Another case of sheep worrying

[Moobli]

There seem to be more cases UK-wide week on week but I saw a particularly shocking one on my FB newsfeed this morning. Thirty animals were killed/injured in one incident on a farm in Carmarthenshire, including many week old lambs The two dogs had apparently escaped from their owner's property and, while they were only out a short time, they caused carnage.

On the farmer's post there are calls for the dogs to be shot on sight, put down, the owners to be fined heavily, their dogs removed from them and banned from keeping dogs as well as some posters calling for a change in the Law so that dogs must be on leads at all times when out in public (which of course would not have made a difference to this particular case). There are extremely distressing and emotive photos of a pile of dead lambs so I won't share it here, but the amount of people who believe that a dog capable of this is also likely to attack children is astounding.

As a shepherd's wife I know how angry and devastated I would be if this happened to us and can entirely understand some of the anger and vitriol aimed at dog owners in general when incidents like this occur but to demonise dogs for doing something that comes naturally, as well as those who believe their dog would never do such a thing, really frustrates me.

As responsible dog owners know, it is our duty to train and control our dogs so they are not able to inflict stress and injury to others but how can this message be spread so that incidents like the one above don't become even more commonplace? I can see a time in the future where all dogs, by Law, will be required to be on lead at all times when out in public if people don't start controlling their dogs and taking responsibility for their pet's actions.

 

[SusieT]

I think the problem is from a dog owners perspective that 'owning up' to what their pet did often means a death sentence for what is an otherwise very much loved pet - yes it has done something terrible but to the owner they have invested years etc into the dog
so it does often seem idiotic to me that one animal owner has had loved/valued animals killed (sheep) and that the automatic reaction is that another animal owner has its loved/valued animal also killed (dog owner) where if there was a system to perhaps implement e.g a 'restraining order' suhc as v high fencing, always on a lead, moving area, compensation (generous) for the loss sustained by the farmer might work better and enable pet owners to come forward better - particularly if both parties were covered by insurance.

I can entirely sympathise with any farmer who shoots an animal directly worrying his livestock but going round to family homes after the event for example to shoot the dog to me is not an example of an evolved society - it doesn't really solve anything - our society has evolved past the point of brute force revenge.

And as for the owners who say their dogs are 'just playing' they are normally frightened of the consequences, but sometimes just plain stupid...

 

[Clodagh]

I can entirely sympathise with any farmer who shoots an animal directly worrying his livestock but going round to family homes after the event for example to shoot the dog to me is not an example of an evolved society - it doesn't really solve anything - our society has evolved past the point of brute force revenge. ..

This would justifiably be a criminal act anyway, you are only allowed to shoot the dog if you can't catch it. (Although if I saw a dog killing my sheep I wouldn't try very hard to catch it, tbh).
People who allow their dogs to kill sheep should be sterilised, as they are obviously too stupid to breed themselves. (almost tongue in cheek, that).

 

[Cinnamontoast]

Trouble is, there will be denials from the owners. Going round after the fact is a bit pointless, although naturally the farmer is going to want recompense and to lay blame where it belongs.

The demonisation of 'Ooh, it might be a child next' is something I heard a lot when Brig was attacked a while back. I think that's a big stretch and highly unlikely in the case of sheep being attacked or dog on dog attacks.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

one farmer on the Fife coast has also had several dog attacks this week. I don't know of many farmers that relish shooting dogs and in fact the only dogs I know that destroyed because of sheep worrying in my immediate area was a last resort because they were on their third attack when finally shot. Another large scale attack by three large dogs that escaped from a garden was settled out of court, the dogs not destroyed-the farmer wasn't after that.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

oh, and a conservation grazing pony (Exmoor) was chased by a dog and broke his leg yesterday in West Sussex. Owners fled the scene. maybe farmers should just shoot owners instead.

 

[Clodagh]

oh, and a conservation grazing pony (Exmoor) was chased by a dog and broke his leg yesterday in West Sussex. Owners fled the scene. maybe farmers should just shoot owners instead.

That would make far more sense. I am not sure what sort of person finds it aceptable for their dog to chase livestock, I assume some are mortified, learn from it and never risk it again, whereas others are just 'So what'? And even if their dog got shot they could just buy another one. Bizarre mentality.

 

[GirlFriday]

Very difficult. There are occasionally posts on this same part of the board about people's lost dogs. For which they usually get a great deal of sympathy. But really there is no difference. Owners did not keep dog in safely enclosed area/under control on walk.

Obviously there are exceptions (theft, vandalism of garden fencing etc) but basically the same story with very different outcomes/sentiments...

