Here's an important warning to all dog owners walking/climbing in the Langdale area. Somebody, i assume it's the notorious "dog shooter" of Langdale, has nailed shut the dog access gates on most stiles in Langdale. This came to light yesterday when on the approach to Pavey Ark with two dogs. Now being slightly disabled, and with Barney being a healthy 28 kg black Lab, we were just about stuffed. It was only with the help of two burly dudes we met at the stile that we managed to lift the dogs over, much to their discomfort. We managed to avoid the main stile on the tourist route up Stickle Ghyll, but coming back down a different route to the foot of Dungeon Ghyll, hot and weary, we were shocked by the actions of this irresponsible farmer. This is simply not acceptable, and doesn't give a very good impression of our "friendly" Lake District to visitors. As I have involvement with both Cumbria Tourism and Natonal Trust, I shall be doing everything possible to resolve this situation and bring those responsible to task if at all possible. Meanwhile, be aware and ready for some uncomfortable diversions and some grumpy dogs in the process. Perhaps it is the intention of said farmer to force us to divert through his fields so he can shoot our best pals? Scary thought, and I don't like it. Let me know if you have any thoughts on this subject.
Playing devil's advocate here, and bearing in mind that my instinct is to side with the dog owners, we have to remember that "dog access gates" are a concession and not a legal requirement, unlike access for humans and/or horses (the latter on bridleways).
The only thing that the authorities might be able to do with this individual is possibly bring a charge of criminal damage. Even then it is such negligible damage that it is unlikely to get beyond a CPS lawyer, let alone succeed in court!
This is of course in relation to interfering with the dog gates, and not the shooting of dogs which is a completely different prospect!
The shooting in question refers to a well know trigger happy Langdale farmer who shot and killed a german shepherd dog last year that was apparently spotted worrying sheep. I believe the shooting took place when the dog was back in the company of it's owners. The National Trust are due to remove the nails ASAP, but I'll try to update as I hear more. Thanks for clearing up the legalities here, thought that was probably the case, but NT are going to be having words with the tenant farmer in question. Just have to wait and see. Have to include a claw hammer in my climbing kit next time...
And again, to play devil's advocate here.....let's say that, perhaps, this particular farmer had gone out onto "his" hillside today and found a sheep or two either mauled by dogs or frightened to death by dogs who have not been controlled by their irresponsible owners?
I note the story about the German shepherd and, whilst it seems harsh to have shot it "once back in the company of its owners", what on earth was it doing NOT in their company in the first place? (especially if there were sheep about)
I'm sure you fall into the "sensible owners" category Jon but you must be aware that there are plenty of irresponsible ones. Indeed I once walked with someone who was warned by a farmer to put her dog back on a lead because it was lambing time....and promptly took it off the lead as soon as the farmer was out of sight!!!
Actually, if the farmer shot the dog away from the scene after the event when the dog had returned, then he has absolutely no right to shoot the dog.
Seeking recompense from the owners and applying for a destruction order for the dog after the event is completely different and just, but the shooting of a dog MUST be when in the act of attacking livestock.
I would certainly counter-sue in such circumstances, the law does not allow a farmer to discharge firearms in such circumstances, particularly if it would endanger human life.
It has almost the same legal connotations as self defence!
Relevant section of the Animals Act 1971 applies:-
(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.
So if a farmer shoots a dog where the owner is present and has regained control, then the farmer commits a Criminal offence in addition to a civil one against the dog owner!
(Sorry to go on a bit, but the perpetuation of the myth that a farmer can shoot any dog on his land willy nilly annoys me intensely!)
I've had a quick squizz at the Animals Act 1971, and I couldn't actually see anywhere where it said the word 'offence', and thus if a farmer were to shoot a dog unnecessarily, I don't believe it would be a criminal offence under the Act.
In fact, Section 9 of the Act ("Protection of livestock against dogs") begins:
(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...
The rest of Section 9 follows on from that, and there is no mention anywhere of an 'offence' (in the whole Act, never mind just Section 9) - it just states 'civil proceedings'.
Also, the farmer's defence for shooting a dog is fairly strong - See subsection (4) of section 9: the farmer only has to 'believe' that the two conditions were satisfied, and show he had reasonable grounds for that belief. As legislation goes, that's weighted pretty heavily in favour of the defendant.
You miss the point Michael, the farmer would be liable for prosecution under firearms legislation (failure to comply with licence conditions) as he could not claim exemptions under this act!
The farmer cannot under this act shoot a dog in the circumstances prescribed, end of story, and I know of a farmer prosecuted and sued under very similar circumstances.
It would obviously depend on the quality of evidence.
The crux is that common to popular misconception, a farmer CANNOT shoot a dog on sight unless ALL the conditions of this act are present/absent dependant on the given circumstances, they certainly DO NOT have a tacit right to shoot any dog on their land!
Ah, but your last posts made no reference to any legislation other than the Animals Act, so it implied (to me anyway!) that the farmer would be guilty of a criminal offence under the Animals Act.
I still maintain that the Animals Act is weighted very heavily in favour of the farmer (or 'the defendant' - we're assuming it's a farmer). If he shoots a dog he only has to show he reasonably believed that he was doing so in accordance with one of the two conditions in your earlier post. I'm not saying that gives him or her 'carte blanche', but he/she doesn't have to do much to have a reasonably secure defence (whether that is right or wrong). My day job involves dealing with pieces of government legislation, and I have found few that are so 'lenient' towards one party in a dispute.
there was a sign in the chilterns (don't remember where) attached to a stile. "please ensure your dog is on a lead and under control. dogs worrying livestock will be shot" depends how brave you are to "test" this.
