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

Does my dog have to die?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Maybe the OP should hire you :)


  • Options
    #33
    jack presley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭jack presley


    Discodog wrote: »

    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.

    I think (and only think!!) that that is incorrect. In a criminal case what you are saying is probably true but in a civil case when all that is of issue is compensation, whether it was an accident or not is irrelevant. It's about correcting a wrong so if for argument's sake €500 worth of damage was caused, whether the lead broke or you let your dog off the lead doesn't matter. You'll pay the €500


  • Options
    #34
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,874 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Maybe the OP should hire you :)

    I am not a lawyer but I will always offer any help that I can because I hate the idea that of innocent dogs being killed. Punish the owner but not the dog.


  • Options
    #35
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,874 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    jack presley wrote: »
    I think (and only think!!) that that is incorrect. In a criminal case what you are saying is probably true but in a civil case when all that is of issue is compensation, whether it was an accident or not is irrelevant. It's about correcting a wrong so if for argument's sake €500 worth of damage was caused, whether the lead broke or you let your dog off the lead doesn't matter. You'll pay the €500

    Well my experience is mainly in the UK & Judges there will take negligence into account. They will also take into account efforts made by the defendant to mitigate the losses of the defendant. But in any event this could end up as a criminal or civil case........... or neither !


  • Options
    #36
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,529 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Discodog wrote: »
    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.

    Well around here it was always the way that if a dog chased sheep the owner paid up. It is the honourable thing to do. And if im reading the OP's post correctly the verbal agreement between the farmer and them was that the dogs were allowed to enter the land when there was no livestock on the land at that time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    kildare.17hmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭kildare.17hmr


    You should count yourself lucky the dog was not shot in the few hrs it was in the field! You should really work on the recall if you want to let tour dog off a lead anywhere at all.

    Most of the damage dogs do to sheep is from chasing them to exhaustion, running them into fences or Walls, over dips and them falling. Not from biting them.

    Talk to the farmer and apologise and see what he says but be very careful about where you let the dog off again because if he sees the dog near them again he would be well within his rights to pull the trigger.

    Hope it works out for you.


  • Options
    #38
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,874 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Well around here it was always the way that if a dog chased sheep the owner paid up. It is the honourable thing to do. And if im reading the OP's post correctly the verbal agreement between the farmer and them was that the dogs were allowed to enter the land when there was no livestock on the land at that time.

    I can't see any "agreement" regarding access except that the farmer didn't stop the OP on previous occasions or erect any signage.

    I think that the OP is honourable as they have stated that they are willing to pay a reasonable amount for any actual damage caused. I don't think that the farmer's behaviour was honourable especially on Christmas Day. The "knackers" would of been closed till Jan 3rd so what would he of done with the dog ? It was threatening behaviour at the least.


  • Options
    #39
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,529 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Discodog wrote: »
    I can't see any "agreement" regarding access except that the farmer didn't stop the OP on previous occasions or erect any signage.

    I think that the OP is honourable as they have stated that they are willing to pay a reasonable amount for any actual damage caused. I don't think that the farmer's behaviour was honourable especially on Christmas Day. The "knackers" would of been closed till Jan 3rd so what would he of done with the dog ? It was threatening behaviour at the least.


    Im not defending the farmers action coming to the house with a rope, that was stupid but people sometimes loose the cool.


  • Options
    #40
    kildare.17hmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭kildare.17hmr


    Discodog wrote: »
    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Well around here it was always the way that if a dog chased sheep the owner paid up. It is the honourable thing to do. And if im reading the OP's post correctly the verbal agreement between the farmer and them was that the dogs were allowed to enter the land when there was no livestock on the land at that time.

    I can't see any "agreement" regarding access except that the farmer didn't stop the OP on previous occasions or erect any signage.

    I think that the OP is honourable as they have stated that they are willing to pay a reasonable amount for any actual damage caused. I don't think that the farmer's behaviour was honourable especially on Christmas Day. The "knackers" would of been closed till Jan 3rd so what would he of done with the dog ? It was threatening behaviour at the least.
    This farmer could have had an ongoing problem with sheep being chased by dogs, the op took her dogs into his field on Christmas day and this happened then so I really don't see anything wrong with the farmer calling that same day, he was annoyed and rightly so but how is that threatening behaviour? I don't agree.
    Silly yeah but not threatening
    If the knackers was closed he could have shot the dog his self and reported it to the local station


  • Options
    #41
    Bizzum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭Bizzum


    Discodog wrote: »
    I am not a lawyer but I will always offer any help that I can because I hate the idea that of innocent dogs being killed.

    The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a given. There is however a smoking gun here: Two witnesses who must in a court of law state what they saw, with one already stating having witnessed an out of control exhausted dog and (pregnant?)ewe lying together.
    My opinion would be in this case if it goes to court Rex will indeed be found guilty.
    The innocent parties here are the sheep.

    Do the honourable thing OP and reach a mutally beneficial agreement with the farmer.
    This situation has the potential to become one hell of a mess!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Bizzum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭Bizzum


    kildare.17hmr wrote: »
    op took her dogs into his field on Christmas day and this happened then so I really don't see anything wrong with the farmer calling that same day

    Simply underlines the fact that farming is 365 days of the year. Christmas day, New years day, Good friday and tomorrow..........All just another days work for the farmer.
    I'll say this too: The last thing any farmer wants is this hassle. There is far more sh1t in farming than money!


  • Options
    #43
    kildare.17hmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭kildare.17hmr


    Bizzum wrote: »

    Simply underlines the fact that farming is 365 days of the year. Christmas day, New years day, Good friday and tomorrow..........All just another days work for the farmer.
    I'll say this too: The last thing any farmer wants is this hassle. There is far more sh1t in farming than money!
    exactly. Iv a friend who had so much hassle from dogs before he shoots any he sees on his land, he also gets calls from the guards in his area to shoot dogs on other farmers land. It's not a big problem now but it was a while back especially this time of year


  • Options
    #44
    Bizzum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭Bizzum


    kildare.17hmr wrote: »
    It's not a bog problem

    It could well be.
    Lots of bog in North Kildare:D


  • Options
    #45
    kildare.17hmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭kildare.17hmr


    Bizzum wrote: »
    kildare.17hmr wrote: »
    It's not a bog problem

    It could well be.
    Lots of bog in North Kildare:D
    Haha cant get much further south in kildare than where i am! Damn phone always messes up my spelling:) !!


  • Options
    #46
    Bizzum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭Bizzum


    Discodog wrote: »
    I have also acted on behalf of Dog owners & Dogs

    I assume this was in the UK?
    If so what qualifies you to take on such cases? Particularly as the UK is full of highly qualified people in this very area, I am aware that many APBC members offer this service, indeed some in very high profile cases.

    Maybe of course I have rumbled you as being an ABPC head?????????????


  • Options
    #47
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,874 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    Bizzum wrote: »
    I assume this was in the UK?
    If so what qualifies you to take on such cases? Particularly as the UK is full of highly qualified people in this very area, I am aware that many APBC members offer this service, indeed some in very high profile cases.

    Maybe of course I have rumbled you as being an ABPC head?????????????

    I have no idea who the ABPC are. I have been asked on many occasions because I have a knowledge of the law & the way that Courts operate. There are a lot of experts & hiring one will cost you a fortune. My interests are the well being of the dog so I didn't charge.
    kildare.17hmr wrote: »
    he was annoyed and rightly so but how is that threatening behaviour? I don't agree.
    Silly yeah but not threatening
    If the knackers was closed he could have shot the dog his self and reported it to the local station

    Because he threatened to take the dog. If he had shot the dog then he would have broken the law. He can shoot a dog that is worrying sheep on his land but he can't become a summary executioner after the event.
    Bizzum wrote: »
    The innocent parties here are the sheep.

    Agreed & so is the dog. The only viable reason to have the dog put down would in the very unlikely event that it is dangerous.


  • Options
    #48
    doctor evil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,114 ✭✭✭doctor evil


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Thats basically a way of worming out of responsibility.


    And a very shmucky thing to advocate.

    DD, you go about the innocence of the dog but what about the innocence of the sheep?

    From the OP's first post it does nto seem to that they had expressed permission to use that land. 'Knowlede of' does not mean permission to.

    OP own up and take the flack. Please don't try to worm your way out as you will only do more to prove the stereotype that dog owners are selfish.


  • Options
    #49
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,874 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    doctor evil wrote: »
    And a very shmucky thing to advocate.

    DD, you go about the innocence of the dog but what about the innocence of the sheep?

    From the OP's first post it does nto seem to that they had expressed permission to use that land. 'Knowlede of' does not mean permission to.

    OP own up and take the flack. Please don't try to worm your way out as you will only do more to prove the stereotype that dog owners are selfish.

    All around me people walk their dogs on farmed land without explicit permission. When I moved here I ask the local farmers for permission & I was told that I was the only person ever to do so.

    It is clear to me that the OP made a genuine mistake & many of us could of ended up in the same situation.

    I am not advocating that the dog owner doesn't pay - read my posts.

    We could go back to the Middle Ages & expect the Dog & Sheep to testify in Court.

    That may be your stereotype. I have heard others that refer to farmers in equally derisory terms.

    On a positive note I have these fitted to my three for night walks:

    09092010259.jpg


  • Options
    #50
    Whispered
    Registered Users Posts: 14,772 ✭✭✭✭Whispered


    doctor evil wrote: »
    OP own up and take the flack. Please don't try to worm your way out as you will only do more to prove the stereotype that dog owners are selfish.

    I don't think this is very fair. The OP has admitted that the dog was off-lead in the field and is offering to pay compensation to the farmer, all they want is for the dog to not be killed. I don't see where the OP didn't own up or where the OP is trying to worm out of anything.


  • Options
    #51
    Hellrazer
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,652 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hellrazer


    Discodog wrote: »
    In any event the dog, as usual, has done absolutely nothing wrong -



    Sorry but I have to disagree here.

    The dog was completely at fault.It was found in the field completely exhausted with a sheep lying beside it.

    That is "worrying" sheep in anyones definition.The dog had obviously chased the sheep around the field to the point of exhaustion for both the dog and the sheep.

    The farmer would have been well within his rights to shoot that dog on sight.

    However he has no right to demand the dog at a later date to dispose of it.The farmer also has the right to compensation for stress done to the sheep especially if they loose lambs or even die from the exhaustion and believe me Ive seen it happen in relatives sheep.

    Sheep can be strange like that--the slightest bit of stress can cause them all sorts of problems.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Cherry Blossom
    Registered Users Posts: 6,942 ✭✭✭Cherry Blossom


    OP, I would strongly recommend you pay any and all costs of this misadventure incurred by the farmer without question. There may be a criminal prosecution which would deal with the issue of you being in breach of the control of dogs act, I believe it would be very likely that you would loose your dog if this were to happen. As for admission of liability - you have just published your story on a public internet forum, please be aware of that.

    Compensation would be a matter of an additional civil case which does not operate on 'beyond reasonably doubt' but on 'the balance of probability', there is little doubt that you would lose, meaning not only paying the actual costs incurred but also possibly loss of earnings, full legal costs and so on. I would recommend that you give the farmer your assurance that the dog will never be let off lead again and outlining what security measures you have in place to ensure there is absolutely no chance of the dog escaping from your property at any time.

    If you feel it necessary - seek proper legal advice from a qualified solicitor.


  • Options
    #53
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,874 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    Hellrazer wrote: »
    S
    The dog was completely at fault.It was found in the field completely exhausted with a sheep lying beside it.

    Would you say the same if a three year old child had done the same thing ? A dog has no concept that playing with sheep is wrong unless it is educated to understand. Even the most obedient dog might chase & play with livestock if it's owner is not there to stop it.
    adrenalinjunkie wrote: »
    I believe it would be very likely that you would loose your dog if this were to happen. As for admission of liability - you have just published your story on a public internet forum, please be aware of that.

    Of course they wouldn't lose the dog. The only reason to put down the dog would be if it posed a future threat to humans. If it is considered that it is a threat to other animals then a Court could order that it be kept on a lead. The forum is anonymous & it would be impossible to use anything here as evidence.
    adrenalinjunkie wrote: »
    If you feel it necessary - seek proper legal advice from a qualified solicitor.

    There is no such thing as an unqualified solicitor rolleyes.gif.

    The problem is that it may be very difficult to find a solicitor/barrister who has any real experience in defending dogs because it rarely happens.

    The OP does not need to spend a fortune on legal advice until & if the case goes to Court. If the OP makes their willingness to settle the matter clear then it will not go to Court.
    adrenalinjunkie wrote: »
    Compensation would be a matter of an additional civil case which does not operate on 'beyond reasonably doubt' but on 'the balance of probability', there is little doubt that you would lose,

    Not necessarily. A Criminal Court can make an order for compensation. None of us know the case beyond a few words posted by the OP so it is very premature to suggest that they would lose.

    In any Civil Case Judges tend to take a dim view of Court time being used when a defendant has already agreed to pay compensation.


  • Options
    #54
    Hellrazer
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,652 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hellrazer


    Discodog wrote: »
    Would you say the same if a three year old child had done the same thing ?
    Thats a ridiculous post.
    Besides my 3 year old would probably try and bring the sheep home to snuggle with :):)


    A dog has no concept that playing with sheep is wrong unless it is educated to understand. Even the most obedient dog might chase & play with livestock if it's owner is not there to stop it.

    Right so we`ll do dog education classes on how to behave around sheep then :):)

    But thats not the issue--sheep can become distressed just by the presence of a strange dog in their field.Thats how "worrying" covers a broad range of things.

    The sheep are the ones that we should be more concerned about and not the dog.


  • Options
    #55
    Bizzum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭Bizzum


    Discodog wrote: »
    Would you say the same if a three year old child had done the same thing?

    You might have gotten away with this type of defence in the UK but I assure you, if you play that particular card in court here in Ireland, the inevitable news report will include the phrase "Much laughter".

    Thanks Discodog. I needed that laugh. The world can be a glum old place:D


    I went off and made myself a cup of tea, and I still can't get the sight of a 3yo child worrying sheep out of me head!


  • Options
    #56
    Whispered
    Registered Users Posts: 14,772 ✭✭✭✭Whispered


    Hellrazer wrote: »
    The sheep are the ones that we should be more concerned about and not the dog.

    Considering the fact that the OP came asking advice on their dog surely it means that for the purposes of this discussion the dog is what the OP and therefore the thread is concerned about?

    I think it's obvious that what was meant was the dog has no concept of right or wrong, no more than a young child. The owner is in the wrong in these cases for giving the dog the opportunity to chase.


  • Options
    #57
    star-pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,429 ✭✭✭✭star-pants


    Guys, again can we please stick to the topic at hand and specifically the OPs situation and not trying to poke fun at others or poke holes in different stories/scenarios.


  • Options
    #58
    player101
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭player101


    I may be ignorant to the laws around this however, if you had the express permission of the land owner to be in his field with your dogs, and you saw no evidence of your dog attacking the sheep than id say it is his word against yours, bear in mind that this is a field with at least 2 foxes? Who is to say that your dog was not mearly defending the sheep? also the sheep owners attitude and approach to the situation would make me personally dig my heals in, if he had of approached this in a diferent way maybe something could have been worked out.. also should the farmer not be obliged to put protection in place for the sheep, if he was that worried about all of the sheep who were with lamb would he not have the constant threat of foxes and wild dogs?


  • Options
    #59
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,874 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    The title of the thread is "Does my dog have to die ?"

    The whole principle of dog training is that we reward good behaviour & don't punish bad behaviour. The reason is that dogs have no concept of doing wrong after the event. So if you catch your dog in the actual act of peeing on the floor you can immediately put it outside. But if you come home & discovered that it has peed you can't punish it because it will have no idea why it is being punished. The same especially applies to recall. How often have we seen someone punishing a dog that has eventually returned ?

    So you can never have a system where a dog is punished retrospectively. People are criticised for giving their dogs human characteristics yet many still believe that a dog understands wrong in the same way as a human.


  • Options
    #60
    Vince32
    Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭Vince32


    In this case, it does appear that the op's dog did have contact with the sheep, and that is enough for the farmer to shoot on sight.
    The farmer can't come to your house and demand the dog for destruction after the fact, so to answer the question... no your dog doesn't have to die, unless you receive a court order for it's destruction.

    However, I would pay all the fee's the farmer demands and tip him generously for his trouble, and offer sincere apologies, and assure him you won't let the dog off leash again anywhere near his flocks, and make sure the fields are empty before releasing the dog.

    but that's just how I would react, I don't know all the facts but from the op, I can assume the farmer wants vengeance as well as compensation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    kildare.17hmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭kildare.17hmr


    Hellrazer wrote: »


    Right so we`ll do dog education classes on how to behave around sheep then :):)
    I agree with most of your post but just want to comment on this bit. My dog is educated on how to act around sheep, he chased them once when he was younger. Now he knows if there are sheep in the field he stays by my side or very close by and even if a sheep runs past him he will just sit down and look at it. Most lads who hunt have their dogs stock broken from a young age As it saves scenarios like the op happening. Last thing you need is telling a farmer who gave you permission to be on his land that your dog ran a sheep into the wire and killed it :0


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement