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

doubter · 12-11-2014 10:20PM

5live wrote: »

As Farmer Pudsey said previously, you will be liable for any and all damage caused by animals you let loose onto public property.

I;m not letting it loose..i'm merely putting it on the lane where it came from.
I think he is aware now, hopefully.

A silly argument, equating an animal with a human life:
oh- sorry. I didn't know you were god . who the heck gives you the right to put the value of one life over another?
confused:
I think it might be getting through:pac:

I have a zero tolerence to dogs on my land. I have neither the time and inclination to follow a marauding dog back to its owners house only to be met with mealy mouth apologies and unkept promises that it will not happen again.

Luckily, i have only lose a few sheep to attack but the aftermath of abortions and mis-mothering is one i refuse to have to deal with again. Losses of over 30% of scanned lambs and pet lambs from ewes too stressed to mother lambs of close to 30% the same year. The mental stress and quadrupling of time needed to manage the flock in the aftermath of the last attack nearly led me to exit sheep.

My neighbouring sheep farmers and i decided enough was enough. We canvassed our neighbours to control their dogs and we bought guns to protect our flocks. We occasionally have to shoot a dog, mostly from outside the area(one from 5 miles away!) but we have mostly got the situation under control now, mostly thanks to neighbours who call when a dog is seen in the locality, or they see a neighbours dog loose and ring them before harm is done.

Responsible dog ownership is rare, unfortunately. One neighbour went away on holidays and left a small bag of dog food for his dogs for the 2 weeks they were away. How idiotic was that?

I have zero tolerance for farmers who can not control their life stock,The attitude that generally lies over the farming community is: we are the sand of the earth. You're not. In my view - and that is my personal opinion - farming is the exploitation of animals to earn money. Taking away young lambs from mothers, slaughtering weanlings...it's what i despise. I should have mentioned I'm vegan. And I'm off topic. Either way, I will do what i have to do to keep lifestock off my land. Unless you have a better suggestion? Cause since its my land, they will encounter 8 dogs there. which probably isn't in their best interest as any of my dogs weighs over 30 kilos.:D

Tokyo · 12-11-2014 10:28PM

doubter wrote: »

In my view - and that is my personal opinion - farming is the exploitation of animals to earn money. Taking away young lambs from mothers, slaughtering weanlings...it's what i despise. I should have mentioned I'm vegan. And I'm off topic.

Mod Note:
Sorry doubter, but if you want to continue posting in this forum, leave this at the door. For the same reason that regulars here don't wander over to the Vegan & Vegetarian forum to tell people to "loosen up a bit and eat a nice juicy steak", it adds nothing to the discussion other than to antagonise.

Cattlepen · 12-11-2014 10:30PM

Nody wrote: »

Please stop with the hyperbole. First of all the pack theory has been proven wrong over a decade now and the original professor who created it has said it is incorrect (same goes for Alpha dog theories and punishment used as a training tool (i.e. pushing their nose into their poop, strangle collars, hitting their nose etc.)).

Secondly there's no "taste for the hunt"; all dogs are dogs which means they are bred to hunt as part of their genes. The level of drive varies with the dog and breed (i.e. a Husky is going to have a higher prey drive then a Shih Tzu but they will both hunt if the circumstances are right for it) but it's in all dogs.

Third the number of cases of dogs attacking humans (or babies as you used in this case for additional drama) are in 99.9% of the cases due to poor human awareness. No dog (or other animal) should ever be left alone with a baby/child and if you read up on dog attacks they usually have one thing in common, a child was left alone with one or more dogs. A baby (or child) can't read the dog's stress reactions (and if you're a dog owner you need to learn them and know them) and hence keep on running towards the dog etc. even when it's doing it's best to "warn off" the intruder. This is the point when you'll have a dog snap and possibly bite someone because they been pushed (mentally) into a corner and it lashes out (add in a dose of poor socialization to ensure that the dog is more likely to be stressed in most cases).

So to summarize; there's no issue with allocate a dog that's been chasing to the city if it's done in an appropriate way. This does not mean putting it on a add in the Dublin times but after assessment by an appropriately trained dog therapist that can judge it's temperament and advise the future, experienced, family on what to expect and how to deal with any possible issues (usually lack of socialization as a pup which is the best way to ensure a dog is scarred for life).

