Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dog attacks on sheep !!

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ganmo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭ganmo


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

    and no dead dogs here...unfortunately


  • Options
    #33
    farmersfriend
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭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,


  • Options
    #34
    Arrow in the Knee
    Registered Users Posts: 956 ✭✭✭Arrow in the Knee


    The owners are as bad as the dogs in question.


  • Options
    #35
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Genghis Cant
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,980 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    ganmo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Sheep breeder
    Registered Users Posts: 1,978 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    Tokyo
    Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Genghis Cant
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,980 Mod ✭✭✭✭Genghis Cant


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    ganmo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭ganmo


    Genghis Cant wrote: »
    ^^^^^^^^^ Worrying or 'about to worry'

    and then notify the guards


  • Options
    #43
    greysides
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,975 Mod ✭✭✭✭greysides


    Genghis Cant wrote: »
    ^^^^^^^^^ Worrying or 'about to worry'

    The law is stated here.

    The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. Joseph Joubert

    The ultimate purpose of debate is not to produce consensus. It's to promote critical thinking.

    Adam Grant



  • Options
    #44
    bluezulu49
    Registered Users Posts: 229 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #45
    Genghis Cant
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,980 Mod ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #46
    greysides
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,975 Mod ✭✭✭✭greysides


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

    The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. Joseph Joubert

    The ultimate purpose of debate is not to produce consensus. It's to promote critical thinking.

    Adam Grant



  • Options
    #47
    Kovu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,241 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #48
    greysides
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,975 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.

    The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. Joseph Joubert

    The ultimate purpose of debate is not to produce consensus. It's to promote critical thinking.

    Adam Grant



  • Options
    #49
    Genghis Cant
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,980 Mod ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #50
    ganmo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #51
    Tokyo
    Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    AP2014
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,090 ✭✭✭AP2014


    mike_ie wrote: »
    "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.

    Jesus have you shot many? Ever concerned he might just be wandering and causing no harm. Just wondering would lads ever feel guilty they shot an innocent one and some young lads pet down the road is dead because of it. Aware of the point they shouldn't be straying though.


  • Options
    #53
    Genghis Cant
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,980 Mod ✭✭✭✭Genghis Cant


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

    That's exactly why I posted it. Every man or woman that keeps livestock, particularly sheep, should be able to quote that piece of legislation.
    Let us be under no illusions where we stand. If a dog is unattended in a field of sheep he is 'about to worry ' in my my view.


  • Options
    #54
    greysides
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,975 Mod ✭✭✭✭greysides


    I think the appropriate section of the Act needs careful reading. Here's one definition that should be understood:


    (11) In this Act “stray dog” includes any dog which appears to be unaccompanied by a person unless such dog is on the premises of its owner or of some other person who has the dog in his charge or of any other person with that person's consent.


    A dog worrying or 'about to worry' seems clear cut enough but the next part contains certain conditions that must be met. The overall emphasis of the Act seems to be that you CAN'T just shoot some else's property willy-nilly..... but, there are these couple of 'outs' where conditions must be filled. We are discussing the 'outs'.

    The dog must be a stray, and in the vicinity of an attack with the shooter having reason to believe it was involved and with no way to catch it or to known to whom it belongs. The shooter must be the person in charge of the livestock and must report the shooting to the guards within 48 hours.

    So be careful.

    The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. Joseph Joubert

    The ultimate purpose of debate is not to produce consensus. It's to promote critical thinking.

    Adam Grant



  • Options
    #55
    ganmo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭ganmo


    AP2014 wrote: »
    Jesus have you shot many? Ever concerned he might just be wandering and causing no harm. Just wondering would lads ever feel guilty they shot an innocent one and some young lads pet down the road is dead because of it. Aware of the point they shouldn't be straying though.

    its not something we want to do, but warnings regularly go unheeded.
    we don't seek the owners of the ones we shoot. esp the ones that plaster the place with poor lost pooch leaflets.


  • Options
    #56
    Tokyo
    Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    AP2014 wrote: »
    Jesus have you shot many? Ever concerned he might just be wandering and causing no harm. Just wondering would lads ever feel guilty they shot an innocent one and some young lads pet down the road is dead because of it. Aware of the point they shouldn't be straying though.

    Not many - a few over the years, one of them my own after catching him worrying neighbours sheep, many years back. Was I worried that they were causing no harm? No - they'd been caught in the act quite a few times by ourselves, or other neighbours, and this was after repeated words with the owners. It's not like I blew away little Tommy's pet poodle in front of him because his dog went in under the gate. And putting an animal down, for whatever reason, is certainly not something that I take any enjoyment from.


  • Options
    #57
    rangler1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,497 ✭✭✭rangler1


    mike_ie wrote: »
    Not many - a few over the years, one of them my own after catching him worrying neighbours sheep, many years back. Was I worried that they were causing no harm? No - they'd been caught in the act quite a few times by ourselves, or other neighbours, and this was after repeated words with the owners. It's not like I blew away little Tommy's pet poodle in front of him because his dog went in under the gate. And putting an animal down, for whatever reason, is certainly not something that I take any enjoyment from.

    A friend shot two in a sheep shed one time,, like those Dulux dogs, are they called English sheepdogs, supposed to be worth thousands..an expensive lesson for someone, they had serious damage done to the sheep though


  • Options
    #58
    Tokyo
    Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    rangler1 wrote: »
    A friend shot two in a sheep shed one time,, like those Dulux dogs, are they called English sheepdogs, supposed to be worth thousands..an expensive lesson for someone, they had serious damage done to the sheep though

    Yep - always sad when it has to be done, and I've cornered dogs in the past and locked them in one of the sheds, called the owners to pick them up, only to see them back again the following week.

    But at the end of the day, if something is worth that much to you, then you keep an eye on where it is at all times. I don't leave my car at the side of the road with the keys in the ignition and then wonder why someone has nicked it - don't see this as being any different.


  • Options
    #59
    whitetail
    Registered Users Posts: 34 ✭whitetail


    mike_ie wrote: »
    Yep - always sad when it has to be done, and I've cornered dogs in the past and locked them in one of the sheds, called the owners to pick them up, only to see them back again the following week.

    But at the end of the day, if something is worth that much to you, then you keep an eye on where it is at all times. I don't leave my car at the side of the road with the keys in the ignition and then wonder why someone has nicked it - don't see this as being any different.

    Had the same problems here caught dogs and notified owners only to find dogs in again now just shoot first no problems since.


  • Options
    #60
    ganmo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭ganmo


    Had to dig out the dog wardens no. again this mornin, this time for a neighbour


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Username John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,237 ✭✭✭Username John


    ganmo wrote: »
    Had to dig out the dog wardens no. again this mornin, this time for a neighbour

    Sickening - how much damage done?


Advertisement