"So if a farmer shoots a dog where the owner is present and has regained control, then the farmer commits a Criminal offence in addition to a civil one against the dog owner!"
So that is down to your misinterpretation of my words.
The fact remains that in the circumstances that a farmer shoots a dog who has (allegedly) worried livestock and is back in the presence of the "owners" and under control, it matters little what he thought, he commits an offence.
Parkie's observation is the key,
"dogs worrying livestock will be shot"
Agreed that it would be scant consolation taking a farmer to court and having him successfully prosecuted and claiming damages off him for the loss of a family pet!
Much better to ensure that the situation could not arise in the first place.
It is just that it is an urban myth, backed up by law that a farmer has the right to kill dogs on his land per-se, he does not!
If a person takes a dog onto farm land where there is livestock present, then that person has an obligation to make 100% sure the the dog is under his control ALL of the time.
Tony, I don't want to get into a big argument for gawd's sake!!!! I've already said how the misunderstanding arose: the part you've reiterated above was immediately after you quoted the Animals Act, so it's not unreasonable to assume you were linking the two (Animals Act and 'criminal offence'), especially as you only quoted the Animals Act and no other legislation.
it matters little what he thought, he commits an offence
Yes, I appreciate that, now you've explained you're talking about an offence under completely different legislation that hadn't been mentioned. But at the time of my post, as I stressed above, there was an implication that you were linking 'criminal offence' with the Animals Act!!! If you'd specified that the 'criminal offence' was under different legislation the misunderstanding wouldn't have arisen!
It is just that it is an urban myth, backed up by law
That doesn't make any sense to me! LOL! An urban myth backed up by law? It's not an urban myth then, surely???
BTW, I am against farmers harming dogs in all but the most serious circumstances. The reason for my posts was to clarify what I thought were ambiguous (and misleading) posts.
But, going back to the 'circumstances prescribed' above, we have, of course, only heard one side of the story - a story which uses terms like 'apparently' and 'I believe'. That's simply hearsay. For all we know the German Shepherd was actually rampaging across the fells in an uncontrolled bloodthirsty rage at the time it was shot.
That's simply hearsay. For all we know the German Shepherd was actually rampaging across the fells in an uncontrolled bloodthirsty rage at the time it was shot.
As a dog owner of many years I have become increasingly dismayed by the levels of irresponsable dog owners,most seem to have very little control of there dogs,have they never trained them? Today I walked around virginia water lake,my dogs getting old and needs the cooling effects of the water.One side of the lake there are 4 very large signs saying dogs must be on a lead,I passed 24 dogs, guess how many were on the lead?NONE. I mentioned this to one of the park wardens and his answer was that if they dont start to control there dogs the authorities will have to ban dogs entirely from that area of the lake.Some dog owners are spoiling things for the the few resposable dog owners left.
What I meant Michael was that it is an urban myth, the rebuttal of which is backed up by law, not the urban myth itself!
Of course the incident described is here-say, but having said that it is not an uncommon thing that dogs are being shot illegally and people accept it because they do not know the law!
And I don't think any of us are "missing the point" Shropshire Sadler, not when we write such lines as "Much better to ensure that the situation could not arise in the first place," as I did in a previous post!
First of all thanks to Jon for the post, much appreciated.
I have 2 GSD's both have been trained since I got them as puppies, and both respond to a dog whistle I carry about with me always.. and I mean always.. its round my neck when every I leave the house with the dogs. Jay is my male 2 year old, and is perfect. I whistle, he comes no matter what he is doing, what he has seen.. straight to my side. Zara my 3 1/2 yr old bitch used to be just the same, that was up until 4 weeks ago when we were on Grange Fell. Zara saw a sheep and she ran for it.. I whistled and she totally ignored me... I'll be honest and say that for one or two seconds I actually didn't quite know what to do.. when your dog does something so out of charactor as that after 3 years of being perfect, it takes a second. I got Zara back before she got anywhere near any sheep.. they were far to fast for her over the rocks thankfully.. but its not the point. She doesn't come on long walks with me anymore, only short ones and always on the lead the whole way round unless I can clearly see that there are no sheep anywhere to be seen.. and it has to be VERY clearly so. Zara is one week of coming on heat, I don't use that as an excuse in any way, and even though I know in my heart that I could NOT have trained my dogs any better, they are dogs, we have a responcibility to keep them under control. .. to finish my waffle... If you ever see someone ine hte Lakes with one or two GSD's, ask to see the party trick.. you'll know it's me if I say, 'sure no problem'. All it consists of is them sitting down and waiting for me to call them... but when you leave them sat there.. all alone.. on a hill side.. and walk off and leave them.. and they don't twitch.. until they hear that whistle... and you get 300 yards away.. more than one set of walkers have commented how amazing it is to see. Ok off to pack for the weekend.. rant over..
You walk with two GSDs, a thing guaranteed to get the local stockholders on edge, no matter how well behaved they are.
I walk with three Border Collies, and I have often been mistaken for a herdsman, even by farmers, so I do indeed have it easier in as much as farmers don't tend to panic when they see me and my three.
I too have worked extremely hard on the control of my three, and still do. They would drop onto hot coals on a "down" command from me.
Even so, I ALWAYS put them on lead when crossing private enclosed land, or where it is indicated that the owner would prefer you to, even though I don't need to.
I have trained mine to national obedience trail standards and regularly practise the "long stay," where I down them, walk out of site and they will not budge until I return.
I have trained them to respond in English, Welsh, whistle & signs too, very handy for distance control.
Even so, I am not complacent, and will take no chances, many a person has been caught out by extreme circumstances.
It pisses me off when I see people walking dogs off lead who cannot control them. If they cannot control them off lead, then they shouldn't be off lead, it is as simple as that.
