Do you know where your DOG is? [WARNING: CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES]

doubter

kowtow wrote: »

No question that losses from dogs are heart-rending, for most of us having to shoot, or threaten to shoot, a worrying dog is one of the most unpleasant of all the things we have to do from time to time.

But there is a very clear line - and a legal one - between stopping a dog which is in the act of causing damage and shooting or threatening after the act, or as punishment, recompense, retribution etc.

sending messages to the dog owning community, punishing people for their behaviour, and obtaining recompense for losses are all matters for the courts - whether are not we are happy with the outcomes.

As farmers we ask our neighbours to tolerate a great deal in the course of a farming year, and by and large - in this country anyway - they do so in a cheerful way because we are part of an agricultural community.

If we start killing pets and using guns to teach lessons and enforce discipline amongst our neighbours we will have only ourselves to blame when the traditional indulgence towards the farming industry melts and we find our own livelihoods becoming even more precarious.

And I may add to that: The amount of times I have seen sheep or cattle loose on the road (or had a cow stick her head into me *** living room window because the farmer next door did not maintain his cattle grid) all that tolerance would fade away very fast. If the farmers next to me would shoot dogs, I in turn would ignore the sheep or cattle on the road and drive on without making an effort to call them and advise them of their - yet again - loose life stock.Let them clean up their own mess which is bound to happen if someone drives too fast. People in the area's need each other. If ye go about shooting pets or threatening after the fact (not when caught in the act and there really nothing else you can do to avoid more damage) you're going to loose the good will of non farmers. and your life stock with it.

Ave Sodalis

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

To rehoming dogs, I don't agree with it. If a dog attacks stock then either the end of a firearm or the end of a vets needle, there's no middle ground for me. I won't say we, but there was a rehomed dog taken into this house. A doberman type. All was fine until the dog tried to go for a horse and foal and when herself just about managed to hold her back the dog went for her. Bye bye.

Why isn't there a middle ground? I mean you rehomed a dog into a farm environment. If there was an ad stating that a dog is prone to chasing livestock, why would anyone in the countryside, let alone farmers, take it in?

Connemara Farmer

sup_dude wrote: »

Why isn't there a middle ground? I mean you rehomed a dog into a farm environment. If there was an ad stating that a dog is prone to chasing livestock, why would anyone in the countryside, let alone farmers, take it in?

1. I don't live on a farm, not all farmers do.

2. I didn't take the dog in, nor did I agree with the dog coming here.

3. "If", If what exactly? There was no such statement, and I made no such statement.

4. I know of dogs rehomed who had killed stock and the new owners had been told nothing about it.

5. The second shot is the warning shot.

doubter

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I've had a busy day so I haven't read all the posts fully, just glanced over the pages really.



I'm a black and white stubborn kind of a bollix, it either is or it isn't, and dogs attacking stock ISN'T on.

I would agree.Thankfully I am not. Cause otherwise I would have had a lot of dead sheep around me cause they were on the road, and i was in my right to shoot the cow on my property as my horses spooked and one got a sever cut on her leg which is still not healed. Fair trade?

Connemara Farmer

doubter wrote: »

I would agree.Thankfully I am not. Cause otherwise I would have had a lot of dead sheep around me cause they were on the road, and i was in my right to shoot the cow on my property as my horses spooked and one got a sever cut on her leg which is still not healed. Fair trade?

Post the laws to support your argument.

There are laws in this country to allow farmers to shoot dogs worrying stock, which the Gardaí fully support.

Fair nonsense.

Ave Sodalis

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

1. I don't live on a farm, not all farmers do.

2. I didn't take the dog in, nor did I agree with the dog coming here.

3. "If", If what exactly? There was no such statement, and I made no such statement.

4. I know of dogs rehomed who had killed stock and the new owners had been told nothing about it.

5. The second shot is the warning shot.

1) You are in a farming environment
2)Fair enough
3) If there was an ad stating... I never said you made a statement?
4)Then there is a problem that needs to be addressed
5)What's the first shot?

Tokyo

For those saying that they're equally justified in harming/ignoring wandering livestock....



Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act, 1960

In an action for damages for the shooting of a dog, it shall be a good defence if the defendant proves—


(a) that the dog was shot when worrying livestock on agricultural land,

(b) that the livestock were lawfully on the land,

(c) that the defendant was—

(i) the occupier of the land, a member of his family or a person employed by him, or
(ii) the owner of the livestock, a member of his family or a person employed by him, and

(d) that the defendant notified the shooting within forty-eight hours to a member of the Garda Síochána at the nearest Garda Síochána station.

doubter

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Post the laws to support your argument.

