Murphy Jnr Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 @Peewee I've never considered the law to be outdated, I doubt many had until the advent of this thread. The farmers livestock are more important to him and probably the economy than any of my dogs will be so they have that law to protect them. There is no difference however the dog gets into the field, it's there, with no owner in sight the dog potentially can cause damage or harm. How do you tell the difference? Yes they do act instinctively, dogs get excited, scared, chase, livestock runs. Just seeing a dog is enough to spook them they don't have to be running riot. The law will likely stand for some time to come and I have no problem with it as there would appear to be no other way of dealing with the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peewee84 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The life of sheep will be more important than that of a dog, to the farmer... as it's his livelihood. And the life of my dog is more important to me, because I love him..which is more important to me that monetary value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 And the life of my dog is more important to me, because I love him..which is more important to me that monetary value. You may feel differently if your dog was earning you money and it was threatened by another. You have to make a choice what will you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel22 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Hi Stevvie. I'm so sorry about the loss of your dog, it's awful. I really feel for you but you shouldn't blame yourself. You thought you'd left your dog where it was safe and secure in your garden. If your dog has never attempted to jump the fence before, you couldn't possibly have known it was likely to do it that day. I know people are saying the farmer was within his rights to do what he did, but surely if he could see your dog wasn't actually hurting any of his sheep, he could have tried calling the dog to him or catching it before he shot it? Shooting a dog should be the very last resort. My thoughts are with you and your family Stevvie. RIP little dog xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Just because it's the law, it doesn't mean it's right.. In some countries, you can get put to death for being homosexual by the law...... I know people say revenge helps no-one, however if an out-dated one-sided law means a farmer can shoot my dog dead just for being on his land by accident (because they do happen) just in case his sheep get spooked, with no comeback, I have to disagree..it's one thing being completely irresponsible and wilfully letting your dog run wild in a field with livestock, and another having your house back onto a field and your dog accidently escaping.. Another thing, in this situation, who says the life of his sheep is more important than the life of your dog? At the end of the day, they are both animals and act in instinct so how is it their fault? Yes, we should have responsibility for our dogs but when accidents happen, why should the heavy-handed shoot all dogs dead approach be used?? I sympathise with the op, i would similarly be distraught,but i live in a similar type area,where we have had dogs attack horses and sheep causing massive damage to the animal and distress to the owners. The farmers weren't on hand to shoot the dogs but would have, the unfortunate thing is that the next out of control i.e not on a lead dog that enters the field will be fair game for the farmer. I don't see the local dog walkers paying restitution for the damages caused. To be under control your dog needs to be on a lead, if it isn't your breaking the law.Accidents shouldn't happen for anyone who is seriously concerned over the welfare of their animal. I own paddock land alongside farm land and would still suffer the same fate should my dog wander through the hedgerow onto the farmers land and cause damage. If you don't want to accept rural law live in a city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peewee84 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 It would make no difference to me if the dog was making me money or not, if there was a direct threat to my dog I would defend it one way or another, but that would depend on the threat, for example: I'm walking my yorkie and an off-lead bull mastiff comes up and tries to rag it, I'd do anything to defend my dog including physically hurting the other if it meant preventing my dog from being killed. If I'm walking my yorkie and the off-lead bull mastiff comes over and stands in front of us and does nothing, and I'm not sure if it will attack or not, I'll pick my dog up and try and scare it away, but I wouldn't automatically resort to physically harming it just in case..even if my dog was my prized breeding dog and made me lots of money.. If I'm walking my yorkie and another yorkie comes and attacks him, I'd pick them both up and seperate them without harming the other dog because there's no need... It's all relative.