Dogs killed sheep. Trying to find owners of dogs.

moy83

username123 wrote: »

If I were OP I'd let this go to court. OP was not in possession of the dogs at all. Let a judge decide.

I reckon if it went to court and the cost could be alot more if the farmer decided to say his flock won't go back in lamb and aren't thriving since the attack . I don't know if the judge would find the op guilty but they were the last ones to have the dogs unfortunately

aaakev

moy83 wrote: »

I don't know if the judge would find the op guilty but they were the last ones to have the dogs unfortunately

they were not the last ones to have the dogs, the OPs friend was

sdanseo

In my opinion (this isn't to be construed as legal advice, I'm not a legal professional) it sounds like your friend failed to look after them correctly. She accepted responsibility for them, and is therefore liable for what they did - at least in terms of common sense.

A fair outcome might be for the three of you to split the costs after they are properly vouched for. Ye all had a hand in the matter, albeit with good intentions, but I'd imagine the only person legally liable would be your friend.

As for the farmer whatever happens he's dead right not to be left out of pocket.

Mr_Red

The Right thing to do is divide the the bill 3 ways when you get the paper work
But it will all fall down to the last person who were in possession of the dogs in the end who can be brought to court

Gael23

Don't pay anything for the moment and get legal advice.
i'd be suspicious in that he's not forthcoming with receipts

5live

ryanf1 wrote: »

Don't pay anything for the moment and get legal advice.
i'd be suspicious in that he's not forthcoming with receipts

Vet receipts, knackery dockets and replacement costs for the sheep would be in the ballpark of €1300. If they try to dispute then he has the option of claiming for distress and loss of the ease of handling of his remaining sheep. It could get messy really quickly with the added stress of all living in close proximity with each other and their family and friends.

Accept the figure and arrange a payment plan for your portion.

This had the potential to get really messy.

Inexile

Ok - what day were the dogs found. OP said that the original finder said they rang the warden and I think a lot could hinge on that conversation.

If it was a weekend or out of hours and the pound was closed or the warden wasn't available to collect the dog then the original finder, through the two others in the chain made reasonable attempts to contain the dogs - a 7ft fence would contain most dogs. Had the original finder not intervened the dogs could have damaged the sheep, and possibly more sheep and the farmer would have no one to claim off. is there a fund for farmers in such instances to recoup losses from?

Now I accept that the farmer should be compensated but its not a straight forward situation. Its not the same as a dog getting lose, causing damage and the farmer claiming from the original owner. I also think that the OP is absolutely right to seek receipts from the farmer. If your dog was involved in an incident where a car was damaged you would seek a quote for repair work before paying out.

I think the OP is being very fair in trying to resolve this and hope it doesn't stop them from helping out later on.

5live

Inexile wrote: »

Ok - what day were the dogs found. OP said that the original finder said they rang the warden and I think a lot could hinge on that conversation.

If it was a weekend or out of hours and the pound was closed or the warden wasn't available to collect the dog then the original finder, through the two others in the chain made reasonable attempts to contain the dogs - a 7ft fence would contain most dogs. Had the original finder not intervened the dogs could have damaged the sheep, and possibly more sheep and the farmer would have no one to claim off. is there a fund for farmers in such instances to recoup losses from?

Now I accept that the farmer should be compensated but its not a straight forward situation. Its not the same as a dog getting lose, causing damage and the farmer claiming from the original owner. I also think that the OP is absolutely right to seek receipts from the farmer. If your dog was involved in an incident where a car was damaged you would seek a quote for repair work before paying out.

I think the OP is being very fair in trying to resolve this and hope it doesn't stop them from helping out later on.

Good point about trying to get the dogs impounded.
There is no fund to compensate for losses due to dog attack. There are literally hundreds of attacks every year, the vast majority go unreported. As such, there is a huge need to chip every dog in the country with fines in the thousands for having an unchipped dog.

On the figure for damages, there is room for negotiation in that. Haggle with him for a lower figure because he probably used a higher figure in the range of losses expecting you to offer lower.

Jamboat

I value the relationship with my friend more so as we've been friends for years and would still help me out with something if I asked and vice versa. My neighbour only lives down the road from me and I have to pass the house to go anywhere but to be honest my eyes have been opened so to speak and apart from a cursory wave when I'm passing I probably won't associate with them any further than that in the future.

I'm not going to get any money towards the costs from my neighbour and I've accepted that. I could consider going down the legal route and try to apportion some of the blame on my neighbour or keep hounding them to contribute but after giving it some thought I think it would drag things out, make things even more messy and probably cost me more in the long run because I'd have legal fees and who knows what way it would turn out...it might not go in my favour and I still don't think they'd pay up. I've decided to chalk it down to experience and really think twice before agreeing to help someone out.

