Legality of Shooting dog worrying sheep.

Tikka391

outinthefields wrote: »

Called into see one of my regular permission owners last August 12 months ago, have known the man over 25 years and I drop by every 2 or 3 weeks for a chat and on the scout for a fox or 2. He said he saw 2 cubs hanging around his middle paddock that morning and as he was heading down that way to look in on his sheep he'd show me where they ran off to. I grabbed my 2 ranging markers and my 12 gauge ( there's usually a few rabbits or a grey crow around) and off we went. Just as we neared the end of the path to the paddock a lurcher came barrelling out of the ditch about 20 feet in front of us and headed towards the sheep. My Farmer said shoot that dog, I was just sliding off the safety when we heard a shout behind us "What do you think your f***ing doing that's my dog". We turned around and there's this skinny teenager climbing over the ditch. My friend say's call that dog back here now, (I'm unloading the gun at this stage) the kid says if you kill my dog I'll call the Guards. My friend says call em and we will all go back up to the road and wait. The little idiot pulls out his phone and rings the barracks and reports 2 men threathining to shoot his dog 5 miles out of town, no he dos'ent know the farmers name but there's a GAA flag on the wall beside the farmers gateway, my friend says tell them its *****s farm they will know where to come, He hangs up the phone and says they'll be here in a few mins. So we all turn around and walk back the 1/2 mile or so to the farmyard and about 2 mins later the squad car pulls in. " Guards get out and 1 of them happens to be the local FO, he look at us and asks the story. The young lad tells the Guard all about the big bad men going to shoot his dog as he was out lookin for a few rabbits and doing no harm to anyone. The Guard then looks to us and after greeting both of us by our names asks if what the lad said was true. We agreed yes it was very true and that if the lad had not put me off I would have killed the dog. The Guard smiles and asks did we know who owned the land. The kid said no, and I said my friend here owns all the land within 1 mile of this yard (The kid's face go's white at this stage). My friend says ahh sure you you know that anyways don't ya shoot the odd phesant over it every year, this young fellow has been caught tresspassing over my land and also letting his dog run unleashed over fields with over 1500 sheep and I have every right to put it down. So the Guard takes my friend to one side ant the other Guard asks if I know the kid, I said I knew his father and If he wanted I would take the lad and his dog home. The Guards and my friend agreed to that as they had agreed not to press charges on the lad if he and his dog stayed away from the area in future. Needless to say the kid's dad was not impressed with his son taking His dog out without permission and unto lands he did not have permission to be on.

Very sorry to hijack the thread but this is a good chance to answer a question i have not been sure about for years. Not that I am intending going out shooting dogs left right and centre but what is the exact legalities of shooting a dog, there have been two occasions in the past when two farmers have asked me to shoot dogs that were on their lands at nite,one sheep farmer and one lad who rears rare pigs. On both occasions I made my excuses and said I was not available , I was just not sure of how legal it was to shoot a trespassing dog on the Word of a farmer.

So if a farmer says there is a dog chasing sheep or something is it ok for me to just shoot it there and then. If dog owner went to guards or even court is it me or the farmer he takes.
Many thanks.

Cass

You can shoot the dog, but only as a last resort. You can try trapping the dog and informing the owner that his/her dog is causing harm. If they deny ownership of the dog, and you know its their dog, then you are one step closer to being in the clear.

Now when it comes to the shooting of a dog you can only do so uner the conditions that the owner has been given fair opportunity to control the dog, the local dog warden has been informed and done nothing or failed to catch the dog, and lastly that you yourself have failed to catch the dog.


If the dog is shot then you have a few things you need to do/know.

• Firstly, make sure you have permission to be on the land from the land owner or a member of his/her family. Writing is best so he cannot deny it later and leave you hanging.
• Inform the Gardai within 48 hours that the dog has been shot on these lands, and not elsewhere that you DO NOT have permission for.
• Make sure the livestock is lawfully on the land. In other words that its the farmer's livestock and should be there. You cannot shoot a dog for worrying livestock that shouldn't/has no right to be on those lands.
• Lastly, and probably that the dog was infact worrying livestock. You cannot shoot an animal that was simply "passing through". To that end have photographic evidence of damage/injury to any livestock. The more you have the better.

All of this is in accordance with the 1960 Dogs(Protection of Livestock) Act, and in keeping with the 1986 & 1992 Control of dogs act. By complying with the steps above, AL OF THEM, and informing owners, Gardai, etc prior to any shooting then you are covering both yourself and the landowner should the dog owner "suddenly" remember that the dog is theirs and try and claim/sue either of ye for damages.

idnkph

But if the dog is actually harming livestock. Is in the act of killing livestock..... are you allowed to shoot them then?

Tikka391

Many thanks Cass,
You hear of lad saying, hey come up here and shoot this fcuking dog or whatever and I always thought it can't be as simple as that.

Cass

idnkph wrote: »

But if the dog is actually harming livestock. Is in the act of killing livestock..... are you allowed to shoot them then?

Yes.

The above applies more so to when you wake to find livestock harmed or killed and have suspicions about a dog. IOW you cannot shoot a dog crossing your land for what he might do or without proof it was responsible for previous damage.

However an animal caught in the act of doing harm can be shot on the spot. But the above still holds in terms of notifying the Gardaí, etc.

Tikka391 wrote: »

Many thanks Cass,
You hear of lad saying, hey come up here and shoot this fcuking dog or whatever and I always thought it can't be as simple as that.

Nothing ever is when it comes to Irish law, but it's why i'm so careful and not just for dogs. I cannot count the amount of time i've been asked to shoot feral Goats. Well it's feral to one lad, but when they're shot all of a sudden it's a beloved family pet and you find yourself in the sh*t.

IOW when animals do damage no one owns them. When they're shot all of a sudden they are owned and someone wants money for it. It's a fine line so make sure at all times to CYA (Cover Your Ass).

SakoHunter75

The last few posts about dogs have been really helpful. I've often wondered what I'd do if a neighbour asked me to shoot a dog that was bothering his sheep, a scenario that may well arise at some point. Definitely a tricky one, as it would go down very, very, badly to make up excuses not to help out, but at the same time there's definitely a serious risk of bringing down a real s***storm there. So it's great to get some guidance on this, which seems to be: only shoot if the dog is actually in the act of attacking livestock, otherwise err on the side of caution.

ezra_

Not being a pedantic pete here, but Cass is almost correct.

The actions that Cass describes do not grant a right to dispatch a dog, but rather, if followed, grant a defence against prosecution for your actions. So if you are sighting down on a dog, remember at no stage do you have a right to shoot it (rights are strongly defensible and can be vindicated even if you don't follow the letter of the law), but you may be entitled to a defence.

Also, Cass' post outlines the defence against the statute that specifically relates to the worrying of livestock (something something [protection of livestock] Act, 19XX). Should you shoot the dog and cause it unnecessary suffering you can still be done for Animal cruelty and other sundry acts.

ezra_

Not being a pedantic pete here, but Cass is almost correct.

The actions that Cass describes do not grant a right to dispatch a dog, but rather, if followed, grant a defence against prosecution for your actions. So if you are sighting down on a dog, remember at no stage do you have a right to shoot it (rights are strongly defensible and can be vindicated even if you don't follow the letter of the law), but you may be entitled to a defence.

Also, Cass' post outlines the defence against the statute that specifically relates to the worrying of livestock (something something [protection of livestock] Act, 19XX). Should you shoot the dog and cause it unnecessary suffering you can still be done for Animal cruelty or similar offences listed under other sundry acts.

Cass

Yeah, not being pedantic but ya said it twice.

Only kidding. You're right though. What i said above, as the law lays out, is a defense if you find yourself in the position to have to shoot a dog. It does not give you a right to shoot one. IOW it does not mean you can shoot any dog at will, but i think i mentioned that in one of my posts above.

ganmo

There is no definition of 'Worrying Livestock' most farmers take it to mean a dog in the same field as stock.

one of the conditions of shooting on our ground is that you shoot any dogs in the fields with sheep. And if I rang one to shoot a dog that was at the sheep and they refused. They'd be out on their ear as far as hunting goes!

SakoHunter75

ganmo wrote: »

There is no definition of 'Worrying Livestock' most farmers take it to mean a dog in the same field as stock.

one of the conditions of shooting on our ground is that you shoot any dogs in the fields with sheep. And if I rang one to shoot a dog that was at the sheep and they refused. They'd be out on their ear as far as hunting goes!

Don't you think it's a bit unfair to expect someone to shoot any dog that happens to wander onto your land, regardless of the circumstances or possible consequences for him, 'or else'?

endacl

SakoHunter75 wrote: »

Don't you think it's a bit unfair to expect someone to shoot any dog that happens to wander onto your land, regardless of the circumstances or possible consequences for him, 'or else'?

Have you seen the damage a dog can do to livestock?

It's the dog owners responsibility to keep the dog from getting itself into a position where they cease to be a pet and become a potential menace.

A dog among livestock is unfortunate fair game.

SakoHunter75

endacl wrote: »

Have you seen the damage a dog can do to livestock?

It's the dog owners responsibility to keep the dog from getting itself into a position where they cease to be a pet and become a potential menace.

A dog among livestock is unfortunate fair game.

That may all be perfectly true, but it won't be the farmer who's up in court trying to justify his actions to the judge.

ganmo

SakoHunter75 wrote: »

Don't you think it's a bit unfair to expect someone to shoot any dog that happens to wander onto your land, regardless of the circumstances or possible consequences for him, 'or else'?