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peewee84 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 @Peewee I've never considered the law to be outdated, I doubt many had until the advent of this thread. The farmers livestock are more important to him and probably the economy than any of my dogs will be so they have that law to protect them. There is no difference however the dog gets into the field, it's there, with no owner in sight the dog potentially can cause damage or harm. How do you tell the difference? Yes they do act instinctively, dogs get excited, scared, chase, livestock runs. Just seeing a dog is enough to spook them they don't have to be running riot. The law will likely stand for some time to come and I have no problem with it as there would appear to be no other way of dealing with the matter. Hi Stevvie. I'm so sorry about the loss of your dog, it's awful. I really feel for you but you shouldn't blame yourself. You thought you'd left your dog where it was safe and secure in your garden. If your dog has never attempted to jump the fence before, you couldn't possibly have known it was likely to do it that day. I know people are saying the farmer was within his rights to do what he did, but surely if he could see your dog wasn't actually hurting any of his sheep, he could have tried calling the dog to him or catching it before he shot it? Shooting a dog should be the very last resort. My thoughts are with you and your family Stevvie. RIP little dog xx I sympathise with the op, i would similarly be distraught,but i live in a similar type area,where we have had dogs attack horses and sheep causing massive damage to the animal and distress to the owners. The farmers weren't on hand to shoot the dogs but would have, the unfortunate thing is that the next out of control i.e not on a lead dog that enters the field will be fair game for the farmer. I don't see the local dog walkers paying restitution for the damages caused. To be under control your dog needs to be on a lead, if it isn't your breaking the law.Accidents shouldn't happen for anyone who is seriously concerned over the welfare of their animal. I own paddock land alongside farm land and would still suffer the same fate should my dog wander through the hedgerow onto the farmers land and cause damage. If you don't want to accept rural law live in a city. There we go, an alternative way of dealing with it..if it's all about monetary valuem and livelihood, make it law that the dog owner pays for the damage. I'd rather be out of pocket than have my dog dead.. As per angel22, it should be a last resort... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 It would make no difference to me if the dog was making me money or not, if there was a direct threat to me dog I would defend it one way or another, but that would depend on the threat, for example: I'm walking my yorkie and an off-lead bull mastiff comes up and tries to rag it, I'd do anything to defend my dog including physically hurting the other if it meant preventing my dog from being killed. If I'm walking my yorkie and the off-lead bull mastiff comes over and stands in front of us and does nothing, and I'm not sure if it will attack or not, I'll pick my dog up and try and scare it away, but I wouldn't automatically resort to physically harming it just in case..even if my dog was my prized breeding dog and made me lots of money.. If I'm walking my yorkie and another yorkie comes and attacks him, I'd pick them both up and seperate them without harming the other dog because there's no need... It's all relative.. Hold on, a farmer shoots your dog for worrying his sheep, so you think it's acceptable to attack said farmer. You then said, you would defend your dog against attack by possibly hurting the attacking animal. So, under your chain of thought, the person who owns the dog you have hurt then has a right to make you pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 It would make no difference to me if the dog was making me money or not, if there was a direct threat to me dog I would defend it one way or another, but that would depend on the threat, for example: I'm walking my yorkie and an off-lead bull mastiff comes up and tries to rag it, I'd do anything to defend my dog including physically hurting the other if it meant preventing my dog from being killed. If I'm walking my yorkie and the off-lead bull mastiff comes over and stands in front of us and does nothing, and I'm not sure if it will attack or not, I'll pick my dog up and try and scare it away, but I wouldn't automatically resort to physically harming it just in case..even if my dog was my prized breeding dog and made me lots of money.. If I'm walking my yorkie and another yorkie comes and attacks him, I'd pick them both up and seperate them without harming the other dog because there's no need... It's all relative.. Then there is no difference between you and the farmer as he will do anything also. It just so happens that he has a firearms licence and he isn't dealing with a one on one situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 What's wrong with being made to pay the farmer compensation IF the dog DOES actually cause any harm. Not just blow it away, on some nefarious notion that it might.. I'm sorry, but I stand by my previous comment.. law or no law, if a farmer shot my dog.. I would almost certainly end up in prison, and I doubt the farmer would be worried about his sheep too much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.