Cow fatal attacks in the UK

patsy_mccabe

Only a matter of time before this happens here, if the Right To Roam crowd have their way.

She said: “Once the cattle had attacked it can become learned behaviour. They preferred fight to flight when protecting their calves.”

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/agri-business/farmer-ordered-to-pay-30k-for-countrys-most-dangerous-herd-of-cows-that-killed-one-rambler-in-spate-of-attacks-35275190.html

FrancieBrady

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Only a matter of time before this happens here, if the Right To Roam crowd have their way.

She said: “Once the cattle had attacked it can become learned behaviour. They preferred fight to flight when protecting their calves.”

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/agri-business/farmer-ordered-to-pay-30k-for-countrys-most-dangerous-herd-of-cows-that-killed-one-rambler-in-spate-of-attacks-35275190.html

'He ignored warnings to control a herd that had previously attacked and injured 6 people'?

Only for his age, I would be looking a jail sentence.

Mooooo

Not defending the man as not first incident but no mention or not if the dogs were off lead and going into the fields? A cow which had just calved went for my own dog when I went up to check the calf. Same cow woildnt take any notice of a person. UK have their own rules but surely traversing someone's farm if it's deemed public should be maintained by the public ie council or whatever?

Waffletraktor

Mooooo wrote: »

Not defending the man as not first incident but no mention or not if the dogs were off lead and going into the fields? A cow which had just calved went for my own dog when I went up to check the calf. Same cow woildnt take any notice of a person. UK have their own rules but surely traversing someone's farm if it's deemed public should be maintained by the public ie council or whatever?

This guy got off because highways agency and local council should have also been in the dock. It's to do with public paths and old cattle driving lanes and the modern walkers having 0 intelligence when it comes to livestock these days.

I said

Waffletraktor wrote: »

This guy got off because highways agency and local council should have also been in the dock. It's to do with public paths and old cattle driving lanes and the modern walkers having 0 intelligence when it comes to livestock these days.

What a bunch of tits the public take precedence over the farmers land the Darwin Award goes to those walkers who got attacked common sense works both ways.
His attitude of ill do what I like has got him killed the moron no other words for it.

greysides

.

“It is vital that the interests of farmers cannot take precedence over the health and safety of the public, and that those who, like Mike, love walking in the beautiful British countryside can do so without the risk of injury or death.

That's some attitude to have and to deal with!

davidk1394

I said wrote: »

What a bunch of tits the public take precedence over the farmers land the Darwin Award goes to those walkers who got attacked common sense works both ways.
His attitude of ill do what I like has got him killed the moron no other words for it.

Unfortunately these lads seem to think they can go where they like with who they like and he got caught out.

Base price

greysides wrote: »

That's some attitude to have and to deal with!

While I tend to agree with you in this instance the walkway was a public right of way.
I hope that this case confirms to us farmers/landowners the importance of maintaining our right to private property.

cruizer101

I said wrote: »

His attitude of ill do what I like has got him killed the moron no other words for it.

That's a bit harsh, it was a public walkway he was on, how do you know what his attitude or actions were other than walking along a public path.

FrancieBrady

A man is dead because a farmer did not properly warn people of dangerous animals despite being warned/told to do it.
I appreciate farmers rights etc and the fact that the public can be arrogant with regard to this but the bottom line is a man is dead as a result of this.

Waffletraktor

cruizer101 wrote: »

That's a bit harsh, it was a public walkway he was on, how do you know what his attitude or actions were other than walking along a public path.

It's not that clear cut, there is also the local council will have someone who is meant to ensure routes are safe for users. They are equally culpable here under the rules they should close that route while livestock are in the field.
It would not be uncommon to have a few hundred people a week on popular paths.

patsy_mccabe

cruizer101 wrote: »

That's a bit harsh, it was a public walkway he was on, how do you know what his attitude or actions were other than walking along a public path.

