Can Garda order for dogs to be put down ?

RXMPS

Aru wrote: »

RXMPS Your dog is absolutely gorgeous....but if it had been my uncle's land chasing his sheep he was on he would have shot him.I have no doubts about that.

He could not have known if that dog would come back again once the fear of the loud noise was overcome by wanting to play the fun chase the sheep game.
He isn't inclined to run that risk.His sheep are his livelihood.
No owners around and a big dog like that in with his animals....christ he would have had heart failure...

Plus the fact your lovely boy looks so much like a wolf unfortunately would not have went in his favour! My uncle was extremely edgy of the big GSD!not a hope would he have called out to a wolfy looking creature......which is an awful shame...and in the GSD's defense he was chasing sheep consistently but one of the the little terrier were actually the main instigators of the chase that i seen!

P.s im glad that your story has a happy ending!

But I think you were extremely lucky....and that the time of year may have helped.If it was late summer those sheep would have already lambed down and would have been for fattening or getting ready to rebreed...so less loss in terms of abortion and lamb loss.Just extreme stress and injury from the dog as a death cause.

It ended well for me, Fado was very lucky to be alive after that and I am very grateful to the farmer.

My brother didn't see Fado going for the sheep, but the farmer said he was running flat out, gaining ground fast, he said he knew the breed and was sure a gun shot would scare him off and he had a feeling it was just a chase he wanted.I am very grateful he gave him that chance, most wouldn't and I don't blame.

A dog should be on the lead at all time, unless there is 100% trust, my retriever girl Mischa would never do such a thing, she walks by my foot, totally different to Fado.


I know farmers like your uncle don't want to kill dogs chasing there livestock, but when they see a large chasing there livestock they can only try to scare them off and if that fails they have no choice but to kill.

Dog is not to blame, it's the owners and in my case bad luck.

sheeper

Stray dog worrying sheep = dead dog

It's as simple as that keep the dog on the lead !

ISDW

micropig wrote: »

Not exactly fair on an animal who is bread to run and chase prey, to be on a lead the whole time, goes against their natural instincts.

The farmer is entitled to kill him if he is worrying sheep

Keeping this big beautiful animal on a leash the whole time is not fair to the dog.

They are not bred to run and chase prey. They are bred to pull in harness, on a gangline, attached to whatever they are pulling.

These dogs can be worked in this country with 2 wheeled scooters or 3 or 4 wheeled rigs, so can live very happy lives. Should only farmers own border collies? Only ratters own terriers?

A lot of northern breed owners get 100ft leads, which are attached to a harness on the dog rather than a collar, and so the dog gets a lot of freedom to run around and play. Harness is used rather than a collar so that the dog's neck doesn't get injured if they're running and come to the end of the lead. I'd rather have an on lead, alive northern breed, than an off lead dead one.

Davyhal

Why do dog owners think that their pet has the right to kill animals, but not to be killed? Why does the dog have more of a right to life than a sheep, who not only is also a living creature, but also is the farmer's livelihood?

If an animal came into your back lawn and killed your dog and destroyed your property, would you be outraged at someone killing the said animal?

Also, it is rarely a once-off when dogs worry sheep... They get a taste for the chase. If you want to prevent your dog getting shot, keep it contained. Simple as.

micropig

ISDW wrote: »

They are not bred to run and chase prey.

I was responding to another post which said running and chasing prey is hardwired in to them

ISDW wrote: »

They are bred to pull in harness, on a gangline, attached to whatever they are pulling.

These dogs can be worked in this country with 2 wheeled scooters or 3 or 4 wheeled rigs, so can live very happy lives. Should only farmers own border collies? Only ratters own terriers?

Only people with enough space on their property to keep an animal should be allowed to keep it.

ISDW wrote: »

A lot of northern breed owners get 100ft leads, which are attached to a harness on the dog rather than a collar, and so the dog gets a lot of freedom to run around and play. Harness is used rather than a collar so that the dog's neck doesn't get injured if they're running and come to the end of the lead. I'd rather have an on lead, alive northern breed, than an off lead dead one.

But then they are on a lead and the farmer has no reason to shoot them

sheeper

It's the farmers land, the farmers livestock, if you want to let the dog off the lead brIng him to the park or beech if you bring him to a place with stock prepare to have him shot

Who is being unfair the farmer protecting his stock , or the owner puting the dog in a place where the dog can do damage or be shot

Discodog

Davyhal wrote: »

Why do dog owners think that their pet has the right to kill animals, but not to be killed?

No responsible animal owner thinks that their animal has a right to kill. However why should a dog be punished for the actions of an owner ?

The only justifiable reason to shoot a dog is to stop an ongoing incident. If the dog is caught in the actual act of chasing the stock then the farmer has a right to reduce any further loss.

You can't shoot a dog after the event or on the assumption that it will return or because it may have developed some mythical blood lust.

micropig wrote: »

Only people with enough space on their property to keep an animal should be allowed to keep it.

Dogs don't need space they need exercise. You could keep several dogs in an apartment provided you give them two good walks per day.

ISDW

micropig wrote: »

I was responding to another post which said running and chasing prey is hardwired in to them



Only people with enough space on their property to keep an animal should be allowed to keep it.



But then they are on a lead and the farmer has no reason to shoot them

Yes, the other post said its hardwired into them, you said they were 'bread' to run and chase prey, I'm just pointing out that they were never bred for chasing prey. The inuit peoples would use them in the winter for sledding, then release them in the warmer months purely because they couldn't afford to feed them if they weren't working, so the dogs would have to fend for themselves, hence they developed the hunting instinct.

Your logic then means that the inuit people should never have used the northern breeds for pullling sleds, as obviously they didn't do it just on their own land, they would travel great distances. So by that logic, the breeds wouldn't exist today, and in fact most breeds wouldn't. So I have a breed that was bred to pull, I use that breed for that purpose, in forests etc all over Ireland and in the UK, but because I don't own 100 acres of forestry, I shouldn't have those dogs? Although maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, sorry if thats the case. When you say enough land to keep it, what do you mean? A dog only takes up the space that its in at any time, so I could 'keep' a dog in a one roomed flat.

Yes, the dog would be on a lead and wouldn't be shot, your argument was that it is not fair to keep a dog on a lead for its whole life. I was merely pointing out that a dog on a 100ft lead would have more than enough freedom to run around and have fun.

micropig

ISDW wrote: »

Yes, the other post said its hardwired into them, you said they were 'bread' to run and chase prey, I'm just pointing out that they were never bred for chasing prey. The inuit peoples would use them in the winter for sledding, then release them in the warmer months purely because they couldn't afford to feed them if they weren't working, so the dogs would have to fend for themselves, hence they developed the hunting instinct.

Ok, it's not bred in to them, they developed it naturally, due to their owners leaving them to fend for themselves, it's their natural instincts

ISDW wrote: »

Your logic then means that the inuit people should never have used the northern breeds for pullling sleds, as obviously they didn't do it just on their own land, they would travel great distances. So by that logic, the breeds wouldn't exist today, and in fact most breeds wouldn't. So I have a breed that was bred to pull, I use that breed for that purpose, in forests etc all over Ireland and in the UK, but because I don't own 100 acres of forestry, I shouldn't have those dogs? Although maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, sorry if thats the case. When you say enough land to keep it, what do you mean? A dog only takes up the space that its in at any time, so I could 'keep' a dog in a one roomed flat.

Many sheep up in the Artic regions?
Once you have the space where you are permitted to exercise the animals and do so respectfully, no problem. If you do not however have the space or permission to do so, then the problem arises.

I could 'keep' a horse in a one room flat, doesn't mean it's ideal for the animal

ISDW

micropig wrote: »

Ok, it's not bred in to them, they developed it naturally, due to their owners leaving them to fend for themselves, it's their natural instincts




Many sheep up in the Artic regions?
Once you have the space where you are permitted to exercise the animals and do so respectfully, no problem. If you do not however have the space or permission to do so, then the problem arises.

I could 'keep' a horse in a one room flat, doesn't mean it's ideal for the animal

I'm sorry but I don't understand what that has to do with your argument. It still stands that they would run the dogs on land that didn't belong to them, you said you should only have dogs if you have the land for them.

However, I do agree with you that that space doesn't necessarily have to be owned by you, as long as you have the permission of the landowner to use it. So, does that not though negate your initial argument?;) Parks, beaches owned by councils etc, grant permission for dog owners to use them, so therefore anyone can have a dog in any kind of accommodation as long as they take them out and exercise them.

If the horse has clean bedding, food and water, and gets out for exercise every day that fits its requirements, why would it not be ideal for the horse to be kept in that way? I'd say it wouldn't be ideal for the human sharing with the horse, but I can't see the horse having any issues - an upmarket stable.

_Lady_

Davyhal wrote: »

Why do dog owners think that their pet has the right to kill animals, but not to be killed? Why does the dog have more of a right to life than a sheep, who not only is also a living creature, but also is the farmer's livelihood?

If an animal came into your back lawn and killed your dog and destroyed your property, would you be outraged at someone killing the said animal?

Also, it is rarely a once-off when dogs worry sheep... They get a taste for the chase. If you want to prevent your dog getting shot, keep it contained. Simple as.

