Is it legal for someone to take a dog off their land and kill it?

Trojan911

Huff wrote: »

They took our dog twice before for simply being on the land and took him to their home and locked him in a shed.

So that is three times your dog has been seen on their land with horses. Why was your dog not controlled after the first instance?

How do you know your dog did not scare these horses? Were you present throughout? I doubt it.

Horses, like cattle, scare very easily & can run "blind" when scared even at the mere presence of a dog. It does not have to bark or chase.

You state the dog was locked into a shed twice before. That tells me your neighbour was trying to be good about it.

You also state "The horses used to actually whinny across the fields for the dog to come over to them". You can converse with horses? Wow.

I blame you for the demise of your dog. And for those who say they would do time for this, then go ahead. :rolleyes:

Sharpshooter

Trojan911 wrote: »

So that is three times your dog has been seen on their land with horses. Why was your dog not controlled after the first instance?

How do you know your dog did not scare these horses? Were you present throughout? I doubt it.

Horses, like cattle, scare very easily & can run "blind" when scared even at the mere presence of a dog. It does not have to bark or chase.

You state the dog was locked into a shed twice before. That tells me your neighbour was trying to be good about it.

You also state "The horses used to actually whinny across the fields for the dog to come over to them". You can converse with horses? Wow.

I blame you for the demise of your dog. And for those who say they would do time for this, then go ahead. :rolleyes:

To actually BLAME someone for the DEATH of their Dog is UNACCEPTABLE.
If you have that opinion wouldn't it be nicer as a human being to leave this thread before you say something to make the OP even more unhappy.
The OP never said they could converse with Horses as far as I can see.

Trojan911

sharpshooterH wrote: »

To actually BLAME someone for the DEATH of their Dog is UNACCEPTABLE.

Your OPINION differs from MINE, so how else did the OP come to the conclusion the horse was calling his/her dog over? You tell me.

I stand by what I said. If the dog was controlled then this post would not exist.

Sharpshooter

so how else did the OP come to the conclusion the horse was calling his/her dog over? You tell me.

I stand by what I said. If the dog was controlled then this post would not exist.

Are you serious .
That is not what the OP said.
Put it back in context and stop takeing bits of conversation to suit your own means.

KJ_2008

Trojan911 wrote: »

I stand by what I said. If the dog was controlled then this post would not exist.

Perhaps so, but are you condoning the actions of those who took the dog and (as they claimed) killed it? That's okay, is it?

Trojan911

KJ_2008 wrote: »

Perhaps so, but are you condoning the actions of those who took the dog and (as they claimed) killed it? That's okay, is it?

No absolutely not, they [the horse ownres] should have called in the Gardai to deal with that aspect after the first instance. Then the appropriate action would have been taken by the Gardai from initial contact by them.

From what I am reading the owners of the horses were at their wits end to protect their livestock/investment.

The owner of the dog had had two warnings. The dog was not controlled so the owner must suffer the consequenses, and if that meant it should have been destroyed then so be it.

Remember, we are only getting one side of the story here. I have no sympathy for the OP.

Trojan911

sharpshooterH wrote: »

Are you serious .
That is not what the OP said.
Put it back in context and stop takeing bits of conversation to suit your own means.

Taken from the OP's initial post "The horses used to actually whinny across the fields for the dog to come over to them".

jill_valentine

I've seen animals after being attacked by "friendly" pet animals, and tbh, I'd be very f**king wary about letting a strange dog on my land ever again.

OP, I've got sympathy, and these folks don't sound like pleasant/ stable neighbours... but you were warned, and you were warned with good cause. Roaming dogs are a really, really serious problem for farmers.

Dave147

Mairt wrote: »

The fact that this woman calmly took your dog away with the sole aim of murdering it makes me sick.

How could someone be so sick, cold & evil to lead an animal to its premeditated murder?.. Its fills me with a blinding rage.

That woman is a monster.

I'm all out of thanks so I'll just thank you here. Was thinking about this last night and I actually wanted to puke, how somebody could do that to an animal is beyond me. I'm angry for you, sincerely. I hope they get a serious comeuppance.

meathstevie

It is legal to shoot a dog that's not under control and is or might be worrying livestock. Be it horses, sheep, cattle, poultry,... .

If the OP's story is true it wasn't the most diplomatic thing to do. Once the dog was captured the dog warden could have been called and both stories could have been verified. If the dog had been taken from the land twice before chances are that the dog warden would have taken it away anyway.

As for people accusing the horse owner of murdering the dog. You can't murder an animal, you kill it. There's no such offence as murdering an animal. There's legislation to penalise and prevent the cruel treatment of animals but leading a dog away on a rope and shooting it stone dead hardly qualifies as cruel. Harsh : yes. Cruel : no.

I'm disgusted at the arrogance of the dog owner in this case.
If someone took my dog, I'd make damn sure that they didn't have an opportunity to do it again.

ronbyrne2005

Report the guy to the vet regulatory authority if there is one. Contact the local Newpaper or a bigger national tabloid.

lostinnappies

if its legal, then take one of their horses when it "accidently" wanders onto your land and kill it (only messing). It is not legal i believe for anyone to put down an animal other then a Vet. Having worked as a Veterinary Nurse in UK this would be straight up to the courts but i dont know what the legislation is here in Ireland. Only thing is its your dads word against theirs there is no proof so be fore you go anyware get a dictiphone plant it on your dad and get him to get the bastards to admit it on the tape .. then go to the cops.

luckat

A lot of bad advice here, and a lot of unpleasantness.

OP, your poor dog suffered for the fact that he wasn't well disciplined.

Your neighbours clearly went way over the top, and in your place I'd be furious and grieving too.

But you're going to have to live in the neighbourhood. The garda listened to both sides, and took his decision. Perhaps it would have been more proper for him to say "I know one of those involved; another garda should deal with this", but he didn't take that option.

May I suggest that you back off on this. Going to the Garda Ombudsman isn't going to help you to live in the neighbourhood. Neither is any other action you might take against these neighbours, legally or otherwise.

Look at it from their point of view: they had already asked you repeatedly to keep your dog under control, and you'd failed to do so.

Of course they were wrong to kill the dog, but people aren't always that intelligent about their range of options. And most people default to anger and temper if there's any conflict; other solutions don't readily offer thmselves.

If you get another dog, put up a proper enclosure so it doesn't go onto neighbours' land.

MsFifers

+1 to Luckat's advice.

And that is not to negate the loss of your much loved pet. I really do have great sympathy for you, but I think the fact is nothing is going to bring your dog back now, and all that can happen is that you turn a v. bad situation much worse.

They shouldn't have killed your dog, but you shouldn't have risked your dog's safety by letting it wander onto other people's property. There are lots of other things that could have happened when your dog isn't under effective control - he could have got a bad kick from those horses.

Hopefully, this thread can be a warning to other people who let their dogs wander.

Sorry for your loss OP.

whitser

how many times must you be asked to keep your dog under control?
what the horse owner should've done was shoot the dog on the spot.then there'd be no case to answer. any dog can get out once and stray but 3 times?

jhegarty

whitser wrote: »

how many times must you be asked to keep your dog under control?
what the horse owner should've done was shoot the dog on the spot.then there'd be no case to answer. any dog can get out once and stray but 3 times?

yes, he could have legally done that , but he didn't.... he did something else....

when he shot the dog there was no animal in direct danger , so he broke the law and should suffer the consequences....

whitser

maybe thats true. but the owner must accept some responsiblity here. this is not the first post rescently were people allow their dogs to wander willy nilly about the place then complain about the consequences.
if the op follows this through the courts etc... he might end up having to pay vet billls and compensation for injured and distressed horses.
better he learn his lesson and make an effort to control his dogs.

