trespassers

[unapalomablanca]

Heres another concern for the law abiding shooter. Lets say youve got your permission, you are obviously licensed and insured, you are shooting way away from any bridleway, footpath and houses etc but someone decides to trespass around the fields walking their dog and something bad happens. I see people walking where they shouldnt all the time letting their dogs trample the crops and whenever you point it out to them that they arent supposed to be there they say oh i dident realise ive been doing it for years. If somone did get shot where would the shooter stand in the eyes of the law if he had followed all reasonable procedure?

[Imperfection]

I think unless there are really extreme circumstances like someone literally jumping infront of your gun-the shooter will always be at blame.I see trespassers and just excercise caution cos normally they havent got the inteligence to stay away from where shooting is going on.

[Cranfield]

Surely you do not fire your gun unless you know you are taking a safe shot.

That should exclude the chance of shooting anyone.

When I see anyone in the field, I unload my gun first and then let them see where I am.

They usually go back the way they came, or give me a wide berth.

[CharlieT]

Surely you do not fire your gun unless you know you are taking a safe shot.

That should exclude the chance of shooting anyone.

When I see anyone in the field, I unload my gun first and then let them see where I am.

They usually go back the way they came, or give me a wide berth.

 

 

Exactly Cranfield.

It would most definitely and quite rightly be the shooter who would be to blame, be prosecuted and I hope lose his license.

[unapalomablanca]

Surely you do not fire your gun unless you know you are taking a safe shot.

That should exclude the chance of shooting anyone.

When I see anyone in the field, I unload my gun first and then let them see where I am.

They usually go back the way they came, or give me a wide berth.

Of course i do all that. The question was mainly theoretical. calm down its just a question on a forum. Because sometimes unbelieveable things can happen and i bet somewhere it has.

[ellie]

Exactly Cranfield.

It would most definitely and quite rightly be the shooter who would be to blame, be prosecuted and I hope lose his license.

i had the same thing happen to me,we have cattle on my land and some -----ing bloke had a dog off its lead i walked upto him and told him to get the dog on a lead and get of the land but he then told the dog to attack me so i shot it in self defence and the police said i was in my rights to do so

[Billy.]

i had the same thing happen to me,we have cattle on my land and some -----ing bloke had a dog off its lead i walked upto him and told him to get the dog on a lead and get of the land but he then told the dog to attack me so i shot it in self defence and the police said i was in my rights to do so

 

 

 

....Rrrrrrrriiiiiigggghhhhhhttttttttttttttttt.............. That's killed that conversation.

 

I'm sorry to say, but if someone shot my dog, no matter how big they were and even if they had a gun, I'd have one hell of a go at killing them. I feel a little porky pie has just been told.

Edited April 9, 2010 by harfordwmj

[SSS]

Get some signs made up and put them on the edge of the footpaths saying something along the lines of 'SHOOTING IN PROGRESS, KEEP TO FOOTPATHS!'

 

Would that do any good?

 

One of the farms I shoot on has 2 footpaths crossing it, and people dont use one of them, because it is further to walk to the next one. They go straight across a field of wheat to the opposite corner and join onto the next path.

They are a bloody nuisance because you just never know they are there.

 

What do you 'orrible lot think to putting signs up?

 

All the best,

Sam

[Cranfield]

Of course i do all that. The question was mainly theoretical. calm down its just a question on a forum. Because sometimes unbelieveable things can happen and i bet somewhere it has.

 

I was very calm when I posted my response, I was just trying to point out that its almost impossible to behave responsibly and still accidentally shoot someone.

[ellie]

....Rrrrrrrriiiiiigggghhhhhhttttttttttttttttt.............. That's killed that conversation.

 

I'm sorry to say, but if someone shot my dog, no matter how big they were and even if they had a gun, I'd have one hell of a go at killing them. I feel a little porky pie has just been told.

you can say that but ive lost 5 cows by dogs who going to pay for my loss

[CharlieT]

....Rrrrrrrriiiiiigggghhhhhhttttttttttttttttt.............. That's killed that conversation.

 

I'm sorry to say, but if someone shot my dog, no matter how big they were and even if they had a gun, I'd have one hell of a go at killing them. I feel a little porky pie has just been told.

 

 

I was not aware that the law relating to shooting dogs worrying stock also permitted the shooting of dogs worrying shooters. Perhaps shooters are now classed as stock.

 

In ellie's case the dog owner would have recourse in law to sue him in court for damages. I doubt that he has a condition on his fac for shooting dogs.

[ellie]

I was not aware that the law relating to shooting dogs worrying stock also permitted the shooting of dogs worrying shooters. Perhaps shooters are now classed as stock.

 

In ellie's case the dog owner would have recourse in law to sue him in court for damages. I doubt that he has a condition on his fac for shooting dogs.

just to let all you shooters know if any dog is going to bite you on your own land you have the right to shoot it by law, and what would you lot do if a dog is biteing your leg[give it a cuddle]

[CharlieT]

just to let all you shooters know if any dog is going to bite you on your own land you have the right to shoot it by law, and what would you lot do if a dog is biteing your leg[give it a cuddle]

 

 

As a farmer myself I would be grateful if you could provide me with details of the relevant legislation as it would be handy to know.

[ellie]

As a farmer myself I would be grateful if you could provide me with details of the relevant legislation as it would be handy to know.

what do you farm

[SSS]

what do you farm

Good answer

[guest1957]

British Railways Board Vs. Herrington. If there is a deadly risk to a trespasser e.g. someone shooting over the land, there is liability unless there is some sort of warning such as a sign. With regard to the individual shooter, I think if you could reasonably forsee a risk of harm when taking a shot there would be some sort of criminal liability as well. If there were a trespasser hiding in a hedge and they got pricked with shot or something, I think you would have a reasonable defence

[ellie]

Good answer

you sound like you know what i mean about pest?any way if you need any shooting days keep in touch ive got peas ready to shoot in about 2 weeks

[ellie]

you sound like you know what i mean about pest?any way if you need any shooting days keep in touch ive got peas ready to shoot in about 2 weeks

in nottingham

[kyska]

As a farmer myself I would be grateful if you could provide me with details of the relevant legislation as it would be handy to know.

 

Me too, is there any legislation on dogs worrying stock out of interest? I can't find anything relevant online.

[HDAV]

Is this it?

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Act...a_19530028_en_1

Penalty where dog worries livestock on agricultural land

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, if a dog worries livestock on any agricultural land, the owner of the dog, and, if it is in the charge of a person other than its owner, that person also, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

(2)For the purposes of this Act worrying livestock means—

(a)attacking livestock, or

(b)chasing livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering to the livestock or, in the case of females, abortion, or loss of or diminution in their produce.

[F1or

©being at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep]

[F2(2A)Subsection (2)© of this section shall not apply in relation to—

(a)a dog owned by, or in the charge of, the occupier of the field or enclosure or the owner of the sheep or a person authorised by either of those persons; or

(B)a police dog, a guide dog, trained sheep dog, a working gun dog or a [F3dog lawfully used to hunt].]

 

 

Ah here it is http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Act...a_19710022_en_1

Protection of livestock against dogs

 

9 Killing of or injury to dogs worrying livestock

(1)In any civil proceedings against a person (in this section referred to as the defendant) for killing or causing injury to a dog it shall be a defence to prove—

(a)that the defendant acted for the protection of any livestock and was a person entitled to act for the protection of that livestock; and

(b)that within forty-eight hours of the killing or injury notice thereof was given by the defendant to the officer in charge of a police station.

(2)For the purposes of this section a person is entitled to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if—

(a)the livestock or the land on which it is belongs to him or to any person under whose express or implied authority he is acting; and

(b)the circumstances are not such that liability for killing or causing injury to the livestock would be excluded by section 5(4) of this Act.

(3)Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person killing or causing injury to a dog shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if, either—

(a)the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or

(b)the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.

(4)For the purposes of this section the condition stated in either of the paragraphs of the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that it was satisfied and had reasonable ground for that belief.

(5)For the purposes of this section—

(a)an animal belongs to any person if he owns it or has it in his possession; and

(b)land belongs to any person if he is the occupier thereof.

 

 

HOpe this helps, In the case of the dog attacking a person or being encourage i guess the dangerous dogs act will play a part

 

Noticed that hunting dogs are excluded I wonder if this applies to current hunts where no actual hunting takes place (drag hunt etc) but the hounds worried livestock?

 

I believe shooting the dog should be a last resort in some cases better to shoot the owner?

Edited April 11, 2010 by HDAV

[CharlieT]

what do you farm

 

 

2000 lambing ewes and 50 beef suckler cows.

 

Again I ask what legislation do you refer to that permits the shooting of dogs that bite farmers.

 

I know the legislation that covers dogs worrying stock, what I am after is a link to the legislation that permits farmers to shoot dogs that bite them the farmer that you quoted.

Edited April 11, 2010 by CharlieT

[kyska]

Sorry for the long quote!

 

Thats perfect thank you HDAV.

 

Does anyone know how this relates to firearm laws? I have 'vermin' on my FAC, so would using a firearm to kill a dog be illegal? I ask as I don't have fox on my FAC, it needs to be specific and with a CF, which I don't have, so surely shooting a dog worrying my rather expensive Kerry Hills would negate the need for licensing to shoot fox?

 

CharlieT, you might be able to help with my question above?

 

Re killing a dog that is attacking you, I think that anyone being attacked by a dog would be entitled to defend themselves with what any means, its not against the law to kill (non protected) animals, its illegal to cause undue suffering or cruelty, which kinda ties in with my question above.

 

Which begs another question, why are people able to shoot fox with shotguns, with limited success of immediate, humane killing but FAC holders need to jump through very expensive, firery hoops? (I can't use my hmr for fox, it has to be CF, which means I need to buy a CF just for fox, and as a rule I reckon I'd shoot a few a year if they were bothering my newborns.

 

Kyska

 

PS shooting the owner may well be the right way, but as we've read the dog needs to be 'uncontrolled', but 10 house points for imagination...

 

 

Is this it?

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Act...a_19530028_en_1

Penalty where dog worries livestock on agricultural land

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, if a dog worries livestock on any agricultural land, the owner of the dog, and, if it is in the charge of a person other than its owner, that person also, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

(2)For the purposes of this Act worrying livestock means—

(a)attacking livestock, or

(b)chasing livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering to the livestock or, in the case of females, abortion, or loss of or diminution in their produce.

[F1or

©being at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep]

[F2(2A)Subsection (2)© of this section shall not apply in relation to—

(a)a dog owned by, or in the charge of, the occupier of the field or enclosure or the owner of the sheep or a person authorised by either of those persons; or

(B)a police dog, a guide dog, trained sheep dog, a working gun dog or a [F3dog lawfully used to hunt].]

 

 

Ah here it is http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Act...a_19710022_en_1

Protection of livestock against dogs

 

9 Killing of or injury to dogs worrying livestock

(1)In any civil proceedings against a person (in this section referred to as the defendant) for killing or causing injury to a dog it shall be a defence to prove—

(a)that the defendant acted for the protection of any livestock and was a person entitled to act for the protection of that livestock; and

(b)that within forty-eight hours of the killing or injury notice thereof was given by the defendant to the officer in charge of a police station.

(2)For the purposes of this section a person is entitled to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if—

(a)the livestock or the land on which it is belongs to him or to any person under whose express or implied authority he is acting; and

(b)the circumstances are not such that liability for killing or causing injury to the livestock would be excluded by section 5(4) of this Act.

(3)Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person killing or causing injury to a dog shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if, either—

(a)the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or

(b)the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.

(4)For the purposes of this section the condition stated in either of the paragraphs of the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that it was satisfied and had reasonable ground for that belief.

(5)For the purposes of this section—

(a)an animal belongs to any person if he owns it or has it in his possession; and

(b)land belongs to any person if he is the occupier thereof.

 

 

HOpe this helps, In the case of the dog attacking a person or being encourage i guess the dangerous dogs act will play a part

 

Noticed that hunting dogs are excluded I wonder if this applies to current hunts where no actual hunting takes place (drag hunt etc) but the hounds worried livestock?

 

I believe shooting the dog should be a last resort in some cases better to shoot the owner?

Edited April 11, 2010 by kyska

[CharlieT]

Kyska

 

As it seems that every ruddy species one needs to shoot must be listed on our fac's I suspect that "dogs worrying stock" should also be named although I have never enquired of my licensing manager.

 

I think I have every other eventuality covered such as "humane killing of animals" etc but have never thought of asking for dogs to be added, I will request it at next renewal which is due very soon.

 

I have, I'm sorry to say, had to shoot a couple of dogs over the years for worrying my sheep and have on all occasions reported it to the police to cover myself. No one has ever queried the fact that my fac was not so conditioned.

 

charlie

[kyska]

Charlie,

 

Its comforting you've had no come back on shooting dogs worrying your sheep, its never happened to me, but I live in a village that was a farming community, but is getting very much taken over by commuters, not that I mind, but the understanding that our farm is the same as their back garden isn't present.

 

Let us know about putting 'dog' on the FAC!

 

Good luck with the lambing mate.

 

Kyska

 

 

 

Kyska

 

As it seems that every ruddy species one needs to shoot must be listed on our fac's I suspect that "dogs worrying stock" should also be named although I have never enquired of my licensing manager.

 

I think I have every other eventuality covered such as "humane killing of animals" etc but have never thought of asking for dogs to be added, I will request it at next renewal which is due very soon.

 

I have, I'm sorry to say, had to shoot a couple of dogs over the years for worrying my sheep and have on all occasions reported it to the police to cover myself. No one has ever queried the fact that my fac was not so conditioned.

 

charlie

[Piebob]

I don't have FAC any more but I vaguely recall words along the lines of the ones below being an allowed use when I had mine. These words are copied from someone elses FAC.

 

D) the shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans