Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is a farmer entitled to shoot my dogs?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    lightening
    Registered Users Posts: 3,125 ✭✭✭lightening


    whitser wrote: »
    no ifs ands or buts,imo.
    and angelic believed,rightly or wrongly, that her dog attacked the sheep.
    good kennels wil make sure 99% that the dog wont get out but theres is a cahnce and i dont think its worth taking. especially when your right next door to a sheep farm.

    I don't think that's fair on rural people, hundreds and hundreds of them keep dogs that would worry sheep if they were let. But they don't. They keep them fenced in and away from sheep instead of just killing them. I know people in Wicklow that keep Dobermanns and Lurchers. The dogs, if let would chase sheep, but they don't, they are properly looked after and fenced and walled in securely. These dogs should not be put down, no if's and no buts...


  • Options
    #63
    Kess73
    Registered Users Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    chickenhawk wrote: »
    I didn't say the guards were called because they weren't.

    If the farmer did that just because he was pissed that the person was telling him how to farm (the issue was the use of plastic troughs on the farm) imagine what he would have done if she had taken it further. All the locals were just laughing at her and people were sick of people from the city's moving out and complaining about stuff that has gone on for years.

    You can fail to believe whatever you like but the person from the council did not make an official statement it was more of a friendly word with the person concerned.

    You can believe in the law all you like but all the farmer had to do was say he lost focus on what he was doing or that he didn't realise he was so close to the fence etc. Can't prove otherwise.





    It does not matter what the farmer says, and if he said something like he lost focus, then he would be admitting he was not in control of his vehicle in an area near another person's property where people lived.


    Saying it cannot be proved otherwise is a comment that shows that you have no knowledge of the law on this at all and are just spouting a story.


    If he said it was done by accident as he did not have full control or focus of a work vehicle, then he would be done for negligence and would still be responsible for any costs in returning the neighbour's property back to the state it was in before he sprayed it. There are no if or buts about that.

    "Imagine what he would do if she had taken things further?" What he would do is get arrested for being a thug who is trying to intimidate a woman while trying to be the big man of his bogger community


  • Options
    #64
    Kess73
    Registered Users Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    chickenhawk wrote: »
    Why would you report the farmer? Could you not just be responsible for your dog and keep it within the confines of your own land. And if you do not have enough space to keep it out of harms way don't buy a dog then.



    Because human nature is often to blame the other person even if they were well within their rights to do as they did.


    I simply stated that I would not know how I would be in a similar situation, and whether I would be able to accept it as easily as some in this thread seem to think the OP should.


    Yes it is obvious that the farmer was looking after his livestock on HIS land, but it is easy to see that when you are not involved in it. I am just saying a person could have a different outlook on it if it happened to them


  • Options
    #65
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    lightening wrote: »
    I don't think that's fair on rural people, hundreds and hundreds of them keep dogs that would worry sheep if they were let. But they don't. They keep them fenced in and away from sheep instead of just killing them. I know people in Wicklow that keep Dobermanns and Lurchers. The dogs, if let would chase sheep, but they don't, they are properly looked after and fenced and walled in securely. These dogs should not be put down, no if's and no buts...
    how do you know that they would worry? unless they already have! once they do they should be destroyed.
    a gate on a fence can easily be left open,or a bit of wood left against it so a dog can climb over etc....many ways a dog could breach the fence. an once a dog has worried he'll do it again.
    also remember this woman had her neighbours to think about. lets say,she did put up a fence, dog gets out again,attacks the flock. how will that go down with the neighbouring farmers?
    as i said, once a dog attacks once it should be destroyed. a fence should be in place as something to stop the chances a the first attack not the second.


  • Options
    #66
    peasant
    Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    whitser wrote: »
    as i said, once a dog attacks once it should be destroyed. a fence should be in place as something to stop the chances a the first attack not the second.

    I wouldn't agree with that.

    Had it been my dog, I would have apologise to the farmer, paid any damages due and then locked up the dog until I had built an escape proof fence (yes, there is such a thing).

    No reason to kill the dog.


    Sometimes I just don't get the views expressed on this forum re dogs.

    Some people refuse to see (their) dogs as anything other than harmless, cuddly friends, whereas others always see the bloodthirsty monster first (mostly in someone elses dog).

