Why does EVERY thread that has even have a sniff of a mention of dogs bring out the extremists every bloody time?
bigyinn - Member
Why does EVERY thread that has even have a sniff of a mention of dogs bring out the extremists every bloody time?
it jihad time..
Why does EVERY thread that has even have a sniff of a mention of dogs bring out the extremists every bloody time?
The massive sense of entitlement of [s]many[/s] dog owners as I mentioned earlier? 😉
If he shoots your dog on a right of way on his land then he can be charged with criminal damage, unless your dog is worrying livestock, in which case it is generally seen as justified. If your dog is off the path after he asks/has asked you to keep it on the path, then you are trespassing.
If he has said that he may be forced to shoot if dogs are worrying livestock, then that is probably a fair warning. If he has said that he will shoot if dogs are just on his land, then that isn't. He can only take to court for that, he has no right to shoot the dog. If he is making general threats to shoot people/dogs then that should be reported to the police.
Aside from all of that, and hoping to stir up the already rabid debate. I think dog owners (all pet owners in fact, although large dogs are among the worst), should have to pay a yearly pet tax to offset their substantial carbon footprint.
The massive sense of entitlement of many [s]dog owners[/s][b]people[/b] as I mentioned earlier?
6 of one half a dozen of the other!
Its rare I admit, but I never put my dog on a lead because he is not only well trained but incredibly obedient. And no....I'm not a Liar.
Is that as accurate a statement as the one you made about Aberdeen being an employment wasteland on the Trump thread?
You should know better than to use cross thread posts.....it will only end in tears!
You will also be aware, that I retracted the statement, that was not a statement of fact, but an open question.
Knob!
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/dogs-in-front-of-the-fire-pics ]Not EVERY time [/url] 😉Why does EVERY thread that has even have a sniff of a mention of dogs bring out the extremists every bloody time?
If all dog owners cleared up after their dogs and kept them under control at all times around others....
I wonder how quiet it would be here?
😉
pleaderwilliams - MemberAside from all of that, and hoping to stir up the already rabid debate. I think dog owners (all pet owners in fact, although large dogs are among the worst), should have to pay a yearly pet tax to offset their substantial carbon footprint.
I'd support that* if you made all parents pay an annual child tax to offset their substantial carbon footprint.
*You're welcome 😉
EDIT: Three winky faces in a row - does that mean someone wins a prize?
I'd support that* if you made all parents pay an annual child tax to offset their substantial carbon footprint.
I'd support that if your dog was going to grow up to be the next generation of tax payers
🙄
You should know better than to use cross thread posts.....it will only end in tears!
One post and you're crying about it? Jeez you need to grow a pair and stop being such a girl
You will also be aware, that I retracted the statement,
yes, because what you said was wrong, inaccurate and factually incorrect, as having proven your tendency toward saying things that are wrong, inaccurate and factually incorrect, you'll maybe understand why someone might question another of your statements
Knob!
Typical dog owner, someone questions them and they get all insulty
[i]Typical dog owner, someone questions them and they get all insulty[/i]
Probably because you deliberately misinterpreted my post which was more of a question than a statement....but as soon as I was made aware of the facts, I said as much.
As for growing up to be the next generation of tax payers. When the dog can avail himself of the NHS, a state pension, criminal justice system, public services, national defence, roads, the rail network etc etc etc and has an income against which to pay tax I'll fill in the forms myself - (he can't - he was sadly born without opposable thumbs and can't hold a pen).
But i don't see what thet has to do with why i should pay for his carbon footprint, but you can't pay for your kids'. Given that having children is the most irresponsible thing you can do in your life (from a [b]purely [/b]environmental standpoint of course), I don't see your problem with my proposal. You can tax my dog's carbon footprint when you tax your own.
PS: There is no way that any of what I've said so far was meant tongue in cheek. Definitely not. 🙄
🙄
All the eye swivelling in this thread reminds of Knightmare, when the player’s life force went to nothing.
"PICK UP THE CHICKEN! LEFT! NO RIGHT! SPELLCA..."
🙄
"Ooooh, naaaaasty".
Knightmare was ace!
Anyhoo, as someone who deals with this exact problem from time to time in work, as has been mentioned earlier, the first phone call should be made ASAP to the police, the second to your RoW department.
Various offences (both civil and criminal) have been committed here.
If asked, I would advise walkers to keep to the path, and to avoid all possible confusion over being in (close) control - to keep dogs on a lead whenever on farmland, and to always clear up dog mess. Obviously if someone starts yelling at you / threatening you just turn around, its not worth getting thumped over TBH.
Although I genuinely sympathise with farmers / landowners and understand it is their livelihood, even though sometimes they get REALLY wound up by dog walkers / bikers / etc, 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), that it is an offence to disrupt any paths users / cause a nuisance / etc, and you should not discharge firearms (IIRC) within 50ft of a highway. And before you think about threatening people in future, yell at me over the phone instead. I'd also chase it up with the police to see what action they took.
I can't link it directly, but google "basc dogs livestock and game" as its quite comprehensive.