There are laws in this country to allow farmers to shoot dogs worrying stock, which the Gardaí fully support.

Fair nonsense.

Indeed.And those laws are outdated and need to be reversed.If farmers have the right to shoot pet dogs AFTER the fact, surely I have the right to protect my valuable lifestock?The bill for the horses injury is at over 1,000 euro- and the farmer is being ignorant about it. So excuse me if I have zero tolerance for b****. But the good thing is, I am now going to be very ignorant of his lifestock on the fairly busy main road.he already had 2 cows killed by cars but apparently hasn't learned his lesson.No more warnings from me early in the morning..I'll just chase whats on my field on to the road where they came from..i might even fire a second warning shot.
Again, you were in your right caching that dog in the act.Everything else is taking it too far and it will not buy you any goodwill from people around you.I wouldn't count on their help if anything happens to your lifestock.

greysides

Rangler1 mentioned he 'had a lambing from hell' one year due to one dog. When he returns from the camp-fire maybe he'd care to elaborate on what he meant. However to complete the picture...

The chasing results in dead sheep, injured sheep either from wounds or hurt trying to escape, being euthanised or where appropriate sent for emergency salvage. Often the sheep in question are heavy in-lamb so those that survive are likely to abort their lambs. This may result in a 'clean' abortion, the dead lamb is ejected without help from the shepherd. Often it doesn't. The ewe is not ready to lamb, her time is not up and the body is not prepared as it would normally be. This results in a failure to abort where a dead/premature lamb can't exit as the ewes genital tract doesn't open as normal. The lamb will then start to rot in the ewe as it has now been exposed to bacteria from the exterior and it's previously sterile environment has been breached. Within a day or two the ewe is sick and shortly thereafter dead, from poisoning. When a shepherd intervenes he finds often himself trying to remove a dead, putrefying lamb that is coming apart when traction is applied. This, from a ewe that is not open enough either to allow a hand to go in properly to allow movement within to correct the common displacement of heads and legs, to facilitate extraction. Nearly worse is trying to do the same with a premature lamb which you know will die even if you are successful. This is a disgusting but necessary job to have to do, pulling out dead lambs in little bits trying to save a sick ewe. A sick sheep in such cases is not a candidate for a caesarian on either surgical, humane or financial grounds. Euthanasia again becomes the option. As sheep are kept in flocks it is unlikely this will be a single case. There will be many to deal it at the same time as caring for their wounded flock-mates.
So the loss is not just the immediately obvious dead, dying and injured but the loss of a high proportion of the lambing crop- the means by which the farmer provides for both his family and his flock.

Growing sheep that are heavily traumatised by chasing will fail to thrive afterwards and may even lose weight due to the extreme 'flight or fight' hormones produced. These are then an on-going liability for the owner.

So pictures of dead sheep beside dead dogs are the beginning of the nightmare, not the end.

kowtow

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Post the laws to support your argument.

There are laws in this country to allow farmers to shoot dogs worrying stock, which the Gardaí fully support.

Fair nonsense.

Actually the legal position is that when a dog is destroyed by a farmer - just as if a neighbours cow had been destroyed - the basic presumption is that the farmer is liable in damages to the owner of the dog regardless of the fact that it was on 'his' land.

The law you refer sets out a limited defence for a farmer in these circumstances - specifically that if the farmer is able to prove that (a) the land and livestock are the his and (b) the dog is shot while actually worrying the livestock and (c) the gardai are notified within 48 hours, he won't be liable in damages.

It isn't a right to shoot dogs, and certainly not after the event.