Between myself and my friend we have decided to split the costs and pay the farmer. My friend lives beside the farmer and is anxious to have it cleared up as soon as possible to avoid further animosity. We will need to speak to the farmer again and see if we can negotiate but hopefully the farmer will produce the bill and we will just pay.

As for the dogs I called to the houses in the area where they were found so see if anyone owned them. The area is isolated enough with not many houses. No one owned them but one woman told me that she has taken in a couple of dogs that were found straying in the area and that dogs are regularly dumped there. I've rang pounds and rescues and looked through websites and and rescue pages to see if they were reported missing. I was told by one of the rescues that Husky's can travel vast distances quite quickly so could have made their way to where they were found. They also said that Husky's have scaled high walls and fences before to get out as they have an extremely high prey drive.
It's a horrible situation to be in. I feel for the farmer who lost his livestock and I've been told it happens to him yearly so I can understand why he's angry. I also feel for all the dead animals, sheep and dogs, the sheep must have been terrified and the poor baby lambs and the dogs needed to be in a more secure run. Also the sheep that are still alive are probably stressed from what I've been reading here.

aonb

Jamboat, nothing to add to this, except to say that I feel so sorry
for you and your friend (and the neighbour) who originally tried
to help out the 2 dogs. Its a horrible situation to be in. You were so
kind to take the dogs in, and its such a shame that it all went so badly
wrong for you all. I also can understand the frustration etc of the farmer. Its a no-win situation. The problem with straying dogs who are in hunt-mode is horrendous.

The *&^%^$£ who dumped them (why didnt they chip pure-breed dogs
- tells you that they werent responsible owners in the first place) where
ever they are, I wish them BAD luck :mad: I wish horrible things on people
who mistreat dogs in general, but thats a whole other fruitless discussion.

Best wishes to you and your friend, I hope it gets sorted asap.

Mr. Flibble

A lot of people seem to think that the friend with the dog run, from which the dogs escaped, is liable here. So, is it safe to say then that the actual owner of the dogs is not liable, should they be found?

moy83

Mr. Flibble wrote: »

A lot of people seem to think that the friend with the dog run, from which the dogs escaped, is liable here. So, is it safe to say then that the actual owner of the dogs is not liable, should they be found?

Id say good luck if you can find the previous owners and even more if you can proove that they were the owners .
I would forget about trying to find them now .
I think that the last person to look after the dogs is liable .

DubVelo

willfarmerman wrote: »

And you have to understand that this is extremely traumatic for any farmer. We love our stock.

What happens to lambs when they grow up willfarmerman...?

DubVelo

Jamboat wrote: »

Between myself and my friend we have decided to split the costs and pay the farmer. My friend lives beside the farmer and is anxious to have it cleared up as soon as possible to avoid further animosity. We will need to speak to the farmer again and see if we can negotiate but hopefully the farmer will produce the bill and we will just pay.

Farmer Joe certainly saw you two coming didn't he? Personally I think neighbour no. 1 is the only sane one amongst the lot of ye.

- None of you owned the dogs
- There was no owner around to place the dogs in anyone's 'charge'
- Neighbour no. 3 took reasonable steps to contain the dogs
- The dogs were running wild anyway to begin with

(And the suggestion that you should pay up without seeing a bill or any paperwork...!? Ridiculous!!!)

Buy the farmer a bottle of whiskey and leave it at that.
It was no one's fault (besides the owner), just an unlucky day.
An act of Dog.

Flippyfloppy

DubVelo wrote: »

Farmer Joe certainly saw you two coming didn't he? Personally I think neighbour no. 1 is the only sane one amongst the lot of ye.

- None of you owned the dogs
- There was no owner around to place the dogs in anyone's 'charge'
- Neighbour no. 3 took reasonable steps to contain the dogs
- The dogs were running wild anyway to begin with

(And the suggestion that you should pay up without seeing a bill or any paperwork...!? Ridiculous!!!)

Buy the farmer a bottle of whiskey and leave it at that.
It was no one's fault (besides the owner), just an unlucky day.
An act of Dog.

In addition the warden was apparently called by farmer no 1!

sillysmiles

DubVelo wrote: »

Farmer Joe certainly saw you two coming didn't he? Personally I think neighbour no. 1 is the only sane one amongst the lot of ye.

- None of you owned the dogs
- There was no owner around to place the dogs in anyone's 'charge'
- Neighbour no. 3 took reasonable steps to contain the dogs
- The dogs were running wild anyway to begin with

(And the suggestion that you should pay up without seeing a bill or any paperwork...!? Ridiculous!!!)

Buy the farmer a bottle of whiskey and leave it at that.
It was no one's fault (besides the owner), just an unlucky day.
An act of Dog.

It's all well and good saying he saw them coming but it's a long road and these people have to live beside him.
The farmer with the dead sheep is not at fault here and I assume he would be mighty pissed off to have his neighbours shaft him. Not the way to build friends and relationships in the countryside.

moy83

DubVelo wrote: »

What happens to lambs when they grow up willfarmerman...?

They are humanely killed for the food chain . Definitely not chased , ripped and frightened to death by dogs

Lemlin

DubVelo wrote: »

Farmer Joe certainly saw you two coming didn't he? Personally I think neighbour no. 1 is the only sane one amongst the lot of ye.

- None of you owned the dogs
- There was no owner around to place the dogs in anyone's 'charge'
- Neighbour no. 3 took reasonable steps to contain the dogs
- The dogs were running wild anyway to begin with

(And the suggestion that you should pay up without seeing a bill or any paperwork...!? Ridiculous!!!)

Buy the farmer a bottle of whiskey and leave it at that.
It was no one's fault (besides the owner), just an unlucky day.
An act of Dog.

The OP and her friend assumed responsibility for the dogs when they attempted to contain them. The law always comes down to negligence and their is negligence here on behalf of the OP and her friend sadly. Their negligence was not ringing the pound as they should have done.

DubVelo

moy83 wrote: »

They are humanely killed for the food chain . Definitely not chased , ripped and frightened to death by dogs

Yeah right, they end up on my dinner plate via cuddles...

DubVelo

Lemlin wrote: »

The OP and her friend assumed responsibility for the dogs when they attempted to contain them. The law always comes down to negligence and their is negligence here on behalf of the OP and her friend sadly. Their negligence was not ringing the pound as they should have done.

And this is your professional legal advice is it?

I'm sorry, I think this whole assumption that they are legally responsible is a complete load of bollox! They weren't even negligent! Neighbour no. 3 took the totally reasonable step of containing them behind 7 foot walls. How were they to know the damn things could climb like a cat?

Whispered

DubVelo wrote: »

Yeah right, they end up on my dinner plate via cuddles...

Have to agree. I think it's funny how people talk about "humanely" breeding, raising and killing a healthy animal so they can have a bit of meat. There is nothing humane about it.

Don't get me wrong, I have meat products in my house, my dogs are raw fed, I drink milk and eat eggs. I don't however kid myself about the lovely happy lives of the animals involved in the food process.

Different thread though I think.

DubVelo

sillysmiles wrote: »

It's all well and good saying he saw them coming but it's a long road and these people have to live beside him.
The farmer with the dead sheep is not at fault here and I assume he would be mighty pissed off to have his neighbours shaft him. Not the way to build friends and relationships in the countryside.

That works both ways. He is trying to shaft his neighbours. HE has to live beside them too. If I was in his position I can't imagine I'd have the gall to go round demanding €1300 off my neighbours.
Just because he's a farmer doesn't give him some god given right of priority in the countryside hierarchy or something. The whole thing is ridiculous.

The farmer might not be at fault but neither is anyone else here. His business took a loss, it sucks, that's life, you take it on the chin and move on...

shruikan2553

It does seem a bit odd that they have to pay after they did try to contain the dogs within reason. The alternative was to let the dogs roam and be a threat to any animals. After reading this I know if I ever see dogs roaming I'll leave them at it. Its not worth the risk of a huge bill.

Lemlin

DubVelo wrote: »

And this is your professional legal advice is it?

I'm sorry, I think this whole assumption that they are legally responsible is a complete load of bollox! They weren't even negligent! Neighbour no. 3 took the totally reasonable step of containing them behind 7 foot walls. How were they to know the damn things could climb like a cat?

Wonderful descriptive piece of language there. I'm not a legal professional so I can't say I am qualified to give "professional legal advice". I am a Charactered Insurance Professional though and I work in a legal insurance environment.

But he didn't take the "responsible" step correctly. He took control of the animals and attempted to contain them in an area which was not suitable. He should have called the dog warden there and then and got the animals collected by a professional. The OP's neighbour may not have known they could climb 7 foot walls but he should not have attempted to take control of animals that he did not know anything about. Dogs are born escapologists, even from a young age.

Any judge is going to ask what measures the OP and her friends took and the measures they took were not sufficient and were negligent. Meanwhile the farmer is an innocent party whose animals were attacked by dogs which should have been apprehended by the dog warden.

DubVelo wrote: »

That works both ways. He is trying to shaft his neighbours. HE has to live beside them too. If I was in his position I can't imagine I'd have the gall to go round demanding €1300 off my neighbours.
Just because he's a farmer doesn't give him some god given right of priority in the countryside hierarchy or something. The whole thing is ridiculous.

The farmer might not be at fault but neither is anyone else here. His business took a loss, it sucks, that's life, you take it on the chin and move on...

The farmer is not shafting anyone. The time he is losing is probably worth alot more than the €1300 value of those sheep, not to mention the stress he has been put through. Nobody said he has a "god given right". People said he's an innocent party and the OP and her friends acted negligently when they didn't follow protocol for stray dogs and call the dog warden.

Flippyfloppy

Lemlin wrote: »

Wonderful descriptive piece of language there. I'm not a legal professional so I can't say I am qualified to give "professional legal advice". I am a Charactered Insurance Professional though and I work in a legal insurance environment.

But he didn't take the "responsible" step correctly. He took control of the animals and attempted to contain them in an area which was not suitable. He should have called the dog warden there and then and got the animals collected by a professional. The OP's neighbour may not have known they could climb 7 foot walls but he should not have attempted to take control of animals that he did not know anything about. Dogs are born escapologists, even from a young age.

Any judge is going to ask what measures the OP and her friends took and the measures they took were not sufficient and were negligent. Meanwhile the farmer is an innocent party whose animals were attacked by dogs which should have been apprehended by the dog warden.



The farmer is not shafting anyone. The time he is losing is probably worth alot more than the €1300 value of those sheep, not to mention the stress he has been put through. Nobody said he has a "god given right". People said he's an innocent party and the OP and her friends acted negligently when they didn't follow protocol for stray dogs and call the dog warden.

They were told by the person they were helping out that the Dog Warden had been called.

Lemlin

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

They were told by the person they were helping out that the Dog Warden had been called.

Have a read of the initial post:

My neighbour found two dogs running loose in the countryside when he was walking his own dogs. He brought them home with him and had them checked for microchips which they didn't have. He held on to them for a few days while he tried to locate the owner however they started to fight with his own dogs so he asked me if I knew anyone who could hold on to them for a couple of days while he tried to figure out what to do with them.
I have a friend who lives in the country and he used to have dogs and has an enclosed run. He agreed to keep the dogs for a couple of days. The day after taking them my friend arrived home from work to find the dogs gone. The run was sill closed up so they must have gotten out over the wall, which is 7 ft high. He rang me and we went out straight away looking for the dogs. About 30 minutes later we met a farmer who said that 3 of his sheep had been killed by 2 dogs and the dogs were hiding in a wooded area at the bottom of his field. I went down to try and lure the dogs out. The farmer and a few others (family or neighbours I presume) also were trying to lure the dogs out.

If a call had been made to the warden, what proof is there of same? And why did at least three days pass and nobody had called the warden again?

And another relevant post:

The way it is at the moment the bill hopefully will be split between me and my friend who was minding the dogs as the person who initially found them is not accepting that he has anything to do with it. He also told me that he had them checked for chips when they were found and had rang the warden...but I only have his word on this. It was a sunday evening when he asked me for help and he had them a few days at that stage.

The OP doesn't even believe that this person called the warden. And this person is refusing to have anything to do with it. I wouldn't even call that a weak defence, I'd call it no defence.

Flippyfloppy

Lemlin wrote: »

Have a read of the initial post:



If a call had been made to the warden, what proof is there of same? And why did at least three days pass and nobody had called the warden again?

And another relevant post:



The OP doesn't even believe that this person called the warden. And this person is refusing to have anything to do with it. I wouldn't even call that a weak defence, I'd call it no defence.

My take on that is that now, upon reflection of recent events that OP has realised that maybe the original finder may not have called the dog warden. Initially though, she seems to have taken his word in good faith. I wonder if OP can clarify if the dog warden was due to pick the animals up?

sillysmiles

shruikan2553 wrote: »

It does seem a bit odd that they have to pay after they did try to contain the dogs within reason. The alternative was to let the dogs roam and be a threat to any animals. After reading this I know if I ever see dogs roaming I'll leave them at it. Its not worth the risk of a huge bill.

Surely the alternative was to surrender the animals to the pound/dog warden?

DBB

Okay folks, this thread is meeting itself on yet another circle, and just descending into silliness. There's nothing to be gained by leaving it open any longer.
Thread closed.