Forty sheep killed in dog attack in Co Kerry(Graphic photos in links)

tomwaterford

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Maybe he thinks you were irresponsible for letting it happen in the first place. The unanimous opinion is that it's the fault of the irresponsible owners, yet you admit your own dogs got out and did it.

Ya. ...Maybe. ...but I'm not stupid enough to think they wouldn't do it again


So I settle it up.....as I would with anyone's dog




Why people think it's acceptable for their pets to go around destroying peoples livestock and income is beyond me tbh

borderlinemeath

tomwaterford wrote: »

Ya. ...Maybe. ...but I'm not stupid enough to think they wouldn't do it again

They wouldn't. If they were properly fenced in.

So I settle it up.....as I would with anyone's dog

But you can't compensate yourself, you'll still be out of pocket unfortunately

Why people think it's acceptable for their pets to go around destroying peoples livestock and income is beyond me tbh

I don't think any owner thinks its acceptable. Yes there's the bad owners who will try and shirk responsibility but I doubt any of them are so blasé that they think it's an acceptable behaviour for any dog.

Stephenc66

tomwaterford wrote: »

Why people think it's acceptable for their pets to go around destroying peoples livestock and income is beyond me tbh

borderlinemeath wrote: »

owners who will try and shirk responsibility but I doubt any of them are so blasé that they think it's an acceptable behaviour for any dog.

Unfortunately those dog owners that shirk their responsibility by refusing to compensate the owner of the sheep are saying it is acceptable behavior for their dogs to attack livestock. Otherwise while they might haggle over the value they would pay compensation.

Smondie

Stephenc66 wrote: »

Unfortunately those dog owners that shirk their responsibility by refusing to compensate the owner of the sheep are saying it is acceptable behavior for their dogs to attack livestock. Otherwise while they might haggle over the value they would pay compensation.

They would also volunteer the information that it was thier dog by contacting the farmer before they have to be tracked down.

Stephenc66

Smondie wrote: »

They would also volunteer the information that it was thier dog by contacting the farmer before they have to be tracked down.

Unfortunately from bitter experience (all be it 20yrs ago) I can say that in a case where the dog is not caught or shot, the owners may not know that their dog was involved in an attack as the dog is back at home in the morning without anyone knowing it was gone.

It is the second or third attack that you might get the dog or have sight of it that gets you to the owner.

Smondie

Stephenc66 wrote: »

Unfortunately from bitter experience (all be it 20yrs ago) I can say that in a case where the dog is not caught or shot, the owners may not know that their dog was involved in an attack as the dog is back at home in the morning without anyone knowing it was gone.

It is the second or third attack that you might get the dog or have sight of it that gets you to the owner.

Would there not be blood on the dog?

What sort leaves a dog unsecured outside at night?

borderlinemeath

Acceptable isn't the right term to use. They are completely ignorant if they repeatedly let their dogs out to roam and shirk responsibility of an attack.

It's like years ago when drink driving after a couple of pints was "acceptable". "Ara, shure I'm only heading a mile up the road, I'll be grand", now it's not acceptable at all, it's not tolerated and frowned upon by pretty much everybody. One is as bad as the other and neither are acceptable.

Stephenc66

Smondie wrote: »

Would there not be blood on the dog?

What sort leaves a dog unsecured outside at night?

Sometimes there might be blood but not always.

I am talking late eighties early nineties here when every town or village had dogs roaming the streets. Most of these dogs lived outside but had owners and were not considered strays.

While this is not common now there are still places in country areas where this is the norm.

A dog that attacks livestock once will defiantly do it again if given a chance it's not blood lust or a taste for blood. It is the thrill of the chase and the excitement that then gets out of control

paddysdream

paddysdream wrote: »

Cattle have no "right to the road"
If your stock break in/wander in to your neighbours garden and damage it then you are responsible.Its not up to the house owner to fence out your cattle,its your job to fence in your cattle.

That's incorrect.

In rural areas, farmers very often have a right to drive cattle on the roads. If you are foolish enough to omit to construct barriers around your house, on a road in rural areas where cattle are driven, then you should pay the price of your own stupidity.

