what to do???

sniperman

hi all,i have shooting permissions on a few farms that have sheep on them,in light of recent dog attacks around the country,i was asked by two farmers to dispatch any dog seen worrying their sheep,well at the risk of losing the permissions, i said sure,now im a dog man,hunt and shoot with them,i love dogs,and personally would not like to pull on one,but if i saw one attacking a sheep,well what would you do?,id like to know where do i stand law wise,if im on my permission and see such an attack,do i shoot or not?could i be prosecuted for shooting someones pet dog that i see attacking sheep on my permission?i hope that situation never arises,but if it does,i dont want to loose my permissions either,advice needed,thanks,

Nekarsulm

If the dog is actually attacking, then you apply the 3S's.
Shoot
Shovel
Shut up.

If its some lost beagle sniffing about a hedge, obviously not.

blackpearl

Control of dogs act 1986,section 23 i think reading this should help you.

Crow Pigeon and Pheasant

Yeah I've a dog aswell know where you're coming from but if it's attacking the sheep the person who owns the dog if found would be liable to pay the farmer! Hope it doesn't happen! Always sad to sheep maulded by dogs or killed!

Birdnuts

The law entitles you to shoot any dog that is caught in the act of attacking livestock - so from that side the OP is covered

Tommyaya4

Lad your shooting a dog that is about to kill the property of the landowner who lets you hunt without these landowners we wouldn't be able to hunt. I love my dogs and get no pleasure from shooting strays worrying sheep it's just what has to be done as lads said shoot shovel and shut up.

barnaman

You can shoot any dog that is worrying or about to worry any livestock and worry does not just mean attacking. You can quite legally shot a dog in a field of livestock if you think it is about to chase the livestock.

Control of Dogs Act 1986
"“worry” in relation to livestock, means to attack or kill or to chase livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause the death of or injury or suffering to the livestock or to result in financial loss to the owner of the livestock."

s.23.—(1) It shall be a defence to any action for damages against a person for the shooting of a dog, or to any charge arising out of the shooting of a dog, if the defendant proves that—

(a) the dog was shot when it was worrying, or was about to worry, livestock and that there were no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying;

If you shot a dog as farmer I would say inform the guards and dog warden had losses before where ewes etc abort even though no physical damage through the stress of stray dogs running around them.

useurowname

I'd leave well alone, leave it up to the farmer

riffmongous

barnaman wrote: »

You can shoot any dog that is worrying or about to worry any livestock and worry does not just mean attacking. You can quite legally shot a dog in a field of livestock if you think it is about to chase the livestock.

Control of Dogs Act 1986
"“worry” in relation to livestock, means to attack or kill or to chase livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause the death of or injury or suffering to the livestock or to result in financial loss to the owner of the livestock."

s.23.—(1) It shall be a defence to any action for damages against a person for the shooting of a dog, or to any charge arising out of the shooting of a dog, if the defendant proves that—

(a) the dog was shot when it was worrying, or was about to worry, livestock and that there were no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying;

If you shot a dog as farmer I would say inform the guards and dog warden had losses before where ewes etc abort even though no physical damage through the stress of stray dogs running around them.

How does that part work? Has anyone ever used it before to get damages? Fair enough for a farmer to do it but the OP needs to take care.

123shooter

As far as I know. Since last summer all dogs are supposed to be chipped and registered with a cert as to who is the owner. So would this mean there is no such thing as a stray dog just a mishap or illegal act by an owner or careless owner?

So this/these dogs are somebodies pets/dogs either dumped/discarded by owners who never had chipped or registered?

A lost dog/dogs/family members who have not yet been returned to owners?

Damage done by somebodies dog is the fault of the owner not the dog and the owner should pay and in the event of a lost pet/family member, they would probably prefer to pay than have their pet shot or shot and buried.

Would a dead dog be enough proof that it had attacked livestock or an attempt to capture it live had taken place? (no other reasonable means). To try and get compo off owner for lost livestock.

Could you be sued by the owner?

"Shoot shovel and shut up" as someone suggested isnt going to reimbuse the farmer is it? Is that legal?

Would doing so play on your mind if you are a dog lover/owner?

It's a minefield and if you don't have to go in to the minefield then why go?

yubabill1

A guy I know very well had several incidents of dog attacks with significant losses.

Some of the dogs he shot, some he took home and kept as pets, he's not into shooting them if it can be helped but he's adamant that I shoot any dogs worrying his stock if I see them.

I don't enjoy shooting dogs either, but I would not hesitate if I was on his land due to the nature of his request.

