Can the farmer shoot my dog?

[Orangehorse]

Gosh, I'm really upset to read about that puppy being shot by the farmer, I think the owner would have a case against them - and I'm a farmer, we don't have sheep but I know the awful damage that can be done.

Don't rely on your dog seeing sheep in the next door field and ignoring them - they are "their" sheep. Quite different if they get into a field and the sheep start running.

We had some sheep on a field that we rent, but not our sheep. Two dogs went missing, the owner was round with posters and said that they took no notice of the sheep they lived next to. The following day, there they were chasing the sheep in our field, my son and husband found them in the act. I was actually very worried that son might dash home and get a gun, but I pointed out that there were not our sheep and it wasn't actually on our land, so not to shoot them. As we had the poster of the missing dogs we were able to telephone the owner who came and caught them.

This had an unhappy ending as many sheep were damaged, some killed and others lost lambs. The owner of the dog came round and put a stack of cash on the table, about £1,500 which we gave to the sheep owners, but they got someone - NFU I expect - to pursue the dog owner for veterinary costs, value of the sheep and anything else they could think of, which far exceeded the insurance cover that they had, and it cost them thousands in the end. I have to say that the dogs have never excaped again.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Personally I wouldn’t want to aggravate the farmer so would do as asked but no, a farmer *could not* shoot your dog under the circumstances you describe.

*should not*, and hopefully wouldn't, but if the farmer and his livestock have previously been messed about with by other owners with out of control dogs....

 

[CanteringCarrot]

Sometimes people gloss over the fact that the livestock on the farmers land is his/her livelihood. Every head counts. The damage one dog can do could cost thousands. Sure you can pursue the owner, but that takes time, money, and resources in the hope that they will have they money to payout or have insurance that will.

I would be upset if it were my dog, but also know that the farmer had a right to do this. Would suck for me and my dog, but I should have better control or have leashed the dog.

I know my dog is chill around livestock, but I always leash her anyway. Same when we pass horses that are hacking by as we are walking. She doesn't give a care about the horses, but it's the responsible and polite thing to do.

A little dog darted from its owner when I was out hand grazing my horse this weekend. The dog ran over and was barking and nipping at my horses back legs. Of course this was the one time I wasn't wearing gloves and got some nice rope burn as he spun around and tried to rapidly get away from the dog. Bless him for not hurting the dog, he could've easily been kicked or trampled. The owners said "excuse us" erm, no you're not excused? It's possible the dog had not acted like this before, but when you see another animal, just put the dog on a dang leash.

Here a hunter can shoot a dog if it is loose in the forest/fields and in pursuit and/or harassing wildlife, deer, mostly. Which, to some extent, I can understand. However, it very rarely occurs, but I think the measure is a good reminder to not let your dog hassle wildlife.

Sure the neighbor in this case might have been fear mongering a bit, but what the neighbor said isn't totally untrue and would perhaps make the dog owner more cautious. We also don't know about the neighbors previous experiences on the matter that shaped his view and gave him the need to say that.

If my neighbor said that to me, I'd probably just say, "yes, I know there are consequences when a loose dog goes after livestock" and moved on with my life.

 

[Moobli]

*should not*, and hopefully wouldn't, but if the farmer and his livestock have previously been messed about with by other owners with out of control dogs....

In the OP situation there are no livestock in the field (only wild pheasants), her dog was walking to heel and under control. If a farmer had shot the dog under those circumstances they would be looking at some extremely serious firearms offences with little defence. There also seems to be some confusion (not necessarily on this thread but in the wider public) that there is a "right" to shoot a dog that is worrying livestock. In Law there is no right but a defence for doing so under certain conditions.

 

[JackFrost]

A couple of weeks ago I was out riding my young horse. A large hunting type dog came pestering my horse. The owners took no notice, so I shouted to them that my horse would kick it. Immediately there was a scramble to put the dog on a lead and get it out of the way. They seemed to have no care for the danger their dog posed but assumed their dog had a right to annoy or endanger anyone or anything. It always worries me when I see these hunting dogs not on leads in rural areas, their owners just seem clueless.