Why do you think non-farming householders construct cattle-grids in front of their homes? Not for aesthetic reasons I assure you. They are responsible rural people.

The chap I'm referencing, who snortingly threatened the law on us for damaging his odious garden, never got back to us/ Why? Because, most likely, the sensible village solicitor told him we were in the right for driving our cattle where we wished, as I am telling you now.

seamus wrote: »

We'll include wandering humans in that too then.

Don't be ridiculous. Human are expected to be rational creatures when they come into the countryside, even the non-farming ones.

whisky_galore

Cattle Trespass


If cattle stray into another person's land the cattle owner will be liable for any damage caused.

However, if cattle cause damage while they are being driven on the public road, the owner will only be liable for the damage caused if they are in some way negligent in the course of driving the cattle.

Negligence in this case might be something like driving too many cattle at once or failing to have adequate help present to control the animals.


This rule also applies to horses, sheep, goats, pigs, asses, domestic fowl and apparently even domestic deer.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

Cattle Trespass


If cattle stray into another person's land the cattle owner will be liable for any damage caused.

However, if cattle cause damage while they are being driven on the public road, the owner will only be liable for the damage caused if they are in some way negligent in the course of driving the cattle.

Negligence in this case might be something like driving too many cattle at once or failing to have adequate help present to control the animals.


This rule also applies to horses, sheep, goats, pigs, asses, domestic fowl and apparently even domestic deer.

That's not the relevant rule here. The law on driving cattle on the road, in rural Ireland, is different to the law on straying.

It probably won't be negligent, especially in rural Ireland, if it's an agricultural area, that's the point.

whisky_galore

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's not the relevant rule here. The law on driving cattle on the road, in rural Ireland, is different to the law on straying.

Open your eyes "Driven on the public road"

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

Open your eyes "Driven on the public road"

Re-read my already short post. The central question is one of negligence. There's a large body of law you're ignoring. Go and do some further reading.

Discodog

borderlinemeath wrote: »

A lot of the irresponsible owners are those that put their faith in electric shock collars to contain their dogs. Apart from the ethical and cruelty aspect of them, they simply do not work for lots of dogs. If a dog wants to get through the barrier, they will take the pain. Batteries run out, electricity can fail, the wire can get broken. That's before you have a determined or nervous dog that will bolt past it. Simply put they are not the wonderful containment system that they purport to be. And they are banned in plenty of European countries due to the cruelty aspect of them. In any given pound around the country they will have dogs brought in that have been picked up roaming with their shock collar still on them that they have happily escaped from, and with the threat of a shock going past the barrier, there's no incentive for the dog to get back in.

If you live in the country and have a dog, build a decent wall/fence or failing that, get a dog run. If you can't afford to fence in your garden/land - don't get a dog. My house is on an acre and it's securely fenced all around. I have 3 dogs and I live opposite a livestock farmer and I couldn't forgive myself if any of mine escaped and did any damage to their stock. They don't speak to the farmer further down the road as my neighbour has had to shoot his roaming dogs in the past when they have strayed onto his land. The other farmer still lets his dog roam, sometimes its out on the road when driving by. Unfortunately sometimes farmers have to battle one of their own to keep their stock safe.

You don't need to do that. I haven't had a fenced garden for the last 15 years. My dogs only go in the garden on extending leads for a pee. But they get two good off lead walks per day. People are just lazy. Running in a garden isn't the same as a proper walk.

Discodog

Elora Happy Snowman wrote: »

Nice of you to twist his words and making a sensationalist post.

There's a difference between pets stepping out of line and pets attacking sheep. Also, you emply that it's a habbit, either you don't know the meaning of the word or it's more sensationalist tripe.

It's funny to see all the city slickers trying to impose their utopian views on those who actually have life experiences on the topic.

The old city dwellers crap that's reeled out over & over again. I have lived in the country & worked on farms. If your own dog "steps out of line" & has to be shot, you should be prosecuted. If you can't train your own dog then you shouldn't be allowed to own potentially dangerous farm stock.

borderlinemeath

Discodog wrote: »

You don't need to do that. I haven't had a fenced garden for the last 15 years. My dogs only go in the garden on extending leads for a pee. But they get two good off lead walks per day. People are just lazy. Running in a garden isn't the same as a proper walk.

Who's being lazy? And where did I say that my dogs only run about the garden? They spend most of their time indoors, or if the weather is nice they spend most of it asleep on the grass. They do play and run about with themselves or play ball with myself or my husband and then they also get out for their run in the fields or on the beach. I can leave my gates open because my dogs won't go out on the road, but I don't - I close them EVERY TIME. I just don't take the chance. How do I know that my neighbour hasn't left a gate open or a gate might have blown down in the wind, or he may be moving cattle?

I still maintain that a good secure fence or wall is better than hedging, or no containment. What if your house was broken into when you weren't there? And the dogs were let out? This happened recently near me, burglars broke into a house, stole car keys and let the dog out and he was found dead later on that day after getting knocked down.

Smondie

Once the farmer has shown he has taken all reasonable precautions to stop his animals breaking he is not liable .

http://www.irishexaminer.com/farming/analysis/karen-walshwhen-your-cows-become-a-traffic-hazard-346550.html


What are reasonable precautions?

* Ensuring you have adequate stock proof fencing in place.

* Ensuring you have a locked gate in place if required. It can be seen from case law that the farmer should bolt the gate on to the lands where the stock are held, and also lock the gate, to show that he took reasonable precautions.

* The owner should have regard to the animals’ nature, type, species, breed, development and environment, for example, the measures required to prevent a bull from straying will vary from the measures required to prevent a lamb from straying.

* Additionally, the farmer should ensure that the fencing is properly maintained in good condition and is stock proof.

The condition of the fencing and gates leading into a farmer’s premises are carefully considered in any action to determine whether the defendant farmer had reasonably exercised care in maintaining his fences in a stock-proof condition, and had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that his stock did not stray onto the public road.

As long as the farmer is able to show that he took reasonable care, by having adequate fencing and a locked gate (if the circumstances require), he or she is not required to prove how the animals came to be on the road — whether the animals jumped the fence or whether a gate was left open by some unknown person, for example.

The fact that the animals succeeded in escaping onto the road is not the result of any negligence on the farmer’s behalf.

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

If your own dog "steps out of line" & has to be shot, you should be prosecuted.

Hold on, lets get this straight. A farmer has a dog on his property, owned by his household, which is in the act of killing sheep. He should not shoot that dog, which is causing terror to his sheep, on pain of criminal prosecution?

It's not enough, for you, that he should risk the loss of his livelihood, he should also be made a criminal for putting a stop to it?

I doubt you've ever seen a dog going after a flock of sheep, because they certainly cannot be called-off with cries of "Oh please Rover, don't lets hurt those cuddly sheep!". A dog who goes after sheep becomes a primeval beast. Base instinct takes over. He doesn't respond to cries of exhortation any more than he replies to love-letters.

Discodog

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Who's being lazy? And where did I say that my dogs only run about the garden? They spend most of their time indoors, or if the weather is nice they spend most of it asleep on the grass. They do play and run about with themselves or play ball with myself or my husband and then they also get out for their run in the fields or on the beach. I can leave my gates open because my dogs won't go out on the road, but I don't - I close them EVERY TIME. I just don't take the chance. How do I know that my neighbour hasn't left a gate open or a gate might have blown down in the wind, or he may be moving cattle?

I still maintain that a good secure fence or wall is better than hedging, or no containment. What if your house was broken into when you weren't there? And the dogs were let out? This happened recently near me, burglars broke into a house, stole car keys and let the dog out and he was found dead later on that day after getting knocked down.

I certainly wasn't accusing you

Yes a fenced garden is good but it is often used as an excuse not to walk the dog.

Melodeon

Is it time to introduce Fenton yet?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GRSbr0EYYU

On a serious note, Fenton's owner here had no control whatsoever over him.
When the deer took flight, Fenton's 'chase' instincts took over completely and there was no calling him back.

Discodog

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Hold on, lets get this straight. A farmer has a dog on his property, owned by his household, which is in the act of killing sheep. He should not shoot that dog, which is causing terror to his sheep, on pain of criminal prosecution?

It's not enough, for you, that he should risk the loss of his livelihood, he should also be made a criminal for putting a stop to it?

I doubt you've ever seen a dog going after a flock of sheep, because they certainly cannot be called-off with cries of "Oh please Rover, don't lets hurt those cuddly sheep!". A dog who goes after sheep becomes a primeval beast. Base instinct takes over. He doesn't respond to cries of exhortation any more than he replies to love-letters.

Yet again a poster makes assumptions :rolleyes:

I have witnessed & helped to recover dogs that have been worrying sheep & cattle. If you own a dog & you can't stop that dog killing your own animals then you shouldn't be allowed to keep a mouse let alone livestock.

A farmer is in a unique position to introduce his dog to livestock & other animals. I have to borrow my neighbours stock. You show the dog & train it. In stubborn cases a Ram can work wonders.

I could walk mine through a field of sheep off lead with no worries. However I would always put them on a lead as reassurance to the farmer. A rural dog owner should make the effort to meet the local farmers & get to know them. I have never met any that are as extreme as some of the views expressed here. The farmers around me are happy for me to walk their land especially as I keep an eye on their livestock.

paddysdream

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's incorrect.

In rural areas, farmers very often have a right to drive cattle on the roads. If you are foolish enough to omit to construct barriers around your house, on a road in rural areas where cattle are driven, then you should pay the price of your own stupidity.

Why do you think non-farming householders construct cattle-grids in front of their homes? Not for aesthetic reasons I assure you. They are responsible rural people.

The chap I'm referencing, who snortingly threatened the law on us for damaging his odious garden, never got back to us/ Why? Because, most likely, the sensible village solicitor told him we were in the right for driving our cattle where we wished, as I am telling you now.
Don't be ridiculous. Human are expected to be rational creatures when they come into the countryside, even the non-farming ones.

Its correct but if you believe otherwise then that's your perogative.

My house has no gates and if a neighbour was driving cattle past it then would assume he would have someone standing in it to prevent the cattle coming in.That's common sense.
As regards paying the price for stupidity,lets just say that anyone who said they had the right to drive cattle along the road with no regard for their neighbours property would be laughed out of it by any farmer I know.

Oh and what exactly is an "odious" garden?Have one here with grass,flowerbeds and a beech hedge but would love to have an odious feature.Are they dear?Do many hardware shops sell them or would I have to build it myself?

paddysdream

paddysdream wrote: »

Its correct but if you believe otherwise then that's your perogative.

It's not just my belief, it's the understanding of anybody who has ever taken the time to research this.

You may intuitively believe otherwise, but you're clearly not basing this on facts.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/wpAnimals.htm
The owner of cattle which are lawfully on the highway is not liable without negligence for trespasses which his cattle commit to adjoining property. This is not an exception to the cattle trespass rule because in cattle trespass the animals are by definition straying on the road and are not on the highway for a lawful purpose. The reason for the rule is that

Traffic on the highways, whether by land or by sea, cannot be conducted without exposing those whose persons or property are near it to some inevitable risk; and that being so, those who go on the highway, or have their property adjacent to it may well be held to do so subject to their taking upon themselves the risk of injury from that inevitable danger.... In neither case, therefore, can they recover without proof of want of care or skill occasioning the accident.”

Or more succinctly,

"Landowners adjacent to the highway accept the inevitable risk of damage donw by animals lawfully using the highway provided there has been no negligence" -- 'Liability for Injuries caused by Animals'. McMahon, B., Binchy, W. (2013). Law of Torts. London: Bloomsbury Professional. [27.45].

See also: Devaston v. Payne Vol. 2, Smith's Leading Cases 160; Halsbury Vol. I p. 377, paragraph 822.

I wish people who move into the countryside would make themselves aware of their own responsibilities, instead of bleating on about what they think they're owed by people who have lived in that place and carried on business there for generations. If a farmer is using the public road to drive cattle, and has been doing so for a very long time, then it is you who is responsible for maintaining your own fences surrounding your house.

The farmer may be held responsible if his animals stray from lands, or if he deliberately drives them up your avenue. But if you tear out a hedge, or leave your gates open, or don't maintain a barrier which cattle can easily break-through, then nobody is to blame but yourself. Maybe you should go back to the town.

As for what constitutes an 'odious garden', I might invoke Potter Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court, "I know it when I see it".

paddysdream

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's not just my belief, it's the understanding of anybody who has ever taken the time to research this.

You may intuitively believe otherwise, but you're clearly not basing this on facts.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/wpAnimals.htm
The owner of cattle which are lawfully on the highway is not liable without negligence for trespasses which his cattle commit to adjoining property. This is not an exception to the cattle trespass rule because in cattle trespass the animals are by definition straying on the road and are not on the highway for a lawful purpose. The reason for the rule is that

Traffic on the highways, whether by land or by sea, cannot be conducted without exposing those whose persons or property are near it to some inevitable risk; and that being so, those who go on the highway, or have their property adjacent to it may well be held to do so subject to their taking upon themselves the risk of injury from that inevitable danger.... In neither case, therefore, can they recover without proof of want of care or skill occasioning the accident.”

Or more succinctly,

"Landowners adjacent to the highway accept the inevitable risk of damage donw by animals lawfully using the highway provided there has been no negligence" -- 'Liability for Injuries caused by Animals'. McMahon, B., Binchy, W. (2013). Law of Torts. London: Bloomsbury Professional. [27.45].

See also: Devaston v. Payne Vol. 2, Smith's Leading Cases 160; Halsbury Vol. I p. 377, paragraph 822.

I wish people who move into the countryside would make themselves aware of their own responsibilities, instead of bleating on about what they think they're owed by people who have lived in that place and carried on business there for generations. If a farmer is using the public road to drive cattle, and has been doing so for a very long time, then it is you who is responsible for maintaining your own fences surrounding your house.

The farmer may be held responsible if his animals stray from lands, or if he deliberately drives them up your avenue. But if you tear out a hedge, or leave your gates open, or don't maintain a barrier which cattle can easily break-through, then nobody is to blame but yourself. Maybe you should go back to the town.

As for what constitutes an 'odious garden', I might invoke Potter Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court, "I know it when I see it".

How would interpet the following;


Cattle Trespass
If cattle stray into another person's land the cattle owner will be liable for any damage caused.
However, if cattle cause damage while they are being driven on the public road, the owner will only be liable for the damage caused if they are in some way negligent in the course of driving the cattle.
Negligence in this case might be something like driving too many cattle at once or failing to have adequate help present to control the animals.

This rule also applies to horses, sheep, goats, pigs, asses, domestic fowl and apparently even domestic deer.


Failure to have enough help would mean not having enough people to stand in gaps ,gates etc.
Love to see someone try to weasel out of a claim for damages by telling the judge that they had a "right" to move cattle or sheep on the road regardless of other peoples property.
Know we are a long way from dog attacks here but this sort of sh1te really annoys me and really does a disservice to the vast majority of farmers who are prepared to either insure their stock or be a man(or woman) and not run away.
If my sheep or cattle damaged a neighbours garden by running through their open gate whilst I was moving them then I would hold my hand up and do what has to be done.Anything less would be a pretty selfish thing to do.

Kovu

paddysdream wrote: »

How would interpet the following;


Cattle Trespass
If cattle stray into another person's land the cattle owner will be liable for any damage caused.
However, if cattle cause damage while they are being driven on the public road, the owner will only be liable for the damage caused if they are in some way negligent in the course of driving the cattle.
Negligence in this case might be something like driving too many cattle at once or failing to have adequate help present to control the animals.

This rule also applies to horses, sheep, goats, pigs, asses, domestic fowl and apparently even domestic deer.


Failure to have enough help would mean not having enough people to stand in gaps ,gates etc.
Love to see someone try to weasel out of a claim for damages by telling the judge that they had a "right" to move cattle or sheep on the road regardless of other peoples property.
Know we are a long way from dog attacks here but this sort of sh1te really annoys me and really does a disservice to the vast majority of farmers who are prepared to either insure their stock or be a man(or woman) and not run away.
If my sheep or cattle damaged a neighbours garden by running through their open gate whilst I was moving them then I would hold my hand up and do what has to be done.Anything less would be a pretty selfish thing to do.

This. Exactly this. The law may have a couple of silly loopholes but I wouldn't be able to face any neighbour here again if I used it to get out of paying for something I was the secondary cause of.
Eodem cubito, eadem trutina, pari libra. :pac:

paddysdream

Getting late and have enough to do without following a pointless arguement to a conclusion but just to say I read through the link you so kindly provided and I imagine you didn't as the article would support what I said and not your point of view.

Selective quoting is grand but reading the article in full,which I did,it would seem that negligence would occur if you allowed cattle to go through an unfenced gateway whilst moving them by road.Also did you see the bit where the case law supports cattle being fenced in and not the land owner having to fence to exclude livestock?

Anyway's toodle pip from me and remember barroom lawyers are called that because the important bit is the bar and not the lawyer bit.

paddysdream

paddysdream wrote: »

Failure to have enough help would mean not having enough people to stand in gaps ,gates etc.

Under some circumstances, absolutely, but I suspect your 'et cetera' is being overly generous.

A farmer would be negligent, in my view, if he simply ignored gaps and road junctions, failed to give warnings, and so on.

But what about a householder's flimsy fencing (almost an invitation to boisterous, fresh cattle)? Or a refusal of the householder to heed a warning that cattle will soon be coming? An idiotic decision to remove a hedge or a fence?

I'm afraid such idiocy is the sole responsibility of the householder, and that's what I've been referring to. I never suggested that we can drive our cattle from Borrisokane to Bantry like wild Celts.

You cannot, nevertheless, escape the fact that a householder living adjacent to a highway where cattle are driven is assumed to take-on the risk of damage, and should take steps to avoid damage from his neighbour's cattle, e.g. constructing an adequate fence, stand in a gap where he is warned, or close his gates, etc.

The blow-in whose ugly garden our cattle wrecked (or improved?) represented the ne-plus-ultra of inadequacy, having merely stretched a slackened line of horse-tape across his fat garden, with no electric current. He might as well have protected himself with the elastic of his wife's Y-fronts, or a sign saying 'keep off the grass', for all it means to a herd of marauding bullocks.

Love to see someone try to weasel out of a claim for damages by telling the judge that they had a "right" to move cattle or sheep on the road regardless of other peoples property.

It's a pity, then, you didn't read the case law whose citation I referenced, about an animal which went into a building adjoint a highway where it was lawfully being driven. You might not find it so incredible, in that case (the Court agreed that these obligations extend to householders).

Farmers have a right to drive our cattle on the highway and although it's a qualified right, just like everybody else's right to use the highway, it's no less, important than that of anybody else, and those who live adjoining the route must not be ignorant of their own obligations. Especially if they are new to the area. A of people who have moved to rural Ireland seem to think they have no obligations.

Bottom line : respect the community you live in, and be mindful of those around you. This applies to non farmers as much as to farmers. If anyone objects to their obligations towards neighbours, maybe they'd be better off moving back to the town, where they can scrap about invasive hedges and their neighbours' tedious extensions to their hearts' content.

Back on topic, lock up your dogs while you're at it, so nobody wastes a cartridge and dozens of sheep on such stupid behaviour.

borderlinemeath

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The blow-in whose ugly garden our cattle wrecked (or improved?) represented the ne-plus-ultra of inadequacy, having merely stretched a slackened line of horse-tape across his fat garden, with no electric current. He might as well have protected himself with the elastic of his wife's Y-fronts, or a sign saying 'keep off the grass', for all it means to a herd of marauding bullocks.

You sound like an absolute git of a neighbouring farmer, the fella that thinks hes The Bull McCabe and resents the "blow ins". You talk about community in your post when it sounds like you just want to ostracise your new neighbours against locals.

Discodog

borderlinemeath wrote: »

You sound like an absolute git of a neighbouring farmer, the fella that thinks hes The Bull McCabe and resents the "blow ins". You talk about community in your post when it sounds like you just want to ostracise your new neighbours against locals.

I agree. It's farmers like this who give farming a bad name.

denismc

Look like the work of Is-lamb-ic fundamentalists.
ISIS are in Kerry now.
We're doomed