oh dear...

Pollycat

art_for_arts_sake
Yet again a discrepancy in the article between the dog owner and the farmer about what the dogs were actually doing:

They were on the edge of a field, albeit with cattle in, but the dogs were not worrying the cattle — they were just looking for rabbits.

These two dogs have chased them on numerous occasions.
Two weeks before I shot them the same two dogs chased them again and I had two cows abort.

So who is telling the truth?

Paul Cannon, Derbyshire Police’s section inspector for Derby South, said officers had investigated but ‘were not taking any further action’.
Farmers could shoot dogs lawfully provided the animals were worrying their stock.

Says it all, really.

An RSPCA spokesman said: “Owners have a responsibility to ensure dogs are kept on a lead and under control at all times near other animals, whether that be farm animals in a field or water birds in a park.”

But some dog owners seem to feel that this doesn't apply to them.
And are 'devastated' when their dogs are shot.
Maybe it should be the law that farmers can shoot stupid or arrogant owners instead of the innocent dogs.

Mrs Dracup said she would lobby South Derbyshire MP Heather Wheeler to change the law so shooting dogs on farmland was a criminal offence.

She would be better trying to educate her husband that the law as it stands applies to him too.

olias

It is lawful to shoot a burglar who is threatening you and your property (in some circumstances). But that does not mean it is legal, appropriate or right to shoot any burglar who you discover on your property. The same applies to dogs and livestock. It is lawful to shoot the dog, but that does not mean it is legal, appropriate, or right to shoot it in any and all circumstances:

Worrying livestock is defined as:

1. attacking livestock; or
2. causing it injury or suffering or, in the case of females, abortion or loss of, or injury to, their offspring through being chased; or
3. not being on a lead or under close control, in a sheep field or enclosure.

You can shoot any dog worrying livestock if:

1. the dog is worrying (see the definition above) or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or
2. the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity, and is not under the control of any person and there are no practical means of ascertaining to whom it belongs

The fact is, that there was a practical means of ascertaining to whom it belongs - Ask the kennels owner next door, who is wandering around shouting 'hear boy' whilst looking for his missing dogs!


Olias

krlyr

If the kennel owner was so close that the farmer would be able to hear him, why did he have to return to the kennels and drive to the farm to see if the dogs were there? Why had he not heard the gunshots, to have an idea of what might have happened to the dogs? Or witnessed what happened himself? A "neighbouring" farm in countryside may not necessarily be within eyesight or earshot.
Some articles are claiming that the dogs were left unattended in the exercise field before staff noticed they were gone - so there may not have even been a kennel owner shouting "here boy" for 20 minutes or so.

Pollycat

olias wrote: »

It is lawful to shoot a burglar who is threatening you and your property (in some circumstances). But that does not mean it is legal, appropriate or right to shoot any burglar who you discover on your property. The same applies to dogs and livestock. It is lawful to shoot the dog, but that does not mean it is legal, appropriate, or right to shoot it in any and all circumstances:

Worrying livestock is defined as:

1. attacking livestock; or
2. causing it injury or suffering or, in the case of females, abortion or loss of, or injury to, their offspring through being chased; or
3. not being on a lead or under close control, in a sheep field or enclosure.

You can shoot any dog worrying livestock if:

1. the dog is worrying (see the definition above) or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or
2. the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity, and is not under the control of any person and there are no practical means of ascertaining to whom it belongs

I believe the police said:

Paul Cannon, Derbyshire Police’s section inspector for Derby South, said officers had investigated but ‘were not taking any further action’.

Farmers could shoot dogs lawfully provided the animals were worrying their stock.

The farmer said the dogs had previously worried his cows - to the extent that 2 of them had lost their calves.

The dogs' owner said they hadn't.

As the police weren't taking any further action, what shall we deduce from that?

I'm not sure what all your points about what constitutes 'worrying' of animals is supposed to prove (or disprove).

olias wrote: »

The fact is, that there was a practical means of ascertaining to whom it belongs - Ask the kennels owner next door, who is wandering around shouting 'hear boy' whilst looking for his missing dogs!

But who says there was a practical means of ascertaining who the dogs belonged to (I assume you are talking about this latest regretable incident)?

Is that your opinion again?

The article says this:

When he reached the hedge, Mr Childs discovered the dogs had somehow both cleared the fencing behind it, and vanished.

He spent 20 minutes searching for them, before deciding to drive to the nearby farm to see if they had appeared there.

Where was he searching?

Obviously not in the right place otherwise he would have found them within that 20 minutes before having to drive to the farm.

He does not say he heard a shotgun.

If he (the kennel owner) didn't hear a shotgun (big bang!), what makes you think that the farmer would have heard him shouting:

olias wrote: »

'hear boy'

Pollycat

krlyr wrote: »

If the kennel owner was so close that the farmer would be able to hear him, why did he have to return to the kennels and drive to the farm to see if the dogs were there? Why had he not heard the gunshots, to have an idea of what might have happened to the dogs? Or witnessed what happened himself? A "neighbouring" farm in countryside may not necessarily be within eyesight or earshot.
Some articles are claiming that the dogs were left unattended in the exercise field before staff noticed they were gone - so there may not have even been a kennel owner shouting "here boy" for 20 minutes or so.

krlyr beat me to it.

olias

You all seem to be missing the main point I am making which is - just because someone has a right to do something, or it is legal, it does not therefore mean he has to do it. Also just as the police decide not to take things any further, does not neccessarily mean the farmer had acted reasonably or within the law.