 

[marmalade76]

Absolutely but the OP is in Scotland where we have a right to responsible access and not on a PROW.

Humans have right to reasonable access, dogs do not have a right to be off the lead.

 

[marmalade76]

Farmers are meant to notify the police if they shoot a dog for worrying stock. If the story about the dog and sheep being on public land is true the owner, should notify the police and sue the farmer for the cost of anew pup. Sheep are legally not allowed to roam on public land, although it isn't always easy to tell who owns what. We have a 'common' locally, with footpaths and tracks across it, which is actually owned by a nearby house.

Not according to the legislation quoted in the post below yours, according to that, the dog is only let off if the livestock is trespassing on land owned by the dog's owner. Either way, the dog owner appeared to lack control over her dog, therefore it shouldn't have been off the lead at all. I suspect half that tale is not the truth, though.

 

[Moobli]

Humans have right to reasonable access, dogs do not have a right to be off the lead.

Actually the Law states that dogs need to be on a lead or “otherwise under close control”.

 

[marmalade76]

Actually the Law states that dogs need to be on a lead or “otherwise under close control”.

There is no law that says any dog has the right to roam or run free. If you're on someone else's land as a right to roam or cross it and the land owner wants dogs on leads, dogs should be on leads. People have the right to roam, dogs do not.

 

[Dizzy socks]

There is no law that says any dog has the right to roam or run free. If you're on someone else's land as a right to roam or cross it and the land owner wants dogs on leads, dogs should be on leads. People have the right to roam, dogs do not.

I'm not sure that's correct - I think they do, to a limited extent. The Act only states that they should be under "proper control" when exercising access rights, defined in the supplementary Scottish Outdoor Access Code as "keeping it on a short lead or under close control in fields where there are farm animals". If the farmers asks then imo it's the polite and correct thing to do, but not a legal requirement.

So imo legally if there are not livestock and the dog is under close control you've more than complied with the law, and as such if the farmer shot the dog he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Legally it's not that the farmer has a legal right to shoot a dog worrying livestock, he has a legal defence for doing so - and he must show that there was immediate danger to livestock and that shooting the dog was the only option.

Obviously in this scenario keeping the dog on a lead is the sensible thing to do.

 

[Rowreach]

In the OP situation there are no livestock in the field (only wild pheasants), her dog was walking to heel and under control. If a farmer had shot the dog under those circumstances they would be looking at some extremely serious firearms offences with little defence. There also seems to be some confusion (not necessarily on this thread but in the wider public) that there is a "right" to shoot a dog that is worrying livestock. In Law there is no right but a defence for doing so under certain conditions.

They are not “wild” pheasants, and even if they were, they should not be disturbed by anybody’s dog being off the lead.

 

[marmalade76]

I'm not sure that's correct - I think they do, to a limited extent. The Act only states that they should be under "proper control" when exercising access rights, defined in the supplementary Scottish Outdoor Access Code as "keeping it on a short lead or under close control in fields where there are farm animals". If the farmers asks then imo it's the polite and correct thing to do, but not a legal requirement.

So imo legally if there are not livestock and the dog is under close control you've more than complied with the law, and as such if the farmer shot the dog he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Legally it's not that the farmer has a legal right to shoot a dog worrying livestock, he has a legal defence for doing so - and he must show that there was immediate danger to livestock and that shooting the dog was the only option.

Obviously in this scenario keeping the dog on a lead is the sensible thing to do.

How can you possibly interpret "under proper control" as being allowed to run and roam free? Agreed, farmers only have the right to shoot dogs that are in the act of worrying livestock, but no one's dog has any right to be roaming and running around on anyone's property but their owners'.