DBB

_Brian wrote: »

I see a zero tolerance as the only way forward and talk of re-homing dogs away from livestock in Ireland is just a bizarre notion, next thing it'll be community service for them - I suppose as sheepdogs:rolleyes:

I think you're being a little bit unfair. I really do understand your frustration, but I do feel a bit of perspective is needed.
Let me tell you my perspective as someone who rehomes dogs, and as I explained in a previous post, I have a dog that became available due to being seen in a neighbouring field of sheep.
To be absolutely honest, and this might not go down too well amongst my rescuing compatriots, it someone asked me to rehome a dog that had killed or severely injured sheep, I would not rehome it. I think that dogs who carry through to physically injuring, or actually killing the animal are too much of a liability even in a city environment: if their prey drive is that high, I'm not prepared to put smaller animals in a city home (cats, other dogs) at risk.
However, if someone gave me their dog that had been found running like an eejit after the sheep, making no attempt to actually catch them but merely enjoyign the chase, then you're dealing with a psychologically different dog: this is a dog who is chasing "just for the hell of it", and with some training would be perfectly safe to rehome (bearing in mind that all half decent rescues neuter all dogs, no breeding allowed!) to a well-vetted, responsible owner in suburbia... bearing in mind that well-vetted, responsible owners do not allow their dogs out at all, unless they're accompanied by their owner... thus addressing concerns that the dog will just find his way back out to the country to chase sheep again. I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but it certainly isn't going to happen on my watch with the dogs I rehome.
Or, as was the case with my own dog who was seen wandering around a field that happened to have sheep in it, this dog is a completely innocent bystander. I have had her mingling in around all forms of livestock and she just runs away from them... morto for her: as it happens, she is kinda doing community service now! She works for the State as a sniffer dog, and has been in hot demand by the hospital pet-visit crowd Peata due to her incredibly gentle appearance and nature.
There are loads of cases like this and the one above, and I think such dogs are perfectly safe to rehome to the sort of people who should only be allowed own dogs in the first place!
I don't know how others who rehome dogs feel about having a sort of scale-of-damage which dictates which dogs they'd rehome, but certainly I would feel deeply uncomfortable about rehoming a dog that had killed any other pet animal or livestock.

greysides

doubter wrote: »

If farmers have the right to shoot pet dogs AFTER the fact..

I don't thing that was what was intended and the section of law quoted above makes it clear that the shooting has to occur during the 'worrying'.

_Brian

doubter wrote: »

And I may add to that: The amount of times I have seen sheep or cattle loose on the road (or had a cow stick her head into me *** living room window because the farmer next door did not maintain his cattle grid) all that tolerance would fade away very fast. If the farmers next to me would shoot dogs, I in turn would ignore the sheep or cattle on the road and drive on without making an effort to call them and advise them of their - yet again - loose life stock.Let them clean up their own mess which is bound to happen if someone drives too fast. People in the area's need each other. If ye go about shooting pets or threatening after the fact (not when caught in the act and there really nothing else you can do to avoid more damage) you're going to loose the good will of non farmers. and your life stock with it.

Two wrongs don't make a right.. just because you live beside a bad farmer doesn't give every dog in the country the green light to worry stock and there be no action taken.

I've seen no farmer here defend stock being on a public road uncontrolled, and definitely not if its an ongoing problem. There are shocking signs of tolerance for dogs chasing livestock, with a catholic church style solution of moving them on to a new area with a clean slate.

doubter

greysides wrote: »

I don't thing that was what was intended and the section of law quoted above makes it clear that the shooting has to occur during the 'worrying'.

Thanks.it hasn't but in the discussion it came forward that that would certainly happen. Thats where my annoyance comes from.I certainly think the farmer involved hadn't any chance of saving his sheep in this specific situation, the dog was large and on a killing spree.Its the rest of the statement that annoys me.

doubter

_Brian wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.. just because you live beside a bad farmer doesn't give every dog in the country the green light to worry stock and there be no action taken.

I've seen no farmer here defend stock being on a public road uncontrolled, and definitely not if its an ongoing problem. There are shocking signs of tolerance for dogs chasing livestock, with a catholic church style solution of moving them on to a new area with a clean slate.

gee.Thats probably because love is a stronger emotion than money

Genghis Cant

doubter wrote: »

.I'll just chase whats on my field on to the road where they came from..i might even fire a second warning shot..

Any idea where you stand legally by chasing another man's lifestock from your land onto a public road, and a busy one at that?

Ave Sodalis

_Brian wrote: »

I've seen no farmer here defend stock being on a public road uncontrolled, and definitely not if its an ongoing problem. There are shocking signs of tolerance for dogs chasing livestock, with a catholic church style solution of moving them on to a new area with a clean slate.

As the person who brought up moving dogs, nowhere did I have tolerance for dogs chasing livestock. Also, as an atheist, I've no idea what you mean by "catholic church style solution" however as already pointed out, the dog should not be going to a rural area that may cause further problems with livestock.

doubter

Genghis Cant wrote: »

Any idea where you stand legally by chasing another man's lifestock from your land onto a public road, and a busy one at that?

They are trespassing on my land. it's his duty to keep them on his. The road is about a mile down from my house.I just chase them on to the lane.Where they go from there is REALLY not my problem.

_Brian

DBB wrote: »

I think you're being a little bit unfair. I really do understand your frustration, but I do feel a bit of perspective is needed.
Let me tell you my perspective as someone who rehomes dogs, and as I explained in a previous post, I have a dog that became available due to being seen in a neighbouring field of sheep.
To be absolutely honest, and this might not go down too well amongst my rescuing compatriots, it someone asked me to rehome a dog that had killed or severely injured sheep, I would not rehome it. I think that dogs who carry through to physically injuring, or actually killing the animal are too much of a liability even in a city environment: if their prey drive is that high, I'm not prepared to put smaller animals in a city home (cats, other dogs) at risk.
However, if someone gave me their dog that had been found running like an eejit after the sheep, making no attempt to actually catch them but merely enjoyign the chase, then you're dealing with a psychologically different dog: this is a dog who is chasing "just for the hell of it", and with some training would be perfectly safe to rehome (bearing in mind that all half decent rescues neuter all dogs, no breeding allowed!) to a well-vetted, responsible owner in suburbia... bearing in mind that well-vetted, responsible owners do not allow their dogs out at all, unless they're accompanied by their owner... thus addressing concerns that the dog will just find his way back out to the country to chase sheep again. I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but it certainly isn't going to happen on my watch with the dogs I rehome.
Or, as was the case with my own dog who was seen wandering around a field that happened to have sheep in it, this dog is a completely innocent bystander. I have had her mingling in around all forms of livestock and she just runs away from them... morto for her: as it happens, she is kinda doing community service now! She works for the State as a sniffer dog, and has been in hot demand by the hospital pet-visit crowd Peata due to her incredibly gentle appearance and nature.
There are loads of cases like this and the one above, and I think such dogs are perfectly safe to rehome to the sort of people who should only be allowed own dogs in the first place!
I don't know how others who rehome dogs feel about having a sort of scale-of-damage which dictates which dogs they'd rehome, but certainly I would feel deeply uncomfortable about rehoming a dog that had killed any other pet animal or livestock.

Chasing sheep causes sheep to abort lambs, maybe not the day of the incident but its a serious problem rather than a bit of harmless fun for a silly dog.
I accept your perspective, but still believe that shooting such animals to be most practical both as preventing it progressing the next time and sending a clear message of zero tolerance..

MayoAreMagic

I don't see rehoming as a good option either. In theory it would work but in practice it wont.

- The dog will most likely be sold to the new owner with no information offered as regards his killing of animals - a regular occurrence.

- He will be brought to the country for walks.

- He will be bred with all of his offspring picking up his habits. Most likely sold to country areas.

Pets aren't supposed to chase livestock. The ones that do should never be bred from and never get near animals it can chase (it isn't just farm animals they can attack, cats are another target and there are plenty of them in urban areas too). Realistically, it is practically impossible to guarantee all these things over the course of the dogs lifetime. for the good of it's breed It should be put down. People need to lose this attitude of not looking beyond trying to find ways to keep a dog alive.

doubter

_Brian wrote: »

Chasing sheep causes sheep to abort lambs, maybe not the day of the incident but its a serious problem rather than a bit of harmless fun for a silly dog.
I accept your perspective, but still believe that shooting such animals to be most practical both as preventing it progressing the next time and sending a clear message of zero tolerance..

so...let me thin and bring something really silly up...say there's a couple of kids , like 14 years of age or so- chasing your sheep for fun...and you've seen them repeatedly..do you shoot them as well? Cause it will cause your ewes the same stress?

OldNotWIse

Terrible stuff Love animals and hate to see them coming to any harm, but when a local farmer shot and killed a dog that was on his land a while ago I understood why he did. (The owners had received plenty of warnings).

_Brian

doubter wrote: »

gee.Thats probably because love is a stronger emotion than money

Really.. go back and look at the three photos again and see how your emotions are. Mauled butchered defenseless animals isn't about money.. You seem very quick to put the love of your dog above the suffering of these poor sheep, and yes there is no shame at all in bringing the financial implications of sheep attacks into the conversation.

