willman Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 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... The problem is dog owners do a runner faster than the dog when they've caused damage ad then they'll deny it. I have a mate with a horses muzzle almost torn off and a £1200 vets bill,he's put wanted posters up but no one has come forward. My horse slashed its fetlock in barbed wire when a dog entered our paddocks and chased it(through stock fencing) £900 vet bill and a horse that has lost £1000 in value and potentially unable to do the job it was bought for. All happened in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange 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! But you would be in the wrong, on both counts. Oh, and I am sure you will more than likely be in hospital, not prison. If some raving loony dog walker was attacking me, I would shoot them too. Reasonable force and all that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peewee84 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 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? The scenario that is equivalent to the farmer shooting my dog for merely worrying his sheep is the second scenario I gave in which I would try and scare the dog away first as he actually hadn't done anything yet I would defend my dog if the other dog was actually attacking my dog and it was an unfair fight ie bull mastiff vs yorkie..not before.. if the other dog was actually attacking my dog but it was a yorkie, I would use my common sense and compassion and use reasonable force ie picking them up because I can, to defend my dog.. 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. As above, it's relative.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Hospital more likely. I am sure you are very good at repelling a volley of shot from his shotgun. He's always got a shotgun at his side everywhere he goes has he? And shooting a dog to shooting a human are 2 very different things... the latter is not so easy to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 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... It's already the last resort. The law allows them to kill the animal if its on their land without an owner. Signage in many cases states that dogs should be on a lead. The consequences of failing to abide by two simple rules is pretty much common knowledge. There's three warnings for you. If you ignore them or fail to make safe land which is in a rural area then as a last resort your dog will be shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The scenario that is equivalent to the farmer shooting my dog for merely worrying his sheep is the second scenario I gave in which I would try and scare the dog away first as he actually hadn't done anything yet I would defend my dog if the other dog was actually attacking my dog and it was an unfair fight ie bull mastiff vs yorkie..not before.. if the other dog was actually attacking my dog but it was a yorkie, I would use my common sense and compassion and use reasonable force ie picking them up because I can, to defend my dog.. As above, it's relative.. How do you scare a dog away in a field that could be as big as several acres? I am sure in the heat of the moment, you would definitely not use compassion, especially if your dog means so much to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 In reply to the op, I am a dog lover with two of my own, and although its hard to say, your dog was where it should not have been. That's the end of the story be be blunt. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 But you would be in the wrong, on both counts. Oh, and I am sure you will more than likely be in hospital, not prison. If some raving loony dog walker was attacking me, I would shoot them too. Reasonable force and all that Why would I be wrong on both counts? One I could understand, but what's wrong with the notion of making people pay for damage actually caused, rather than some whim that damage might be caused.. Taking your 'reasonable force' idea.. (which blowing somebody way in a confrontation isn't btw)... if I'm walking down the street, see some dodgy looking geezer stood lurking by a lampost, you think it's acceptable that as I walk past I kick the crap out of him.. becasue he 'looked dodgy' and thought he MIGHT do me some harm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 He's always got a shotgun at his side everywhere he goes has he? And shooting a dog to shooting a human are 2 very different things... the latter is not so easy to do! Who is to say you could deal with the farmer without a shotgun? I would have thought the latter would be easier. I would find it easier to shoot someone attacking me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Why would I be wrong on both counts? One I could understand, but what's wrong with the notion of making people pay for damage actually caused, rather than some whim that damage might be caused.. Taking your 'reasonable force' idea.. (which blowing somebody way in a confrontation isn't btw)... if I'm walking down the street, see some dodgy looking geezer stood lurking by a lampost, you think it's acceptable that as I walk past I kick the crap out of him.. becasue he 'looked dodgy' and thought he MIGHT do me some harm... Kicking the crap out of someone is not the lawful way to deal with someone who may do harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.