Terrified by shouting, angry farmer .. what to do next?

adouglasmhor

KatP wrote: »

Rubbish, you should not be excluded from enjoying the country because you have a fear of loose dogs. The countryside is for all to enjoy and dog walkers do not have priority over others. I'm not suggesting that this farmer was acting out of fear of dogs I am simply saying that *lots* of dog walkers do not appreciate that not everyone loves dogs, and they should be more considerate. Someone who is nervous of dogs, possibly due to a pervious bad experience should not be subjected to loose dogs running up to them. I have had dogs jump up me while out walking high enough to leave muddy paw prints on my jumper. I don't mind dogs, but that would have terrified my nephew or my mum.[

Thanks - you are right about that I made a mistake about what you meant. Sorry.

I still say a well trained dog does not need to be on a lead. If it's running about jumping up on people, barking etc. and not walking to heel, it's not trained well enough and it should be on a lead at all times there are people or other animals about.

ceridwen

aliasjo - Point taken

- and actually I have been in some VERY scary situations - so am well acquainted with fear unfortunately.

*******************************************

On a different tack - thinking further on the idea of writing a letter to the farmer. I fully understand why OP is thinking of doing this - but I would be very wary of doing this or anything else further on this. This was a one-off incident - doing anything further might turn it into a "war of attrition". Even if you are as apologetic as its humanly possible to be about putting dogs on a lead in future - the farmer may not/probably won't read every word carefully/think about it carefully/word a careful reply apologising for his behaviour. It is a sad fact that very few people seem to carefully read and analyse the words other people say to them - what he will probably do is view the letter/ANY letter as an "attack" and "take retaliation" for it. I know/I know that would be neither fair nor reasonable - but I honestly dont think for one second he will sit down and read it in a calm/rational frame of mind. I am saying he had a one-off fit of temper. He may or may not be a bully - but if he IS a bully - then he will definitely take some action back.

If there is one thing that one learns about bullies - after having encountered a few - its that they usually turn right round and "retaliate" to any reasonable responses one makes to them and very likely claim that THEY are the ones who are being bullied:eek:. Even just apologising and asking him never to speak to/have anything to do with you ever again might well result in an "attack" of some description by him if he is a bully.

Hence - why I have been urging all along to forget about it and put it down to experience. That's the voice of experience talking...

We all make mistakes....best to just learn from them and move on.

*Chattie*

ceridwen wrote: »

So - I guess that sums up everyone's feelings - I think we all agree the farmer went overboard with the way he expressed his anger, but it was perfectly understandable that he was upset (because the dogs werent on a lead - and he wasnt to know what they personally are like and dogs can be unpredictable in behaviour anyway).

.....errrr.....and some of us are wondering who this poster "gwhizz75" is who has a witness to your incident...........

No I'm not wondering who this poster is as I've read the thread properly and see she is talking about an incident that happened to her, it always helps if people actually read what is posted then there is no need to be wondering.

So perhaps you could learn from that mistake and move on?

Edited to add this quote

ceridwen wrote: »

It is a sad fact that very few people seem to carefully read and analyse the words other people say to them That's the voice of experience talking...

We all make mistakes....best to just learn from them and move on.

paddy's_mum

Oh aliasojo - thank you so much for that reply. It has taken away the sting of being misunderstood, of having my 'stupidity' thrust under my nose, that I have felt during some of the responses of this thread.

The point I made in the opening post and that so many people have missed is that my dogs did not disturb this herd in any way, so much so that the bull remained perfectly placidly lying down chewing the cud. We did not go any nearer to these cattle than the constraints of the terrain dictated. Look at the photo again. I was on the top of a high, wide sea bank and they were below and to the side of me. How is it possible for anyone to walk round them unless that person has holy powers and can walk on water?

The only movement was of the two or three youngsters who didn't spot me approaching until the last minute and then threw up their heels and cantered off. It is that movement that the farmer has misinterpreted as a threat to his livestock. I understand his concern and how he came to think what he did. What I don't understand is why and how he thinks it okay to launch and sustain a tirade against a clearly frightened woman who is almost falling over herself to back away from him, and whose parting shot was that she had no reason to be afraid of him because he "is not that desperate"!

There was no chasing, no threat of chasing, and I can't credit that a steer would think "hmmm .. that one is off the lead so he's fair game and I think I'll charge him". It is perfectly fair for people to say that they're fed up with out of control dogs who bark at passers by, or jump up, or frighten joggers with their high jinks and that their owners think their little Fluffy wouldn't hurt a fly - but that assumes that I'm as stupid and untruthful as Fluffy's indulgent owner.

This is a public footpath of national importance. If the farmer chooses to graze cattle on it, should that then mean that nobody ought to use it for fear of being accused of frightening/harming the stock by their very presence. When the farmer moves among his livestock, perhaps to take hay to them, is his own dog on the lead? No? Why not, if the rationale displayed in places in this thread is accurate.

It is physically impossible for the farmer to have seen anything other than the couple of steers wheeling away off the footpath because the bulk of the bank (20 odd feet high and 40? or 50? feet thick through the bottom) was between him and his cattle. Having said that, perhaps he's the one with God-given powers and can see through walls with his x-ray vision!

I think this thread has gone far enough and should stop now before it descends into bickering. Thanks to all who responded (and I'll say it once again) whether or not I agree with the view expressed.

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle

Pssst. sorry i think i cross posted

This could go on and on - i think it's best to say what has happened happened, whether the dogs were on lead or not can not be changed and the OP should not be penalised any more for it. Just whether it was right or wrong (there are no clear rules here) learn from the situation and possibly keep the dogs on a lead in future just when needed.

Personally i think the letter is fine IF the OP is not going to attack or be condesending in anyway. If it is simply an explanation (no hitting for an appology back, if you get one great if you don't it's no loss) and an appology with and explanation of how you felt, making full well you are letting the reader know you are not having a go. Tell him you will be more aware in future etc etc.
All anger needs to be put behind you and the letter friendly if possible but explain he did terrify you whether he meant to or not - i don't see much chance of getting a nasty retaliation from that at all.

It all depends how you are writing it. It's entirely up to you whether you do or not - i mean if he does get countless amounts of dog walkers with doggies off lead i think he may just appreciate an explanation of your side and appology and will hopefully think twice before going bonkers at someone next time

Just my take on it In my eyes a 'sorry' goes a long long way, even if you are not the only one who has done wrong...it's a first step to mending the situation.

Tom1234

You were threatened with physical violence by a certified firearms holder. You were not in breach of a) the law, b) the countryside code.

You should report this incident to the Police, making them aware that you know there is nothing they can do without a witness, but that you'd like them to be aware of it incase it happens again.

Regardless of what people think about cows being frightened, miscarrying, or going on a dog-induced killing spree the fact of the matter is the farmer has broken the law and threatened to attack you and your dogs.

If I was in Sainsburys, and someone came up to me and threatened to kill me and my pets, I'd be going straight to the police. Why is this different because you're out in the countryside?

Oldernotwiser

paddy's_mum wrote: »

He came on in an arm-swinging, loud and aggressive manner, on a narrow footpath, with my dogs at my heels, where he ran a genuine risk of being bitten should my dogs decide that his aggression was very much their business?

But I thought that your dogs were under "close control"? If they would've protected you from an irate farmer, wouldn't they also have protected you from any perceived threat from the cattle? Perhaps that's what concerned the farmer.

Tom1234

If you're going to quote a paragraph, at least include all the relevant information.

I have also come to realise that if the farmer truly believed that my dogs were unsafe and/or out of control, what on earth possessed him to approach me as he did. He came on in an arm-swinging, loud and aggressive manner, on a narrow footpath, with my dogs at my heels, where he ran a genuine risk of being bitten should my dogs decide that his aggression was very much their business?

YorkiePud_3

OP I am not saying this to be a personal attack in any way, shape or form ... at the end of the day, only two people know what happened that day and you both will have seen events from different standpoints so your views will be totally different.

But if you write your letter to the farmer in the same manner as you come across in your posts here, then you can be sure that he will rip it up and put it on the fire without a second's thought.

In heightened emotional states, having gone through things that have upset us and angered us, we tend to be perceived as being bullish, defensive, condescending and opinionated and that doesn't do anything to endear folk to help us or listen to us.

I am sorry, but that is how you have come across in your posts here. Now, I do understand why, but when you are relating this to others, either to us or to the farmer by letter, you need to come across as calm otherwise he will just call you an irate woman and think nothing more of it.

I know you went through a disturbing event ... the farmer probably went home all churned up and angry too ... but I feel that there is nothing at all to be gained from prolonging this.

You were in the wrong having your dogs off the lead. No onlooker would know anything about the temperament of YOUR dogs to know they were ok around livestock. Nobody could expect to.

And, the farmer was in the wrong also with his demeanour to you. He should have come up to you in a non-threatening manner and asked you to have your dogs on a lead around his livestock ... he may have had cause in the past to shoot animals who DID attack his livestock which would naturally cause him to be overcautious now.

It has been half a dozen of one and 6 of the other really ... culminating in the pair of you being upset, angry and defensive ...

I fail to see it will get you anywhere at all by writing to the farmer, and it will only prolong this unfortunate incident. The farmer was protecting his livestock, you were protecting your dogs.

And it has to be said, if you have worries about being a "lone woman walking in lonely places", then find somewhere a bit more populated to walk.
You can't turn things round to suit yourself and play a "victim" role ... you were out taking a walk with your animals and you should have had them on a lead around livestock. That was your wrongdoing.

The farmer should have approached you in a calmer manner and asked you to leash them around his livestock. That was his wrongdoing.

To carry it on and turn it into a personal vendetta is obtuse and could probably end up with HIM going to the police and having you banned from being on his land. He doesn't know a thing about your dogs and, bear in mind, EVERYONE will probably tell him their dogs are okay around livestock ... any animal that is free around his livestock is, in his eyes and understandably, seen as a threat ... there has got to be some responsibility from you by putting your animals on a lead.

There's got to be give and take and respect from dog owners when they go onto land where livestock is grazing ... this could have been a terrible situation where the cattle might have stampeded, hurting you or your dogs ... can you not see that?????? Just because they didn't doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. You were playing with fire not getting your dogs on their leads.

gwhizz75

Tom1234 wrote: »

If I was in Sainsburys, and someone came up to me and threatened to kill me and my pets, I'd be going straight to the police. Why is this different because you're out in the countryside?

That's an excellent point, why should he get away with it just because he is an angry farmer?

I think some of the people on here harping on about the "countryside code" should think how they would feel if some big, burly, mean guy approached them or their wives/girlfriends/daughters in this manner.