 

[ycbm]

where if there was a system to perhaps implement e.g a 'restraining order' suhc as v high fencing, always on a lead, moving area, compensation (generous) for the loss sustained by the farmer might work better and enable pet owners to come forward better - particularly if both parties were covered by insurance.

There is. As magistrate quite a few years back now, I once had to decide on whether an Akita which had bitten several people should be allowed to live under such an order, or be shot by the police. After hearing all the facts, including their pride in their dog's aggressive nature, we did not trust the owners to abide by the restraining order, and the dog was shot.

I have a sheep farmer friend who has shot quite a few dogs in his fields. He even went to someone's house and shot two Dobermans in the man's garden because he would not restrain them. Yes, that's illegal, and he went round straight to the police and told them what he has done and the owner didn't press charges.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

Obviously there are exceptions (theft, vandalism of garden fencing etc) but basically the same story with very different outcomes/sentiments...

to lose a dog and never find out what happened to it would be devastating. I wouldnt be as heartless as to suggest that it was the owner's fault even if I might think they were careless. I was once responsible for a much loved dog of mine being run over and I have never forgiven myself-its a big part of the reason I dont take chances with off lead dogs anywhere.

And even though a dead sheep is a dead sheep, people dont lose dogs on purpose. Accidents happen both with losing dogs and with sheep worrying but there is a distinct lake of awarewness with the general public about it.

 

[planete]

Very difficult. There are occasionally posts on this same part of the board about people's lost dogs. For which they usually get a great deal of sympathy. But really there is no difference. Owners did not keep dog in safely enclosed area/under control on walk.

Obviously there are exceptions (theft, vandalism of garden fencing etc) but basically the same story with very different outcomes/sentiments...

Exactly. As a lurcher owner I am quietly appalled at the tales of dogs absconding when coming across potential prey in the countryside and tales of woes about the resulting accidents and injuries. Never mind what the dog has been up to while he was awol. " Lurchers are made for running so they should be off lead". FFS! The countryside is not a dog's playground.

 

[CorvusCorax]

To me the rise in frequency of these attacks is to do with population growth and more spread into rural areas, accessibility to breeds and lines and drives that were once previously unattainable to Joe Public, and a complete 360 degree switch in public attitudes to dog training.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

To me the rise in frequency of these attacks is to do with population growth and more spread into rural areas, accessibility to breeds and lines and drives that were once previously unattainable to Joe Public, and a complete 360 degree switch in public attitudes to dog training.

true dat. when you say attitude to dog training, could you be more specific?

 

[CorvusCorax]

This is probably the best article I have read on the subject. It does deal with chasing, etc, towards the end.

http://growingupguidepup.org/the-punishment-of-positive-only/

 

[MotherOfChickens]

that is a good (and very sad) article. I think though that it gives the general dog owning public too much credit in that I think the majority of them dont do any training, or they dont do any past puppy classes or they have that prefect puppy and stop training just as they get to be difficult teenagers. It takes a lot of commitment and too many poeple just can't maintain it.

 

[Alec Swan]

To me the rise in frequency of these attacks is to do with population growth and more spread into rural areas, accessibility to breeds and lines and drives that were once previously unattainable to Joe Public, and a complete 360 degree switch in public attitudes to dog training.

Not a wasted word and I'd add that there's also an inclination from Joe Public to buy dogs and of breeds which are all but guaranteed to rebel against their inability to live the lives for which they were bred.

Education? Pointless when the 'student' know's best.

Alec.

 

[smja]

This is probably the best article I have read on the subject. It does deal with chasing, etc, towards the end.

http://growingupguidepup.org/the-punishment-of-positive-only/

Thank you for the link - an interesting article.

I think lots of new dog owners massively underestimate the time it takes to train a dog to do the basics, and don't understand the need for consistency. You could also say that of lots of horse owners, too.

 

[Moobli]

I can entirely sympathise with any farmer who shoots an animal directly worrying his livestock but going round to family homes after the event for example to shoot the dog to me is not an example of an evolved society - it doesn't really solve anything - our society has evolved past the point of brute force revenge.

The Law actually states that shooting must be a last resort after other methods have been tried and failed (such as a shot in the air, scaring the dog away or catching it etc).

