Dog attacks on sheep !!

davidk1394

We had 2 dog attacks on sheep.. we lost about 25 lambs and 2 ewes in the attack and we had big vet bills.. we got the dogs and followed back to the owners house where they laid down at the front door covered in blood... the dogs were put down and guards were called.. the neighbour refuses to pay and we are moving to get him prosecuted for having dangerous dogs by the guards .... any information on looking for compensation would be appreciated !! Just want to spread the message to people about the dangers of loose dogs and the damage they can cause.. DO NOT OPEN IF EASILY UPSET !!

tabby aspreme

In some cases house insurance will cover damage caused by pets outside the home

Zoo4m8

Sorry to hear about the attack, I know from unfortunate experience it can be very traumatic.
We never had much difficulty getting compensation apart from one individual . We got our solicitor on the job and included every little item , down to payment for stress caused to flock owner etc etc. we got paid as this person hadn't a leg to stand on , just like the dog owner in your case, I'd say go for it and really lean on them...

arctictree

I have a camera on an out farm trained on a field where I'll be putting in lambs in March. I caught a couple of dogs in the field on camera a number of times recently and went to the owner who apologized and said he'd sort it out. The next week the dogs were back in the field. Went to the guards last week and they said all I can do is catch the dogs in the act and shoot them. Very little use to me on an out farm. Some owners just don't give a sh*t.

Nekarsulm

Turn off the camera, and deal with the situation........

Oink

arctictree wrote: »

Went to the guards last week and they said all I can do is catch the dogs in the act and shoot them

If you go back to the owner and tell him politely what the guards said you might get some results...

edit: even if in practice you're not really be able to catch them in the act.

MayoAreMagic

Take a few pictures of the damage done and put them up on posters in the area. Put them up on here too. Some people are in denial about what their dogs are capable of. You know it is the dog I feel for in that situation (besides the attacked animals of course), their owners don't understand them.

ganmo

Have the dog owners refused to pay for the damage? If they have MAKE the guards take the case. It is a clear cut case of not having their dog under control & criminal damage which they have already admitted they are responsible for by putting the dogs down. The guards might try and pawn you off on the dog warden so of you can talk to them first to make sure your on steady ground.

An official visit from a guard with a court summons and the subsequent day in court sometimes has the desired effect

ganmo

arctictree wrote: »

I have a camera on an out farm trained on a field where I'll be putting in lambs in March. I caught a couple of dogs in the field on camera a number of times recently and went to the owner who apologized and said he'd sort it out. The next week the dogs were back in the field. Went to the guards last week and they said all I can do is catch the dogs in the act and shoot them. Very little use to me on an out farm. Some owners just don't give a sh*t.

Is there any pattern to them showing up?
Set time of day etc? I'd make it know to the local lads with guns any dog in that field you'd like them shot

davidk1394

ganmo wrote: »

Have the dog owners refused to pay for the damage? If they have MAKE the guards take the case. It is a clear cut case of not having their dog under control & criminal damage which they have already admitted they are responsible for by putting the dogs down. The guards might try and pawn you off on the dog warden so of you can talk to them first to make sure your on steady ground.

An official visit from a guard with a court summons and the subsequent day in court sometimes has the desired effect

Its going to court alright.. we got the guards to take the case and have him prosecuted. Hopefully we might get some of the costs this way

whelan2

davidk1394 wrote: »

Its going to court alright.. we got the guards to take the case and have him prosecuted. Hopefully we might get some of the costs this way

once solicitors/court become involved the costs build up very quickly, hopefully the dog owner will see this and pay up. Court cases take a long long time

ganmo

whelan2 wrote: »

once solicitors/court become involved the costs build up very quickly, hopefully the dog owner will see this and pay up. Court cases take a long long time

The judge might order them to pay up...but if they don't a trip to the small claims court with them having a conviction for what you're claiming it should be a shoe in

arctictree

ganmo wrote: »

Is there any pattern to them showing up?
Set time of day etc? I'd make it know to the local lads with guns any dog in that field you'd like them shot

10:30am nearly every feckin day. Guards said they have to be actually worrying sheep when shot??!

whelan2

arctictree wrote: »

10:30am nearly every feckin day. Guards said they have to be actually worrying sheep when shot??!

guards here said shoot on sight on your land, thats what we did. They didnt have to be chasing the cattle-in our case- at the time they where being shot, the fact they where in the field where the cattle where was enough

ganmo

arctictree wrote: »

10:30am nearly every feckin day. Guards said they have to be actually worrying sheep when shot??!

define worrying sheep.
the normal definition of it with us is 'if the farmer is worried the sheep are worried"
if ya do shoot them in your field who can say they weren't running around after your sheep?

