Dogs attacking livestock

Whispered

What is the legislation regarding dogs attacking other animals (sheep, pigs, etc.) and are all of these animals put down or are there special circumstances in which they will not be?

Thank you.

coylemj

Not 100% sure of the current situation but a farmer used to be within his rights to shoot dogs who were worrying sheep provided he notified the Gardai within a reasonable time afterwards.

Whispered

Thank you.

Say hypothetically the farmer didn't shoot the dogs, but afterwards wants them destroyed.

slimjimmc

There's a very recent thread over in the Hunting forum with links to 2 pieces of legislation.

Apparently these laws allow a farmer to shoot on sight if a dog is in the act of worrying livestock, but interestingly there's no mention of any right to have a dog destroyed at a later time based on a suspicion or even if he witnessed it.

FreudianSlippers

So, for example if a dog attacked and/or killed a sheep the owner would be liable for damages... but the sheep owner couldn't demand that the dog be put down?

MagicSean

The dog warden can bring the owner to court and a judge can order the dog be destroyed.

Whispered

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So, for example if a dog attacked and/or killed a sheep the owner would be liable for damages... but the sheep owner couldn't demand that the dog be put down?

This is it exactly. If damages are paid and steps taken to prevent it happening again. Is the farmer still within his rights to demand the destruction of the dog?

If it does go to court, and the owner shows that he or she has taken the above steps would it still be likely that a judge will rule for the dog to be destroyed?

Whispered

No I don't. I don't own livestock. Anything less than vague is asking legal advice which I cannot do.

My main question is; If damages are paid and steps taken to prevent it happening again. Is the farmer still within his rights to demand the destruction of the dog? I don't think that's too vague.

EDIT: This post was in response to a question asked, and later deleted, and not because I'm really impatient

FISMA

Oops, now I get it, sorry for the confusion, post deleted.

I think you would get better answers if you were to ask this in the shooting forum.

You will probably take some heat, but it will be well worth it.

Concisely: I do not know.

However, it would seem to me that the farmer wants to renegotiate the settlement that you made. If you paid the farmer for the damage and this was accepted, then I would say the case is closed.

If the amount was considerable, I would inform that if the farmer wants to renogotiate the deal, then the first step would be to refund the money.

But don't take it!:)

MagicSean

The farmer can't demand the destruction of the dog under any circumstance. It is up to a judge to make this decision based on all facts available to him. Generally the local authority or dog warden make the application to a court. I'm not sure if a private individual can but the legislation does appear to allow that possibility.

If sufficient steps have been taken to ensure an incident cannot occur again then there is no motive for requesting the animals destruction other than vengeance and courts aren't there to dispense that.

FISMA

k_mac wrote: »

The farmer can't demand the destruction of the dog under any circumstance. It is up to a judge to make this decision based on all facts available to him. Generally the local authority or dog warden make the application to a court. I'm not sure if a private individual can but the legislation does appear to allow that possibility.

If sufficient steps have been taken to ensure an incident cannot occur again then there is no motive for requesting the animals destruction other than vengeance and courts aren't there to dispense that.

I think it is the possibility that the farmer could even request such an action that is weighing on the OP's mind and keeping them up at this insane hour.

If the farmer had caught the dog, I believe he could have requested, asked, demanded, whatevered, the destruction of the dog. Surely, if the farmer could shoot the dog, he could trap it and request that it be put down.

However, this is an out of court settlement, in my humble opinion. Once payment was accepted - case closed.

Whispered

Just to clarify - the dog is not mine. My dogs are indoors all the time. Although I'm sure it can happen to anyone if the dog gets it into their head that they want to escape.

FISMA - the farmer has refused all offers of payment so is not going back on an earlier deal. I don't know why, nor do I have any further details beyond 2 guards showing up at owners door to demand the dog is pts. One of them told the owner that they can enter her home, take the dog and have it destroyed. Which I'm sure is not true. I don't even know how the farmer is so sure that he has the right dogs. But the owner has admitted it. Do you still think I would get helpful advice in shooting?

I feel very sorry for the owner, she made a mistake and of course should pay for it, it's the mans livlihood. But she has tried everything. Run is built, damages offered, but it seems the farmer is not budging. So I suppose I just want to know if this is his right.

K_Mac the last line of your post is very true. I guess the best thing I can do is advise the owner to take legal advice from a solicitor. Anything I say will be guesswork.

Is there a particular *type* of solicitor who deals with this sort of thing?

EDIT: I just noticed I did say "damages paid" I should have said offered. Apologies. FISMA I'm up as I'm working a night shift

MagicSean

They can enter and seize a dog for the purpose of establishing wether an offence has been committed. As the owner does not deny the offence was committed they have no reason to seize it. Only a judge can order it's destruction though.

seamus

And just to add to k_mac's very helpful information, this is the circumstances under which a dog can be legally deemed a "dangerous dog". Only dangerous dogs can be subject to a destruction order from the courts, and an application can only be made to declare a dog as "dangerous" if the dog has caused damage to property or injury to persons.

A common tactic by the wardens in these cases is to seize the dog and give the owner a document to sign (as you would expect to have to do if your property is being seized). This document legally signs the dog over to the warden. By the time the owner has realised what they have done, the warden has put the dog to sleep and there's no comeback.

The Gardai and the warden simply want an end to this as quickly and easily as possible, hence why they're effectively telling your friend to stop resisting. If the two Gardai who showed up at her door really did have the power to seize and destroy the dog, they would have done it rather than talk about it.

Regardless of what happens or what pressure may be put on your friend, remember to tell her not to sign anything without legal advice.

Really only the warden can make an application before the court to have the dog declared as "dangerous", so if she goes down and discusses the situation with him in person, he might agree to not pursue it further on the understanding that if anything like this happens again, she will voluntarily have the dog PTS. He doesn't want to have to go to court either.

I would also suggest that she doesn't leave the dog outside unattended. Farmers can be an odd bunch and he might get browned off and decide to pay a visit to the dog in the dead of night.

Surely, if the farmer could shoot the dog, he could trap it and request that it be put down.

No, the farmer can act to protect his property, including shooting the dog, but if the property has already been damaged/destroyed or the dog has been caught (and is therefore no longer a threat to his property), then he has no right to act and kill the dog himself.

Whispered

seamus wrote: »

Regardless of what happens or what pressure may be put on your friend, remember to tell her not to sign anything without legal advice.

Thanks.

How does one go about employing the services of a solicitor? Can she just ring someone in the locality ,make an appointment and take it from there? Wouldn't most solicitors think it's a silly cause and not really be bothered?

R P McMurphy

Whispered wrote: »

Thanks.

How does one go about employing the services of a solicitor? Can she just ring someone in the locality ,make an appointment and take it from there? Wouldn't most solicitors think it's a silly cause and not really be bothered?

A lot of solicitors are not very busy since 2008 so should not be a major issue getting one

FreudianSlippers

I think the general question has been sufficiently answered and this is starting to touch the legal advice rule.