oh dear...

Fire_Fox

Why is the fence only four foot? Surely that is not high enough to contain many dogs? And for either the owners or the kennels to agree to exercise the dogs off leash when they know they can clear the fence is total stupidity. Farmers and guns are not the only risks.

krlyr

olias wrote: »

I'm not disputing the kennel owners were in the wrong - or the dogs owner for that matter for saying it was ok for their dogs to go off lead. The issue is that the farmers reaction was completely disproportionate and not 'reasonable' in the circumstances according to the law or any man in the streets interpretation.

It would have been 'reasonable' to shoot, if he couldn't locate the owners and the dogs were savaging a sheep, or even if they were chasing and distressing pregnant ewes and he had tried to catch or chase away the dogs and failed. But that wasn't what happened. He should and quite easily could have rang his neighbour and said get your ar5e round here NOW, there are two dogs I suspect are from your kennels in among my sheep and I WILL shoot them and/or charge for any losses if they are not caught and removed immediately.

The fact is that the reaction was disproportionate, unreasonable and therefore not right or legal.

Olias

The kennel owner was out searching for the dogs so he wouldn't be home to call. Do we know if he had his mobile on him? The fact that he drove to the farmer to see if the dogs were there, instead of phoning him, suggests one or the other didn't have a mobile phone or contact number to hand. The dogs were gone 20 minutes before the kennel owner drove to the farm - 20 minutes of worrying livestock, with no owner appearing, the farmer may have spent 20 minutes trying to catch them, trying to call the kennel, may have assumed since no one appeared sooner they weren't from the kennels (may have assumed the kennels had the sense to secure the dogs properly)
What was the alternative option? We don't know if the farmer tried to catch them. Wait an unknown amount of time to see if the dogs actually attacked - by then, a sheep is physically injured. Wait for someone to show up - which they might not do.
Not sure where the bit about dumping the dogs came from - if he shot them at the brook, and told the kennel owner the bodies were at the brook, I don't see how that suggests he moved them?

Tropez

Until the final report into this incident has been published, the only "evidence" we have is based off a media report from a notoriously questionable newspaper and a lot of speculation, what ifs and maybes.

There isn't enough information to go on based on pure fact to pass judgement on the level of fault of those involved.

Pollycat

olias wrote: »

I'm not disputing the kennel owners were in the wrong - or the dogs owner for that matter for saying it was ok for their dogs to go off lead. The issue is that the farmers reaction was completely disproportionate and not 'reasonable' in the circumstances according to the law or any man in the streets interpretation.

It would have been 'reasonable' to shoot, if he couldn't locate the owners and the dogs were savaging a sheep, or even if they were chasing and distressing pregnant ewes and he had tried to catch or chase away the dogs and failed.

I'm not sure I agree with your post in bold - unless you have information that is not in the report or personally know any or all the people involved.

There is a difference between what the farmer says:

farmer George Price, who yesterday claimed they had been worrying sheep on his land.

and what the owner says:

The farmer claimed the dogs had pinned a sheep down but that’s rubbish – no sheep were even injured.

Were the dogs worrying sheep or weren't they?
It would certainly be instinct for them to try to round sheep up.

Until I know who is telling the truth about what the dogs were doing, I'm not willing to blame the farmer.

However, as krlyr says, the kennel owner is certainly culpable for being so stupid as to let the dogs out without a leash and so were the owners for telling him that would be acceptable to them.

olias wrote: »

He should and quite easily could have rang his neighbour and said get your ar5e round here NOW, there are two dogs I suspect are from your kennels in among my sheep and I WILL shoot them and/or charge for any losses if they are not caught and removed immediately.

The fact is that the reaction was disproportionate, unreasonable and therefore not right or legal.

Charge for any losses?
Oh that's fine then.
Let the dogs worry a sheep to death and then say to the kennel owner/dog owner "you owe me £xxx for a sheep that your out-of-control dogs killed"?

As I said above, we don't know if the dogs did actually injure any sheep but you have just said that dogs take priority over sheep (both of which are live animals) and money can just sort out any problems that the dogs may have caused.

Ultimately, 2 beautiful dogs are dead - whether 2 parties or 3 are to blame is yet to be proved.

olias

[QUOTE=Pollycat;56739069

Charge for any losses?
Oh that's fine then.
Let the dogs worry a sheep to death and then say to the kennel owner/dog owner "you owe me £xxx for a sheep that your out-of-control dogs killed"?

[/QUOTE]

The point is (and as I said, I live rurally, and I know farmers). The farmer is bothered about one thing - his monetary loss. The sheep aren't his pets, it's not the good life with the little lambs all having names, they are a business commodity to him. It was an accidental escape of dogs, not a deliberate or reckless act of a couldn't care less owner regularly walking his unleashed savage dog among vulnerable livestock. If a sheep was killed, I don't think I know any pet owner worth a damn who wouldn't happily pay compensation to a farmer in order to save their pet.

I say again, this was not the case of a savage, wild dog ravagng and slaughtering sheep in a killing frenzy - It was a couple of pet dogs, that it would be blatantly obvious to anyone had came from the adjoining kennels, and it would be equally obvious that the kennels have insurance that would cover any loss. And there was no injury to any livestock.

I have seen farmers leave diseased and dying sheep out in the field having their eyes pecked out by crows, to die because it would cost too much to get the vet to them. I have seen them stack dead and rotting sheep carcases in the corner of pens alongside live sheep. I have reported sheep trapped in wire fencing to farmers, and have passed by days later to see them still there, now dying. I have seen them cut off a diseased foot from a live animal with no anasthetic. So don't tell me that this incident was only about the welfare of the livestock. It was about arrogance, and a 'get orf my land' trigger happy attitude, probably coupled with an ongoing neighbourly dispute with the kennel owner.

Olias

Pollycat

olias wrote: »

The point is (and as I said, I live rurally, and I know farmers). The farmer is bothered about one thing - his monetary loss. The sheep aren't his pets, it's not the good life with the little lambs all having names, they are a business commodity to him. It was an accidental escape of dogs, not a deliberate or reckless act of a couldn't care less owner regularly walking his unleashed savage dog among vulnerable livestock. If a sheep was killed, I don't think I know any pet owner worth a damn who wouldn't happily pay compensation to a farmer in order to save their pet.

It doesn't matter what the circumstances were - accidental escape or deliberate/reckless act.
The fact is that (according to the article) 2 dogs were loose in a field with sheep.
It doesn't matter that any dog owner would pay for the loss of a sheep.
The point is that 2 dogs were loose in a field of sheep. The farmer shot them. The owners didn't get that chance to pay for any dead sheep as their dogs were where they shouldn't have been.
Not their fault, but the fault of the kennel owner and their owner.

olias wrote: »

I say again, this was not the case of a savage, wild dog ravagng and slaughtering sheep in a killing frenzy - It was a couple of pet dogs, that it would be blatantly obvious to anyone had came from the adjoining kennels, and it would be equally obvious that the kennels have insurance that would cover any loss. And there was no injury to any livestock.

Not according to the farmer.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?

olias wrote: »

I have seen farmers leave diseased and dying sheep out in the field having their eyes pecked out by crows, to die because it would cost too much to get the vet to them. I have seen them stack dead and rotting sheep carcases in the corner of pens alongside live sheep. I have reported sheep trapped in wire fencing to farmers, and have passed by days later to see them still there, now dying. I have seen them cut off a diseased foot from a live animal with no anasthetic.

I'm not debating farmers' cruelty or lack of care to their animals in general.
I'm going purely on what is written in the article - which is contradictory according to the owners (who weren't there at the time) and the farmer.

olias wrote: »

So don't tell me that this incident was only about the welfare of the livestock. It was about arrogance, and a 'get orf my land' trigger happy attitude, probably coupled with an ongoing neighbourly dispute with the kennel owner.

I'm not telling you anything.

I'm basing my posts on what I've read in the article.
I have no idea whether the farmer was arrogant, trigger happy and/or had an ongoing dispute with the kennel owner.

You have made a statement here:

olias wrote: »

It was about arrogance, and a 'get orf my land' trigger happy attitude, probably coupled with an ongoing neighbourly dispute with the kennel owner.

No 'maybe', no 'perhaps', no 'might have been'.

Do you have evidence of this or is it just your opinion?

I'm not sticking up for the farmer here but - as I said before - until I know who is telling the truth about what the dogs were doing, I'm not willing to blame the farmer.

olias

Fair enough, it is just my opinion. But an opinion based on living most of my life in the countryside and knowing a lot of farmers.....

Olias

Pollycat

And that's fair enough too.

I just like to see all sides of every story, rather than basing my opinion on people I know instead of the people who are actually involved.

TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if it was found that the farmer had acted too hastily - but I'll wait for that before I condemn him on a public forum, purely based on what I know of other people.

krlyr

olias wrote: »

The point is (and as I said, I live rurally, and I know farmers). The farmer is bothered about one thing - his monetary loss.

Not just monetary, there are other implications to losing a flock of sheep. I lived next to a working farm (cows, not sheep) and the effect that foot and mouth caused to the farmer's livelihood was huge - the farmers were only compensated the market price of the livestock that had to be shot at the time but that does not replace the time, effort and expense of aquiring that particular herd, the effort gone into locating suitable breeding stock, the increase in price of the calves had they remained alive and so on (also no compensation for the lack of use of the fields that were quarantined, though this is not really applicable in the case of a dog attack).
Not to mention the suffering that could be inflicted on the sheep had the dogs started to savage them - this debate is going on on a dog forum I use which has several farming families on and a couple have had first hand experience of the damage caused to livestock by dogs and said that it is often very horrible to witness and the livestock have had to be shot to stop their suffering - crush injuries, major wounds, blood loss, etc., it is not a pleasant or instant death and the dogs could have very quickly gone from worrying the sheep to attacking them.

olias wrote: »

It was an accidental escape of dogs, not a deliberate or reckless act of a couldn't care less owner regularly walking his unleashed savage dog among vulnerable livestock

Was it an accident if it could have been fairly predictable? Forget the breed or lineage of the dog, but any dog kept next to a working farm and allowed off-lead (and some articles are claiming unattended) access into a field that both the owner of the dogs and owner of the kennels knew the dog could (and had) escaped - takes the "accident" out of the situation IMO.

olias wrote: »

and it would be equally obvious that the kennels have insurance that would cover any loss. And there was no injury to any livestock.

But would they cover it? Someone on a dog forum I'm on has recent experience of her insurance paying out for her dog jumping the garden fence (4' in her case too) and attacking a neighbour's dog - the insurance paid out the vet fees for the injured dog. However, the owner said that the insurance company made her jump through hoops to prove there was no negligence on her part. Had the insurance company been told that the dog had escaped the same garden with the same fencing in the past, I would imagine they would deem it negligent to allow the dog free access to the garden without modifying the security of it and would refuse to pay out. If the kennels' insurance company knew that the dog had escaped the same field in the past, would they cover the incident? If the farmer had experience of several loose dogs in the past, perhaps he felt it questionable as to whether the kennels would have insurance cover for incidents like this.

olias wrote: »

I have seen farmers leave diseased and dying sheep out in the field having their eyes pecked out by crows, to die because it would cost too much to get the vet to them. I have seen them stack dead and rotting sheep carcases in the corner of pens alongside live sheep. I have reported sheep trapped in wire fencing to farmers, and have passed by days later to see them still there, now dying. I have seen them cut off a diseased foot from a live animal with no anasthetic. So don't tell me that this incident was only about the welfare of the livestock. It was about arrogance, and a 'get orf my land' trigger happy attitude, probably coupled with an ongoing neighbourly dispute with the kennel owner.

And I have known farmers to rush out in the middle of the night because I've called and said that I've seen a cow with a bit of a limp, or heard one sounding quite distressed. I lived next to that farm much of my lifetime and never saw animals left in that kind of state. I also know of dog owners who have left dogs behind when moving, to live amongst their own faeces, to eat each other as they are left with no food. Dogs with open wounds crawling with maggots, with infected eyes left to die and dry up because they don't want to or can't pay the vet bills. To do DIY docking to adult dogs without anaesthetic, I have even heard extreme cruelty cases of DIY amputation. But I cannot, by those experiences, assume that the dog owners in this situation did not care for their dogs. I'm not sure how the article gives any indication on whether the farmer involved is anything like those you describe.

art_for_arts_sake

From almost exactly a year ago http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Shot-dead-by-farmers-gun-20102011.htm

Cases like this will continue to happen whenever dogs are allowed off a leash close to other animals, whether they are pets or livestock.

Sadly more and more people seem to think it's OK to ignore other people's right to walk dogs or keep livestock without restraining their own dogs.

There was the other case recently where a terrier owner repeatedly stabbed an an American Bulldog that had repeatedly attacked other dogs.

I'm not saying "vigilante" action is right but we don't know how far people have been pushed before incidents like this happen.