sheep worrying.

[Addie 1,388]

I think the thing is, and we don't know the facts relating to the farmers case, so this is theoretical

 

If farmer has caught the dog it is no longer worrying or at risk of worrying and he isn't preventing worrying he should not destroy it because

 

1. The law provides strict liability and for compensation via a Trespass Jury which is quick and effective

 

2. The Court is given the power to order destruction, in those circumstances, not the farmer, so shooting at that stage is a bit like vigilantism, taking the law into your own hands outside of an immediate threat or danger

 

Its a bit like self defence, Ok if the act you are defending against is on going, not if it has stopped and there is no risk

 

But it happened more than once, didn't it? So who could say with certainty that there was no future risk?

 

Plus, Butterflies insinuates that farmers care less about their livestock. This is absolutely incorrect. Does he/she know any farmers? Farmers don't just do it for the money. There are many easier ways to make a living. Sitting all day in a warm office for instance adding up your pension and enjoying your paid holidays for instance.

 

http://www.dlps.org.uk/images/sheepworrying.jpg

[the stinking enigma 11,884]

if aliens farmed human babies by fattening them up until the point they were just about perfect to slaughter and eat then we probably would not suggest that they were humanitarians, even if in their defence they were hard working and conscientious

[Albert Tatlock 12,075]

if aliens farmed human babies by fattening them up until the point they were just about perfect to slaughter and eat then we probably would not suggest that they were humanitarians, even if in their defence they were hard working and conscientious

You need to stay in more.

[Lisenchuk 4,501]

I'm always wary of Spaniel worriers.

[slinkydevil 5,061]

I'm always wary of Spaniel worriers.

 

Leave GD4ELI out of this.

[HeliX 2,353]

 

I think the thing is, and we don't know the facts relating to the farmers case, so this is theoretical

 

If farmer has caught the dog it is no longer worrying or at risk of worrying and he isn't preventing worrying he should not destroy it because

 

1. The law provides strict liability and for compensation via a Trespass Jury which is quick and effective

 

2. The Court is given the power to order destruction, in those circumstances, not the farmer, so shooting at that stage is a bit like vigilantism, taking the law into your own hands outside of an immediate threat or danger

 

Its a bit like self defence, Ok if the act you are defending against is on going, not if it has stopped and there is no risk

But it happened more than once, didn't it? So who could say with certainty that there was no future risk?

 

Plus, Butterflies insinuates that farmers care less about their livestock. This is absolutely incorrect. Does he/she know any farmers? Farmers don't just do it for the money. There are many easier ways to make a living. Sitting all day in a warm office for instance adding up your pension and enjoying your paid holidays for instance.

 

http://www.dlps.org.uk/images/sheepworrying.jpg

 

Future risk isn't covered by the law. Imminent risk is, but not future. Largely because imminent risk can be proven, future cannot.

[woolley 19,199]

If a dog had killed 70 of my sheep and had done so before on different occasions and I was presented with the opportunity and the means to do so I'd be for shooting it to obviate the risk of the same dog doing the same thing in the future. That seems reasonable to me. If the law supposes that is wrong, then the law, Sir, is an ass.

[vikingdoom 58]

I hope the farmer gets what he deserves, and his killer mate. He should never be allowed to keep animals again. Anyone who has such little regard for life has no right to be keeping sheep. All these farmers see is cash and they couldn't give a shit about the animals

[HeliX 2,353]

If a dog had killed 70 of my sheep and had done so before on different occasions and I was presented with the opportunity and the means to do so I'd be for shooting it to obviate the risk of the same dog doing the same thing in the future. That seems reasonable to me. If the law supposes that is wrong, then the law, Sir, is an ass.

Then campaign against it. Don't expect to break it while it's still illegal and get away with it, though.

[woolley 19,199]

I think historically more bad law has been changed by breach rather than campaign although I don't have scientific data on that. The poll tax springs to mind. The problem with campaigning against liberal laws in the face of a liberal elite is obvious.

Edited July 26, 2016 by woolley

[Lisenchuk 4,501]

I hope the farmer gets what he deserves, and his killer mate. He should never be allowed to keep animals again. Anyone who has such little regard for life has no right to be keeping sheep. All these farmers see is cash and they couldn't give a shit about the animals

Nah! I can't fully agree with you there. There are in fact a majority of them who go to great lengths to ensure exceptionally high standards in their animal husbandry.

 

I grant you there are also a small minority of callous buggers who have little empathy,but that's not generally the rule.

 

Good husbandry always produces healthier and more viable stock.

 

I do though agree with you that shooting these a dogs at what seems to be point blank range in an execution style was the wrong course of action. Usurping the law where firearms are concerned is rarely viewed in a favourable light.

[Lisenchuk 4,501]

 

I'm always wary of Spaniel worriers.

 

Leave GD4ELI out of this.

 

He's hiding under the bed and not coming out 'til the farmer's gone.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Lisenchuk

[Lisenchuk 4,501]

If a dog had killed 70 of my sheep and had done so before on different occasions and I was presented with the opportunity and the means to do so I'd be for shooting it to obviate the risk of the same dog doing the same thing in the future. That seems reasonable to me. If the law supposes that is wrong, then the law, Sir, is an ass.

Woolley,reading the stuff John Wright posted earlier I actually believe this piece of legislation is well considered and quite balanced.

 

If no other reasonable option exists,that is when the gun gets cocked otherwise it would be a charter for something more akin to the wild west.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Lisenchuk

[Lisenchuk 4,501]

I think historically more bad law has been changed by breach rather than campaign although I don't have scientific data on that. The poll tax springs to mind. The problem with campaigning against liberal laws in the face of a liberal elite is obvious.

Poll tax is perhaps not a great example. Things like that really only gain poor acceptance because they were manipulated for the ends of political divisiveness

[La_Dolce_Vita 754]

 

If a dog had killed 70 of my sheep and had done so before on different occasions and I was presented with the opportunity and the means to do so I'd be for shooting it to obviate the risk of the same dog doing the same thing in the future. That seems reasonable to me. If the law supposes that is wrong, then the law, Sir, is an ass.

Then campaign against it. Don't expect to break it while it's still illegal and get away with it, though.

 

Were these dogs shot whilst they were killing the sheep? If so, I don't see what people's problem is with shooting the dogs.

 

I don't really think a dog's life has a great deal more value than a lamb's or sheep's, so it is case of determining which situation involves fewer injuries and deaths. If the means to achieve this is to shoot the dogs then that has to be done. It is not an ideal solution.

 

But I think people are dwelling too much on the respective value of the animals to the farmer and to the dog owner, but this is entirely irrelevant. The value of their animals is how much value we place on their 'right' to continue their lives and do so without suffering.