Took the dog for a walk today

[Cubist]

Having mulled on it through the day, as I dripped gloss on the floor and smeared it amateurishly across the door...

It simply needs to change so there's no automatic right to shoot the dog. Same as there's no automatic right to kill a burglar but there is a right to defend your property.

There was a precedent a wee while ago, where a bloke stabbed his neighbours dog to death after it attacked his. It went to court and he was absolved on the grounds he was defending his property, his dog.

Same thing you might say but I think the emphasis would be in the right place then.

I see where you are going, and in fact that is pretty much how the law stands now. The farmer must prove that he took the steps to protect livestock, ie he must have livestock in the fields.

There is, to the letter of the law, a right to shoot them if they are not controlled on land where livestock is being kept. Your leaning towards needing to prove an actual threat rather than a potential threat would, I believe, be a reasonable step-change.

I feel uncomfortable with the law as it stands, but can only enforce what is in the statute. Remove human sentimentality from the debate, and it becomes more black and white.

My most difficult case was that of a family labrador shot, having escaped into the farmer's field and chased sheep three times in a fortnight. It had caused real damage, with several ewes aborted and the entire flock stressed. The family were adamant that they should have been warned, but how many warnings can a farmer give while watching his livelihood being destroyed?

 

[Crackle]

I see where you are going, and in fact that is pretty much how the law stands now. The farmer must prove that he took the steps to protect livestock, ie he must have livestock in the fields.

There is, to the letter of the law, a right to shoot them if they are not controlled on land where livestock is being kept. Your leaning towards needing to prove an actual threat rather than a potential threat would, I believe, be a reasonable step-change.

I feel uncomfortable with the law as it stands, but can only enforce what is in the statute. Remove human sentimentality from the debate, and it becomes more black and white.

My most difficult case was that of a family labrador shot, having escaped into the farmer's field and chased sheep three times in a fortnight. It had caused real damage, with several ewes aborted and the entire flock stressed. The family were adamant that they should have been warned, but how many warnings can a farmer give while watching his livelihood being destroyed?

That sounds fairly harrowing.

I think my step change would include an emphasis on the farmer having taken other steps, if the situation allowed, before shooting the dog. So if it happened over a period of time, it would not be reasonable to shoot the dog the last time if the farmer couldn't prove he'd taken steps to find the owner and of course that also means he'd have to be able to give reasonable surety it was the same dog he'd witnessed on all occasions. None of that needs to be overly onerous, a phone call to the council or whoever to ask them to help/act/intervene and an accurate description of the dog with dates and times.

I don't overly buy the livelihood business. Farmers normally have recourse to insurance or compensation or the option to sue the owner once traced. Bottom line is, we eat sheep, dogs occupy a different place in our hierarchy.

Of course none of that excuses an out of control dog or lessens the need to protect livestock as farmers property but it puts it more in line with how the rest of us would have to act in an analogous situation, whatever that might be.