http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/thetford_elveden_estate_gamekeeper_cleared_over_shooting_dog_that_was_harassing_sheep_1_1373478

Apparently the owner is going to start a civil case against the keeper   "I hope that this will be the beginning of gamekeepers learning they do not have the divine right to shoot our pets"

Sorry missus but if the dog couldn't be caught for over an hour it was NOT under control and shouldn't have been off lead.

Agreed.
I do feel sorry for the dog and owner though, she had to carry her dog back to the car in a bin bag, a very harsh lesson.

i do feel for the lady, and also poor dog. however the fear that the 'other' livestock was put through is v sad. most gamekeepers would have shot at the start and not tried to catch the dog. if the dog is out of control this is what happens.

I have a lot of sympathy because I used to have a naughty one who twice got into sheep fields and rounded them up, thank God there was nobody there, and it was only a few minutes before we caught him. He was not allowed offlead in the Lakes on subsequent holidays! But I agree - if the dog was uncatchable and scattering sheep and harassing pheasants, the keeper was within his rights. Poor lady and poor little dog. :-(

It is very sad, the little dog was no doubt having the time of it's life just being a dog, little did it know it was risking it's life, so yes, I feel very upset for the dog poor thing, she too is an innocent.

The owner is just being silly now in trying to bring a civil case, she has no case and must understand why the dog was eventually shot, it's her fault, actually fault may be too harsh a word, let's say responsibility instead. But I guess it is easier for her to make the gamekeeper the bad guy. I guess she is lucky they are not suing her for the hurt or dead pheasants too, they are perfectly within their rights to do so and if any sheep were about to lamb even worse. (Though wrong time of year)

TBH, I wish that they were allowed to carry a tranquilizer gun as well as a shotgun for cases like this rather than just shoot a dog dead, and then fine the owner for trespass and damage.

But, as that is not a required law............ I guess we have a dead dog. Some lawyer somewhere is making some money out of a woman's grief, she cannot possibly win such a case on the report given.

I wonder if this is being pushed further as it states the gamekeeper works for East Anglia's 2nd richest family, somehow I don't think it would be being pursued otherwise or am I just being my cynical self. :-)

I actually wonder if it was chasing sheep at all - reads to me as if that was the excuse for shooting it as they would not be allowed to shoot it for chasing pheasants - just seems rather convenient that it slipped into a field and chased sheep for a few seconds methinks! Don't get me wrong - I don't think the dog should have been chasing anything but it seems rather harsh (not to say illegal - game isn't livestock) to shoot it for "allegedly" killing 4 pheasants. I rather think the gamekeeper got off because of who his boss is rather than the civil case being pursued because of it! I wonder if he would have shot the dog at all had it been a well-built young man who was with it rather than this lady...

telegraph have the story here

>s they would not be allowed to shoot it for chasing pheasants -

Pheasants are farmed (albeit freerange) birds, and on shooting estates particularly they're as important as any poultry farmer's chickens. Under the 1971 Animals Act the definition of 'livestock' was widened and also includes deer not in the wild state and pheasants, partridges and grouse if in captivity.

Relevant section of Animals Act.

*note to self; make sure that links contain the right bit!*

The following part of the Act says :

"11 General interpretation. In this Act--
"common land", and "town or village green" have the same meanings as in the M4Commons Registration Act 1965;
"damage" includes the death of, or injury to, any person (including any disease and any impairment of physical or mental condition);
"fault" has the same meaning as in the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945;
"fencing" includes the construction of any obstacle designed to prevent animals from straying;
"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;
"poultry" means the domestic varieties of the following, that is to say, fowls, turkeys, geese, ducks, guinea-fowls, pigeons, peacocks and quails; and
"species" includes sub-species and variety."

If the pheasants were being fed they were still in captivity.

The farmer round our way shot a samoyed last week.  Apparently 2 had escaped from a local house and went into the fields and chased the sheep so the farmer came out and shot one, the other ran off.  I think he was quite right, tbh, as the sheep went on to have their lambs a day or so later.
If that lady had her dog under control, the dog would still be alive now.  I know whos at 'fault'.
Might sound harsh but I feel really strongly about this.  We are lucky enough to be able to use the farmers land, why should he put up with stupid people too? If someone came into your garden and let their dog harass yours, you'd soon come out and sort it.

Agree with you Cracar. I think she was very lucky the two men spent an hour trying to catch the dog for her and also, as others have mentioned, that she wasn't sued herself for distress/damage to the livestock. Shame she hasn't learned from the experience.

I am a dog lover - but we now run a farm too and I can understand farmers shooting dogs when they've had their "stock" killed or injured by dogs. We've lost sheep because selfish idiots haven't kept control of their dogs. I'm very fond of my sheep and it's awful to see them injured or to find them dead :(

Although there may be elements of right and wrong in this account there's really nothing 'righteous' in this story for either party, is there.  Poor dog

That should never have been given court time :(
I live in the middle of an estate, Behind me are woods that have Pheasants and the fields around me are full of sheep half the year including lambs. Yes a shooting estate where people pay thousands for a few hundred bird shoot.
My one criteria when we moved in last year was get the garden enclosed so my dogs could not get out. I dont know if my dogs would chase sheep but didnt want to give them the oppotunity as I am well aware that a gamekeeper can shoot loose dogs. (I always have my dogs on the lead when walking past sheep fields)
Dogs chasing sheep can make them abort lambs, making Sheep run into fences breaking legs, necks etc.
Scattering pheasants can loose the estate £1000's.
Okay people might think that the estate can cope with it. But who do they think pays for the lovely woods all around and cuts the hedges, maintains the fields that people like walking in, and looking at, pays for the gamekeepers to rear the pheasants, pays for the gamekeepers to keep vermin down (yes including shooting foxes, something they spend alot of time doing)
So sorry but if the dog was loose, worrying livestock (and JG's link shows pheasants are classed under the umbrella) then it should have been shot.
I hope it gives other people the sense to keep the dogs on the lead in places like that.
Lea.

According to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 -
" (1)In this Act-- .
"agricultural land" means land used as arable, meadow or grazing land, or for the purpose of poultry farming, pig farming, market gardens, allotments, nursery grounds or orchards; and
"livestock" means cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, or poultry, and for the purposes of this definition "cattle" means bulls, cows, oxen, heifers or calves, "horses" includes asses and mules, and "poultry" means domestic fowls, turkeys, geese or ducks.
"
From here

Also:

"In practice there are virtually no circumstances in which a gamekeeper might lawfully shoot a dog or cat. Gamebirds in captivity count as livestock, but your normal precautions for keeping foxes at
bay would also keep dogs out of a pen. Gamebirds in the wild have no protection other than that provided by poaching legislation. Shooting a dog or cat that is chasing wild birds would normally lead to a charge of criminal damage unless you could show that you genuinely believed the owner would have consented to the destruction of the animal, which is highly unlikely. There is the added risk that you might lose your certificate. " from NGO