Interesting technicality! It's quite possible that, if the farmer's like friends of ours who sell their wild rabbits at 50p each after they've been lamping, he could well argue that they represent part of his income.
:)

I suppose like a lot of laws, this ones not so straight forward as it would appear, a legal minefield.

Absolutely.

Any farmer has the legal right to shoot a dog if it chasing sheep on their farm whatever breed it is and no questions asked.!!!!  The same must apply for hunting hares.

Why must the same apply to hares? I am just curious ...I can see the reason for sheep ..after all, they are the farmers livlihood , but hares are wild

But hares are food/game animals, Mel - again, they can be a source of income for the farmer.

*Can* be JG ...he hasn't bought them, had them injected, wormed and spent money on them and they are classed as wild animals and not farm or domesticated. Plus ...he doesn't OWN them ;) They happen to be there rather than having been farmed like sheep

When I was young, 'wild' animals were considered to belong to the person who owned the land they were on. Has that law been changed?

I have no idea JG ......I hadn't heard of that law but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist :)

I will try to find out for you.
Dawn.

That isn't strictly true... It is illegal to allow your dog to be at large in a field where livestock are present. They must be kept on a lead or under close control. The definition of close control is down to the farmer not the dog owner. How many of us have seen people letting their dogs off the lead along footpaths that run through fields of sheep? They think they are doing nothing wrong but the farmer is entitled to shoot them simply for running loose whether they are chasing or not. Sheep apparently suffer from stress more than any other domestic animal so wouldn't have to be chased to be stressed.

This is a quote from the Estate management law.
Wild animals cannot, while alive be owned but, once killed they become the property of the landowner, whether killed by the landowner in the exercise of his common law right to kill and take wild animals found on his land or by a trespasser such as a poacher.

Dawn.

Thanks Dawn, that's excellent! So if a dog kills a rabbit on someone else's land, that rabbit is then the property of the owner of the land.

Assuming the dog's owner doesn't have permission to do this, I wonder when the offence occurs? I suppose it could be argued that the moment the rabbit is killed, the dog has destroyed the farmer's property ...

I'm pretty sure I've read some where that a farmer can only shoot a dog that is caught in the act of "worrying"

I still haven't got a definitive answer from the local beat bobby whether it would be lawful to shoot the dogs, but a straw poll around the local station suggest that they would take a dim view of a farmer shooting dogs that were controllable enough to be caled to him and not actually worrying domestic farm animals.

This makes things a bit clearer as regards the worrying of farm livestock.

(Interesting about guard dogs too, but that's another topic!)

my dad is on about getting two lurchers to use them to hunt rabbits and i must put my point across that although i feel hunting is wrong atleast when people use the dogs it is quicker than using snares or anything else and its not like the rabbit is an endangered species as they are breeding machines!
i dont know if i agree to hunting rabbits but i can honestly say that i do not see the harm in occasionaly hunting them either

If we left the foxes alone they would balance out the rabbit population - 'sigh'

Yvonne

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work like that, Yvonne.

Well Sam when you lose 1 of your pets to this SPORT you may feel different.

......and trained them to ignore the vulnerable lamb or hen and stick to chasing cannier rabbits :)

sharonb..... but surely those dogs were lost due to the fact that the handler was running them on land where he didnt have permission. Thus it has nothing to do with 'sport' and everything to do with being a poacher!

There is a difference, and i very much doubt that sam poaches!

Not everyone who hunts is doing so illegally, in fact most people arent!

Em

Thanks Em, I certainly hadnt a clue what sharonb was on about!

If you read my first post then youd know. In actual fact he lost 2 dogs through the sport. 1 was chasing a rabbit and had an heart attack another ran into a train. On both those occaisons he wasnt poaching. The dogs who were shot by the farmer yes they were on his land but its not the dogs to blame. And it was still the rabbiting that put him on farmers land. I cant see how you dont have a clue what Im on about Sam its simple.

whatever....rabiting? lamping? coursing? was he being forced to do it against his will?  Probably not  so what are you moaning about then???Like I said....I do all three....quite legally:) never been poaching in my life....not sure what you are having a go at me for or even about:(

IN addition to what sam said....... you can lose a pet through a heart attack in its sleep, it could break its neck chasing a ball, it could run in front of a car or train or whatever escaping out of your front door.

