Viewing 14 posts - 121 through 134 (of 134 total)
  • local farmer threatening dog walkers on bridleway and footpath
  • user-removed
    Free Member

    This is beyond stupid. It’s not even amusing in that special STW way I usually quite enjoy. “Shoot dogs”, “Shoot the owners”, “Dogs shouldn’t be allowed to poo in the woods”, (I’m paraphrasing here, bear with me), “Insure your dogs”, “Dogs don’t pay taxes”.

    People are being threatened by a guy with a gun (if he says he has one, why doubt it?). Dogs, taxes, poo and pheasants are are totally irrelevant. Get a grip.

    bwaarp
    Free Member

    As you’re bwaarp and therefore perfect you’ve obviously never done this once in your life.

    Not on cycle trails used by families with lots of people going in the opposite direction, eg my usual weekly fitness ride which is Rutland Water.

    irelanst
    Free Member

    I would go down and tell them in person that you cannot shoot dogs unless they are worrying livestock (and that pheasants aren’t livestock),

    And I would gladly tell you that you were totally and utterly wrong on that point.

    How so?

    Section 9 of the Animals Act 1971;

    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.

    From animals act;

    ““livestock” means cattle, horses, asses, mules, hinnies, sheep, pigs, goats and poultry, and also deer not in the wild state and, in sections 3 and 9, also, while in captivity, pheasants, partridges and grouse;”

    Seems like the original statement was bang on the money to me?

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    juan
    Free Member

    People are being threatened by a guy with a gun. Get a grip.

    Well people are threaten by dog, you get a grip.

    Rockape63
    Free Member

    I’ve only been a dog owner for five years, but have run in the country around me since about 1980…….mountain biked since ’93 and in ALL those years, Ive never been bitten by a dog or even had a close shave with one.

    In fact the worse case has been when a loose dog has barked at me…..so I stop and talk to it, wait for the owner to get it under control and then move on.

    No idea what you lot are doing to get bitten, but clearly its all wrong!

    porter_jamie
    Full Member

    chrissie waddle. alan shearer

    schnor
    Free Member

    Exactly irelanst, although I’m happy to be corrected by Zulu-Eleven.

    That constitutes a carriageway, so does not apply to a footpath or bridleway.

    Yes I know, which is why I deliberately said highway not FP / BW, and which is why I also said should not, not must not. If a farmer / landowner decides to interpret that statement as meaning they shouldn’t shoot on or near a FP / BW then thats fine by me.

    Yes I’m calling their bluff (I consider it the spirit of the law VS the letter of the law), but peoples eyes genuinely glaze over and often get their backs up as soon as you get all official and litigious on them – conversations tend not to last for very long if you talk about shooting possibly being contrary to Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980, Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Section whatever of the Public Order Act 1986, the common law nuisance aspect, and thats not to mention constructive trespass, armed trespass and all the rest of it.

    If they really want to go into detail I send them a letter, but I stand by the short and sweet “you should not shoot within 50 feet of a highway” 🙂

    franksinatra
    Full Member

    Well keep dog on lead, problem solved. As far as I am concern the more dogs get shots, the happier I am to be able to walk/run/ride anywhere I want without the threat of being bitten.

    That’s a brilliant idea and when he gets away with that he will want to shoot the louts thundering down the bridleways on their bikes

    Easy, keep the bikers on a lead then.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    Happily Schnor – see your highlighted words below

    unless they are worrying livestock (and that pheasants aren’t livestock),

    S9 makes it legal to shoot them if you believe they are about to or already have worried livestock

    S11 specifically states that pheasants can constitute livestock,

    As you said, you’re trying to convey the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, but enforceability does very much come down on the side of the letter rather than the spirit.

    schnor
    Free Member

    S9 makes it legal to shoot them if you believe they are about to or already have worried livestock

    Indeed, if you must split hairs with my use of are compared to is, about to and already have 🙂

    S11 specifically states that pheasants can constitute livestock

    Take a closer look: –

    “livestock” means cattle, horses, asses, etc etc, also, while in captivity, pheasants, partridges and grouse;

    When released from their pens at (~4/5 months) Section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 considers them game birds. Section 3(c) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 defines ‘captive’, but I already hear eyes glazing over in the back of the room 🙂

    As you said, you’re trying to convey the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, but enforceability does very much come down on the side of the letter rather than the spirit.

    Absolutely, but even for something as relatively straightforward as shooting on / across / near a PRoW, which as you know isn’t a specific offence, even using the three Acts I mentioned earlier today, everything is still couched in “could / might / possibly / if the moons align, an offence” so even enforcing it becomes an exercise in bluff, obfuscation and crossed fingers.

    Saying all this though its pretty rare nowadays, with the occasional and unfortunate case that the OP mentions, which are mostly down to individual people who have a problem who shouldn’t really have guns in the first place, rather than there being a general issue.

    ransos
    Free Member

    Maybe a little thought experiment is in order: you own a house with a garden that borders the street and of course have a RoW running past the garden – the pavement. Every day a lovely lady walks her dog down the pavement and lets the dog loose the neighbourhood cats poo on your lawn. How long is it before you start to get annoyed?

    ?

    pleaderwilliams
    Free Member

    Cats bury it don’t they? Only ever had problems with dog poo on lawns.

    jota180
    Free Member

    Cats bury it don’t they?

    Not when they sneak in though an open window and do it behind the TV they don’t
    Really happened, more than once

    flowerpower
    Free Member

    Haven’t read this thread thoroughly… but…

    There is a land owner by us who has a similar attitude to dogs on his land (I am in Scotland, so not public footpaths, but commonly used footpaths which lead over a golf course into the surrounding land). In my case the land owner has already shot two dogs which were off the lead and appears to have got away with little more than a warning and fines. I don’t know the details of the cases, and there is livestock on this land, although the owners of the dogs in question claim it wasn’t around at the time of the shootings.

    My point is that no matter what the rights or wrongs of the landowner shooting the dog, it is too late to argue after the event. For this reason I will always keep my dog on a lead on his land. I will take her somewhere else to let her run. It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, I just don’t want my dog to get shot.

Viewing 14 posts - 121 through 134 (of 134 total)

The topic ‘local farmer threatening dog walkers on bridleway and footpath’ is closed to new replies.