Also, gunshots in the countryside are a regular occurrence - the kennel owner would not neccessarily have registered them, and thought - 'I'll bet thats my lovely, rosey cheeked, salt of the earth farmer neighbour shooting my customers pet dogs dead and dumping them in a brook.'

The motoring sub forum has a thread at the moment concerning a man who hit a cow in the road - police are taking no action against the farmer (despite an offence of failing to secure livestock), and the guy is having to claim from his own insurance and hope they can pursue the farmer for his losses - a potentially much more dangerous and life threatening incident than a loose dog, and again as an ex rural copper, something that is a far more common and regular occurrence than sheep worrying.

Olias

Pollycat

olias wrote: »

You all seem to be missing the main point I am making which is - just because someone has a right to do something, or it is legal, it does not therefore mean he has to do it. Also just as the police decide not to take things any further, does not neccessarily mean the farmer had acted reasonably or within the law.

I don't believe I am missing your point.

The farmer maybe thought he had to do it if the dogs were worrying sheep.

If the dogs were worrying the sheep, the farmer had a right to shoot them, he had the law behind him and it was his choice to save the sheep or shoot the dogs.
You've proved this in your earlier post about what constitutes sheep worrying and when someone can shoot dogs.

I don't know if they were worrying sheep and neither do you.

Until we know that, it is all down to interpretation.

olias wrote: »

Also, gunshots in the countryside are a regular occurrence - the kennel owner would not neccessarily have registered them, and thought - 'I'll bet thats my lovely, rosey cheeked, salt of the earth farmer neighbour shooting my customers pet dogs dead and dumping them in a brook.'

Really?

I think that if I were the kennel owner, a couple of dogs had run off, jumped a 4 foot high fence next door to a farm with sheep on it, and I heard a gunshot, I'd be thinking 'Oh, !!!!! hope that's not what I think it is.'

Did the article really say that the dogs were dumped in the brook?
I thought it said:

The dogs were blasted in the chest as they crossed a brook by farmer George Price, who yesterday claimed they had been worrying sheep on his land.

If the farmer shot them as they crossed the brook, wouldn't they have fallen into the brook?
That is different to somebody hauling the dead carcasses of dogs across a field and 'dumping' them in a brook.

olias wrote: »

The motoring sub forum has a thread at the moment concerning a man who hit a cow in the road - police are taking no action against the farmer (despite an offence of failing to secure livestock), and the guy is having to claim from his own insurance and hope they can pursue the farmer for his losses - a potentially much more dangerous and life threatening incident than a loose dog, and again as an ex rural copper, something that is a far more common and regular occurrence than sheep worrying.

And the relevance of this is.....?

olias

Depending on the lie of the land and wind direction etc, a gunshot can happen pretty much in the next field to you and you not hear or not register that that was what it was.

The article has been altered since it was first published - The original article said that the farmer had walked up to his neighbour and said, 'if you're looking for those two dogs they're dumped in the brook, I've shot them.'

The relevance of the cow straying story, is that farmers regularly cause life threatening situations by allowing livestock to roam onto roads through inadequate maintenance of fences etc. The police have every right in those circumstances to shoot the livestock dead, but they almost never do. instead they do everything possible to contain and round up the livestock even if it means closing the roads, disrupting thousands of commuters and tying up numerous police. That is the relevance.

Olias

Pollycat

olias wrote: »

Depending on the lie of the land and wind direction etc, a gunshot can happen pretty much in the next field to you and you not hear or not register that that was what it was.

Depending on the lie of the land and wind direction etc, what's to say that the farmer could hear someone shouting "here, boy"?

The fact is, that there was a practical means of ascertaining to whom it belongs - Ask the kennels owner next door, who is wandering around shouting 'hear boy' whilst looking for his missing dogs!

and there's nothing in the article to say the kennel owner was shouting "here boy".

Or have I missed that bit?

olias wrote: »

The article has been altered since it was first published - The original article said that the farmer had walked up to his neighbour and said, 'if you're looking for those two dogs they're dumped in the brook, I've shot them.'

Do you have a link to the original article?
Why and when was it changed?

olias wrote: »

The relevance of the cow straying story, is that farmers regularly cause life threatening situations by allowing livestock to roam onto roads through inadequate maintenance of fences etc. The police have every right in those circumstances to shoot the livestock dead, but they almost never do. instead they do everything possible to contain and round up the livestock even if it means closing the roads, disrupting thousands of commuters and tying up numerous police. That is the relevance.

But did this farmer cause life-threatening situations by allowing livestock to roam onto roads through inadequate maintenance of fences etc?

I've said in an earlier post that I'm not debating farmers' cruelty or lack of care to their animals in general.
I'm not debating about what farmers regularly do or don't do.
I'm going purely on what is written in the article about this particular farmer.

krlyr

Actually the originally article was copied and pasted outside of the link elsewhere and said

Mr Childs added: ‘The farmer asked me if I’d lost a dog. I said, “No, I’ve lost two”. He told me, “I’ve shot them. They are on the bank of the brook.” I was stunned. All I could do was fetch the van to collect their bodies. They were soaking wet.’