I imagine he would be pretty upset if I didn't protect his stock, but if it was just a dog mooching around and not worrying the stock I wouldn't get involved.

barnaman

No one wants to shot dogs but its how it ends up. In scenario the dog's owner has committed a crime by having his dog out of control. Thats why ring the guards and dog warden let them prosecute him. The UK Parliment define worrying under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 s.(2)For the purposes of this Act worrying livestock means—(a)attacking livestock, or (b)chasing livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering to the livestock or, in the case of females, abortion, or loss of or diminution in their produce.or (c) being at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep

Reasonable for an Irish farmer to adopt the same interpretation and they do.
Had losses before where allowed dog off and the guy swore that it was not his dog even though I knew it was, the dog was the only one of his type in the Parish; he said must have been some one elses for FFS!! Learnt my lesson that day.

http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/26-lambs-and-14-ewes-killed-in-dog-attack-in-kerry/

You see there how dogs can kill sheep without even touching them

barnaman

http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/dog-that-killed-over-50-sheep-in-wexford-shot-dead/

He also said that the events over the past number of weeks are going to have consequences further down the line, with some sheep reportedly being unfit for human consumption due to the tainting of their meat, caused by stress.

Again its not just about the dogs attacking sheep that causes loss to a farmer

ligertigon

You could always shoot the dog with a camera!

shot dog and dead/worried sheep = tough for both animals.

Dog alive and identity possible = possible financial reimbursement to farmer for loss.

People might be more likely to pay compo if the dog is still alive and has reasonable owners.

barnaman

ligertigon wrote: »

You could always shoot the dog with a camera!

shot dog and dead/worried sheep = tough for both animals.

Dog alive and identity possible = possible financial reimbursement to farmer for loss.

People might be more likely to pay compo if the dog is still alive and has reasonable owners.

From personal experience dog alive and not caught = sorry not my fault jog on
Dog at sheep/cattle = dead dog either shot or destroyed under the Act

1986 Act s.22(5) Where a dog is proved to have caused damage in an attack on any person, or to have injured livestock, it may be dealt with under this section as a dangerous dog which has not been kept under proper control.

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/pagescurrent/2E6746AF36F39FDD8025763C005364E5

Just a formality to get that signed and dog destroyed

Gov needs to inspect dog licences and microchips more often or at all.

Base price

If you scroll down to the end of the link you will see there are 4 points under section 23 of the Act where it is lawful to shoot a dog. One of the points is that the person (shooter) is "in charge" of the livestock.
On that point alone I would be cautious as technically OP is not "in charge".
http://www.farmersjournal.ie/legal-queries-dog-owners-responsibility-to-prevent-livestock-worrying-156043
Having said that I have shoot dogs (on two occasions in the past) that were worrying a relatives flock.

BattleCorp

Base price wrote: »

If you scroll down to the end of the link you will see there are 4 points under section 23 of the Act where it is lawful to shoot a dog. One of the points is that the person (shooter) is "in charge" of the livestock.
On that point alone I would be cautious as technically OP is not "in charge".
http://www.farmersjournal.ie/legal-queries-dog-owners-responsibility-to-prevent-livestock-worrying-156043
Having said that I have shoot dogs (on two occasions in the past) that were worrying a relatives flock.

I think the livestock owner giving them permission/instruction to shoot any dogs worrying the sheep would imply that the shooter has some sort of 'charge' over the livestock as he is acting under the instruction of the person 'in charge'.

Surely the farmer would be able to designate someone to shoot dogs that are worrying his flock?

Base price

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think the livestock owner giving them permission/instruction to shoot any dogs worrying the sheep would imply that the shooter has some sort of 'charge' over the livestock as he is acting under the instruction of the person 'in charge'.

Surely the farmer would be able to designate someone to shoot dogs that are worrying his flock?

I would assume so and not every farmers has a gun.

123shooter

I would want it in writing. Like I said earlier it could be a minefield. Why go there.

barnaman

123shooter wrote: »

I would want it in writing. Like I said earlier it could be a minefield. Why go there.

Maybe but any farmer I know who gives permission would expect a lad hunting his land to control vermin and protect livestock. If not no farmer will grant permission; why would he?

Law is very clear that it is the dog owner at fault no-one else.

123shooter

I understand what you are saying but If somebody you knew wanted or asked you to do something for them and you found out you could end up in a tricky situation you would most likely say ...........no do it yourself.

Perhaps the law should be clearer?......Dunno.

sniperman

thanks all for your posts.