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

jill_valentine

Thing is though, a dog - even one that worries animals - can behave very differently about humans compared to when it's off doing it's own thing, so just because they got it on a leash doesn't automatically prove it wasn't a problem dog. And the dog doesn't even have to be physically attacking livestock to do damage - their presence can be enough to cause animals to abort young or to panic and injure themselves.

By that I don't mean "I'll bet your dog was a killer, you just didn't know it!", I just mean to explain why guards and farmers might be less than sympathetic to your plight after the fact.

EDIT: I'm not saying that's right, either - it's just that in most cases along these lines, the dog owner was in the wrong, so the OP is fighting an uphill battle from the start.

Sharpshooter

Trojan911 wrote: »

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

Open your eyes.... or go to a reputable optician.

I may be wrong here but you are the one who put " Converse " in your post , yes.
Converse: To talk Familiarly.
Which is what I am sure the OP meant when posting.
So she was posting an observation.
Meaning she could understand what was going on between the animals.
your quip about " Me seeing a reputable optician is neither wanted or welcome.

KJ_2008

jill_valentine wrote: »

Thing is though, a dog - even one that worries animals - can behave very differently about humans compared to when it's off doing it's own thing, so just because they got it on a leash doesn't automatically prove it wasn't a problem dog. And the dog doesn't even have to be physically attacking livestock to do damage - their presence can be enough to cause animals to abort young or to panic and injure themselves.

By that I don't mean "I'll bet your dog was a killer, you just didn't know it!", I just mean to explain why guards and farmers might be less than sympathetic to your plight after the fact.

I agree completely, my own dog is like a dozy teddy bear in my company, but when I took him for a walk a couple of months ago - thankfully on a lead - and he spotted sheep it took all my strength to stop him going after them. He transformed in to a snarling psychopath (:o).

So, you're absolutely right - but it doesn't change my view of how these neighbours behaved. They still had no right to kill the dog, when he wasn't in the act of attacking their livestock. I'd go after them til the end of time if I was the OP....legally, of course.

dumbyearbook

Bond-007 wrote: »

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.

No expert on this but the (former..sorry btw) dog owner is the one who will have to prove that the person who shot the dog was 'unreasonable' in the circumstances as per the legislation quoted earlier where it is the dog owner who takes a case hence the same would be expected of the farmer as the act does'nt specify the standard of care owed by the farmer - likely this will not happen as the dog was roaming a few times. The person who shot it could have feared the dog would have hurt his horse and not be liable at all. 'He who asserts must prove'

The damages as mentioned earlier will be low if any at all i'd say as above after all a farmer needs the right to protect his animals where dog owners are letting their animals roam, cows and horses dont really roam if fenced in well and I suppose and dont scare other animals.

(PS you can't murder an animal its not possible! it only applies to humans)

KJ_2008

dumbyearbook wrote: »

The person who shot it could have feared the dog would have hurt his horse

So why not call the Gardai/dog warden, once he had the dog on a lead and taken it home, rather than take the law in to his own hands? That's the point here.

dumbyearbook

KJ_2008 wrote: »

So why not call the Gardai/dog warden, once he had the dog on a lead and taken it home, rather than take the law in to his own hands? That's the point here.

He has'nt taken the law into his own hands he is within it, if you own an animal you need to keep it restrained so as not to become a nusiance/worry other animals.

The act posted earlier allows a farmer to shoot a dog if its worrying his animals he can seize and pass it onto the Gardai or shoot it and inform them within 48 hours if it is worrying animals. Pity but there you go would be impossible to prove the dog has not worried the animals.

If the dog owner can show he tried to prevent the worrying then he will be awarded damages of very little. Its loose loose for the dog owner,

jill_valentine

I honestly cannot imagine a Garda coming to resolve a stray dog complaint and personally, I'm not sure how I'd get in touch with a dog warden or where the nearest one is.

From the neighbour's point of view, and likely how the Gardai would view it: this dog has already been caught roaming twice, and no effort was made to rectify the problem. They only took this drastic (and nasty ass) step themselves after giving fair warning. As dumbyearbook said, it would be impossible to prove the animal hadn't been worrying their stock.

Trojan911

sharpshooterH wrote: »

Converse: To talk Familiarly.
Which is what I am sure the OP meant when posting.
So she was posting an observation.
Meaning she could understand what was going on between the animals.

Ok, so there are two possible answers here.

1) The horse "whinnied" with joy when it saw the dog because it wanted the dog to come over & do lunch & play together.

or

2) The horse "whinnied" with fear when it saw the dog which had possibly worried it on two previous occasions (whilst the dog owner was not present).

So, you think the dog owner could understand the horses "whinnying" then?

(Optician remark withdrawn)

Sharpshooter

We are becoming like two dogs with a bone here.
So you win.

padi89

Trojan911 wrote: »

Ok, so there are two possible answers here.

1) The horse "whinnied" with joy when it saw the dog because it wanted the dog to come over & do lunch & play together.

or

2) The horse "whinnied" with fear when it saw the dog which had possibly worried it on two previous occasions (whilst the dog owner was not present).

So, you think the dog owner could understand the horses "whinnying" then?

(Optician remark withdrawn)

X 2 i found this statement bizarre unless your Dr. Dolittle.I understand the OP can possibly read his dogs body language but the neighbours horse too, i doubt it.

Anyway, taking the dog away was way OTT, but i can see it probably happened from them being at their wits end, it's still no excuse and if prosecution is possible go ahead.
What i cannot understand is even after having your dog taken twice and being warned you still let it roam
That to me says you were already running the risk of your dog being shot on the land and you knew well, what were you thinking?
Were you trying to get one over on the neighbour tit for tat? Something like ,"he's new around here ,my dog was always on that land he don't bother the horses he's grand"?
If you can explain please do because the way i see it you were playing with the dogs life.

Trojan911

sharpshooterH wrote: »

We are becoming like two dogs with a bone here.
So you win.

No, it's not about winning. It's about trying to look at the whole picture with the information given & exploring every avenue possible before making a judgement based on the information gleaned.

A lot of comments first posted drew "shock & horror, poor dog & I'd do time for what he did etc", gasps from the audience because the OP gave a very limited version of events. It's only on #17 the OP expands further & the picture starts to look very much different. But even then nobody, or very few, really looked at the other side of what the farmer/horse owner might have been going through because we do not have his version of events, and probably never will.

We only have the OP's version which, to me, says alot about the reason the dog was finally led off, and as the OP has not made any further comment since #17 we can only draw an inference from that said post. Even you posted you wanted more info in one of your previous posts.

The OP stated the horse owner had placed the dog into his shed on two previous occasions. This tells me he was trying to be fair about it. The third time, when the dog was led off tells me he had had enough.

Horses are not cheap to buy & when injured can be easily deemed useless & costly, if possible, to repair. They scare easily also. (Why not invite a poster/Mod from the Equestrian forum to give an opinion).

Yes, poor dog, I have sympathy for the dog, it has apparently paid a high price for its actions when this could have been avoided by stopping it from roaming in the first place.

mollydolly271

they had no right to take him away and kill him the ****ers i wud defo take it further

Our man in Havana

I think that this thread has run it's natural course and it will now be closed.

The OP did not come here for a moral lecture. He came here for advice.

I agree that the OP should have had better control of the dog and should have prevented it from entering the farmers land. There is no need for posters to keep banging in on about this.

I also agree that the farmer acted unlawfully in detaining the dog and allegedly destroying it or otherwise disposing of it. The farmer acted illegally, end of discussion.

Now if the OP wishes he can persue the farmer for damages in the courts and if the farmer is mad enough he can counterclaim.

End of thread.