Chemical Byrne

if you do see them and shoot them in the field you could then go home and come back with a few sheep in the trailer. Then report it. Maybe you could hide the bodies if you thought it might take longer than a few hours to get the few sheep moved over in case anyone found them.

I suppose it's not very ethical, but a possible solution nonetheless.

whelan2 wrote: »

guards here said shoot on sight on your land, thats what we did. They didnt have to be chasing the cattle-in our case- at the time they where being shot, the fact they where in the field where the cattle where was enough

You should check that out. If it turns out to be correct you can shoot away. Leave them back to the neighbour and explain why do did what you did.

Genghis Cant

arctictree wrote: »

10:30am nearly every feckin day. Guards said they have to be actually worrying sheep when shot??!

1986 Control of dogs Act.

" Worry or about to worry"

To me an unattended dog in a field of sheep is sailing perilously close to "about" to worry. Simply by being there, out of control, I'd suggest he was "about to worry"

Roquentin

what type of dogs were they

Stationmaster

I'm a big dog lover but in a situation like this then I'd have no hesitation in shooting on sight. Especially when the owner has been warned. Had to put down the best sheep dog we ever had years ago for the same thing - was upset as hell having to do it but didn't regret it one bit.

davidk1394

arctictree wrote: »

10:30am nearly every feckin day. Guards said they have to be actually worrying sheep when shot??!

If we saw stray dogs even in an empty field we'd shoot the dog

davidk1394

Roquentin wrote: »

what type of dogs were they

2 Cross bred alsatians.. but there was 4 others in his yard

davidk1394

ganmo wrote: »

Have the dog owners refused to pay for the damage? If they have MAKE the guards take the case. It is a clear cut case of not having their dog under control & criminal damage which they have already admitted they are responsible for by putting the dogs down. The guards might try and pawn you off on the dog warden so of you can talk to them first to make sure your on steady ground.

An official visit from a guard with a court summons and the subsequent day in court sometimes has the desired effect

This farmer is well used to court fame and so far refuses to pay for any damages

whelan2

Roquentin wrote: »

what type of dogs were they

why does it matter what type of dog?

Roquentin

whelan2 wrote: »

why does it matter what type of dog?

because it just does

whelan2

Roquentin wrote: »

because it just does

was a jack russel that was chasing ours, fact is they shouldnt be, doesnt matter what breed they are.

ganmo

While I'm more concerned about seeing bigger dogs the little ones can be ****s too.
When I was young there was a pack attacking regularly, dad and neighbours kept picking off the bigger dogs but one terrier kept getting away...when they got the terrier the attacks stopped

Roquentin

whelan2 wrote: »

was a jack russel that was chasing ours, fact is they shouldnt be, doesnt matter what breed they are.

i dont think dogs understand language, so telling him "dont chase the sheep rover" is kind of futile

whelan2

Roquentin wrote: »

i dont think dogs understand language, so telling him "dont chase the sheep rover" is kind of futile

not getting into an arguement with you, the dogs should be kept under control at all times.

Carazy

http://www.clarechampion.ie/eight-dogs-shot-in-broadford-sheep-attack/

Buford T. Justice XIX

The good news is that all dogs must be microchipped within a year.:)

The bad news is it probably won't be enforced:(

ganmo

Carazy wrote: »

http://www.clarechampion.ie/eight-dogs-shot-in-broadford-sheep-attack/

8 dogs! must of been well used to the sound of guns

ganmo

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/cork-sheep-flock-suffers-further-dog-attack-175050/

and no dead dogs here...unfortunately

farmersfriend

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

The good news is that all dogs must be microchipped within a year.:)

The bad news is it probably won't be enforced:(

Chipping is no use unless the owner registers them on to the database,

Arrow in the Knee

The owners are as bad as the dogs in question.

Mary63

A friends car was damaged to the tune of 1000 euros by a large dog running into it,it was on a city road.

The owner was with the dog and he supplied his details,my friend claimed under his house insurance and the Insurance company paid up.

So sorry to hear and see the injury caused by these dogs.

Genghis Cant

farmersfriend wrote: »

Chipping is no use unless the owner registers them on to the database,

I've said it before, but I'll say it again anyway. Hand the whole dog tracability jiob over to the Dept of Ag. They have the cmms up and running, stick a tab on it for dogs.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Genghis Cant wrote: »

I've said it before, but I'll say it again anyway. Hand the whole dog tracability jiob over to the Dept of Ag. They have the cmms up and running, stick a tab on it for dogs.