Your second point partially agrees with me saying that it is a dogs primal instinct to hunt. This does not leave them. As an owner of many breeds of dogs over the years, from staffies to cavalier King Charles I have seen this.
You accuse me of dramatising the fact that dogs attack children?? We read about these attacks on a regular basis. It's not some fantasy I made up for dramatic purposes. It is a fact and if a dog had already shown aggressive behaviour such as killing and mauling livestock I would not risk the chance of it injuring a person by rehoming it.
By the way, where did you pull the 99.9% of dog attacks on humans caused by poor human awareness from??

Ave Sodalis · 12-11-2014 10:32PM

whelan2 wrote: »

we took in a dog as a rescue dog, we where told it was good with kids, on day 3 it mauled my daughters face....... should we have moved the dog on to other people?

Not entirely sure what you're getting at here, or how it's relevant...

Genghis Cant · 12-11-2014 10:46PM

Capercaille wrote: »

I have a small farm. The neighbours have a sheepdog who occasionally wanders. During the summer the dog entered my meadows. I knocked politely on the door and asked them and stop the dog going into my meadows. Better to give them a chance than get the dog hurt/shot (don't have a gun anyway/would have to get neighbour to shoot it). If I did get the dog shot it would poison relations forever.

You did the right thing in the circumstances. However, substitute meadow for flock of sheep and we have a different dimension.
The first port of call in many situations is dialogue, but sometimes the unfolding event dictates one's response.
In this case the sheep farmer's response (shooting the dog) was wholly reasonable and justifiable.

Cattlepen · 12-11-2014 10:49PM

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?

Silly argument. I have a farm beside a substantial east leinster town. Never had kids or people chasing my cattle, sheep or horses

Capercaille · 12-11-2014 10:51PM

Genghis Cant wrote: »

You did the right thing in the circumstances. However, substitute meadow for flock of sheep and we have a different dimension.
The first port of call in many situations is dialogue, but sometimes the unfolding event dictates one's response.
In this case the sheep farmer's response (shooting the dog) was wholly reasonable and justifiable.

I have stock in my meadows which are (to me) vastly more important than sheep/cattle. I was more livid than a farmer watching his sheep being attacked by dogs.

Ave Sodalis · 12-11-2014 10:58PM

onyerbikepat wrote: »

:mad: You can add to that - My dog is very quiet. He's not like that at all.

Just after noticing your edit. I'm still unsure as to why you're angry?

My dog has been surrounded by sheep for the last eight/nine years. He's never bothered with them, even when they're in the garden beside him (fencing around here is awful!) so I guess you could say "hes not like that at all"...

Nekarsulm · 12-11-2014 11:00PM

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?

Luckily most 14 year old kids are too fat to chase my sheep, and would rather sit on the sofa playing Halo. There are evil little bastards about however, as we see reported in the press from time to time, luckily these are rarer than rambling dogs.
But if I find them running my animals, they will get such a kicking that their running abilities will be sorely restricted for some time.

Genghis Cant · 12-11-2014 11:03PM

Capercaille wrote: »

I have stock in my meadows which are (to me) vastly more important than sheep/cattle. I was more livid than a farmer watching his sheep being attacked by dogs.

Forgive me. When I read "meadow" I think of a crop of grass, without livestock.

What stock do you keep in a meadow?

ferretone · 12-11-2014 11:09PM

5live wrote: »

As Farmer Pudsey said previously, you will be liable for any and all damage caused by animals you let loose onto public property.

I'm curious about this one. Not saying I approve of doubter's approach at all, but just find it a little ott that if a farmer's livestock strays onto my land because of his inadequate fencing (most likely via the public road in our case), then subsequently leaves my land, back onto said road, as I have not confined them, I am to be considered more liable for this than the farmer who let them escape initially! Would this be regardless whether I was home or not when it happened? Or am I over-interpreting this altogether? :rolleyes:

ferretone · 12-11-2014 11:12PM

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Luckily most 14 year old kids are too fat to chase my sheep, and would rather sit on the sofa playing Halo. There are evil little bastards about however, as we see reported in the press from time to time, luckily these are rarer than rambling dogs.
But if I find them running my animals, they will get such a kicking that their running abilities will be sorely restricted for some time.