    The truth, as always, lies in the middle.

    Any "teddy" can escape and chase livestock when it takes a fancy to it, given the opportunity.
    All dogs are carnivores and have a hunting instinct to some degree.

    On the reverse ...just because you were daft enough to allow your dog to escape and go chase sheep, doesn't mean that you now have a dog that is a serial killer. Deny it the opportunity and it won't do it again.

    There's a "killer" in every dog ...it's the owners responsibility not to let it out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    lightening
    Registered Users Posts: 3,125 ✭✭✭lightening


    whitser wrote: »
    how do you know that they would worry?


    They know their dogs, their capabilities and how they react. They are big healthy dobermanns. If they got in to a herd of sheep they would chase them.

    whitser wrote: »
    once they do they should be destroyed.


    They don't, they are properly fenced and walled in. They don't escape, simple as.

    whitser wrote: »
    a gate on a fence can easily be left open.

    Morons leave gates open in the countryside. These people don't.

    You don't have much faith in rural dog owners to be honest.


  • Options
    #68
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    lightening wrote: »
    They know their dogs, their capabilities and how they react. They are big healthy dobermanns. If they got in to a herd of sheep they would chase them.





    They don't, they are properly fenced and walled in. They don't escape, simple as.




    Morons leave gates open in the countryside. These people don't.

    You don't have much faith in rural dog owners to be honest.
    i've every faith in rural dog owners. what im saying is, if a dog attacks stock it should be destroyed.
    you talk about cruelty..i've met a farmer standing in a field the morning after a dog attack. and its not nice. and anyone living in the country who keeps a dog that has already attacked sheep is very irresponsible imo. fences and training should be the first line of defense,but once a dog crosses that line then its curtains.
    as for leaving gates open etc...that could happen to a bishop. any little child could easily let a dog out by mistake.


  • Options
    #69
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    lightening wrote: »
    They know their dogs, their capabilities and how they react. They are big healthy dobermanns. If they got in to a herd of sheep they would chase them.





    They don't, they are properly fenced and walled in. They don't escape, simple as.




    Morons leave gates open in the countryside. These people don't.

    You don't have much faith in rural dog owners to be honest.
    maybe your friends should have taken the time to properly stock break their dogs instead of relying on a fence. what if they do get out and kill sheep? what will they say to farmer..oh sorry bout that but we had a fence.


  • Options
    #70
    kerrysgold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 969 ✭✭✭kerrysgold


    so, what you're saying is, for example, if somebody has a dog outside with no secure garden and it goes off and worries sheep, the dog should be killed rather than making the garden secure so it won't happen again?


  • Options
    #71
    peasant
    Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    whitser wrote: »
    as for leaving gates open etc...that could happen to a bishop. any little child could easily let a dog out by mistake.

    The point is, it shouldn't happen ...even to "a bishop".
    Children can be tought and supervised to close gates after them. Notes can be put up for the milkman/postman/visitors ...dogs can be taken inside when there is a lot of traffic in and out ...it's called responsible dog ownership.

    Anything else is just lazy and making excuses.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    lightening wrote: »
    They know their dogs, their capabilities and how they react. They are big healthy dobermanns. If they got in to a herd of sheep they would chase them.





    They don't, they are properly fenced and walled in. They don't escape, simple as.




    Morons leave gates open in the countryside. These people don't.

    You don't have much faith in rural dog owners to be honest.
    peasant wrote: »
    I wouldn't agree with that.

    Had it been my dog, I would have apologise to the farmer, paid any damages due and then locked up the dog until I had built an escape proof fence (yes, there is such a thing).

    No reason to kill the dog.


    Sometimes I just don't get the views expressed on this forum re dogs.

    Some people refuse to see (their) dogs as anything other than harmless, cuddly friends, whereas others always see the bloodthirsty monster first (mostly in someone elses dog).

    The truth, as always, lies in the middle.

    Any "teddy" can escape and chase livestock when it takes a fancy to it, given the opportunity.
    All dogs are carnivores and have a hunting instinct to some degree.

    On the reverse ...just because you were daft enough to allow your dog to escape and go chase sheep, doesn't mean that you now have a dog that is a serial killer. Deny it the opportunity and it won't do it again.