That would be lovely:D

The problem us with the lack of any enforcement. If the warden calls and you don't have a licence then he will give you a week(?) or so to get a licence.

There is no fine, no court case, no nothing, so it means the dog owner just waits till he/she is caught and then pays the licence fee.

There is absolutely no incentive to pay it until you're caught.

ganmo

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

That would be lovely:D

The problem us with the lack of any enforcement. If the warden calls and you don't have a licence then he will give you a week(?) or so to get a licence.

There is no fine, no court case, no nothing, so it means the dog owner just waits till he/she is caught and then pays the licence fee.

There is absolutely no incentive to pay it until you're caught.

Depends on the warden, our local one often issues fines there and then...he's not well liked among dog owners but is well regarded among sheep farmers.

Sheep breeder

we had sheep attacked two weeks ago and the neighbours had some killed.

<mod snip>


the sick thing about the dog kills in our area is the ifa and the local elected fool coming out and saying how shocking these kills are, and the local authority is the ones to police dog control, in our area the dog warden works two hours a day and spends it feeding in the pound and not out controlling dogs like he should,all to do with cut backs but no cut back on the elected fool.

Tokyo

Mod Note:
Alright guys.... Legally dogs can only be shot if they are caught in-the-act of worrying livestock. As such, that action falls foul of the charter for the F&F forum which prohibits discussing illegal acts. Please avoid making further similar suggestions. This reminder should be taken as a warning against making further similar suggestions in future.

While we understand where everybody is coming from, people other than farmers read these threads too, and if we'd appreciate it if they could take care what they post so as not to put us in a position where we have to go snipping threads and enforcing rules.

Genghis Cant

^^^^^^^^^ Worrying or 'about to worry'

ganmo

Genghis Cant wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^ Worrying or 'about to worry'

and then notify the guards

greysides

Genghis Cant wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^ Worrying or 'about to worry'

The law is stated here.

bluezulu49

greysides wrote: »

The law is stated here.

This was amended by the Control of Dogs Act 1986 which states in section 13

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, where any person has reasonable grounds for believing that a stray dog has worried or is about to worry livestock, such person may seize the dog and shall forthwith deliver it to a dog warden.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1986/en/act/pub/0032/sec0013.html#sec13

Genghis Cant

greysides wrote: »

The law is stated here.

The 1986 Control of Dogs Act is what you want:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1986/en/act/pub/0032/sec0023.html#sec23


Didn't see above post. You got there before me!

greysides

Thanks Genghis, I've bookmarked that for future reference.

Kovu

We were more referring to the legality of when a dog can be legally shot, that amendment only mentions seizing the dog.

Edit- Danke G for that below me!

greysides

This is the test from GC's link:

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; 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


(ii) the defendant reasonably believed that the dog had been involved in the injury or killing, and


(iii) there were no practicable means of seizing the dog or ascertaining to whom it belonged; and


(c) he was the person in charge of the livestock; and


(d) he notified within forty-eight hours the member in charge at the nearest Garda Station to the place where the dog was shot of the incident.


(2) The provisions of subsection (1) (a) and subsection (1) (b) (i) and (iii) of this section shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that those provisions had been satisfied and he had reasonable grounds for that belief.

Genghis Cant

Kovu wrote: »

We were more referring to the legality of when a dog can be legally shot.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1986/en/act/pub/0032/sec0023.html#sec23


Section 23 of the 1986 Control of Dogs Act.

Christ, I'm too slow again, Greysides has it there.

To me , a very important few words are "about to worry". So a dog in a field of sheep doesn't have to have his teeth on mutton to be guilty. Merely being present is (I would maintain) enough!

ganmo

Genghis Cant wrote: »

To me , a very important few words are "about to worry". So a dog in a field of sheep doesn't have to have his teeth on mutton to be guilty. Merely being present is (I would maintain) enough!

and nobody can argue with you about that, but you need to be aware of the law to have the answers for those questions

Tokyo

Genghis Cant wrote: »

To me , a very important few words are "about to worry". So a dog in a field of sheep doesn't have to have his teeth on mutton to be guilty. Merely being present is (I would maintain) enough!

"About to worry" is what's written in the act - and in the real world if you see a dog on your land and you're concerned that they are chasing down animals, there isn't a person out there who's going to question you for putting a bullet in it, and I've done the same myself over the years.

It's when people start mentioning baiting in order to entice animals onto land for the purposes of shooting them (for example), that's what can get us into trouble here.