A SAd Day Please help us get some action

I have just came off the phone to Julie to be told that her Mums dogs where shot by a farmer in front of her eyes 20feet away in a field with no sheep!!!!!!!

Now the dogs had ran through a field and where unsupervised for 5 minutes NOT enough time in my opinion to do much at all....and the farmer chased them round an empty field as they where running towards the owners and shot them... one he corned and shot 5 times in front of a 65 year old and a 70 year old who where 20feet away begging him not to shoot their dogs..I am outraged at such a cold callous act!!!

The law states:

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.


So as far as I can see what he has done is not leagal and have advised Julie she should go to a lawyer...

I also after this have started a petition to clarify the law and insist that farmers CANNOT shoot at will, unless in extreme circumstances which should be clearly written down..

PLEASE SIGN

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/DogOwnerRights/

And pass it on :'(

Thats just awful! Pass on my heartfelt saddness at there loss x

I have signed and also agree that this was not legal. If these had been labs or collies would this have still happened??? I think not!

I am so sorry to read this sad news, please pass on my condolences

poor dogs didn't stand a chance, will go and sign it now

were the dogs a wolfy breed?

THis is absolutely terrible. There is so much wrong with this. No live stock present therefore no act or worrying. The Dogs were leaving the property and returning to the owner. People were telling this man not to shoot. Not only did this farmer not have to kill these dogs he possibly endangered the lives of the people who were near the dogs when he shot.
This is more than likely very close to the same story just released of the Tamaskan getting gunned down in a farmers field. The only difference is who is telling the story.
I believe Julies Mum should take this to court and I believe she would have a strong case as long as the Judge is not partial to farmers. If she was endanger of getting shot herself that will only strengthen her case. I am sure a judge will weigh on the side of protecting human life over the farmers right to protect his livestock.

Thanks guys, i spoke to Julie last night, not only the breeder but the daughter of the lady who owned the dogs, she was so upset, she just cant stop crying... her mum and Alex (the owners) have had to go away for a few days are they are beside themselves, her mum has been given tblets from the doctor to try and sleep...there friends and neighbours have all been bringing flowers and she just couldnt cope

they are seeking legal advise and I hope to goodness they get bloody good lawyer as I agree John this was not legal and he should not be allowed to have a gun...lunitic!! They were Utonagan so yes it makes you think after the poor Tamaskan dog story that this has been more a fact of what kind of dog to anything other!!

We hope that the SSPCA, RSPCA, Dogs Trust etc will help us with our petition to change the law...I dont see why this should be right when it is so obviously wrong...why cant they use tranqueliser guns and then sue the owners for their losses (in in fact there where any) in this day and age his actions where positivley barbaric...

That poor poor woman

I have said before the law is out dated and comes from a time when bullets were cheap and sheep were worth more then dogs. This is not the case anymore and a good few farmers hide behind it as an excuse to do what ever they want. It desprately needs to be reveiwed