The civil law

If a dog belonging to somewhere else enters a farmer’s land, it amounts to trespass. That said, responding by shooting and injuring or even killing a trespassing dog amounts to a civil wrong, which, in turn, could mean the farmer is liable to the dog owner. The key issue is whether the injuring act is a legitimate act or not.
Compensation for injuries suffered to livestock is mainly governed by the Animals Act 1971. Where a dog causes damage by killing or injuring livestock, any person who is a keeper of the dog is strictly liable for the damage. This means that the liability will fall on the dog owner without the need to make a finding of fault. As such, the law is slanted in the farmer’s favour.
The Act goes further, and provides statutory defence to farmers who injure a dog in order to protect their livestock.
To be able to rely on the defence, farmers will need to demonstrate that:
(a) there are no reasonable means of preventing the worrying (or the dog has been worrying livestock);
(b) the dog has not left the vicinity;
(c) the dog is not under an individual’s control; and
(d) There are no practicable means of ascertaining its owner. What constitutes the necessary practical steps will depend on the circumstances, but it could extend to trying to ascertain whether anybody in the immediate vicinity is the owner, and who would have the ability to bring the dog back under control.

In addition, if a dog is shot, it is crucial that the local police authorities are notified within 48 hours. This applies to killing or injuring, and it will not be a sufficient excuse to argue the farmer did not think they had killed the dog. Failure to do so will prevent the statutory defence being available.
The defence does not apply to dogs which are authorised by the occupier to be on the land. In other words, the dog must be trespassing. This has significant implications if, for instance, a friend’s dog was invited onto the land which subsequently began worrying the farmer’s livestock.
Ownership of the dog should be established where possible. Attempts should be made to call the dog’s owner, and/or, where possible, to wait for the owner to arrive.
The above defence does not apply to all dogs: sheepdogs, police dogs, guide dogs, working gun dogs and pack hounds are all exempt and under no circumstances should be shot.

The criminal law

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes it a criminal offence to cause unnecessary suffering to animals.
As a criminal liability, breach of these provisions can have severe consequences, including up to six months’ imprisonment, fines of up to £20,000 and the possibility of being disqualified from keeping animals.
The Act provides several factors to be considered, including whether the shooting could be avoided and whether it was for a legitimate purpose. For example, it is unlikely that shooting a dog for merely trespassing is a legitimate purpose. However, if that dog is threatening livestock, the protection of the livestock is likely to be a legitimate purpose. These provisions become particularly problematic if the dog is not killed with one clean shot, and it is important to avoid causing suffering to the animal wherever possible.

Other considerations
Another issue to bear in mind is that use of a gun in these circumstances may lead to a review of the farmer’s firearms certificate. The shooting of a dog is itself not an automatic ground for revocation, but any review carries with it a risk (however small) that the firearms certificate may be revoked. Whilst it is possible to appeal the revocation, it could be an expensive avenue.

 

[Moobli]

That would make far more sense. I am not sure what sort of person finds it aceptable for their dog to chase livestock, I assume some are mortified, learn from it and never risk it again, whereas others are just 'So what'? And even if their dog got shot they could just buy another one. Bizarre mentality.

Indeed!

 

[Moobli]

I have a sheep farmer friend who has shot quite a few dogs in his fields. He even went to someone's house and shot two Dobermans in the man's garden because he would not restrain them. Yes, that's illegal, and he went round straight to the police and told them what he has done and the owner didn't press charges.

Wow - I am really surprised the farmer got away with that!!!

 

[Moobli]

to lose a dog and never find out what happened to it would be devastating. I wouldnt be as heartless as to suggest that it was the owner's fault even if I might think they were careless. I was once responsible for a much loved dog of mine being run over and I have never forgiven myself-its a big part of the reason I dont take chances with off lead dogs anywhere.

And even though a dead sheep is a dead sheep, people dont lose dogs on purpose. Accidents happen both with losing dogs and with sheep worrying but there is a distinct lake of awarewness with the general public about it.

Totally agree.

 

[Moobli]

To me the rise in frequency of these attacks is to do with population growth and more spread into rural areas, accessibility to breeds and lines and drives that were once previously unattainable to Joe Public, and a complete 360 degree switch in public attitudes to dog training.

Completely agree.

 

[ycbm]

Wow - I am really surprised the farmer got away with that!!!

I think it might have helped that the dogs belonged to someone well known to the police and were, allegedly, used to guard drugs. The owner certainly didn't want the police involved, but the farmer's barn was burned down shortly after, make of that what you will!

He's a friend of mine and so was one of the police officers, this is not urban myth, I know the whole story in detail.

 

[Clodagh]

I agree with CC, numpty opwners with inappropriate breeds they don't want to put any time into.
I also agree with GF who said that anyone who loses a dog on a walk is being irresponsible, although my lurcher buggered of off on a regular basis, she only once got off our farm and thankfully there is no livestock around here.