Hey, I don't think anyone would hold it against a farmer who shot a dog who had killed sheep but surely it doesn't have to be so black and white? In many cases where dogs are shot, the law allows for them to be "about" to worry them - this doesn't mean that sheep have been killed?!

The farmers I know are all great with animals, and many would be able to approach a dog first to get closer and ascertain if things hadn't escalated to a dangerous extent. They care about the welfare of their animals - and probably like the farmer who was kind enough to scare away Fado in Kerry, - understand that accidents can happen and that pet owners also care about the welfare of their dogs.

Granted, if the same dogs have been out terrorising sheep over and over again, it's getting to the stage that something drastic needs to be done. But surely there has to be reasonable logic applied to discharging into the air - if the law applies to protecting the welfare of your animals allowing you to kill using a weapon, surely it allows you to startle "to prevent further worry of livestock"?

Birdnuts

As a dog owner and someone with an interest in a small flock down the country, my advice to other dog owners is simply keep your pet under control and supervised at all times when not secured on your own property. This ensures that problems with farmers/sheep never arise. Its simple common sense, which is why I don't understand why threads like this run into multiple pages. Also never let a dog that you are unsure about off a lead within 500 yards of sheep, its just not worth it!!. People who couldn't be bothered supervising their dogs have only themselve to blame if a farmer shoots a dog that he finds stressing his sheep with no sight nor sound of the owner. I also suspect alot of the same people who continuely fail to control their pets are also the source of the enormous stray problem in this country - but thats a matter for another thread

chris_ie

Its a bit like guards really...

i.e. If a guard saw someone attacking someone else they may try and prevent it. If that fails and the person looks like they may kill the person then a guard would shoot them. If however someone killed someone else and the guard found the guilty person afterwards then they can't just simply shoot them.

iguana

sheeper wrote: »

It's the farmers land, the farmers livestock

Your land, your livestock does not mean you can act outside the law. And the law is very, very clear that farmers do not have carte blanche to shoot any dog near their sheep that they feel should be shot. They can only do so in certain circumstances. Numerous farmers on this thread have stated their intention to flout those laws (which in itself is so bloody stupid, the internet is not nearly as anonymous as you might think - publicly stating your intention to break the law as it suits you could easily come back and bite you on the arsé - hard) and, quite frankly, I started reading this thread in full sympathy of the sheep farmers but that sort of self-entitled attitude is contemptible.

Davyhal wrote:

Why do dog owners think that their pet has the right to kill animals, but not to be killed? Why does the dog have more of a right to life than a sheep, who not only is also a living creature,

Are you for real? You aren't running a sheep sanctuary you know. On your order many of those sheep, especially most of the young males, will be killed and sold for food and their by-products. And that's fine, I'm not a vegetarian and lamb is my favourite meat, they are your animals and it is your livelihood but lose the hypocrisy about the sheep's right to life. It doesn't do you any favours.

foxer3640

There was an article in yesterdays farming independant that would make interesting reading for some of the people on here that dont seem to understand what dogs can do to sheep. A farmer in co Laois lost 17 lambs in a dog attack. He lost 4 the first night, 10 the second night and 3 died later. The pictures are pretty gruesome. The dogs would have been covered in blood yet no one has come forward to claim responsibility. You would'nt blame any farmer for shooting dogs on sight in their land if you saw those pictures. Someone here might be able to post a link.

doctor evil

iguana wrote: »

Your land, your livestock does not mean you can act outside the law. And the law is very, very clear that farmers do not have carte blanche to shoot any dog near their sheep that they feel should be shot. They can only do so in certain circumstances. Numerous farmers on this thread have stated their intention to flout those laws (which in itself is so bloody stupid, the internet is not nearly as anonymous as you might think - publicly stating your intention to break the law as it suits you could easily come back and bite you on the arsé - hard) and, quite frankly, I started reading this thread in full sympathy of the sheep farmers but that sort of self-entitled attitude is contemptible.

Are you for real? You aren't running a sheep sanctuary you know. On your order many of those sheep, especially most of the young males, will be killed and sold for food and their by-products. And that's fine, I'm not a vegetarian and lamb is my favourite meat, they are your animals and it is your livelihood but lose the hypocrisy about the sheep's right to life. It doesn't do you any favours.

The dog owner (if it is owned) has already broken the law by not having the animal under control or allowing it to roam. Suspected of or about to harass is good enough justification.

The farmers sheep may be his/hers living but they certainly won't flourish if they are being harassed by dogs. It is in the farmers interest for his/her sheep to be as healthy as can be.

