurt or distressed.

Whatever people should or shouldn't be doing, there was clearly a likelihood that dogs would be loose in this field, and the farmer will have witnessed this when he went round checking the fencing etc prior to putting the sheep there. I'm not saying OP was right to have her dog loose in the field (and neither is she), I'm saying that he doesn't care much about his sheep.

@EYProvider

You mustn’t be able to read, Errol, as the poster I responded to had clearly explained that the farmer only threatened the OP with a gun because he was ‘cross and agitated’.

Oh well, that’s all right then, clearly.

I didn't read that as her saying it was 'acceptable'. People do say things which are unacceptable and sometimes bloody stupid when they're upset.

@DrFoxtrot thank you so much!

@MamaTookMyEyebrows there were only 3, he had just bought them them day before. The field isn't very big. I'm assuming that he was just settling them before integrating them but I'm not 100% sure.

There’s a lot of people saying why should farmers have to put up signs, that they shouldn’t be expected to etc. But if it saves even just one animal from being chased, bitten, injured, aborting or dying, then is it not worth putting the signs up? Signs are a useful way of communicating information, it’s quite immature to just say ‘why should farmers have to?’ If it helps, just do it. It may have helped in OPs case, it may not have, but I’m sure it will help in some cases.

Signs are a useful way of communicating information,

They're useful when used in moderation - a few of those yellow signs on popular walks, a few reminding people about lambing and bird nesting. However, an excess of signage can be counterproductive. An expectation of signage can lead to a shift in people's caution and personal responsibility.
Yes, it may be wise for farmers to put up more signs but no, I don't expect them to or rely on them.

And plenty of posters like @ErrolTheDragon rolling out the bunting for a man threatening to march round a woman's house with a gun.

I did no such thing.

You defended and minimised his actions in your post of 16.24 yesterday, @ErrolTheDragon

Pretty clear whose side you're on.

I'm on the side of the animals who get hurt, actually. Stock and wild animals which get hurt by uncontrolled dogs, and also those dogs if they pay the price.
I'm on the side of every dog owner always endeavouring to be responsible and making no assumptions about what's in the next field.

That particular post was merely meant to counter some hyperbole and misrepresentation upthread from it. And you're ignoring all the posts where I've explicitly said I don't condone what he said. so please stop with the personal attacks misrepresenting me.

@MrsHusky the point is that at no time should a dog be roaming free in the farmer's field.

A sign, or not, is a moot point because dogs must not be off the footpath that constitutes the RoW.

The fact that the NFU, and others, might advise farmers to put signs up is not because there's any legal requirement to do so, it's because they know how many people take no notice of what the rights and wrongs are and just do as they please.

If people are letting their dogs loose in a farmer's field and then saying, "oh! but I always do that! There aren't usually animals in here!" when something goes wrong, they it's they who are in the wrong. Not the farmer for not putting up signs that are not required.

The legislation is very clear. There is no grey area. Dogs must not trespass on land which is not the footpath, and must be under 'close control' at all times.

That's what's you don't seem to accept, even though it's there in black and white in the legislation.

(NB: I'm not saying that OP let her dog run free in the farmer's field as I don't believe that's the case here)

@ErrolTheDragon

I'm on the side of the animals who get hurt, actually. Stock and wild animals which get hurt by uncontrolled dogs, and also those dogs if they pay the price. I'm on the side of every dog owner always endeavouring to be responsible and making no assumptions about what's in the next field.

That particular post was merely meant to counter some hyperbole and misrepresentation upthread from it. And you're ignoring all the posts where I've explicitly said I don't condone what he said. so please stop with the personal attacks misrepresenting me.

Fair enough.

I'm on the side of the woman who has had a man threaten to come round her house with a gun.

I happen to think women's lives and sense of safety are more important than farm animals. We're going to have to disagree on this one.

I didn't see any 'hyperbole' btw. If a man threatens to come round my house with a gun, I'm inclined to take that at face value. You would prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. All good.