Our man in Havana

I don't think you are in any position to second guess what a court might do.

whitser

im not but if the poster wants to take this to court he'll have questions to answer also. 3 times his dog was on land that had horses on it. all the horse owner has to say is the dog caused considerable stress to horses chasing them etc... and counter claim the dog owner for any damages.
the dog owner is not denying the dog was in with the horses. better lesson learned here i think.

whitser

but if he wants to take action go ahead.

KJ_2008

There's some spectacular point-missing going on in this thread. I don't think any one with a bit of sense would dispute that the dog owners were negligent by allowing the dog roam free, that simply isn't being disputed. So lecturing the OP on this issue is kind of pointless.

If the neighbours shot the dog while he was in the act of attacking their livestock then they would, I'm assuming, be in the clear, they would be legally entitled to do so.

But they took the dog away and rather than calling the Gardai or handing it over to a dog warden, which is what they should have done, they killed it (or so they claim). How on earth can anyone defend such an action, regardless of the owners' negligence?

OP, please ignore the advice that you let this go, it's coming from people who simply have no understanding how upsetting this must be for you. The suggestion that you back off because a Garda, who happened to be a friend of your neighbours, will do nothing about it is, well, laughable.

Please don't give up on this, follow some or all of the suggestions made above on how you can pursue this. Best of luck.

Our man in Havana

whitser wrote: »

im not but if the poster wants to take this to court he'll have questions to answer also. 3 times his dog was on land that had horses on it. all the horse owner has to say is the dog caused considerable stress to horses chasing them etc... and counter claim the dog owner for any damages.
the dog owner is not denying the dog was in with the horses. better lesson learned here i think.

The horse owner would have to prove actual damages in a court of law. Since the horse is alive and well they will have a job to do that. A court may award them nominal damages of say 1 euro.

On the other hand the horse owner has detained and either killed or gave away the OP's property unlawfully. The OP would be awarded damages for the loss of the dog plus special damages. These would be far in excess of anything the horse owner is entitled to.

minxie

KJ_2008 wrote: »

There's some spectacular point-missing going on in this thread. I don't think any one with a bit of sense would dispute that the dog owners were negligent by allowing the dog roam free, that simply isn't being disputed. So lecturing the OP on this issue is kind of pointless.

If the neighbours shot the dog while he was in the act of attacking their livestock then they would, I'm assuming, be in the clear, they would be legally entitled to do so.

But they took the dog away and rather than calling the Gardai or handing it over to a dog warden, which is what they should have done, they killed it (or so they claim). How on earth can anyone defend such an action, regardless of the owners' negligence?

OP, please ignore the advice that you let this go, it's coming from people who simply have no understanding how upsetting this must be for you. The suggestion that you back off because a Garda, who happened to be a friend of your neighbours, will do nothing about it is, well, laughable.

Please don't give up on this, follow some or all of the suggestions made above on how you can pursue this. Best of luck.

one of the most intelligent answers ive read:)
op, go all the way on this.....

whitser

well go all the way with this then. be interested to see how it turns out.

jill_valentine

KJ_2008 wrote: »

There's some spectacular point-missing going on in this thread. I don't think any one with a bit of sense would dispute that the dog owners were negligent by allowing the dog roam free, that simply isn't being disputed. So lecturing the OP on this issue is kind of pointless.

If the neighbours shot the dog while he was in the act of attacking their livestock then they would, I'm assuming, be in the clear, they would be legally entitled to do so.

But they took the dog away and rather than calling the Gardai or handing it over to a dog warden, which is what they should have done, they killed it (or so they claim). How on earth can anyone defend such an action, regardless of the owners' negligence?

OP, please ignore the advice that you let this go, it's coming from people who simply have no understanding how upsetting this must be for you. The suggestion that you back off because a Garda, who happened to be a friend of your neighbours, will do nothing about it is, well, laughable.

Please don't give up on this, follow some or all of the suggestions made above on how you can pursue this. Best of luck.