In the scheme of things, someones livelyhood is of greater importance than someones pet.

doctor evil

_Lady_ wrote: »

Hey, I don't think anyone would hold it against a farmer who shot a dog who had killed sheep but surely it doesn't have to be so black and white? In many cases where dogs are shot, the law allows for them to be "about" to worry them - this doesn't mean that sheep have been killed?!

Sheep can die after the attack from shock or they can loose their lambs if preggers.

Personally (not aimed at you!), I think it is the height of arrogance and the lowest of ignorance to be so dismissive about someone elses bread and butter in favour of a pet that an owner has not been in control of.

If accidents happen take the fall.

iguana

doctor evil wrote: »

The dog owner (if it is owned) has already broken the law by not having the animal under control or allowing it to roam. Suspected of or about to harass is good enough justification.

The farmers sheep may be his/hers living but they certainly won't flourish if they are being harassed by dogs. It is in the farmers interest for his/her sheep to be as healthy as can be.

In the scheme of things, someones livelyhood is of greater importance than someones pet.

That's irrelevant. There is a law in place which allows the farmer to protect his/her livestock, deciding that's not enough and taking the law into their own hands means they are breaking the law too. Yes the dog owner broke the law but even small children are told that two wrongs don't make a right. And in terms of livelihood, the farmer is not only likely to have insurance but could be violating the terms of that insurance by acting outside the law. (Something that any farmer posting here about their intention to break those laws should bear in mind as insurance companies will use any excuse to avoid paying compensation.)

homerhop

Insurance companies will not pay compensation if the dog owner is located. It becomes a civil matter where the farmer has to seek compensation for damage to livestock.

ISDW

And any insurance that the dog owner has, for 3rd party liability, doesn't cover animal worrying, so the money has to come straight out of the dog owner's pocket.

iguana

In which case surely it would be better for the farmer to never identify the animal because enforcing a judgement against somebody who does not have the relevant savings would be close to impossible? If you don't know who owns the dog you are taking a massive crap shoot by identifying it. You get compensated if the person has the savings to pay it and if they don't you've just buggered yourself.

sheeper

Most farmer shoot the dog and throw it in a bush or a hole

iguana

sheeper wrote: »

Most farmer shoot the dog and throw it in a bush or a hole

In which case they are actively defrauding their insurance company if they make a claim.

gud4u

Some farmers draft individuals to make the problem dogs go away. Not all farmers are gun owners.

sheeper

Do you know the price of insuring stock against dogs ?

homerhop

iguana wrote: »

In which case they are actively defrauding their insurance company if they make a claim.

As opposed to dealing with people who deny the dog was theirs or refuse to pay compensation despite a court ruling?

gud4u

foxer3640 wrote: »

There was an article in yesterdays farming independant that would make interesting reading for some of the people on here that dont seem to understand what dogs can do to sheep. A farmer in co Laois lost 17 lambs in a dog attack. He lost 4 the first night, 10 the second night and 3 died later. The pictures are pretty gruesome. The dogs would have been covered in blood yet no one has come forward to claim responsibility. You would'nt blame any farmer for shooting dogs on sight in their land if you saw those pictures. Someone here might be able to post a link.

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/site/farming-%60Pure-savageryas-dogs-kill-55-ewes-and-lambs-in-Westmeath-12851.html

MISTAKE, not your story but similar feom a year ago, I guess it's an ongoing, annual problem.

iguana

sheeper wrote: »

Do you know the price of insuring stock against dogs ?

Paying for adequate insurance is part of the price of running a business. Not paying it is not a license to break the law instead.

Of course a farmer has the right to protect his/her flock, and that includes shooting a dog in the act of worrying/attacking the sheep. (Or cows, chickens, pigs, etc.) But there have been posts here that do not describe protecting their flock and do in fact describe getting revenge on the dog. A reaction that anthropomorphises the dog to a very foolish level.

I'm not saying this to defend my own dogs. My dogs don't roam and we have only ever lived in cities. I don't agree with roaming dogs, in fact I don't even agree with roaming cats, I think anyone who lets their animal roam is careless of both their animal's safety and the property of others. If their animal gets shot, run over, thrown on a bonfire they are as much to blame as anyone. But that doesn't give a farmer a right to shoot them at a point when they are not a direct threat to the flock.

iguana

homerhop wrote: »

As opposed to dealing with people who deny the dog was theirs or refuse to pay compensation despite a court ruling?

Two wrongs ≠ right.

homerhop

I am not saying it is, but how many of us can take a hit like a sheep farmer can in one night only for the same thing to happen again a few nights later. One must remember that just because a ewe may seem unhurt, being chase can have long term effects as a result of stress.
So what should a farmer do when his sheep or lambs have been mauled or killed and the dog owner couldnt care and refuses point blank to compensate?

And for the record I am not suggesting that he goes out and as you have said take revenge