Does my dog have to die?

knick_knack

Hi all,

was just wondering if I could get a small bit of feedback on an issue I know has already been quite discussed.

So apologies straight off but this is a long story and I can't find any close enough matches already on here.

We have several dogs one of whom is an Irish Wolfhound. Taking them for a walk Christmas morning around half 6 (so very dark and had a torch) we walked into a field (of which the owner is aware I do when there are no animals in the field) where my other half immediately noticed there was a flock of sheep. These sheep were not there the day before and perhaps two steps in to the field we saw them, called all the dogs out and closed the gate.
Only problem was the Irish wolfhound (lets call her Rex), was nowhere to be seen. After putting the other dogs securely away, (2-3 minutes tops) we returned and entered the field with the torch calling constantly. There was no sign of the dog. The field (approx. 30 acres) has dips and rises so we walked the whole thing, coming across only 2 foxes and no Rex.
After walking the field we returned home to check if she was there. I came back out about an hour later and standing at the gate called. No answer.
About just under two hours later there was enough light to go back out to start another full search. As I got to the gate my better half spotted her in the corner of the field lying down. One sheep was lying next to her. When I called she got up and came back and the sheep got up and wandered off.
The very first thing I did when Rex came back to me was check her mouth. There was no sign of any blood either in or around her mouth. Rex was exhausted mind and covered in mud up to her elbows. Also on the other side of the field was to the manager of the property on a mobile phone.

Two hours later the farmer who was renting the field showed up at my back door, with a rope, demanding to take the dog down to the knacker yard to be shot. Now I am well aware of the unwritten law that an animal that tastes blood must be put down. However this dog had no blood on her. Eventually I got him to calm down enough that he wouldn't do it on Christmas day

Now my fellow boarders what I would like to know is where do we stand. The farmer wants compensation for a sheep who he says is bleeding from the neck and needs to be put down (Without sounding biased I did not see any such sheep when the dog was called back over but then again my attention was focused solely on the dog). He also wants compensation for trauma to the sheep which were in lamb.

Now I don't mind paying the compensation even if the dog wasn't responsible in order to stop this here and now. The dog would from this point on be constantly watched and not let off loose again. While I am aware of the law stating that

The dog was caught in a field but not attacking/killing or eating a sheep. Essentially whether or not they did the act almost seems irrelevant as the dog's size and being seen in the field seems to have condemned it to death. I'm not saying shes definitely innocent (though again there was not a drop of blood on this dog, is that even possible if shes being killing sheep?) but i'm not convinced of her guilt either.

dave1982

No harm putting this in legal issue's, you'll get a better answer regarding the law.

My point of view if a man showed up at my door with a rope wanting to shoot my dog, i'd be pissed.Thats treating behaviour imo

Hope all works out for you

I would not allow my dog to be pts, stay away from his land from now on with all your dogs.

Bullseye1

Firstly I would not hand my dog over to the farmer. I would assume a simple test can be carried out on the sheep and dog to determine if the dog is in fact responsible. Once you have determined the facts then better advice as to possible resolution can be found.

slimjimmc

Does your dog have to die... No.

See http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1986/en/act/pub/0032/sec0023.html#sec23

The farmer has the legal right to shoot a dog on sight that is worrying livestock but not come to your house and demand it afterwards. The best he can do is sue you for compensation for damages caused by your dog, and report you for allowing your dog out without being under effective control.

Galwayguy35

I would offer to pay compensation and now that its a few days later he might be a bit calmer. I think the law is on his side regarding some compensation if the sheep were in lamb even if the dog only chased them but didnt bite any of them.

Jackasaurus rex

I would imagine given the huge jaws on your hound it would be obvious to vet treating the sheep whether or not it done the damage. But as the lads already said, you legally should pay compenstation for the injured sheep (poor thing), but given that the damage is done there is no need to kill the dog.

mathepac

dave1982 wrote: »

No harm putting this in legal issue's, you'll get a better answer regarding the law.

