Concerned about trigger happy farmers

[Staffielove23]

I read a case where a dog was shot whilst on a lead. I came across this randomly whilst researching gun law. The dog had previously worried sheep and the owner had managed to put their dog back on a lead, but the farmer believed it would get loose again and shot it. The farmer was cleared of all charges in court recently and I believe this sets a worrying precedent.

It used to be the case that a dog could only be shot whilst in the act of sheep worrying to protect livestock, and not afterwards as punishment or a preventative measure against future attacks. This recent case isn’t reflective of this as the dog was shot because the farmer thought the dog might get loose again so it was done as preventative action.

Sheep worrying is ofcourse a crime and I support farmers when shooting is done as a last resort, and owners should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I walk my dog on a lead near livestock, always have and always will. It used to be the case that dog owners didn’t have to worry about their dogs getting shot providing we kept our dogs on a lead and under control. This no longer seems to be the case. If I am walking adjacent to a field or on a right of way, if the farmer is concerned or believes there is evidence of dog having previously worried sheep despite my dog not being guilty of doing such, then could they potentially shoot my dog as a preventative method and face no legal repercussions?

I feel the law is out of date and the authorities really don’t seem to have a good track record when it comes to holding farmers to account. I found another case where a dog was shot and fatally injured. Instead of ending its suffering the dog was left to suffer unnecessarily and it seems an awful lot like causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. There was another case where a dog ran into a field of sheep, which is totally unacceptable but it was running back to owner when it was shot. The owners was clearly very irresponsible but I still believe, based on the facts available to me, that the farmer acted disproportionately. Perhaps there is more to the story, I don’t know. I feel I’ve opened up a can of worms and I worry for my own dog and personal safety now.

Sarah, Milger was agreeing with you, not having a pop at you. She was agreeing that dog walkers need to have control of their dog, and it's ridiculous to blame kinks in fencing which enable a dog to get into a livestock field.
Given badgers and foxes will dig under fencing, realistically it would be pretty much impossible to make a dog proof fence.

We once had to do a 3 mile detour to avoid some very aggressive and stressed cows who would not let us into their field. We were on a 10 mile circular walk. No dog. Not always easy to ‘just don’t use public footpaths with livestock’. In fact where I live near impossible if you want to do decent walks which is why we have something called ‘a lead’ for our dog 🙂

Sorry, I meant to quote the post you were replying to!

@Milger

no worries 🌸. The quote system
needs some work!

Ugh, didn't realise it was the same person as before, wish I hadn't bothered crafting sensible replies 😂. Did you not get the answer you hoped when you reported the farmer to the police for shooting rabbits in his own field, now you're trying to frame him for shooting an innocent dog?! If any of this is real... don't walk your dog near livestock, don't live in the countryside as you're clearly not cut out for it, and don't piss off the famer who lives next door - he will win! (And not by randomly shooting you, your children or even your dog.)

Trying to see things from a farmer's perspective, if somebody repeatedly took their dog to harass the sheep, but always leashed it when the farmer arrived on the scene, I can see why the farmer might snap and kill the dog while leashed.

I wish people would understand that you and your dog are allowed to walk on a footpath through a field of livestock. However, the dog needs to stay on the footpath. Neither you nor your dog are entitled to go wherever you like. If your dog is off the footpath then it is not under close control.

Also, at this time of year, under the Countryside Code, ALL dogs should be on leads (or under CLOSE control - not just within sight) in the countryside on open access land - no exception. This is to protect wildlife as well as farm animals. This includes moorland and coastal areas where the wildlife are particularly vulnerable.

@Staffielove23 you want to see what happens when you walk through a field of bison with your dog off lead.

Plus, people who suggest "just don't use the footpath" are not thinking through the implications. If walkers aren't supposed to follow a footpath if there are stock in the field, where are they supposed to go? Unless they are super-local, they are not going to know alternative routes - or they may be no suitable alternative.

I seriously doubt that farmers want walkers to start winging it and crossing fields that don't have a right of way, in order to avoid footpaths that cross fields with livestock.

Not quite correct. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 says that dogs should be on a lead on Open Access land between 1 March and 31 July except in the costal margin, where they should be under effective control, which means:

· always keep your dog on a lead or in sight
· be confident your dog will return on command
· make sure your dog does not stray from the path or area where you have right of access

Link here

Sigh. Well done for having an argument with yourself about something I did not say.

I said that I will not be guilted out of my right to access a public right of way (clue's in the name) As I said upthread, I always keep my dog on a lead near livestock.

@Milger You seem to be responding to a fantasy version of my post, rather than to what I actually said. 90% of my post was saying that farmers have a right to shoot when necessary and that it is my responsibility to be vigilant and keep my dog under control. Absolutely nowhere did I say that I wanted to keep my dog offlead on farmers fields.

As a final remark I said that I wished farmers fences were better maintained (I didn't say dogproof , I said better maintained). That would make the situation more predictable when you are on the boundary between farmland and public woodland, as I often am, with a mesh-style fencing between the farmer's land and the public land.

I completely understand that it is often hard for farmers to do this, but it isn't an unreasonable wish to express. I was kocked over by a furious cow a few years ago, who had walked through the single remaining strand of wire attached to rotting wood on the boundary between her field and some woodland. And I have seen plenty of other fencing in my area that is extemely dilapidated.

Acknowleding farmers' responsibilities does not in any way imply that I am not aware of my own, or that I am not extremely keen to fulfil my responsibilities.
I really hate how ready some posters are to put the most extremely hostile interpretation they can think pf on others' words, in order to create a viewpoint that is easy to poke fun at or demolish.

I love dogs, always had them, probably always will! I also live in the country and I understand the consequences of a dog not being under control.

The farmer was completely in the right and I'm very glad he wasn't charged, it's his right to defend his stock.

OP as long as you're an owner of a dog that's in your control then you have nothing to worry about.

It's entirely the owner's fault.

@Staffielove23 I live in the countryside. I regularly cross my fields full of livestock. I've never seen a farmer yet with a gun and i know them. Keep your dog on a lead through livestock. Personally if it's cows walk somewhere else or another route. The only livestock thats been killed where I live is from " the professional dog walkers" . They are told to sod off and rightly so as I've witnessed sheep being attacked by dogs it's horrific. Keep your dog under control and you won't have a problem.

No one - at all, for any reason - should discharge a deadly weapon if there is not a deadly threat actively taking place, and discharging the weapon is the only reasonable response.

Once that dog was on lead, there was no immediate threat.

Shooting at a dog on-lead is shockingly careless, given the possibility of shooting the owner(s) instead. Bullets have a nasty habit of hitting the wrong target.

I hope that ruling is appealed - that farmer recklessly endangered human life.

The dog in the OP was under control at the time it was shot.

That it had been previously out of control is no reason at all to endanger human lives. A number of reasonable steps could have been taken short of discharging a gun.

Bit of a zombie thread no?

Any dog off lead around livestock needs to be shot and the owners prosecuted. It is entirely the fault of the owner. Where I live, there are signs everywhere that dogs have to be on a short lead and stick to specific paths but time and again people think they can get away with it. The owners have only themselves to blame.

The dog was put back on the lead "after" it had worried sheep. In other words the stupid owner should not have had it off lead in the first place. The farmer didn't get charges brought against him therefore there's more to the story.
Idiots who let their dogs off in fields of livestock Get all dog owners a bad name. Have you ever seen dogs attacking live stock ? I have. Don't tell me that dog wouldn't have done it again or has never done it before. Another example why sone people should not have dogs.