I have known of cases of kids hassling foals in the past, for instance, which can be seriously traumatic, and have long-term implications.

Capercaille · 12-11-2014 11:17PM

Genghis Cant wrote: »

Forgive me. When I read "meadow" I think of a crop of grass, without livestock.

What stock do you keep in a meadow?

Sorry for confusion, when i re-read my post you would think it was just a meadow of grass. I have Corncrake on the farm during the summer, the dog was in after one of my calling male Corncrake.

_Brian · 12-11-2014 11:19PM

ferretone wrote: »

I'm curious about this one. Not saying I approve of doubter's approach at all, but just find it a little ott that if a farmer's livestock strays onto my land because of his inadequate fencing (most likely via the public road in our case), then subsequently leaves my land, back onto said road, as I have not confined them, I am to be considered more liable for this than the farmer who let them escape initially! Would this be regardless whether I was home or not when it happened? Or am I over-interpreting this altogether? :rolleyes:

My understanding is if they make their way onto your property you cannot intentionally run them onto the road. But if they make their own way onto the road your not liable.
Truthfully it's splitting hairs. If they got to the road no matter how and say caused an accident then the farmers public liability would pay.
I'd ask the question though, if you ran them to the road and an accident happened where an innocent person lost their life, how would you feel.

John_Rambo · 12-11-2014 11:20PM

Terrible images. Must be very traumatic for the farmer and family to deal with, including dispatching the injured sheep and the dog. Hope your kids didn't arrive in the scene ConFarmer. It's like a horror movie scene, seeing that for real would stay with me.

ferretone · 12-11-2014 11:23PM

_Brian wrote: »

My understanding is if they make their way onto your property you cannot intentionally run them onto the road. But if they make their own way onto the road your not liable.
Truthfully it's splitting hairs. If they got to the road no matter how and say caused an accident then the farmers public liability would pay.
I'd ask the question though, if you ran them to the road and an accident happened where an innocent person lost their life, how would you feel.

I wouldn't dream of it, Brian. However, I neither would I feel confident about trying to herd my neighbour's cows all by myself, as they tend not to be well-handled, and also, if I tried shutting them in my field, I know they would break it, as it is not designed for cows!

Farmer Pudsey · 12-11-2014 11:27PM

ferretone wrote: »

I'm curious about this one. Not saying I approve of doubter's approach at all, but just find it a little ott that if a farmer's livestock strays onto my land because of his inadequate fencing (most likely via the public road in our case), then subsequently leaves my land, back onto said road, as I have not confined them, I am to be considered more liable for this than the farmer who let them escape initially! Would this be regardless whether I was home or not when it happened? Or am I over-interpreting this altogether? :rolleyes:

If you deliberately hunt animals from your land either directly onto a public road or onto a lane way and they access the public road from there you would be considered libel. If animals stray onto your land from a public road and go back onto the road without your help then you are not libel.

If animals stray onto your land and you are annoyed with it you are supposed to arrange for them to be collected by the pound, You may collect such animals and impound them until collected. The owner will have to pay fees to get them back from pound. It is unlikely he will allow them to stray again.

Look at some stage all farmers cattle break out even with the best of fences. However the vast majority (99.99%) have good fences that prevent there cattle wandering. If that was not the case there would be cattle on roads or breaking into people property ever day. However this is not the situtation in general most farmers cannot afford the hassle, expense or time of cattle breaking into other property.

Sheep tend to be harder to control and better fencing is required. As well traditionally in certain parts of the country Mayo, Kerry, west Cork, Galway and Donegal there was and still is a large amount of roadway that is unfenced where hill sheep have access to public roads. In general these animals are aclimitised to this and are unafraid of cars and in general are traffic wary. Believe it or not they are a tourist attraction. This is acceptable

muddypaws · 12-11-2014 11:31PM

Cattlepen wrote: »

You accuse me of dramatising the fact that dogs attack children?? We read about these attacks on a regular basis. It's not some fantasy I made up for dramatic purposes. It is a fact and if a dog had already shown aggressive behaviour such as killing and mauling livestock I would not risk the chance of it injuring a person by rehoming it.