 

[Clodagh]

How can you possibly interpret "under proper control" as being allowed to run and roam free? Agreed, farmers only have the right to shoot dogs that are in the act of worrying livestock, but no one's dog has any right to be roaming and running around on anyone's property but their owners'.

Being under close control is not running free?

 

[Clodagh]

Speaking for England, as Moobli has said pheasants, once out of their release pen, are wild. It is courteous not to let your dog chase them but as it should be on the footpath, and not 3 fields away or in the game cover, then you should be fine.
I walk my dogs to heel if a footpath crosses an enclosed field but would only put them on the lead for sheep.
I presume the right to roam asks for the same areas of control.
A friend had her two dogs shot, but only on their third visit to the poult rearing field. The first two visits the keeper was fairly restrained.

 

[Moobli]

They are not “wild” pheasants, and even if they were, they should not be disturbed by anybody’s dog being off the lead.

In Law, once pheasants are released they are classed as wild birds. OP dog was at heel and was put on a lead when asked. End of any drama.

 

[Dizzy socks]

How can you possibly interpret "under proper control" as being allowed to run and roam free? Agreed, farmers only have the right to shoot dogs that are in the act of worrying livestock, but no one's dog has any right to be roaming and running around on anyone's property but their owners'.

I haven’t though? Happy to clarify anything I said, but I never intended what I write to be interpreted as meaning that.

 

[ester]

This fb post didn’t make me think if they don’t worry about tanks and things...

One of the comments said they went a different way with their (off lead) dog when they saw a ground nesting birds sign, even though they had said on this post they would also be in different areas.

I do see that since I first saw it a discussion on what the land actually counts as has started. . .

https://www.facebook.com/103472641497249/posts/282606860250492

 

[marmalade76]

Being under close control is not running free?

Exactly my point.

 

[Dizzy socks]

Exactly my point.

But the OPs dog was at heel? So I don't think there's any disagreement then?
Or have I missed something and the discussion has completely moved on (genuine question, I'm really not trying to start an argment!)?

I think everyone has without exception said that it's wrong for dogs to be out of control, whether on land by LR(S)A2003 or a PROW.

 

[marmalade76]

Sorry

But the OPs dog was at heel? So I don't think there's any disagreement then?
Or have I missed something and the discussion has completely moved on (genuine question, I'm really not trying to start an argment!)?

I think everyone has without exception said that it's wrong for dogs to be out of control, whether on land by LR(S)A2003 or a PROW.

Sorry, got a bit lost. Regarding right to roam/PROW over private land, the landowner has the right to ask that people put their dogs on leads because it's their land. PROW and right to roam applies to people, not dogs, dogs have no right to roam. I have a PROW through my rented yard where I have free range hens, I am perfectly within my rights to ask anyone who uses it to put their dogs on leads if I wish because although there is a PROW, it's still private property. That said, I have had no problems with anyone at all, all users are great, there's one dog who's never on a lead because he is people, other dog and other animal safe and doesn't roam off the path.

 

[Dizzy socks]

Sorry


Sorry, got a bit lost. Regarding right to roam/PROW over private land, the landowner has the right to ask that people put their dogs on leads because it's their land. PROW and right to roam applies to people, not dogs, dogs have no right to roam. I have a PROW through my rented yard where I have free range hens, I am perfectly within my rights to ask anyone who uses it to put their dogs on leads if I wish because although there is a PROW, it's still private property. That said, I have had no problems with anyone at all, all users are great, there's one dog who's never on a lead because he is people, other dog and other animal safe and doesn't roam off the path.

I think maybe the confusion is stemming from the difference between Scotland and England? I don’t know enough about English law, and I accept that in your scenario you can legally insist people put their dogs on a lead.

From what I understand of Scots law, while you could ask for dogs to be put on a lead (and someone would have to be a complete $€%^ to refuse!), someone who declined to do so but did have their dog under close control wouldn’t be committing an offence. I think not, anyway?