I'm sure he was doing nothing other than walking his dog. The point is all cows with young calves at foot will instinctively protect them. It has nothing to do with 'learned behaviour' as said by that 'expert' from the HSA. They will do the same with young children. They see them as a threat too. It has nothing to do with the breed of cows either. All cows will do this. BTW Limousin is the most popular breed of suckler cow here in Ireland.
The guy should never be there in the first place. That's the core of the issue. No farmer would bring a dog out like that so why should the public feel that they have a right to do.

Nekarsulm

If the newspaper report is accurate, you would think that after 4 other incidents with walkers he would have put up warning signs.
30,000 would buy a lot of warning signs..... Something like "Dogs forbidden due to animals with young".

A woman was seriously injured and her dog killed during the summer, on the Erne river system.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/belfast-woman-now-stable-after-cow-attack-in-northern-ireland-35015220.html

FrancieBrady

Nekarsulm wrote: »

A woman was seriously injured and her dog killed during the summer, on the Erne river system.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/belfast-woman-now-stable-after-cow-attack-in-northern-ireland-35015220.html

We visited Devenish the day before this incident and it is the reason this thread caught my eye.

The cattle charged at us standing behind a fence.
That is fine and it has happened to me before, I live in a semi rural setting.
But, there where NO signs about the danger of crossing the fence and the boat tour operator made a joke about aggressive cattle that nobody took seriously at all.
I am sure it is fixed now, but what a tragic pity that it took an accident to do it.

Mooooo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We visited Devenish the day before this incident and it is the reason this thread caught my eye.

The cattle charged at us standing behind a fence.
That is fine and it has happened to me before, I live in a semi rural setting.
But, there where NO signs about the danger of crossing the fence and the boat tour operator made a joke about aggressive cattle that nobody took seriously at all.
I am sure it is fixed now, but what a tragic pity that it took an accident to do it.

Was the fence along the pathway? Why would you cross the fence

FrancieBrady

Mooooo wrote: »

Was the fence along the pathway? Why would you cross the fence

Yes, the fence ran along the pathway. And you could cross the fence for any number of reasons, a shortcut, to retrieve a pet, for craic.
The point is the dangers (which they knew about, e.g. the operators jokey warning) were not highlighted. People (including the woman injured the very next day) are simply not aware of the dangers.

I said

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, the fence ran along the pathway. And you could cross the fence for any number of reasons, a shortcut, to retrieve a pet, for craic.
The point is the dangers (which they knew about, e.g. the operators jokey warning) were not highlighted. People (including the woman injured the very next day) are simply not aware of the dangers.

Pets should be on leads

FrancieBrady

I said wrote: »

Pets should be on leads

Cattle shouldn't get out of enclosures. But they do.

Mooooo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, the fence ran along the pathway. And you could cross the fence for any number of reasons, a shortcut, to retrieve a pet, for craic.
The point is the dangers (which they knew about, e.g. the operators jokey warning) were not highlighted. People (including the woman injured the very next day) are simply not aware of the dangers.

If someone hopped over your fence in to your garden for the craic and got injured what would the response be? If you have seen or experienced the damage and dogs can do off lead you may realise that near a farm is not the place to leave them off lead. Common sense goes along way too.

riffmongous

Mooooo wrote: »

If someone hopped over your fence in to your garden for the craic and got injured what would the response be? If you have seen or experienced the damage and dogs can do off lead you may realise that near a farm is not the place to leave them off lead. Common sense goes along way too.

I don't think it's 'common' sense anymore though, a lot of people just won't know these things nowadays. I don't think it should really be the farmers responsibility to inform people either, the council should have signs up (normally, although in the case above where it happened repeatedly I think the farmer should have done something if he knew it was dangerous)

FrancieBrady

Mooooo wrote: »

If someone hopped over your fence in to your garden for the craic and got injured what would the response be? If you have seen or experienced the damage and dogs can do off lead you may realise that near a farm is not the place to leave them off lead. Common sense goes along way too.