Northern breeds, such as huskies have a very high prey drive, because they would be turned loose by the inuit peoples during the summer when they weren't working, and would have to feed themselves. That instinct has never left them, it is hardwired in. However, they also used to sleep with the inuit children during the winters, to keep them warm, any that were aggressive would be culled. So today, even a well bred husky, properly socialised etc as a pup, would more than likely kill or maul livestock, cats, birds etc, but won't do the same to a child, it is not the same thing at all.

ferretone · 12-11-2014 11:36PM

Oh, I know about the sheep in those areas right enough - a relative of mine owns some commonage in one of them, and it is illegal to fence it in, so those farmers have no choice about that. I'd debate whether they are a better "tourist attraction" than the habitat they turn into a wasteland would be without them, but I don't suppose such a debate would go down well around here

I'd also quibble with the right of said farmers to lay poison all over said commonage, making it unsafe even to walk a dog on-lead without a certain amount of worry, but dog-owners don't seem to be considered to have any rights. If it were my share in the commonage, I'd make the point that my share might give me a right to walk my dog on-leash without fear. But this relative is not a responsible dog-owner like myself anyway, so the less said about that!

Capercaille · 13-11-2014 12:08AM

ferretone wrote: »

I'd also quibble with the right of said farmers to lay poison all over said commonage, making it unsafe even to walk a dog on-lead without a certain amount of worry, but dog-owners don't seem to be considered to have any rights. If it were my share in the commonage, I'd make the point that my share might give me a right to walk my dog on-leash without fear. But this relative is not a responsible dog-owner like myself anyway, so the less said about that!

Laying of poison (other than covered rodent poisons) is now illegal. Still a problem though with nearly half the reintroduced Irish raptors having being poisoned/shot.

ganmo · 13-11-2014 12:14AM

ferretone wrote: »

I'd also quibble with the right of said farmers to lay poison all over said commonage, making it unsafe even to walk a dog on-lead without a certain amount of worry, but dog-owners don't seem to be considered to have any rights. If it were my share in the commonage, I'd make the point that my share might give me a right to walk my dog on-leash without fear. But this relative is not a responsible dog-owner like myself anyway, so the less said about that!

What's with the over use of the word 'rights?'
The use of posions is now very restricted so most of the poison laid on commonage would be illegal I think.
Why would people get extra rights just because they own a dog?
No rights without responsibility

ferretone · 13-11-2014 12:29AM

Erm, I meant owning a percentage right to the commonage. I was just making the point that those farmers own no more than she does of it: somehow that gives them the right to keep sheep there, but if we want to walk a dog on a lead, it makes the farmers want to kill it. And it doesn't matter in the least to the sheep-farmers whether the poison-laying is illegal or not, as nobody will ever be able to prove who laid it on 2,500 acres of mountain commonage! And I'd agree that the raptors falling victim to this is a far greater tragedy, right enough!

ferretone · 13-11-2014 12:44AM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Look at some stage all farmers cattle break out even with the best of fences. However the vast majority (99.99%) have good fences that prevent there cattle wandering. If that was not the case there would be cattle on roads or breaking into people property ever day. However this is not the situtation in general most farmers cannot afford the hassle, expense or time of cattle breaking into other property.

I don't know where you're located, or where you're getting this 99.99% figure, but believe me, I wish farmers around here were anywhere near this saintly. If your analysis were anyway accurate, I would not have been delayed about my business several times, due to passing cows actually trapped midway through barbed-wire fences, and needing to track down people to get it rescued!

ganmo · 13-11-2014 12:47AM

you're complaining that you get given out to when you walk on land that YOU have no right to, your cousin holds that right and to my knowledge those rights can only be inherited.

you don't seem to understand the delicate balance on commonages where a number of flocks move around the same area but staying separate. should the flocks take fright at your strange dog and get mixed up it is a major job to separate them again

ferretone · 13-11-2014 12:54AM

I haven't walked a dog there for many years - when I did it was her dogs, actually. She used to keep a goat up there, and we'd bring the dogs when we'd fetch it down for her in the evenings. Never got mixed up in any sheep. She has become sadly lax with her dogs in latter years, but I was referring to her right to make some sort of use of the commonage in which she owns the same share as the sheep-owners. There's never been a problem of controlled, on-lead dogs causing sheep flocks to get mixed up, if you saw the place you might understand how unlikely an occurrence that would be!