I’m really glad you’ve had positive experiences with people walking dogs, I hope that that’s a positive indicator that maybe things will improve (much as I doubt it!).

 

[Spirit2021]

Why was your dog there in the first place if you can’t control your dog then don’t have one.

 

[Dizzy socks]

Why was your dog there in the first place if you can’t control your dog then don’t have one.

The dog was walking to heel! That's the polar opposite of out of control.

 

[marmalade76]

The dog was walking to heel! That's the polar opposite of out of control.

I still say a landowner has a right to ask that that dog be on a lead because it's his/her land.

The "close control" could have other meanings - ie is a dog on an extendable lead under "close control"?

 

[Dizzy socks]

I still say a landowner has a right to ask that that dog be on a lead because it's his/her land.

The "close control" could have other meanings - ie is a dog on an extendable lead under "close control"?

What kind of right? Legal, no. Moral, maybe. I don't disagree that the owner should do it when asked, but they’re not legally obliged to.

As to extendable leads, I slightly doubt it personally, but that would be for a judge to decide I imagine? I think the fact that under close control is listed separately from on a lead in the code makes it apparent that there are circumstances where an off lead dog is under close control.

(Edit: I just forgot that we’re talking from the perspectives of different countries and different laws. So maybe you’re right in England re a legal right. But in Scotland, where the OP is, there’s no such obligation)

 

[ester]

The westie that went for me in the middle of the road on a flexi last week was def not under control, owner oblivious, presume they don't actually like their dog. . . did start to wonder quite how long the flexi was going to be

 

[marmalade76]

What kind of right? Legal, no. Moral, maybe. I don't disagree that the owner should do it when asked, but they’re not legally obliged to.

As to extendable leads, I slightly doubt it personally, but that would be for a judge to decide I imagine? I think the fact that under close control is listed separately from on a lead in the code makes it apparent that there are circumstances where an off lead dog is under close control.

(Edit: I just forgot that we’re talking from the perspectives of different countries and different laws. So maybe you’re right in England re a legal right. But in Scotland, where the OP is, there’s no such obligation)

Pretty sure that landowners can ask people to leave if they're not using a PROW in the way it's intended (in other words, to get from A to B) so I'd say they have certain rights but as trespass, for example, is classed as a civil matter, I would imagine this would be the same.

It is also an offence to block a PROW or to attempt to discourage people from using it and I would defend anyone's right to use a PROW as long as they use it respectfully.

 

[Rowreach]

Yes aside from the ground nesting birds problem we have issues with extendable leads and people getting tangled up and tripped by them. And owners who are oblivious to their dogs p*ssing and p**ing at the end of them.

It would be lovely if dog owners could just be, you know, responsible. And not utter nobs when they're (very politely) asked to be.

 

[Flyermc]

Slightly off topic, but dogs off leads in general i hate.

My little girl (who's 6) is scared off dogs and when we go out for walks and dogs off leads come running up to us and my little girl is hiding behind me, terrified and wanting to be picked up. The owners goes 'oh its friendly, dont worry' and i think to myself, your dog is not much shorter than face height to her, its come running/bouncing straight up to her, how is that friendly or even pleasant?

My son (who was 2 at the time) had a small dog come running up behind him, it made him jump and he accidentally kicked it (opps)

 

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

Not according to the legislation quoted in the post below yours, according to that, the dog is only let off if the livestock is trespassing on land owned by the dog's owner. Either way, the dog owner appeared to lack control over her dog, therefore it shouldn't have been off the lead at all. I suspect half that tale is not the truth, though.

Since the last F&M outbreak in 2001, owners of sheep *have* to record everywhere their sheep have been moved to - and wandering onto public land is not allowed - hence acres and acres of moorland having been fenced to avoid having sheep wandering onto the public highway. If I owned the pup - and the story is true- I would sue the farmer who shot it, instead of rounding up her errant sheep.