The farmer here was asked/warned to do something to keep the public safe and informed.
He didn't do it and a man is dead and people are injured.

If I had a dangerous dog and it savaged or killed somebody who got over my wall because they were not aware of the danger then I would feel very guilty.
As an animal owner I have, at the very least, a responsibility to warn people of KNOWN dangers, common sense notwithstanding. Not all people have the same levels of common sense.

freedominacup

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not all people have the same levels of common sense.

Which is more commonly known as natural selection. Anyone dumb enough to fcuk around with half tonne animals with young at their feet deserves what happens to them. There's no warning signs at the edge of a footpath either. No one suggests that there should be in order to protect those with a lack of common sense.

greysides

Mod: There's a lot of 'rights' and 'wrongs' about this incident but let's keep discussion here civil please.

blue5000

Some farmers along the wicklow way are talking about withdrawing permission;

http://www.thejournal.ie/wicklow-way-court-3103547-Nov2016/

I accept that UK has different laws, but a lot depends on this court case.

FrancieBrady

freedominacup wrote: »

Which is more commonly known as natural selection. Anyone dumb enough to fcuk around with half tonne animals with young at their feet deserves what happens to them. There's no warning signs at the edge of a footpath either. No one suggests that there should be in order to protect those with a lack of common sense.

The point here is the danger was spotted, previous attacks had taken place, action was taken to make the environment safer, i.e. warnings/instructions were issued to the farmer. The farmer ignored this and a man is dead.

I said

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Cattle shouldn't get out of enclosures. But they do.

The problem is no one takes personal responsibility for their actions anymore it's not my fault I'm a thick Cnut with an attitude and can't or won't take the time or bother my arse to inform themselves of simple measures that would save lives in this instance.Surely if this was a busy walkway would people not have knowledge of the previous attacks wether there was signs up or not in this case

FrancieBrady

I said wrote: »

The problem is no one takes personal responsibility for their actions anymore it's not my fault I'm a thick Cnut with an attitude and can't or won't take the time or bother my arse to inform themselves of simple measures that would save lives in this instance.Surely if this was a busy walkway would people not have knowledge of the previous attacks wether there was signs up or not in this case

The bold bit applies equally to a farmer who ignored instructions here surely?
You CANNOT assume when you own dangerous animals. Just as you cannot assume that children on a footpath know the dangers of the road.

Waffletraktor

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The bold bit applies equally to a farmer who ignored instructions here surely?
You CANNOT assume when you own dangerous animals. Just as you cannot assume that children on a footpath know the dangers of the road.

This is a very grey area though in the uk, if a farmer makes ANY changes to the path or layout they must first notify and agree on them with the council/highways agency. To do anything makes the farmer fully liable unless it was agreed on so even a temporary fence directing people/cattle away from each other with a path by the field edge will get people who decide to cut wire/rip it down etc. It's not just the farmer who has a duty of care here....
We have looked at this a lot as let land to a grazier, you can temporarily close path for a few weeks to allow cultivation of fields or safe grazing this goes to 6 weeks for safety but people still plough through a flock of sheep with lambs and dogs off the lead which they have had to shoot. Add into this people cutting sheep wire around stiles as they are too lazy to lift their obese dog over.

granturismo

I said wrote: »

Pets should be on leads

The dogs were on a lead;

http://www.shponline.co.uk/cow-trample-death-followed-four-other-incidents-court-hears/?cid=ema-Marketing-6th%20of%20December%202016%20-%20SHP%20Daily%20Update-CTA-

Nekarsulm

If you have a public right of way, or a pathway across land which has cattle or sheep, it's not unreasonable that you could put up signs forbidding dogs. Any rights apply to humans, I would have thought, and if you choose to bring other species which are expressly advised against, you must accept responsibility for any accidents.

ganmo

the current best practice being passed onto Irish farmers is to only go into fields with cattle in them in a jeep...a lot don't heed this advice as they are stock ppl and can spot the signs of angry animals and I reckon that the same direction isn't being given to the uk farmers is as a results of their public walkways.