Edited to add: and are you suggesting it's ok for farmers to kill dogs who are leashed, with their owners, who also share the commonage? And mostly, I am complaining about the fact that sheep farmers in these wild-ish, outlying regions are laying out poison indiscriminately and with impunity. Is it even worth people being able to farm sheep in the areas, when it's at the expense of a huge attrition to any wildlife that happens to be carnivorous?

J.O. Farmer · 13-11-2014 12:56AM

ferretone wrote: »

I don't know where you're located, or where you're getting this 99.99% figure, but believe me, I wish farmers around here were anywhere near this saintly. If your analysis were anyway accurate, I would not have been delayed about my business several times, due to passing cows actually trapped midway through barbed-wire fences, and needing to track down people to get it rescued!

I don't know where you're located but you must not travel in a very big area. I've travelled the length and breadth of this country and rarely seen cattle on the road or caught in fences. While Pudsey probably can't provide evidence of the 99.9% figure he's probably not that far wrong. Even if it's a couple of % less it's still the vast majority of farms that have stock proof fences.

ferretone · 13-11-2014 01:05AM

It kinda seems from posts on here, that farmers generally take a dim view of people living in the countryside who aren't farmers, unless they are keeping their heads down and keeping nothing but flowers, even on their own property :rolleyes:

I will say that's not been my experience where I live at all - in fact I'm seen as a bit of a freak, because I keep my dogs and cats on my property, rather than allowing them to roam :P I realise that because it's about sheep, therefore will be mainly sheep farmers posting, and particularly about horrific attack, this view is more likely to get a bit pushed one way in this thread than might generally be the case.

But would that be the general view of people on this forum, that non-farmers have no business in the countryside? And if so, a bit rich to have made such huge fortunes selling houses and sites to us, if you didn't want any of us living here!

greysides · 13-11-2014 01:08AM

The cattle wandering argument is really a separate topic to dogs attacking sheep.

Maybe that one could be parked or a separate thread started.

ganmo · 13-11-2014 01:11AM

ferretone wrote: »

I haven't walked a dog there for many years - when I did it was her dogs, actually. She used to keep a goat up there, and we'd bring the dogs when we'd fetch it down for her in the evenings. Never got mixed up in any sheep. She has become sadly lax with her dogs in latter years, but I was referring to her right to make some sort of use of the commonage in which she owns the same share as the sheep-owners. There's never been a problem of controlled, on-lead dogs causing sheep flocks to get mixed up, if you saw the place you might understand how unlikely an occurrence that would be!

Edited to add: and are you suggesting it's ok for farmers to kill dogs who are leashed, with their owners, who also share the commonage?

no it wouldn't be legal to shoot a dog on a lead held by a responsible person(the person who takes that shot should loose their gun licence too)
commonages are at the best strange with a huge amount of disagreements and grudges held for ages!
luckily I have no experience of commonages so I'm going to leave it there

J.O. Farmer · 13-11-2014 01:11AM

ferretone wrote: »

It kinda seems from posts on here, that farmers generally take a dim view of people living in the countryside who aren't farmers, unless they are keeping their heads down and keeping nothing but flowers, even on their own property :rolleyes:

I will say that's not been my experience where I live at all - in fact I'm seen as a bit of a freak, because I keep my dogs and cats on my property, rather than allowing them to roam :P I realise that because it's about sheep, therefore will be mainly sheep farmers posting, and particularly about horrific attack, this view is more likely to get a bit pushed one way in this thread than might generally be the case.

But would that be the general view of people on this forum, that non-farmers have no business in the countryside? And if so, a bit rich to have made such huge fortunes selling houses and sites to us, if you didn't want any of us living here!

That's a whole other debate but farmers are happy for non-farmers to live in the country once they are understanding of country life and realise that the site they bought is they're property and everything else except the public road is somebody else's property.

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

Comments