trespassers

[CharlieT]

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

 

That unfortunately relates to the expanding ammo not the rifle. Unless ones rifle is so conditioned in addition to the expanding ammo condition you mention it's a no, no.

[Mr_Logic]

I have asked this very question of the licensing department and have caused quite a stir up there. The law is as has been posted. There is no condition to be added to the FAC in order to facilitate the shooting of dogs worrying livestock, but make damn sure you notify the police if you do shoot such a dog. I went right up to licensing manager level with this query so it was well checked (for once!).

 

Regarding the law which says you can shoot a dog attacking you, well that would be the self defence laws - a dog is a potentially lethal weapon if so trained (and quite a few are being now) and thus if set upon you entitles you to use lethal force in response, since you have a clear and immediate threat to your own life.

[HDAV]

Interesting thread I remember reading some stuff about humane despatch clause and FAC holders being called out by plod to despatch animals hit by cars etc. The debate was that a 12G was better than a rifle due to back stops etc. Some vets can still carry pistols for this as can stockmen etc.

 

If you shoot a dog under the conditions of The Animals Act 1971 you have to inform police within 48 hours. They may question the cirumstances which you would have to explain.

 

A friend of my mums Westie was attacked and killed while she was walking it in a park by a another dog I wonder what would happen if the same sort of dog attacked a shooters dog while owner of attack dog was trespassing?

 

It seems to be a nightmare of legislation and a last resort it's a shame it has to come to this and it will only get worse as land owners are encouraged to open up access to footpaths improve access for dogs and remove styles etc

[MPT1]

We are I know dicussing shooting.

 

Just for amoment think. I do not have a gun and I am being threatened/intimidated by a dog.

 

I do have a hammer, piece of steel pipe or lump of wood. I batter the dog until it is dead.

 

How do I stand in law then?

 

Is the law biased against using a gun or is the act of killing against the law.

[guest1957]

We are I know dicussing shooting.

 

Just for amoment think. I do not have a gun and I am being threatened/intimidated by a dog.

 

I do have a hammer, piece of steel pipe or lump of wood. I batter the dog until it is dead.

 

How do I stand in law then?

 

Is the law biased against using a gun or is the act of killing against the law.

 

My understanding is that the law doesn't recognise guns as valid self-defence anymore, certainly not against a person. I suspect the CPS would be less fussy if used against a dog. If you use something other than a gun and can show that you were in genuine danger, I don't think there would be any case to answer, though the onus would be on you to prove you were in real danger.

[jollysp2]

Just put one of these up job done!

[gixer1]

I would have thought point "d" would cover shooting a dog if you were being attacked wouldn't it?

Edited April 16, 2010 by gixer1

[ellie]

I would have thought point "d" would cover shooting a dog if you were being attacked wouldn't it?

good answer mate