They also can't/won't tackle bvd and other diseases as they know the network of public walkways through yards and fields will make it nigh on impossible.

One poster says that farmers are arrogant, but the most arrogant people I've come across are 'recretaionists' who get caught trespassing

Keepgrowing

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Cattle shouldn't get out of enclosures. But they do.

You are quiet correct, they shouldn't but occasionally they do. If they do I take full responsibility and have public liability to correct or compensate for any injury or damage done.

Can the same be said for walkers with their pets on or off lead?
Can the same be said for dogs roaming the land at all hours?

It's not the dogs fault his owner is irresponsible. I've first hand experience of 200 kg animals being killed and another mutilated to the point of needing to be euthanased. I shot 2 of the dogs responsible and followed the other home to his lovely open enclosure.

I got serious grief for shooting the dogs and had to make several return visits to ensure the third was destroyed. It's the dogs nature to hunt but the owners responsibility to take proper care of their pets.

Btw, not once was I asked how my stock were or was I offered compensation

tanko

granturismo wrote: »

The dogs were on a lead;

http://www.shponline.co.uk/cow-trample-death-followed-four-other-incidents-court-hears/?cid=ema-Marketing-6th%20of%20December%202016%20-%20SHP%20Daily%20Update-CTA-

Having the dogs on a lead isn't going to make much difference. The very sight and smell of the dogs is going to drive the cows nuts especially when they have calves.
Anyone bringing a dog into a field of sucklers is asking for trouble.

patsy_mccabe

We had an incident here a few years ago. I went out into the field to herd the suckler cows, all with young calves. Spotted a neighbour with his golden retriever down at the bottom of the field. He was using the field as a short cut. When I saw him I told him to walk up along the far ditch and keep away from the cows. The cows panicked when they saw the dog and rang into a huddle. One cow, the head mama, left the others and charged the length of the field.
Got some fright I can tell you. Thought he was a goner. Luckily he let go of the lead at the last moment and the dog just got away. The cow tried to pin it to the ground.
Now, who was wrong there?
Found the same fella crossing the field again and when I told him about the bull in the field, he said 'he hasn't done anything yet'. Found a group of young kids having a drinking party in the same field.
You feel like it's a waste of time warning people.

pedigree 6

I'd say it's no exaggeration to say that 100% of cow attacks on ramblers in the uk have been to dog walkers. Seems to be a trend.

Maybe leave the dog at home???

greysides

Maybe it's time to educate the public. Same as is done for smoking or drunk driving.

FrancieBrady

How many have ignored/disobeyed instructions and warnings about safeguarding the public parts of your farm?

ganmo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How many have ignored/disobeyed instructions and warnings about safeguarding the public parts of your farm?

in ireland no farm is public. each and every farm is private property

FrancieBrady

ganmo wrote: »

in ireland no farm is public. each and every farm is private property

The owner has a duty of care 'not to intentionally injure the person or damage the property of the person, nor act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person'.

Ignoring an instruction to erect warnings alerting users to previously aggressive animals would be reckless IMO.

It isn't exactly a difficult thing to do and I suspect 'thick wit' here, which will do long term damage to the farm owners case in general.

tanko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The owner has a duty of care 'not to intentionally injure the person or damage the property of the person, nor act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person'.

Ignoring an instruction to erect warnings alerting users to previously aggressive animals would be reckless IMO.

It isn't exactly a difficult thing to do and I suspect 'thick wit' here, which will do long term damage to the farm owners case in general.

Are you saying that the words of an English Judge should be treated as gospel Francie?

Waffletraktor

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The owner has a duty of care 'not to intentionally injure the person or damage the property of the person, nor act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person'.

