Does my dog have to die?

Galwayguy35

player101 wrote: »

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?

Read the OP's post where she said that she was allowed to be in the field when there was NO sheep there. Foxes dont chase sheep they are too small and only take newborn lambs.

Discodog

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

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

I agree with you :eek:. And mine are trained in a similar way - I have deliberately introduced them to sheep, cattle & horses. But in this case the OP was not with the dog. I have no idea how mine would react, on their own, in a field of sheep.

mathepac

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Read the OP's post where she said that she was allowed to be in the field when there was NO sheep there. ...

The OP never at any stage said she was allowed in the field. This was her statement in relation to the owner of the field -

knick_knack wrote: »

... (of which the owner is aware I do when there are no animals in the field) ...

She never had (or apparently sought) the permission of the farmer nor it seems did she ever have (or seek) the explicit permission of the land-owner. It seems any permission there was was there by some kind of "default".

kildare.17hmr

Discodog wrote: »

I agree with you :eek:. .

Well there's a first :eek:

Saves alot of hassle if you live in or walk your dog in an area with livestock

Hellrazer

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

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

I was taking the proverbial to be honest.
As a matter of fact I dont even walk mine off the lead when there is livestock around.Its not worth the potential trouble.

Hellrazer

Whispered wrote: »

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 didnt mean it like that
Im saying that everyone is saying "poor doggy" but it is actually the dog at fault and/or the owner.

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.

Agreed-but then the owner has to face up to his/hers responsibilty and pay whatever compensation is asked of them.Ive already said that he should in now way hand that dog over.

Let the farmer take it further if he wants and then DD(new user name Raymond Burr) can represent the dog in court and we`ll make a great court type movie/episode of Ironside out it.

(Btw if you havent seen Suing the Devil yet--watch it its funny as anything)

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

Let the farmer take it further if he wants and then DD(new user name Raymond Burr) can represent the dog in court and we`ll make a great court type movie/episode of Ironside out it.

I am not that grey neither am I in a wheelchair .............yet

Whispered

Hellrazer wrote: »

I didnt mean it like that
Im saying that everyone is saying "poor doggy" but it is actually the dog at fault and/or the owner.

Yes I know what you meant, but disagree that the dog was at fault, even though the dog was chasing, as he didn't realise he was doing anything wrong. I think it's like a child doing something unacceptable, unless they know they shouldn't do it it's not their fault, it's the parents. I'm not comparing a child to a dog, just the levels of innocence and concepts of right and wrong if you know what I mean.

brownswiss

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.

... I think you are in dreamland.....

The dog owner did very little to avoid damage to the sheep.. The Garda and farmer should have been notified immediatly... many hours of sheep chasing would have been avoided....... If this goes to court the dog owner will go down.... the farmer will not have to prove the dog caused the abortions... the judge will just accept this as proven...

Why is there so much sympathy for the dog and so little for his victims ?

Discodog

brownswiss wrote: »

... I think you are in dreamland.....

The dog owner did very little to avoid damage to the sheep.. The Garda and farmer should have been notified immediatly... many hours of sheep chasing would have been avoided....... If this goes to court the dog owner will go down.... the farmer will not have to prove the dog caused the abortions... the judge will just accept this as proven...

Why is there so much sympathy for the dog and so little for his victims ?

This is what the OP said:

knick_knack wrote: »

the gate.
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 think that this shows that the OP did a lot to try & recover the dog. It also shows that contacting the Gardai would of been pointless - it was dark.

The normal interpretation of a person "going down" in relation to criminal proceedings is being sent to prison. That simply wouldn't happen. A Judge will listen to evidence. If the farmer makes an unreasonable claim then it is up to the defence to challenge this.

As an animal lover I have every sympathy for the sheep but killing the dog won't make the sheep better.

rsole1

I had a dog some years ago and it killed a ewe - my wife saw it do it. We paid the farmer €80 for the dead ewe. The next day he was off to the vets and put to sleep. Broke my heart to do it, but it had to be done as he would have killed again.

ISDW

rsole1 wrote: »

I had a dog some years ago and it killed a ewe - my wife saw it do it. We paid the farmer €80 for the dead ewe. The next day he was off to the vets and put to sleep. Broke my heart to do it, but it had to be done as he would have killed again.

The options of putting better fencing up to keep the dog in, or of walking the dog on a lead near livestock weren't better than killing it?

Dogs are animals, and it is up to their human owners to keep them secure and contained, not expect them to know how to live by our moral codes.

rsole1

ISDW wrote: »

The options of putting better fencing up to keep the dog in, or of walking the dog on a lead near livestock weren't better than killing it?

Dogs are animals, and it is up to their human owners to keep them secure and contained, not expect them to know how to live by our moral codes.

You obviously don't live in a rural area - the unwritten rule is as I stated. No second chances.

toadfly

rsole1 wrote: »

ISDW wrote: »

The options of putting better fencing up to keep the dog in, or of walking the dog on a lead near livestock weren't better than killing it?

Dogs are animals, and it is up to their human owners to keep them secure and contained, not expect them to know how to live by our moral codes.

You obviously don't live in a rural area - the unwritten rule is as I stated. No second chances.

That's ridiculous, the dog didn't have to die. Make sure you have fencing that will keep him in, keep him in the house and only ever walk on lead. Better than death IMO.

I grew up in rural Mayo, doesn't make any difference if you have some cop on.

ISDW

rsole1 wrote: »

You obviously don't live in a rural area - the unwritten rule is as I stated. No second chances.

Yeah I do, I live in a very rural area, and there are a lot of sheep locally now, there weren't, it was mainly cattle, but sheep have now taken over. I take my dogs to my big, fully fenced field every day for exercise, but I walk the perimeter before I take any dogs in there, to ensure none of the fencing has been damaged, so they can't get out. Its part of being a responsible dog owner.

Vince32

Ignorance of the law, doesn't excuse breaking of that law.

In the same manner, even though the dog didn't know it was doing something wrong, it was, it did and it is liable for worrying sheep (even if it never touched them), the owner is liable for releasing the dog without checking the field was completely empty.

Even though this was clearly an accident, and has a low chance of re-occurrence, sheep were distressed, and the farmer is entitled to compensation as due course.

looksee

Some people are talking about the dog being put down as 'punishment', it is nothing of the kind, it is to make sure it doesn't do it again.

Gold Leaf Tea

Has the farmer reported all of this to the Guards? If so, proof or no proof, they will come to the house and give you two options, one, to take the dog and have it destroyed, or you can have it rehomed in a different townland. This is how these situations work, I was involved in something similar early last year, and even though there was no proof at all, I had a home visit from a squad car late one night, two Guards arrived at my door to inform me that my dog had been reported and that they were there to take the dog to have her destroyed and/or giving me until the following morning to have her moved elsewhere. The Guards won't be interested in liability, unfortunately these things don't work like that in rural Ireland, they take the word of the farmer and that is that. It's the farmer's livelihood vs your pet, and guess what wins out?! If the Guards have been involved, and they mention costs needing to be covered, insist that everything has to be properly documented, and that you will not pay for anything without a proper veterinary report etc. It is a horrible situation to be in, so stressful:(

rancher

knick_knack wrote: »

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.

If you offer proper compensation I would be disappointed in any farmer insisting that the dog be put down, these sheep have been worried at a very vulnerable time if they are pregnant and the damage could be considerable, and the full extent won't be known until lambing is complete. Even the stress of being run without being bitten can cause major problems. I'm sure you are a responsible dog owner whose not going to let it happen again!!!!!!
It is through goodwill on the landowners part that you are allowed the use of the land and as such any talk of court will just see a withdrawal of that goodwill not just to you but maybe to all other dog owners in your area

ISDW

looksee wrote: »

Some people are talking about the dog being put down as 'punishment', it is nothing of the kind, it is to make sure it doesn't do it again.

I don't understand this logic, a few people have used it in this thread - that if a dog kills a sheep once, it has the taste for blood etc, and it will do it again.

Surely, the fact that the dog had never done it before, but then did it, negates that argument? Any dog has the propensity to kill sheep. There are very, very few dogs that, unsupervised and loose in a field of sheep won't chase them, because sheep run. So, it is entirely up to the owner of the dog to ensure that a dog doesn't get that opportunity.

rsole1

TillyGirl wrote: »

That's ridiculous, the dog didn't have to die. Make sure you have fencing that will keep him in, keep him in the house and only ever walk on lead. Better than death IMO.

I grew up in rural Mayo, doesn't make any difference if you have some cop on.

The dog was on a lead. He dragged the wife down the road until she could hold him no longer. He then set off across the field and killed the ewe. How could you trust such a dog ever again?

toadfly

rsole1 wrote: »

The dog was on a lead. He dragged the wife down the road until she could hold him no longer. He then set off across the field and killed the ewe. How could you trust such a dog ever again?

Train the dog to walk properly on lead and to leave any distractions. Again dog suffers for owners laziness.

Galwayguy35

TillyGirl wrote: »

Train the dog to walk properly on lead and to leave any distractions. Again dog suffers for owners laziness.

If a dog tastes blood he has to be put down, it happened to us when our dog at home was part of a pack that attacked sheep.

mathepac

rancher wrote: »

...It is through goodwill on the landowners part that you are allowed the use of the land ...

No-one granted OP permission to use the land as a dog run - see below

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76322618&postcount=64

ISDW

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

If a dog tastes blood he has to be put down, it happened to us when our dog at home was part of a pack that attacked sheep.

So all those people that feed their dogs raw meat, should have them put down?

Or what about a dog that gets into a bad fight with another dog, and tastes blood? Again, it should be killed?

rsole1

TillyGirl wrote: »

Train the dog to walk properly on lead and to leave any distractions. Again dog suffers for owners laziness.

You really are an idiot. You can't undo what has been done - to ensure no repeat there is only one solution.

Galwayguy35

ISDW wrote: »

So all those people that feed their dogs raw meat, should have them put down?

Or what about a dog that gets into a bad fight with another dog, and tastes blood? Again, it should be killed?

I thought you said you live in the countryside? "Tastes blood" is a term for a dog who attacks livestock. Yeah thats right shoot all the dogs who eat raw meat :rolleyes:

ISDW

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I thought you said you live in the countryside? "Tastes blood" is a term for a dog who attacks livestock. Yeah thats right shoot all the dogs who eat raw meat :rolleyes:

yeah I do live in the countryside and no, thats not what it means. Have you never read the posts on here about how supposedly dangerous it is for people to feed their dogs raw meat because then they've tasted blood and will attack any other animal they see?

I don't know why you're putting :rolleyes: when you are saying that any dog that tastes blood has to be killed. Maybe if people kept their dogs under control they wouldn't be in a field of livestock? But again, thats not a rural thing is it, let your dog wander wherever it wants, then when something happens, kill it, why on earth should the human owner have any responsibility in this? Sure you can always just go and get another dog.

star-pants

rsole1 - infracted - please read the forum & site charters, insulting other members is not allowed.

Guys I get this is a heated discussion but can we please try and have a calmer one so one of us doesn't have to lock the thread. And if we can please try and advise the OP as that's what this thread was started for.

ISDW

rsole1 wrote: »

You really are an idiot. You can't undo what has been done - to ensure no repeat there is only one solution.

Rehoming the dog in an urban environment wouldn't have been a solution?