...

I would not allow my dog to be pts, stay away from his land from now on with all your dogs.

+1.

I am a dog lover (big dogs, not small yappy annoying things) and the reason I don't currently have one is because I haven't enough space to allow a dog proper exercise. I don't believe it's the responsibility of the farmer down the road or the council with parks and playing fields to provide space for my dog's twice daily exercise.

What you did was wrong and irresponsible and what the farmer did was wrong and possibly threatening. Between the two of you you may now have placed the life of one of my favourite breeds at risk.

If you don't have the room for them, don't have the dogs.

falabo

I would abosultely not, under any circumstances give this chap any money or hand over my dog. INNOCENT UNITL PROVEN GUILTY.

My opinion would be:
Firstly apologise and then more importantly guarantee that this will not happen again. One of his main fears is that this will happen again.
The biggest problem for the farmer is the financial loss. He has no idea exactly what harm is done. If the dog was chasing the sheep, abortions are likely. Injured sheep may get worse, Vet bills, etc.
If you feel your dog did cause any damage to the sheep, you could offer to repay the farmer for his future loses. maybe offer to get his sheep scanned to see if the lambs are ok.
Most farmers, if this is truly an once off occurrence, will be open for persuasion.

Also try posting on the farming and forestry forum for advice from farmers. They will have their own experiences of their own sheep being attacked and what they wished the dog owner's would/should have done.

Traonach

The issue of compensation could amount to a big amount. The dog chased the sheep around the field (the owner found the dog exhausted and full of muck) . Even if no sheep were killed physically, ewes in lamb could abort. The stress from being chased will lead to some ewes getting pneumonia, tetany. This could affect the farmer's entire crop of lambs.

As I got to the gate my better half spotted her in the corner of the field lying down. One sheep was lying next to her. When I called she got up and came back and the sheep got up and wandered off.

The ewe wouldn't have been lying next to dog unless the dog caught her and attacked her. That ewe could easily die from wounds and stress.

As a dog owner myself if my dog chased the sheep around and the farmer wanted the dog dead, I won't put the dog down no matter how guilty the dog was. However I would offer to compensate the farmer for the damage. That could come into 1000's of euro for killed/injured livestock, aborted lambs, loss of body condition and stress leading to illness.

A bad situation for both the dog owmner and the farmer. No winners here.

Whispered

I don't know anything about sheep farming but would abortions be likely this time of year?

I fully agree with the above, an apology, steps you have taken towards it not happening again (ie a promise to not have your dogs off lead in his field after dark, recall training with a trainer, lights for the collars so you can see where the dog is should they escape in the dark) and an offer to pay for the injured sheep should be enough. If he's not happy to accept this get legal advice on it. Some people are very quick to throw "legal" threats when in reality they don't know what they're talking about, so if the farmer does say he has the legal right to have the dog removed check before allowing it. If you're forced to get legal advice I'd mention the threatening behaviour.

On a side note, you poor thing - it must be very stressful. Even the most vigilant of dog owners can mess up from time to time so try not blame yourself. Just be aware now that the dog's recall isn't what you had hoped and take the necessary steps to fixing it.

tunedout

hi i think you can get the dog put down yourself humanely you don't have to give him to the man with the rope. if you have a gun you are also allowed shoot him yourself and you can show the man with the rope that the dog is dead then.

either way i wouldn't give the dog to the man with the rope because who knows what he will do with him.

tunedout

tunedout wrote: »

hi i think you can get the dog put down yourself humanely you don't have to give him to the man with the rope. if you have a gun you are also allowed shoot him yourself and you can show the man with the rope that the dog is dead then.

either way i wouldn't give the dog to the man with the rope because who knows what he will do with him.

The OP doesn't want the dog put down, end of. The dog plainly attacked the Ewe from your story. And you need to pay the farmer some compensation. He has no right to take your dog though. Don't entertain that idea.

If he see's a dog near his land again though, he or someone else will take a shot at it and they'll be in the right if they do.

Tranceypoo

My husband is a farmer, he's also a dog lover (would have to be to live with me!), he said the very very last resort would be shooting the dog, he would literally have to catch it mid chase in the field and have no other way of catching it. We have had trouble with a neighbours dog getting out and cornering some of the sheep more than once (same dog), he went in and discused it with the neighbours, he just wanted them to keep the dog under control (they were very irresponsible dog owners and have since given the poor dog to a shelter) and if the dog had caused any of the sheep to lose their lambs he wanted to be compensated, he would provide veterinary evidence of this because the ewes had already been scanned so he knew they were all in lamb, they agreed to this, luckily none of the ewes miscarried.

Firstly I would not hand your dog over under any circumstances, I would be calm and reasonable, offer compensation but that you will need veterinary proof of injured/deceased sheep, I would not have your dog pts, you were at fault not the dog, he's just doing what most dogs would do. You learned the lesson and won't do it again, I would avoid using his fields again now even if there are no livestock in them.

Please keep us posted on here as to how it turns out. Good luck.

FoxyVixen

Coming from a farming background, I can understand how angry the farmer was in discovering his flock had been put under the undue stress of a dog wandering in the field. And yes, at this time of year abortions in sheep can happen, so he has every right to be outraged that the dog was let into the field and possibly have caused damage.

We had several pet dogs causing problems and unfortunately two were shot on account of several warnings to neighbours their dogs were continually roaming uncontrolled and killing/injuring sheep.

Now being a dog owner myself (an Akita), she requires plenty of space to run about in. Lucky I have plenty of land at my disposal. However, due to lack of communication which regularly occurs between people, I NEVER let her off leash until I've scouted the specific field I intend to let her run in to ensure that there is

1. no livestock in said field.
2. there's no weaknesses in the fencing or gates left open.
3. no loose livestock in small areas between fields.
4. no livestock being moved between fields or rounded up nearby.

The farmer has every right to get compensation, especially since there was another witness that seen your dog in the field lying down by the ewe. Dog and sheep aren't this comfortable to be so close together (I'm sure there are few rare occurences on youtube :rolleyes:), and it's largely possible the animal was in severe shock.

The farmer possibly feels let down or even betrayed by OP on account that he allows use of the field, and then this goes and happens. Hence him coming to the door in a temper asking for the dog to be put down.

As a dog owner, I'd be furious at such a request, but I can understand his anger. I'd keep the dogs away from his livestock from now on. He'll quite possibly be checking the flock more frequently now to ensure no more stress is caused to them.

Should your dog be caught in the field again......well he'll have every right to fire the gun.

Aru

Your dog was loose in a field full of sheep.....you then found her dirty and exhausted beside an ewe that was down...

Sorry but you do owe the farmer compensation.Your dog harassed his stock. Those sheep may be due to lamb down in the next few weeks and months.lambing season is from now until march/april...if so the stress of having a dog chase them may cause may to abort their lambs as well as cause them injury.Sheep do NOT willingly lie down beside strange dogs.You pet may not have had blood in its mouth but that does not mean that no harm was done.
You know she was loose.you found her beside a compromised animal...of course you are in the wrong.Poor sheep.

However the farmer does not have the right to demand you hand over your dog to him.He is able to to shoot it next time he sees it lose on his land if there are stock there(actually any dog not under control in with livestock can technically be shot on sight or even if they cannot be recalled away from the animals by their owner).But he cannot demand that you hand it over to him to put down now.He can go though the gaurds to get a criminal conviction and a destruction order and compensation...but you do not have to give him your dog.

I would advise going to talk to your neighbor/owner of land.Explain what happened.Apologise and promise that you will keep your animals on lead in in future(and do so-your dog just proved she cannot be ever trusted with stock even if it was just ment in play she has done damage at quite possibly the worst time of year)
Ask him for the bill of the damage-vet records/knackers record will tell you how many animals he can claim compensation on death and injurys for..There may be more than one bill-an abortion storm in the next week or so is still a possibility from the stress.The price for compensation will likely be based on current market price.Plus if your dog cause the death of a pregnant ewe you may also owe him the now dead lambs cos(though im not entirely sure on this-the farming forum lads should know)If your lucky he may continue to let you use his fields in future.

This is the act that a is usually referred to for cases of a dog worrying livestock....http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1960/en/act/pub/0017/print.html#sec3 theres another act relating to how compensation is due for injury or death of livestock by dogs as well. civil liabilty for animals..... http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rCivilLiabilityForAnimals.htm

If he has reported you to the guards and pushes the criminal conviction then you may be already in trouble.The courts can place a destruction order on the dog as well as compensation and fines for you to pay.Going to talk to this farmer and sorting this out asap would be a very good idea.

This was one of the last dog versus sheep to go to court...owner had to pay farmer for compensation,fines and donate 1000euro to charity http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/two-dogs-attacked-neighbours-sheep-2970591.html

mathepac

FoxyVixen wrote: »

... The farmer possibly feels let down or even betrayed by OP on account that he allows use of the field, and then this goes and happens. ...

Nowhere in the original post does OP state that the farmer "allowed" use of the field. The statement was "he knew" about the use of the field. I'm not sure how in life or in law someone can prove another person's knowledge of events.

I get the impression due to the careful wording of OP that neither nthe farmer or land-owner had ever been asked explicitly for permission to use the field as a dog run.

FoxyVixen

mathepac wrote: »

Nowhere in the original post does OP state that the farmer "allowed" use of the field. The statement was "he knew" about the use of the field. I'm not sure how in life or in law someone can prove another person's knowledge of events.

Apologies on that, mis-read it.

It does state that the "owner was aware", possibly meaning landowner rather than farmer. In any instance the farmer would be furious his land was being used without his permission, or indeed disgusted by the landowners knowledge and not being informed.

What I was getting at is that the farmer was in every right to be angry and probably explained his confrontation at the house of the OP in wanting the dog PTS.

Discodog

There are several issues that the OP has to take into account. The most important one is the risk that the dog may get taken or shot if ever another opportunity arises. The farmer is clearly very volatile & devoid of reason.

You must never admit liability but make it clear that you are prepared to consider compensation but that any payment would not constitute liability. Your offer of compensation is by way of good will because you are adamant that your dog did not harm the sheep.

The reason that you must not admit liability is that the farmer could involve the dog warden or even the Court. If you admit liability then you are facing an uphill battle to establish that you dog is not dangerous or out of control. Also the farmer could slap you with a bill for thousands irrespective of the actual damage caused.

If the farmer mentions a figure & you agree to pay it, then he must sign a letter stating that the amount received is in "full & final settlement". This is essential in case he comes back later looking for more. If he starts mentioning solicitors etc then make it clear that you wish to resolve the matter amicably but will maintain that you are not liable. Personally I would add a caveat that he agrees to never threaten or inflict any injury on the dog.

Avoid face to face conversations as you have no record of them. I would write a nice letter stating that you appreciate his concerns & that you would like to settle the matter on a mutually amicable basis but without any admission of liability. The lack of any real evidence would make it extremely hard for the farmer to take legal action.

Under no circumstances hand your dog to anyone including a Guard unless they have a Court Order or Warrant. Be advised that a dog warden cannot enter your home - you can refuse entry. But there is some doubt as to whether he can enter your garden so I would keep the dog indoors at all times unless on a lead.

Galwayguy35

Discodog wrote: »

There are several issues that the OP has to take into account. The most important one is the risk that the dog may get taken or shot if ever another opportunity arises. The farmer is clearly very volatile & devoid of reason.

You must never admit liability but make it clear that you are prepared to consider compensation but that any payment would not constitute liability. Your offer of compensation is by way of good will because you are adamant that your dog did not harm the sheep.

The reason that you must not admit liability is that the farmer could involve the dog warden or even the Court. If you admit liability then you are facing an uphill battle to establish that you dog is not dangerous or out of control. Also the farmer could slap you with a bill for thousands irrespective of the actual damage caused.

If the farmer mentions a figure & you agree to pay it, then he must sign a letter stating that the amount received is in "full & final settlement". This is essential in case he comes back later looking for more. If he starts mentioning solicitors etc then make it clear that you wish to resolve the matter amicably but will maintain that you are not liable. Personally I would add a caveat that he agrees to never threaten or inflict any injury on the dog.

Avoid face to face conversations as you have no record of them. I would write a nice letter stating that you appreciate his concerns & that you would like to settle the matter on a mutually amicable basis but without any admission of liability. The lack of any real evidence would make it extremely hard for the farmer to take legal action.

Under no circumstances hand your dog to anyone including a Guard unless they have a Court Order or Warrant. Be advised that a dog warden cannot enter your home - you can refuse entry. But there is some doubt as to whether he can enter your garden so I would keep the dog indoors at all times unless on a lead.

Thats basically a way of worming out of responsibility.

Discodog

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Thats basically a way of worming out of responsibility.

No it isn't. There is nothing to say that this farmer won't blame the dog for everything that goes wrong with his flock. The farmer has already acted in a very intimidating & one could argue, unlawful way by calling the house & demanding to be allowed to kill the dog.

A farmer is allowed to shoot a dog in order to prevent further damage at the time. He can't demand the dog at a later date. In any event the dog, as usual, has done absolutely nothing wrong - it would of made more sense if the farmer had threatened to shoot the owner .

A Wolfhound is a very powerful animal. It could of killed dozens of sheep but it didn't.

mikemac1

It doesn't matter if you saw no blood on the wolfhound. It was chasing the sheep to exhaustion, the sheep went into shock and the dog laid down beside it

Thirty acres is a seriously big field so the dog could have been chasing for quite a while

A once off compensation figure won't solve this yet.
If a sheep is killed the farmer has to pay to call out the vet to verify it. And abortions have already been mentioned on the thread.

Not sure if the sheep were scanned yet, if they are the farmer and the vet will see what the loss is over the next while. But the loss won't be clear yet.

The farmer went into a rage but it's understandable, don't hand over the dog but don't ever go near his land again either.

You'll be hearing from the farmer in the next few weeks.
These things work out like traffic accidents sometimes, at the beginning the owner takes responsibility and agrees to compensation but after a while and when they get home they try to get out of it

This is a bread n'butter issue for your local garda, they will have been informed already by the farmer. An experienced rural garda sees this many times over their career

You can fight it but if you go to the district court you'll lose. The guy on the mobile was a witness.

Wait for the farmer to contact you again, you'll likely get a letter. Put some money aside and be ready

mikemac1

Discodog wrote: »

Also the farmer could slap you with a bill for thousands irrespective of the actual damage caused.

The vet is called out to verify everything.

Dead sheep in the field? You have to call out the vet to verify it is there and do the paperwork
Farming is nearly more about record keeping then working outside these days

And the farmer has to pay the vet before they even get the compensation back

Farmers don't just invent figures for compensation and claiming for ten dead sheep that never existed, if there is a claim for a loss the vet will have records to prove this

Discodog

mikemac1 wrote: »

A once off compensation figure won't solve this yet.

Well it depends on whether the farmer accepts it or not. If not then he may have to bring a Vet to Court to testify that any losses were, beyond reasonable doubt, the result of the this incident.

What's to say that something else may of affected the sheep in the past or before they lamb ? It's going to be very hard to prove.

The "witness" with the mobile may of witnessed the event but he may not. It would be up to the prosecution to bring him to Court & assess his evidence under cross examination.

An experience Garda will know that a quick resolution is the best resolution & they will also understand the principle of offering money with accepting liability. If the OP is approached by the Gardai they should make it clear that they wish to resolve the issue. The Gardai will also be aware of the threatening nature of calling at someone's home on Christmas day demanding their dog.

Discodog

mikemac1 wrote: »

Farmers don't just invent figures for compensation and claiming for ten dead sheep that never existed, if there is a claim for a loss the vet will have records to prove this

Apparently there are no dead sheep. The claim, if it were to be made, would be for future losses such as Lambs which would be very hard to prove.

The 86 Act defines "worrying" as in worrying livestock as follows:

“worry” in relation to livestock, means to attack or kill or to chase livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause the death of or injury or suffering to the livestock or to result in financial loss to the owner of the livestock.

This is the definition that has to be proved to secure a conviction.

mikemac1

Very easy to prove if they were scanned and there is a sharp rise in abortions this week

And for the definition, well the wolfhound chased one sheep to exhaustion and into shock
In a large field, in front of a witness and the OP took time to find the dog so it could have been chasing many of them and that one sheep got seperated.

As we all know, sheep stay together when they are chased, that one got seperated

Case proved

Galwayguy35

Discodog wrote: »

Well it depends on whether the farmer accepts it or not. If not then he may have to bring a Vet to Court to testify that any losses were, beyond reasonable doubt, the result of the this incident.

What's to say that something else may of affected the sheep in the past or before they lamb ? It's going to be very hard to prove.

The "witness" with the mobile may of witnessed the event but he may not. It would be up to the prosecution to bring him to Court & assess his evidence under cross examination.

An experience Garda will know that a quick resolution is the best resolution & they will also understand the principle of offering money with accepting liability. If the OP is approached by the Gardai they should make it clear that they wish to resolve the issue. The Gardai will also be aware of the threatening nature of calling at someone's home on Christmas day demanding their dog.

Dogs chasing sheep is the cause of them aborting lambs when it happens at the same time as the dog worrying them. Im from a farming backround so i do have an idea what im talking about. Noone is saying that there isnt a need for a vet to verify this.

Discodog

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Dogs chasing sheep is the cause of them aborting lambs when it happens at the same time as the dog worrying them. Im from a farming backround so i do have an idea what im talking about. Noone is saying that there isnt a need for a vet to verify this.

Yes but a Vet would have to be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that nothing else caused the losses. The defendant would be at liberty to call their own expert if they wanted to dispute the figures.

This is why an amicable & prompt resolution is in everyone's interest - the legal fees could be astronomic !

But also there is the element of negligence. From the OP's comments it would appear that they did everything possible to mitigate the circumstances. They are clearly not irresponsible owners. The Court may well see them as having made an honest mistake & may not wish to punish them unduly.

mikemac1

Reasonable doubt? Cross examination? I think you've been watching too American TV

Costs are not astronomic in district court cases and not as basic at this. Have you ever been in a district court?

Discodog wrote: »

The Court may well see them as having made an honest mistake & may not wish to punish them unduly.

Nobody is talking about punishment. Money is the only issue here
You don't get to pay less compensation by being making a honest mistake

Discodog

mikemac1 wrote: »

Have you ever been in a district court?

Dozens of times & in Criminal Court. I have also acted on behalf of Dog owners & Dogs !

mikemac1 wrote: »

Nobody is talking about punishment. Money is the only issue here
You don't get to pay less compensation by being making a honest mistake

Dog's can end up dead so they get punished. There is a potential criminal element not just Civil. The Control of Dogs Act is criminal law.

Actually you often pay less that you would if you were negligent. If my dog causes a car accident because the lead breaks unexpectedly it is completely different to causing an accident because I had allowed my dog to roam unattended.