These things are part and parcel of life im afraid, and have nothing to do with hunting or sport whatsoever.

I choose to run my dogs only in areas where they are highly unlikely to access a road or a railway. They are run on land i have permission on, and the landowners whose land borders it, whilst not giving me permission, are aware and would nto shoot MY dogs for being on their land (although this time of year, i will not, out of courtesy, go anywhere near their land anyway with sheep about).
The dog i work has an excellent recall -- the part timer/retired one is not quite so good but could still be called off someone elses land/away from a railway track.

Running a dog by a busy railway line is very poor judgement in my opinion -- a dog having a heart attack is sheer bad luck.

Nothing, however, to do wtih hunting though!

Em

Iam not having a go at ANYONE here all I was doing was pointing out the sad fate of my brothers dogs. You said you didnt have a clue what I was going on about I just explained myself..
theemax. How can you say its nothing to do with Hunting when thats what they were doing at the time. As I said I started an argument with nobody I was just saying what I knew.
I think if you read through the posts you will see.

Sharon, the point is that if your brother had only allowed them to hunt on land with the owner's permission then they'd never have been shot. The fact is, they were poaching - that's been illegal for centuries.

I have kept out so far, but honestly Sharonb, it is very true what people are saying to you.  As sad as losing dogs in the manner which your brother did,  he was however poaching, allowing his dogs to hunt across land without the owners permission, and the farmer was perfectly justified in his actions.  The blame here lies with your brother, not the farmer, not the sport.
Dawn.

Yes Jeangenie, I understand that. My only pity was only for the dogs my brother was a arse. The dogs dont have any clue of the law. It was along time ago when this happened about 10 years or more. I cant remember all the facts. I will ask him about him. I know he would get permission, as I remember him going to see farmers about this. Thats why I cant understand why this happened.
I know nothing much about this sport. And each to their own. I was just adding to a conversation maybe next time I wont bother.
Sorry if I offended anyone I didnt meen to Im still trying to work out what it was I said that upset people.

Ooh Dawn I have only just seen your reply. That is so nasty and sadistic. How could anyone take a gun to dogs stood at his feet and shoot and say its justified.
Hope no dogs ever upset you.
Iam speachless.
That is maybe te worst comment I have seen on this board. I have apolagised to who I offended and said all I want to on this matter.

I have stayed out of this argument for a long time - but I must ask one question Sharonb - how was the farmer able to call all the dogs to him, then shoot them ALL without at least one owner calling his dog back?   I do not think that all the dogs would sit and wait to be shot.

Margot

Lokis mom.
I thought the same thing, but didn't mention it.

Sharonb.
I didn't say I approved of the farmers actions, I said he was perfectly justified in those actions, he was.  The core of the issue here is that the dogs were shot because of their owners inability or unwillingness to control them properly.  You have been critical of your brother yourself, you cannot expect others to defend his actions, when your yourself do not.

I'm sorry if I sounded harsh, I was just pointing out the facts, as cruel as the reality may be, ultimately the dogs were killed because your brother was poaching.
Dawn.

Oh Sharon that is so sad. I don't know any owner who would stand back and allow it to happen, probably one of those situations where everything happens so fast.
All you see round on our back fields is the young lads, armed with air guns. Then you have to witness their victims hung from trees as you walk your dogs the next day. We have a gamekeeper, so nobody gets away with lamping etc but obviously he can't be around 24/7 to catch these scruffy kids whose muppet parents allow them to wander armed.

You know Im lost now. All I said was what happened. I never intended my brother was in the right and I never defened him. The only point I was making was what an awfull thing to happen. Then you get all different things said. If my first post was read you will see the only thing I was saying is how things can happen.
And thanks Spook I think it did happen so quickly. I will have to ask my brother the details and give you all the answers you want. But I do know the farmer did intise the dogs with friendly banter and strokes before he shot them. Thats the bit that is so upsetting.