The Farmers Mart Apr-May 2018 - Issue 56 | Page 39

SHEEP 39
• APR/MAY 2018
him with breach of the peace
for threatening and abusive
behaviour. The dog owner had
alleged they were attacked by
the farmer.
The best advice in this type of
situation would be to get photo-
graphic evidence of the dog and
owner. Ask them to leave your
land with the dog. If the person/
owner becomes aggressive, then
move away don’t get involved
in an altercation. If possible take
note of a vehicle license plate,
either written form or photo-
graph and collect any evidence
of the damage caused. Then
contact the police as soon as
possible, providing them with all
the evidence you’ve obtained.
As a last resort a farmer is
within their legal rights to shoot
a dog but should only be done
as a last resort. Dogs are classed
as property so shooting a dog
could trigger a criminal damage
case being brought against the
farmer.
A farmer commits a criminal
offence in threatening to shoot
a dog, and in shooting a dog,
unless they honestly believed
the livestock was ‘in immediate
need of protection’ and that ‘the
means of protection adopted or
proposed to be adopted were
or would be reasonable having
regard to all the circumstances’.
So, where shouting, throwing
something or shooting over the
head would be enough, then
that is what should be done first
to avoid committing an offence.
(Criminal Damage Act 1971).
The farmer will need to show
that he/she acted in the belief
that the animals (property)
needed protection. If the dog
has moved away and is no
longer posing a threat, even if the
dog is likely to return cannot be
used a defence. What is consid-
ered reasonable is a grey area,
for example if the dog owner
fails to keep the dog under con-
trol after previous requests to do
so, then this could be consid-
ered reasonable if the dog is still
threatening the sheep. Farmers
will also need to report the
shooting incident to the police
within 48 hours otherwise any
defence will no longer be valid.
Many consider the 1953 Live-
stock Act to be outdated and
want it brought up to date, as it
doesn’t take into consideration
modern developments in live-
stock farming such as Alpacas.
They say there are too many
grey areas within the Act that
need being brought up to date to
suit modern farming practices.
‘The existing definition of “live-
stock” is outdated and doesn’t
include modern farming livestock
types. Missing animal types from
the legislation include llama, al-
paca, emu and ostrich.’ Livestock
Worrying Police Working Group Fi-
nal report, National Police Chief’s
Council 2018
Recent findings have also
discovered that many dog attacks
‘ Many consider the
1953 Livestock Act
to be outdated and
want it brought
up to date, as it
doesn’t take into
consideration
modern
developments in
livestock farming
such as Alpacas
’
are more often alone and not with
a walker/owner. Currently the
prevention measure being sug-
gested to owners is that they keep
their dogs on a lead when out
walking. Yet there is a larger issue
of owners not being responsible
in the home. Dogs, are not being
adequately supervised whilst in
the home, they are escaping the
boundaries and committing these
attacks. It’s being recommended
by the Livestock Worrying Police
Group that owners be more re-
sponsible and prevent their dogs
from escaping.
More recently Farmers Guardi-
an along with the National Sheep
Association and British Veteri-
nary Association have launched
the ‘Take the Lead’ campaign
trying to make dog owners more
aware of the need to keep dogs
on the lead around livestock.
Over 40,000 ‘Take the Lead’
signs were sent out to farm-
ers, councils and unions to be
placed in areas where livestock
are present. The campaign has
gained wide coverage in media,
including BBC Radio 2’s Jeremey
Vine Show, Dogs Monthly mag-
azine and various local press
outlets. The aim of the campaign
is to educate the public and
reduce the number of attacks on
livestock by dogs.