If anyone has any specific questions please shout.
When the dog can avail himself of the NHS, a state pension, criminal justice system, public services, national defence, roads, the rail network etc etc etc and has an income against which to pay tax I'll fill in the forms myself - (he can't - he was sadly born without opposable thumbs and can't hold a pen).
A debate about dogs paying taxes/using public services - brilliant!
A debate about dogs paying taxes/using public services - brilliant!
I think we can probably close the rest of the Chat Forum now.
She has met a few people that claim the landowner has threated to shoot any dogs not on a lead.
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.
Shoot the dog owners, not the dog.
Also - bring back dog licenses
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 and then the red sock brigade for just being there 10/10 for that idea.
Glupton would my dog get a cheaper license given she is only black?
I had a similar incident happen to me when I was young and stupid. Gun arsehole interfaces followed by sheep turning up dead were suggested. It ended with my brother and some mates having a quiet word with him. . Would have been much easier to have just called the police.
falkirk-mark - no because that would be a racist policy. 😉
Pfffft - find me a dog owner who can really control their dog off a lead at all times and I'll find you a liar.
Its rare I admit, but I never put my dog on a lead because he is not only well trained but incredibly obedient. And no....I'm not a Liar.
When I lived in Bristol I used to go for morning runs with the spaniel off the lead. When we get to a road she stops and waits with me.
I actually used to find it a lot easier to have no lead a lot of the time when just walking as idiots would quite often try and push through between me and the dog.
As for threatening to shoot the dog - report it ASAP.
If there is a sign by a land owner requesting that dogs are on a lead then as a guest on their land I will adhere to their wishes. But I also know my animal around livestock (we have sheep) and at times I will keep her under close control but off the lead so she can run should something like a cow decide to go for her instead of taking out both of us.
But if someone shot my dog I doubt I would be able to restrain myself.
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.
and you should not discharge firearms (IIRC) within 50ft of a highway.
That constitutes a carriageway, so does not apply to a footpath or bridleway.
Firstly, the Highway Code advises that dogs are kept on a [i]short[/i]
lead on roads shared with horses and/or cyclists.
Wild animals (game - such as pheasant or rabbit etc) become the property of the landowner when on that persons property.
A landowner commits an offence of criminal damage for shooting a dog. A statuturoy defence is provided if the dog is shot whilst it's worrying livestock.
Allowing a dog to "be at large" in a field containing sheep is an offence. Being at large is defined as not being on a lead or otherwise under close control. The inference is that close control equates to being on a lead.
According to the British Horse societies accident reporting website there are 11 recorded dog attacks on horses in South downs National Park. Compare this to only 2 recorded incidents involving cyclists.
There are regular complaints in SDNP about mountainbikes and a strengthening drive to restrict MTB access. This comes from the sort of people that campaign to ban trail motorcycling.
I think we can probably close the rest of the Chat Forum now.
See a need, fill a need.
I've had more run ins with other cyclists than I have with dogs.
Usually dick head middle aged roadies that think they're Bradley Wiggens on winter mtb rides going full belt round blind corners. It's lead to a few punch ups.
The only time I've had a run in with a dog (a big **** off Allsation, my late gentle Spaniel jumped in and hung off it's throat). If you've never had a good dog, one that is well behaved, loyal and gentle mannered towards people then you should think twice about lumping us all in the same boat. Funnily enough half of you making these whining wet comments would be the same lot that would have me banned if I made trolling comments about homosexuals, asians, old people or whatever.
So what, a dog chased you the other day? I've lost count of the amount of times I've been physically threatened by humans. [u]In fact the amount of times I've been attacked by a dog is equal to the amount of times I've been hit by falling oak trees.[/u] Life's risky, get used to it.
As you're bwaarp and therefore perfect you've obviously never done this once in your life. 🙄winter mtb rides going full belt round blind corners.
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.
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.
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?
People are being threatened by a guy with a gun. Get a grip.
Well people are threaten by dog, you get a grip.
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!
chrissie waddle. alan shearer
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 [i]highway[/i] not FP / BW, and which is why I also said [i]should not[/i], not [i]must not[/i]. 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 [b]really[/b] 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" 🙂
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.
Happily Schnor - see your highlighted words below
unless they [b]are[/b] worrying livestock (and that pheasants [b]aren't[/b] livestock),
S9 makes it legal to shoot them if you believe they are [b]about to[/b] or already [b]have[/b] worried livestock
S11 specifically states that pheasants [b]can[/b] 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.
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 [b]are[/b] compared to [b]is[/b], [b]about to[/b] and [b]already have[/b] 🙂
S11 specifically states that pheasants can constitute livestock
Take a [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/22/section/11 ]closer look[/url]: -
“livestock” means cattle, horses, asses, etc etc, also, [b]while in captivity[/b], 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.
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 [s]a lovely lady walks her dog down the pavement and lets the dog loose[/s] the neighbourhood cats poo on your lawn. How long is it before you start to get annoyed?
?
Cats bury it don't they? Only ever had problems with dog poo on lawns.
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
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 [i]claim[/i] 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.