    There's a "killer" in every dog ...it's the owners responsibility not to let it out.
    of course theres a killer in every dog. and all dogs should be denied the oppurtunity to attack. but what im saying is once its attacked it shouldnt get another chance. you must remember this is mens lively hoods. a dog attack that kills hundreds if not thousands worth of stock on a farmer and he has no way of getting compensated. thats a heavy hit to take.
    a fence should be in place to stop the first attack, but if the dog escapes and attacks sheep then it should be destroyed.


  • Options
    #73
    peasant
    Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    whitser wrote: »
    a dog attack that kills hundreds if not thousands worth of stock on a farmer and he has no way of getting compensated. thats a heavy hit to take.
    a fence should be in place to stop the first attack, but if the dog escapes and attacks sheep then it should be destroyed.

    If you can pinpoint the dog for destruction, you can also pinpoint the owner for compensation. :pac:

    After all, it's the owner that is responsible for the attack, not the dog (that was only following its instincts)


  • Options
    #74
    Wile E. Coyote
    Registered Users Posts: 1,560 ✭✭✭Wile E. Coyote


    I think AngelicRaindrop did the right thing. She had it on good information from the farmer that her dog had been attacking sheep. If this had been the case then the dog was to be considered a dangerous animal who could attack children or anyone else for that matter and it doesn't matter how big a fence you put up. And I know we're going to have people saying that any dog could attack a child but it's not the same unless someone comes along and tells you that they have seen the dog attacking or killing another animal.


  • Options
    #75
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    peasant wrote: »
    The point is, it shouldn't happen ...even to "a bishop".
    Children can be tought and supervised to close gates after them. Notes can be put up for the milkman/postman/visitors ...dogs can be taken inside when there is a lot of traffic in and out ...it's called responsible dog ownership.

    Anything else is just lazy and making excuses.
    call it lazy or whatever. but if i was a farmer and i lost sheep to a dog a second time because the first time i let i spared its life,cos owners promised it wont happen again etc...i wouldnt be very hapy.
    not all dogs will worry sheep even if they do get out by accident un-supervised. but on's that do have no place in the countryside living beside sheep farms.


  • Options
    #76
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    peasant wrote: »
    If you can pinpoint the dog for destruction, you can also pinpoint the owner for compensation. :pac:

    After all, it's the owner that is responsible for the attack, not the dog (that was only following its instincts)
    thats true. and i said at the start that the owner will have to compensate. but unless the farmers actually kills the dog in the act its very hard to prove.
    -i saw your dog out attacking my sheep
    - no you didnt, rover was here all night (owner knowing full well the punishment). must've been a dog that looked like him.
    what if the family cant afford to compensate the farmer? it could be years before he see's a penny.


  • Options
    #77
    stevoman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭stevoman


    Moonbaby wrote: »
    Name a type of livestock that is a carnivorne?

    pigs?


  • Options
    #78
    lightening
    Registered Users Posts: 3,125 ✭✭✭lightening


    whitser wrote: »
    maybe your friends should have taken the time to properly stock break their dogs instead of relying on a fence. what if they do get out and kill sheep? what will they say to farmer..oh sorry bout that but we had a fence.

    These are experienced dog people. They know better than to risk the particular breed of dog with sheep. They rely on fence and walls. The dogs have strong hunt instincts. They won't get out, they are responsible. They have kept Dobermanns for forty odd years and they have never had an incident.

    You can go on with the "what if's" all day. But the proof is there. Fencing works.


  • Options
    #79
    Noopti
    Registered Users Posts: 2,776 ✭✭✭Noopti


    You can believe in the law all you like but all the farmer had to do was say he lost focus on what he was doing or that he didn't realise he was so close to the fence etc. Can't prove otherwise.

    That is so naive it is comical. Maybe I should drive my car into the back of my neighbors Merc because I don't like him. The Gardai arrive:

    Gardai: What happened here?
    Me: Um...I was driving and I kind of lost focus a bit, and well, there you go"
    Gardai: Fine so. Have a nice day.
    Neighbor: But, but...who will pay for the damage to my car?
    Gardai: Look, he said he lost focus....nothing we can do about it.

    Anyway, back on topic, it is tragic but the farmer is within his rights. Dog owners in rural areas need to be a bit more responsible about containing their pets.