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

Taken from the reverent act. Where is the possibility for consequences? The act is 30 years old and I've never heard of anyone charged with shooting a dog that was in a farmers field

ezra_

ganmo wrote: »

There is no definition of 'Worrying Livestock' most farmers take it to mean a dog in the same field as stock.

one of the conditions of shooting on our ground is that you shoot any dogs in the fields with sheep. And if I rang one to shoot a dog that was at the sheep and they refused. They'd be out on their ear as far as hunting goes!

If this is 'well known' that dogs must be shot on sight by your gun club members when they are in fields with livestock, and you subsequently shoot a dog that is in a field with livestock, you might find it hard to rely on that defence as you'll need to demonstrate that you tried "other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying" before you shot it.

A 'shoot on sight' order might well invalidate that.

Cass

ganmo wrote: »

One of the conditions of shooting on our ground is that you shoot any dogs in the fields with sheep. And if I rang one to shoot a dog that was at the sheep and they refused. They'd be out on their ear as far as hunting goes!

Without cause you're breaking the law. To force people to do this means putting them and their license at risk of prosecution.

endacl wrote: »

Have you seen the damage a dog can do to livestock?

I have, yes. Cannot speak for others.

It's the dog owners responsibility to keep the dog from getting itself into a position where they cease to be a pet and become a potential menace.

And it is the person with the firearm's responsibility to distinguish between potential threat/threat to just a dog in a field.

A dog among livestock is unfortunate fair game.

Wrong attitude.

ganmo wrote: »

Taken from the reverent act. Where is the possibility for consequences?

Causing harm or about to cause harm (worrying). If it's doing neither there is your possibility for consequences. Also if you fail to follow the guidelines set out in the act you're also in breech of the law.

The act is 30 years old and I've never heard of anyone charged with shooting a dog that was in a farmers field

How many people have you seen cause serious harm to animals, purposely, and escape from the judicial system with a pittance of a fine and a slap on the wrist.

Animal right laws in the country exist, but their enforcement is laughable. Too few inspectors, difficulty proving intent, small fines which are easily covered by the monies raised from the person's ill gotten gains, and a lack of interest generally in prosecuting such crimes.

This is a sensitive subject and frankly, from my own point of view, the attitude you are expressing and by your own admittance passing on to your shooting friends is scary.

Your "shoot on site" rule is illegal, knee jerk and has the potential to cause further legal problems for those that follow it (whether forced or not). Notice i say those that follow and not you because it's the guy with the gun that'll suffer.

Lastly, and again on a personal level, if i was instructed to do that by any land owner (shoot on site) i'd tell ya to stick youtr permissions up your . ........................ well you get the point. I have no issue if a dog is causing problems or damage, but this wanton shooting is not something i, and i hope plenty of others, would condone.

SakoHunter75

ganmo wrote: »

Taken from the reverent act. Where is the possibility for consequences? The act is 30 years old and I've never heard of anyone charged with shooting a dog that was in a farmers field

Me neither, although I do know a guy who was given a black eye by a dog owner after he shot a dog who was bothering his (the shooter's) own sheep. People get very upset when their pets get shot, whatever the rights or wrongs of it.

ganmo

ezra_ wrote: »

If this is 'well known' that dogs must be shot on sight by your gun club members when they are in fields with livestock, and you subsequently shoot a dog that is in a field with livestock, you might find it hard to rely on that defence as you'll need to demonstrate that you tried "other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying" before you shot it.

A 'shoot on sight' order might well invalidate that.

No gun club here.

If you can outstrip a dog, then by all means catch the dogs and call the guards

Cass

This thread is split off from the original thread where the topic cropped up in.

I'm closing this thread and asking the other mods to review it. Telling or demanding people shoot all dogs on site has the potential to be illegal, and if nothing else is ill advised.

As i participated in the thread and discussion i won't be the one to say whether it should remain closed. I'll let the other mods make the decision on that.

Sparks

Cass and ezra laid out what the law actually says quite clearly. If your local gun club takes the attitude that that's all a load of guff and you can shoot whatever you want whenever you want, then it's quite likely that there's a pretty unpleasant day in your collective futures when the inevitable happens and someone shoots a barrister's favorite dog.

The law is there because a farmer shouldn't lose his livelihood because someone didn't keep their dog on a leash; but the laws that govern this sort of thing here have this habit of having a very sharp dividing line between you taking actions necessary to defend life or property; and you taking actions you deem necessary to prevent some future threat to life or property from arising. And they don't really support the latter.

Best to err on the side of caution (unless of course you just won the euromillions, haven't a clue what to do with the money and want to give loads of it to a legal team and a court).