Ignoring an instruction to erect warnings alerting users to previously aggressive animals would be reckless IMO.

It isn't exactly a difficult thing to do and I suspect 'thick wit' here, which will do long term damage to the farm owners case in general.

This happened on a public footpath though, which happened to at that time be crossing a field. In this situation the local council also have a responsibility as they will have someone the farmer MUST liaise with if they want to erect ANY sign, change any detail of exactly the course of the path or else will be required to remove it. This system does not always work, in this case the blame is not entirely the farmers especially when we have no details of action the council could have taken to change the course of the path and erect permanenet fencing after previous incidents etc etc.
This will lead to a test case as the council attempts to dump all the responsibility on the farmer with no control over their own private land.

Mooooo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The owner has a duty of care 'not to intentionally injure the person or damage the property of the person, nor act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person'.

Ignoring an instruction to erect warnings alerting users to previously aggressive animals would be reckless IMO.

It isn't exactly a difficult thing to do and I suspect 'thick wit' here, which will do long term damage to the farm owners case in general.

The case in the op is in the UK. Here farms are private property. The farmer in the UK should have abided by the rules of the land, but equally so should have the council as pointed out by the poster living and farming there. If landowners are going to be open to litigation and dealing with people's ignorance re livestock and dogs and in general there will always be resistance to any similar type "rights" given to the public to traverse property here. Many signs put.up such as no trespassing and beware of bull etc are often ignored in this country

pedigree 6

greysides wrote: »

Maybe it's time to educate the public. Same as is done for smoking or drunk driving.

I think that would be a tough one.
You can see how people don't see the dangers of walking dogs near livestock despite the casualties.

I think people genuinely don't know the dangers of this.
A recent example of this was the Vodafone ad with the couple in the field with a bull and the girl playing dog noises to the bull and everything was ok after.
It took farmers or rural dwellers to point out that if you had people copying this scenario that by playing the dog sounds instead of frightening the bull they would provoke an attack by the bull.
Vodafone genuinely seemingly didn't know this and it would be common knowledge to any livestock keeper here.

An education program for urban/non farmers on this would be certainly a good idea though even if it saved one life.

patsy_mccabe

....the butcher boy.

gctest50

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The owner has a duty of care 'not to intentionally injure the person or damage the property of the person, nor act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person'.

Ignoring an instruction to erect warnings alerting users to previously aggressive animals would be reckless IMO.

It isn't exactly a difficult thing to do and I suspect 'thick wit' here, which will do long term damage to the farm owners case in general.

If you love it so much just buy a farm

FrancieBrady

I think you guys/girls might want to look at the relevant act here in Ireland
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4

pedigree 6

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think you guys/girls might want to look at the relevant act here in Ireland
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4

There's no mention of dogs or dog walkers.

ganmo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think you guys/girls might want to look at the relevant act here in Ireland
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4

from that section
3) (a) Where a person enters onto premises for the purpose of committing an offence or, while present thereon, commits an offence, the occupier shall not be liable for a breach of the duty imposed by subsection (1) (b) unless a court determines otherwise in the interests of justice.


(b) In paragraph (a) “offence” includes an attempted offence.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2002/act/9/section/24/enacted/en/html#partiii-sec24

19c

FrancieBrady

pedigree 6 wrote: »

There's no mention of dogs or dog walkers.

The duty of care is there though and to not warn the public is a dereliction of care.

Mooooo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think you guys/girls might want to look at the relevant act here in Ireland
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4

Danger is defined as danger due to the state of the premises, open to interpretations but I would put that towards an unprotected tank etc. Cows will be in the fields if there is a fence around the fields that's as much as can be done. As I said plenty signs are ignored. Do you know of any case where someone entered a field and was attacked and a conviction afterwards in this country?

tanko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The duty of care is there though and to not warn the public is a dereliction of care.

If the farmer puts up a sign at the road saying "No dogs or stupid people allowed past this point" would that be good enough?