  • Options
    #80
    chickenhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭chickenhawk


    Noopti wrote: »
    That is so naive it is comical.

    Yea and heavy machinery with poor lines of sight can never go wrong. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #81
    Noopti
    Registered Users Posts: 2,776 ✭✭✭Noopti


    Yea and heavy machinery with poor lines of sight can never go wrong.

    Get out of it! lol...... even if the machine/drivers did "go wrong" he still caused damage to another persons property and is liable.
    If I crash my car into a persons house, even if my brakes went....who do you think will be paying for it? Yes, it will be coming out of my insurance.
    Unless it was a fault with the car which is beyond the scope of personal responsibility for maintenance (ie: a manufacturing problem). In which case it is their fault....either way, someone is paying for the damage.

    You can roll eyes all you want....but you are completely wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    chickenhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭chickenhawk


    Noopti wrote: »
    Get out of it! lol...... even if the machine/drivers did "go wrong" he still caused damage to another persons property and is liable.
    If I crash my car into a persons house, even if my brakes went....who do you think will be paying for it? Yes, it will be coming out of my insurance.
    Unless it was a fault with the car which is beyond the scope of personal responsibility for maintenance (ie: a manufacturing problem). In which case it is their fault....either way, someone is paying for the damage.

    You can roll eyes all you want....but you are completely wrong.

    Not if the person didn't report it (which they didn't) so this is all irrelevant.


  • Options
    #83
    Noopti
    Registered Users Posts: 2,776 ✭✭✭Noopti


    ......*sigh*. Ok yes, if no-one reports the damage, or course nothing will be done.
    I wasn't arguing that. It was that you said all the farmer has to do is "say he lost focus on what he was doing" in order to get away with it. This is false.


  • Options
    #84
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    lightening wrote: »
    These are experienced dog people. They know better than to risk the particular breed of dog with sheep. They rely on fence and walls. The dogs have strong hunt instincts. They won't get out, they are responsible. They have kept Dobermanns for forty odd years and they have never had an incident.

    You can go on with the "what if's" all day. But the proof is there. Fencing works.
    i hope they never do.


  • Options
    #85
    lightening
    Registered Users Posts: 3,125 ✭✭✭lightening


    whitser wrote: »
    i hope they never do.

    I just told you. They never do.


  • Options
    #86
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    lightening wrote: »
    I just told you. They never do.
    they never have, not to say theynever will. and i hope they dont, its a bad situation for all concerned..farmer,dog and owner and the poor sheep.


  • Options
    #87
    lightening
    Registered Users Posts: 3,125 ✭✭✭lightening


    whitser wrote: »
    they never have, not to say theynever will. and i hope they dont, its a bad situation for all concerned..farmer,dog and owner and the poor sheep.

    This is getting silly.

    They never did, they never will. Full stop. That's it. Its not going to happen. Get over it!


  • Options
    #88
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    lightening wrote: »
    These are experienced dog people. They know better than to risk the particular breed of dog with sheep. They rely on fence and walls. The dogs have strong hunt instincts. They won't get out, they are responsible. They have kept Dobermanns for forty odd years and they have never had an incident.

    You can go on with the "what if's" all day. But the proof is there. Fencing works.
    what if it doesnt work? say a liile kid leaves the gate open? accidents happen, even to the best of us. if your friends are such doberman experts why not put time and effort into stock breaking them? that would be better way to stop attacks, though thats not 100% either. point is, no matter what we do fences,training etc...once a dog does that,especially living in sheep country it should be removed. maybe if you really dont want to destroy it then rehome it to the city.


  • Options
    #89
    lightening
    Registered Users Posts: 3,125 ✭✭✭lightening


    whitser wrote: »
    what if it doesnt work?

    But it does.

    whitser wrote: »
    maybe if you really dont want to destroy it then rehome it to the city.

    Why?


  • Options
    #90
    peasant
    Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    whitser, get over it ...

    You can actually contain a dog so that it doesn't go astray ...thousands of people do it every day.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    probably right. but i still think angelic did what she tought was best at the time. and didnt deserve the moral whipping she got off you and others.
    i wouldnt keep a dog that was a sheep worrier either. fence or no fence.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement