Can Garda order for dogs to be put down ?

falabo

Hi all,

I have just heard someone saying that their dogs left their property and were seen in a field near some sheep.

Apparently, The garda were called and they were forced to get them put down.

Can the Garda order for dogs to be put down JUST LIKE THAT ? would the dog warden not have to be involved ? would there be no other alternative (dog rescue etc) ?

I just find this EXTREMELY hard to believe.

Any opinions ?

Thanks

sincere113

falabo wrote: »

Hi all,

I have just heard someone saying that their dogs left their property and were seen in a field near some sheep.

Apparently, The garda were called and they were forced to get them put down.

Can the Garda order for dogs to be put down JUST LIKE THAT ? would the dog warden not have to be involved ? would there be no other alternative (dog rescue etc) ?

I just find this EXTREMELY hard to believe.

Any opinions ?

Thanks

Yes if a dog is worrying sheep then the owner of the land has the right to shoot the dog.

I shot a stray dog that were worrying my sheep last year. It had one in lamb ewe singled out cornered and was nipping at her. I did what I could to try and locate the owner but it became evident that it was a stray. I had no problem shooting it, nor would I think twice about doing it again.

seamus

There are only two cases where a a dog can be put to sleep:

1. By a property owner/Garda acting immediately in defence of property
2. By court order

In the case of no. 1, this is something which can only be done in reactive and urgent circumstances - i.e. when the dog is in the field with the sheep. The farmer can't chase the dog down the road and shoot it or arrive at the owner's house and demand to shoot the dog.

In the case of no. 2, a Garda or a warden must go in front of a judge to make a request to have the dog destroyed. A garda or a warden cannot act alone and destroy a dog unless the owner has expressly consented.

"Forced" to have the dog put down usually means that the Garda arrived at the door and made empty threats about taking the dog and having it destroyed. The wardens do this too. They don't have the legal powers to take the dog and destroy it.

If the dog is suspected of having damaged property/injured sheep, then the warden may seize the dog, but still has to go to court to have it destroyed. They usually though just intimidate and threaten the owner into signing the dog over.

andreac

The farmer can shoot the dogs that ar eon his land, but afaik the Gardai cnanot order dogs to be pts, this has to be done by court order.

Discodog

andreac wrote: »

The farmer can shoot the dogs that ar eon his land, but afaik the Gardai cnanot order dogs to be pts, this has to be done by court order.

Just to clarify. A landowner can only shoot as dog if it is actively in the act of injuring/worrying his stock. The only acceptable reason is to stop any further damage. So if it is in his field but no where near the stock, he cannot shoot it.

However if he does shoot the dog the Wardens, Guards, & Court would be likely to take his side unless there were independent witnesses stating that the dog was not worrying the stock. Even then the farmer could claim that he had seen the dog doing so before.

There must be many cases where a Guard or Warden has demanded a dog & the owner has wrongly assumed that he has to hand it over. It should be mandatory for them to advise the owner of the law first.

sincere113

The law on this:-

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1986/en/act/pub/0032/index.html

The relevant bit:-
Control of Dogs Act, 1986


Defence in action for damages for shooting dog.
23.—(1) It shall be a defence to any action for damages against a person for the shooting of a dog, or to any charge arising out of the shooting of a dog, if the defendant proves that—
(a) the dog was shot when it was worrying, or was about to worry, livestock and that there were no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or
(b) (i) the dog was a stray dog which was in the vicinity of a place where livestock had been injured or killed, and
(ii) the defendant reasonably believed that the dog had been involved in the injury or killing, and
(iii) there were no practicable means of seizing the dog or ascertaining to whom it belonged; and
(c) he was the person in charge of the livestock; and
(d) he notified within forty-eight hours the member in charge at the nearest Garda Station to the place where the dog was shot of the incident.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) (a) and subsection (1) (b) (i) and (iii) of this section shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that those provisions had been satisfied and he had reasonable grounds for that belief.

Discodog

sincere113 wrote: »

The law on this:-

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1986/en/act/pub/0032/index.html

The relevant bit:-
Control of Dogs Act, 1986


Defence in action for damages for shooting dog.
23.—(1) It shall be a defence to any action for damages against a person for the shooting of a dog, or to any charge arising out of the shooting of a dog, if the defendant proves that—
(a) the dog was shot when it was worrying, or was about to worry, livestock and that there were no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or
(b) (i) the dog was a stray dog which was in the vicinity of a place where livestock had been injured or killed, and
(ii) the defendant reasonably believed that the dog had been involved in the injury or killing, and
(iii) there were no practicable means of seizing the dog or ascertaining to whom it belonged; and
(c) he was the person in charge of the livestock; and
(d) he notified within forty-eight hours the member in charge at the nearest Garda Station to the place where the dog was shot of the incident.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) (a) and subsection (1) (b) (i) and (iii) of this section shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that those provisions had been satisfied and he had reasonable grounds for that belief.

So if you can reasonably catch the dog you have no right to shoot it. Bear in mind that you can only assess to whom it belongs if you read a collar tag - you can't do that through a gunsight. So you can't catch the dog & on discovering no tag, shoot it.

The law makes it clear that shooting is only lawful as a last resort & to prevent further loss of stock. The line "about to worry" is typically too suggestive. If a farmer shot my dog he would have to prove why he believed that my dog was "about" to worry his stock - for example if it had done so before.

sincere113

I think that the message here is responsible dog owners know where their dog is so its not a problem. If you let your dog roam -especially in rural areas at this time of year - chances are it will get shot if its worrying stock.

If I came across an aggressive unknown dog attacking my stock I wouldn't attempt to catch it but I would shoot it no problem. Do you think that I would risk injury to myself in capturing the dog to locate its owner?

seamus

sincere113 wrote: »

Do you think that I would risk injury to myself in capturing the dog to locate its owner?

The risk is massively overstated. At worst, a dog will run away if you approach them while they're chasing livestock. Most will probably ignore you unless you make a lot of noise (like firing your gun into the air) and some will come over to you wagging their tail.

Unless the dog has a dead sheep in its jaws, the odds of it attacking you are very slim. You are thousands, if not millions of times more likely to be attacked by your own livestock (i.e. your bulls and horses)

sincere113

seamus wrote: »

The risk is massively overstated. At worst, a dog will run away if you approach them while they're chasing livestock. Most will probably ignore you unless you make a lot of noise (like firing your gun into the air) and some will come over to you wagging their tail.

Unless the dog has a dead sheep in its jaws, the odds of it attacking you are very slim. You are thousands, if not millions of times more likely to be attacked by your own livestock (i.e. your bulls and horses)

I wouldn't risk it for the life of a dog.

Anyway as a responsible dog owner how do you justify it being in someones field worrying stock?

seamus

sincere113 wrote: »

I wouldn't risk it for the life of a dog.

Risk what? You're carrying a gun. If the dog turns on you, use it.

sincere113

seamus wrote: »

Risk what? You're carrying a gun. If the dog turns on you, use it.

I wouldn't risk injury to myself in trying to get a look at the collar.

Do you think a dog in a field worrying stock deserves to be shot?

planetX

sincere113 wrote: »

If I came across an aggressive unknown dog attacking my stock I wouldn't attempt to catch it but I would shoot it no problem. QUOTE]

It's not quite so black and white tho. What if you came across a non-aggressive dog running around in the field? What if he'd only just entered the field and you could clearly see a collar and disc? What if you could see the owner running up the road with a lead? I completely agree that responsible dog owners have their dogs secure, but accidents can happen. Just like sheep can escape sometimes and cause damage - you don't get people hurrying to shoot them..

wetdogsmell

its ok saying you should try catch the dog and find the owner, but in reality its not going to happen, when you see the damage done to sheep by stray dogs you might understand why people don't wait around to catch dogs,

Discodog

wetdogsmell wrote: »

its ok saying you should try catch the dog and find the owner, but in reality its not going to happen, when you see the damage done to sheep by stray dogs you might understand why people don't wait around to catch dogs,

But the farmers invoke the law so they should abide by it. I bet that many would assume that they can just shoot the dog which is clearly not the case.
Accidents do happen & even the most responsible dog owner could end up in this situation. As could a responsible farmer whose stock escape & cause an accident. My dogs are in fields, with livestock, every day with the farmer's permission.

sincere113

...

sincere113

planetX wrote: »

sincere113 wrote: »

If I came across an aggressive unknown dog attacking my stock I wouldn't attempt to catch it but I would shoot it no problem. QUOTE]

It's not quite so black and white tho. What if you came across a non-aggressive dog running around in the field? What if he'd only just entered the field and you could clearly see a collar and disc? What if you could see the owner running up the road with a lead? I completely agree that responsible dog owners have their dogs secure, but accidents can happen. Just like sheep can escape sometimes and cause damage - you don't get people hurrying to shoot them..

I still wouldn't risk catching the dog, however most dogs are owned by someone and if I knew who owned the dog I'd give them every opportunity to come and get it. Unless of course it was upto big trouble.

A family pet is probably worth more to the owner then the cost of an in lamb ewe. Given the chance they would probably pay your out of pocket expense rather than have their dog shot. But, this does not apply to every dog so its a tricky one.

wetdogsmell

farmers will use the law to their benifit, as it says "dogs worrying or about to worry sheep" so if in their opinion the dog was about to worry sheep their covered for shooting any dog in their field

seamus

sincere113 wrote: »

Do you think a dog in a field worrying stock deserves to be shot?

"Deserves" is the wrong word. Dogs don't have a proper sense of right and wrong, so they can't "deserve" anything. "Requires" is probably the word you are looking for. And no, a dog in a field worrying sheep does not "require" to be shot.

I completely understand and side with a farmer's right to protect his livelihood, but many farmers use the law as an excuse to just shoot the dog and exact some form of revenge. My guess is that unless they're a dead aim with a scoped hunting rifle, most farmers approach the dog to within 5m and shoot it from close range, when they could just as easily have caught the dog and sued the owners.

Discodog

Shooting the dog won't compensate the farmer & if he has shot the dog then the owner is hardly likely to offer up compensation. It serves all parties if the farmer does his best to secure the dog & contact the owner.

sincere113

seamus wrote: »

"Deserves" is the wrong word. Dogs don't have a proper sense of right and wrong, so they can't "deserve" anything. "Requires" is probably the word you are looking for. And no, a dog in a field worrying sheep does not "require" to be shot.

I completely understand and side with a farmer's right to protect his livelihood, but many farmers use the law as an excuse to just shoot the dog and exact some form of revenge. My guess is that unless they're a dead aim with a scoped hunting rifle, most farmers approach the dog to within 5m and shoot it from close range, when they could just as easily have caught the dog and sued the owners.

Put it another way - my opinion is that if an aggressive unknown dog is in a field worrying sheep I would prefer it to be shot than approach the dog and risk injury. You say the risk is negligable - I don't care to test your theory!

I also don't care if he comes tail wagging - its caused damage and therefore I'll shoot it. And if I find out who's dog it is I'll bring you your dead dog in one hand and the other out for compensation!

falabo

sincere113 wrote: »

. And if I find out who's dog it is I'll bring you your dead dog in one hand and the other out for compensation!

WOW WOW WOW your brain must be the size of a chickpea !!! WOW

Discodog

sincere113 wrote: »

I also don't care if he comes tail wagging - its caused damage and therefore I'll shoot it. And if I find out who's dog it is I'll bring you your dead dog in one hand and the other out for compensation!

And I would be suing you for way more than the cost of the sheep. I would also be seeking your arrest for cruelty. The law more than adequately protects farm stock. If the dog comes over wagging it's tail you have absolutely no legal right to shoot it. You cannot execute the dog after the fact.

The dog would be no longer worrying your stock & by coming over wagging it's tail it gives you ample opportunity to apprehend it & prevent any further loss.

Your post just seems to confirm that some farmers are more interested in revenge than compensation.

falabo

yes that one is a REAL farmer !!! go paddy farmer you're such a hero !!! hahahahahaha the WORLD is laughing at people like you ! people like you are the root cause of war over petrol religion, globalisation etc ... !!!

200yrolecrank

sincere113 wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

"Deserves" is the wrong word. Dogs don't have a proper sense of right and wrong, so they can't "deserve" anything. "Requires" is probably the word you are looking for. And no, a dog in a field worrying sheep does not "require" to be shot.

I completely understand and side with a farmer's right to protect his livelihood, but many farmers use the law as an excuse to just shoot the dog and exact some form of revenge. My guess is that unless they're a dead aim with a scoped hunting rifle, most farmers approach the dog to within 5m and shoot it from close range, when they could just as easily have caught the dog and sued the owners.

Put it another way - my opinion is that if an aggressive unknown dog is in a field worrying sheep I would prefer it to be shot than approach the dog and risk injury. You say the risk is negligable - I don't care to test your theory!

I also don't care if he comes tail wagging - its caused damage and therefore I'll shoot it. And if I find out who's dog it is I'll bring you your dead dog in one hand and the other out for compensation!

What if the dog has escaped his compound and is overly excited just lost,would you not try to approach the dog if he has a collar on him surely hecbeoongs to someone who is missing the dog.
I can assure you if you brought my friendly dog dead in one hand to my door,compensation would be the least of your concern.

girl in the striped socks

falabo wrote: »

yes that one is a REAL farmer !!! go paddy farmer you're such a hero !!! hahahahahaha the WORLD is laughing at people like you ! people like you are the root cause of war over petrol religion, globalisation etc ... !!!

WTF???

That makes absolutely no sense.

One of the neighbours dogs regularly comes in to the fields we keep sheep in & doesn't bother them, therefore he is left alone.

Our own dog would gladly chase sheep & worry them given the opportunity so if she was ever to find herself in with the sheep & was causing trouble then there would be no other choice but to shoot her if she caused damage & wouldn't come back when called.

This notion that farmers are sitting at home polishing a gun to use on a dog mooching around their land is a bit much. It's not nice to be woken up in the middle of the night to see ewes & lambs ripped apart.
No more than it is nice to have your dog shot & killed.

Thats life.

wetdogsmell

all the tail wagging in the world does'nt change a farmers right to shoot any dog in his fields, and if the dog was microchiped the owner would be responseable for the cost of the damage even if he shot their dog

Discodog

wetdogsmell wrote: »

all the tail wagging in the world does'nt change a farmers right to shoot any dog in his fields, and if the dog was microchiped the owner would be responseable for the cost of the damage even if he shot their dog

Look back in the thread & read what the law actually says.

that there were no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying;

there were no practicable means of seizing the dog or ascertaining to whom it belonged;

The law makes it clear that if the farmer doesn't abide by these condition then he is breaking the law.

The golden rule is to find out who owns any land near where you walk & talk to them. My local farmers know me & my dogs.

fits

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

WTF???

That makes absolutely no sense.

One of the neighbours dogs regularly comes in to the fields we keep sheep in & doesn't bother them, therefore he is left alone.

Our own dog would gladly chase sheep & worry them given the opportunity so if she was ever to find herself in with the sheep & was causing trouble then there would be no other choice but to shoot her if she caused damage & wouldn't come back when called.

This notion that farmers are sitting at home polishing a gun to use on a dog mooching around their land is a bit much. It's not nice to be woken up in the middle of the night to see ewes & lambs ripped apart.
No more than it is nice to have your dog shot & killed.

Thats life.

Some common sense at last!

If the dog isnt causing a problem its highly unlikely it will be shot. Most farmers wont be carrying a loaded shotgun unless they're expecting a problem, i.e. a repeat offender.

sincere113

Discodog wrote: »

And I would be suing you for way more than the cost of the sheep. I would also be seeking your arrest for cruelty. The law more than adequately protects farm stock. If the dog comes over wagging it's tail you have absolutely no legal right to shoot it. You cannot execute the dog after the fact.

The dog would be no longer worrying your stock & by coming over wagging it's tail it gives you ample opportunity to apprehend it & prevent any further loss.

Your post just seems to confirm that some farmers are more interested in revenge than compensation.

Do you honestly believe that you could sue me for for shooting your dog on my land after it causing damage to my stock?

Secondly do you think a guard would arrest me for animal cruelty after shooting your dog after it causing damage to my stock?

Secondly this notion that farmers are looking to shoot dogs for the craic or for revenge is very unfair.

Do yourself a favour and read back over my posts and you will cop on that I said that most dogs are someones pet (most often kids) and so I don't want to shoot the dog but if I have to then I would.

I have shot 2 dogs in my time. Each time the dog had come on to my land one time it had a ewe cornered the second time I caught a dog chasing 2 week old lambs. 2 had already been killed while he had moved on to the third. The dogs tail was wagging and thought it great fun. Unfortunately I shot him to protect my stock. I reported the events to the guards and made a statement. I'm legally obliged to do so. The guard told me that it would be a fool of an owner to own up to owning the dog. But guess what, the owner went storming into the guards that evening saying that I had needlessly shot their dog and that I had no right to do so. The guard told them I had every right and they advised them to come to me and apologise and pay compensation. Guess what the owner came to me and F'd me out of it - no apology no nothing I never received a cent compensation from them. I have no sympathy for owners of dogs like that ones I shot.

I have seen dogs at the same thing chasing lambs and sheep. Some farmers I know saw it happen but couldn't do anything at the time. But you could probably bet your last euro that the owner of the dog didn't give a feck about not knowing where the dog was and you could catch the same dog at it again in no time.

I would also like to state that the majority of farmers that know who owns any dog causing trouble will do all they can before raising a gun to a dog.

falabo

some people might sue you, others might make sure you'll never come near them again .... one day you'll shoot the wrong person's pet and you will never forget it !