Genghis Cant

doubter wrote: »

.I certainly think the farmer involved hadn't any chance of saving his sheep in this specific situation, the dog was large and on a killing spree.

What are you basing this on? Were you there?
How many sheep died? How many lambs?
How many survived?
Any idea what size of flock this man runs?

If he didn't save even one of his own stock, he surely saved his neighbours. If he had the misfortune to miss the dog, that dog would surely kill more unfortunate livestock.

The farmer done what was morally, ethically and legally correct. That was the easy part. Now he has to pick up the pieces.

_Brian

doubter wrote: »

so...let me thin and bring something really silly up...say there's a couple of kids , like 14 years of age or so- chasing your sheep for fun...and you've seen them repeatedly..do you shoot them as well? Cause it will cause your ewes the same stress?

Wow..
So now your equating dogs to children..

As appropriate the law is fully applied. I'd love to see convictions against the children and the parents pay up fully for the financial loss to the farmer.

Same as its the law to shoot the dog and then follow the owner for the money lost.

DBB

_Brian wrote: »

Chasing sheep causes sheep to abort lambs, maybe not the day of the incident but its a serious problem rather than a bit of harmless fun for a silly dog.
I accept your perspective, but still believe that shooting such animals to be most practical both as preventing it progressing the next time and sending a clear message of zero tolerance..

I knew you'd pick me up wrong on this point.
There is a huge difference, behaviourally and psychologically, between a dog that kills sheep, and a dog who chases them without attempting to kill them.
I know the story with abortions and damage after the fact, that's not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that dogs who only chase sheep are a far safer and more rehomable prospect, to the right home, than one who kills.
And just to get things straight, if a farmer catches a dog chasing his sheep, no matter what the dog's behavioural motivation is, of course the farmer has to do what he has to do to protect his stock. What I'm talking about, and it keeps coming up here, are dogs who leave the scene and the owners are approached later, after the fact. In any case, at this point, it is illegal for a farmer to attempt to kill the dog. But the owners are often presented with an ultimatum... get rid of the dog or the farmer will take it further. It's these owners who might approach someone like me to take their dog from them to rehome them. then my rules kick in, as per above.

doubter

_Brian wrote: »

Really.. go back and look at the three photos again and see how your emotions are. Mauled butchered defenseless animals isn't about money.. You seem very quick to put the love of your dog above the suffering of these poor sheep, and yes there is no shame at all in bringing the financial implications of sheep attacks into the conversation.

Oh get a grip. I feel very sad of what has happened and I have not - in one way- stated the farmer was wrong on this occasion.What i'm saying is that farmers are known for coming to your door and stating your dog has been worrying my sheep and making threats. Thats whats wrong and by god don't ever try that with me cause you'd be running for yer life. (next to the fact that my dogs are in a secure environment (locked into the house) so they can't get out.
I am all for defending your lifestock in an actual attack. I will fight against accusations and demands of PTS/shooting in ANY other case.

doubter

DBB wrote: »

I knew you'd pick me up wrong on this point.
There is a huge difference, behaviourally and psychologically, between a dog that kills sheep, and a dog who chases them without attempting to kill them.
I know the story with abortions and damage after the fact, that's not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that dogs who only chase sheep are a far safer and more rehomable prospect, to the right home, than one who kills.
And just to get things straight, if a farmer catches a dog chasing his sheep, no matter what the dog's behavioural motivation is, of course the farmer has to do what he has to do to protect his stock. What I'm talking about, and it keeps coming up here, are dogs who leave the scene and the owners are approached later, after the fact. In any case, at this point, it is illegal for a farmer to attempt to kill the dog. But the owners are often presented with an ultimatum... get rid of the dog or the farmer will take it further. It's these owners who might approach someone like me to take their dog from them to rehome them. then my rules kick in, as per above.

+100.

doubter

_Brian wrote: »

Wow..
So now your equating dogs to children..

As appropriate the law is fully applied. I'd love to see convictions against the children and the parents pay up fully for the financial loss to the farmer.

Same as its the law to shoot the dog and then follow the owner for the money lost.

It's alien to you that many people see their dogs as their kids?
That explains a few things.:rolleyes:

Genghis Cant

doubter wrote: »

.I just chase them on to the lane.Where they go from there is REALLY not my problem.

So...Do you know the legal position pertaining to hunting another man's lifestock onto a public thoroughfare?