That's fair enough.

But it's frustrating to me that people don't appreciate exactly how much damage their family pets do. I know the idea of shooting somebody else's pet sounds awful in itself, and yes, in this case the neighbours were acting totally out of order... but the wider issue of putting down roaming animals is more complex than it looks, and I suspect the reason the Garda wasn't interested is at least partly because this is a problem he's heard over and over and over again.


OP, I do wish you the best of luck, and I think this was a pretty horrible thing for somebody to do. Your neighbours sound like knobs.

MsFifers

KJ_2008 wrote: »

There's some spectacular point-missing going on in this thread. I don't think any one with a bit of sense would dispute that the dog owners were negligent by allowing the dog roam free, that simply isn't being disputed. So lecturing the OP on this issue is kind of pointless.

If the neighbours shot the dog while he was in the act of attacking their livestock then they would, I'm assuming, be in the clear, they would be legally entitled to do so.

But they took the dog away and rather than calling the Gardai or handing it over to a dog warden, which is what they should have done, they killed it (or so they claim). How on earth can anyone defend such an action, regardless of the owners' negligence?

OP, please ignore the advice that you let this go, it's coming from people who simply have no understanding how upsetting this must be for you. The suggestion that you back off because a Garda, who happened to be a friend of your neighbours, will do nothing about it is, well, laughable.

Please don't give up on this, follow some or all of the suggestions made above on how you can pursue this. Best of luck.

On the contrary - I can completely understand how upsetting this is for the OP. Its just that when you suspect that the authorities are going to side with the neighbour, you have to be realistic and think what is the best thing the OP can really do for themselves. Going down the legal route isn't going to bring the dog back, and it could end up being one of these feuds that end up getting worse and worse.

You are right that the neighbour was completely in the wrong and there is no defending them and their disgusting, violent response. But without wishing to add to the OP's distress, they did make a mistake in letting the dog continue to roam, and that is what will probably be used against them if they take it further.

cowzerp

MsFifers wrote: »

On the contrary - I can completely understand how upsetting this is for the OP. Its just that when you suspect that the authorities are going to side with the neighbour, you have to be realistic and think what is the best thing the OP can really do for themselves. Going down the legal route isn't going to bring the dog back, and it could end up being one of these feuds that end up getting worse and worse.

You are right that the neighbour was completely in the wrong and there is no defending them and their disgusting, violent response. But without wishing to add to the OP's distress, they did make a mistake in letting the dog continue to roam, and that is what will probably be used against them if they take it further.

So these scum should get away with it?
feud would be well on if it was my dog.

hattie-f

i am a cattle farmer and have many friends whith sheep
i must admit i do agree with shooting a dog but only if nessisary for example if it has killed an animal or worried the animal

but as u said you dog had a lead put on him and was taken away showing that he wasnt dangerous to the animal
and going by what you said then didnt have much of a reason at all accept for tresspassing
the poor dog was definately in the wrong place at the wrong time....:(

KJ_2008

jill_valentine wrote: »

I suspect the reason the Garda wasn't interested is at least partly because this is a problem he's heard over and over and over again.

I'm sure he's come across countless cases of, say, farmers shooting dogs that were attacking their sheep - but a case where some yob led a dog away and killed it? I find it hard to believe that's common. The Garda did nothing, I think we can guess, because he was a friend of the neighbour.

MsFifers wrote: »

when you suspect that the authorities are going to side with the neighbour...

Why is that? Because the Garda in question is a friend of the family? Should the OP not at least get an impartial opinion on this?

MsFifers wrote: »

without wishing to add to the OP's distress, they did make a mistake in letting the dog continue to roam, and that is what will probably be used against them if they take it further.

Again, no disputing the owners should have kept the dog under control, as every dog owner should whether they live in a city or in the country, but that's one issue - the other is that these people, according to themselves, led away a dog and killed it. If that's within the law then God help us all!