Dog or Cat And SHOULD A Farmer Shoot?

I have been called in over the years when sheep have been attacked or killed by a suspected puma or leopard.  The attack and kill methods are far different from those of canid attacks/kills.

The police had to deal with one case where a walker's dog went to sniff a dead sheep.  The farmer was not in sight when he fired his rifle and killed the dog as 'the killer' -I believe it cost the farmer several thousand in an out of court settlement.

The actual killer was a large cat- confirmed by a former African game hunter who examined the dead sheep and then called in a zoologist who had studied leopards in Africa.

I am aware of three farm dogs shot by farmers because they suspected their dogs had killed sheep. None of the farmers believed the "big cat nonsense" -in each case the farmers and/or members of their families SAW a large cat -in one case pulling a dead sheep into a hedgerow (but never seen killing a sheep). 

I have seen a few photographs of true dog attacks on sheep but that does not tell you which dog attacked -it might have been rustlers dogs not a local's dog.

So, when I was told a farmer intends shooting any walkers dog that is off the lead and near or in a field with his sheep I pointed out just how illegal this was.  I know a few farmers have asked me about this in the past.  My advice: don't shoot.  If you have insurance THAT covers you against livestock killed by a dog.  In the past, kills by large cats have been listed as "dog attack" by some insurers.

The National Sheep Association offer this advice http://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/dog-owners/advice-for-farmers/2486/destroying-dogs-that-attack/:

Destroying dogs that attack

NSA recommends that farmers only shoot dogs as a last resort, as the legality of a shooting depends on whether a farmer had a lawful excuse for shooting the dog in that individual circumstance. If it is necessary to shoot an attacking dog, please bear in mind the following points:-

• Dogs are counted as property so shooting a dog could trigger a criminal damage charge.
• In order for a shooting to be legal, you would have to show that you acted in the belief that your property (i.e. the sheep) was in immediate danger and that your actions were reasonable under the circumstances. What counts as ‘reasonable’ can differ in individual cases, depending on the situation. If, for example, you have had problems with a particular dog before and the owner has ignored requests to keep it under control, this would be a relevant factor. It is important to remember that you are not entitled to shoot the dog if it has already left the vicinity and is no longer a direct danger to your sheep, even if you fear it might come back and pose a threat in the future.
• There is also the possibility of the dog’s owner suing you for trespass to goods. The Animals Act 1971 offers you the defence that you were protecting livestock if you can show that you reasonably believed that either: the dog was worrying or about to worry the livestock and there were no other reasonable means of ending or preventing worrying; or the dog had been worrying livestock, had not left the vicinity and was not under the control of any person, and there were no practical means of finding out who owned it
• You must report the shooting to the police within 48 hours. If you do not, none of these defences will be valid in civil proceedings.
• Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to dogs (or other protected animals). The factors used to decide whether the suffering caused by shooting a dog is unnecessary include: whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced; whether the act which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, in this case protecting property or another animal; whether the suffering was proportionate the intention of the action; and whether the conduct was wholly that of a reasonably competent and humane person.
• Although the Act makes allowance for what it calls ‘the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner’, the law is based so heavily on circumstance that it is very difficult to know if your actions will count as this. You are at particular risk of falling foul of this Act if you fail to kill the dog cleanly with one shot. Offences can be punished with up to six months’ imprisonment and/or fines of up to £20,000. You could also be disqualified from keeping animals.
• Shooting a dog also puts you at risk of committing a firearms offence. You could be prosecuted for breaking certificate conditions if you use a rifle or other section 1 fire arm to shoot a dog, unless the certificate conditions allow such use. Chasing a dog in order to shoot it has been known to lead to prosecution for trespassing with a firearm. Firearms offences are usually punished with imprisonment unless they are minor technicalities. A police review of your right to possess firearms will almost certainly result from shooting a dog. Your certificates may be taken away with no guarantee of them being returned.

 The information here is correct to the best of NSA's ability and cannot be used to defend action taken by individuals when a case of sheep worrying by dogs occurs.

First of the New Year!

The fact that 2015 gave me the opportunity to identify several "mystery" animals and solve some old cases is good. 

There is also the fact that I have corrected the "UFO record" so many times in just a month by going directly to the quoted sources -misquoted and not even checked by 'researchers'.

It proves once again why neither "cryptozoology" nor "ufology" can be considered a science.  Scientists from various disciplines have done and still do look into these subjects and that I can only commend because the true purpose of science and the scientist -amateur or professional- is to look at everything, study the evidence and then, if possible, reach a conclusion. The truth is not a very popular thing.

And the "skeptics" and their publications and organisations are not much better than those professing to belong to the false sciences. 

A strange craft is seen to land by four people who then see a tall, glowing eyed entity" -"obviously a meteorite and light reflecting from the eyes of an owl!"  or "Everyone is abduction crazy these days -its all psychological".  How do they know?  They read a couple articles by their chums or watched a ridiculous TV programme -all proving it's bunkum. 

"It can't be so it isn't" is not scientific or logical.  Firstly -who else is on record as reporting this very large meteorite (and it would have had to have been) that landed 50 feet away from witnesses?  No one but "it could not have been anything else"?  A very large meteorite did not hit Earth then -it merely streaked across the sky?  Did you check the "landing site"?  Why -it was only a meteorite? That is not science at all.  It discards every detail because you are an ass and say "science refutes this!"? Write "I'm a double-dumb-ass" 100 times. 

And the entity? "It looked tall because it was an owl sat in a tree branch!"  No trees.  "It was flying low" -and just hovered at the same spot for five minutes like owls do? 

Okay, but no one claimed any "alien abduction" so ---"It's all part of that hysteria.  You wait: hypnotist then the story will come.  Psychological!"

Hmm. "psychological" is what sums up the idiot makes wood cut-out after wood cut-out for TV shows to show how "flawed" the memory and eye is when it comes to distance and size assessment. Because only someone "not all there" would have each one of these tests disprove this 'fact' and stand there like a chump and say "See -I was right!"

"Everything is bunkum!" is not scientific.  Oh, you get your money from TV appearances, talks and books but more importantly you get to massage your ego by getting on TV.  Go away. You are a waste of time and your work is of no value because it does not scientifically assess evidence.

That said, the Phenomena folk are the same.

Not every scream in the woods is a sasquatch -it could be another "squatcher". 

Not every wood knock is a sasquatch -it could be another "squatcher".

A piece of masonry falling, a bit of plaster or other matter -not unusual in old or abandoned buildings.  It is not a sign of the paranormal.  Wood in building expands and contracts and you hear "thuds" and "bumps" that are quite loud.  Flooring and wood door and window frames expand and contract.  Wooden stairs are constantly readjusting -they undergo a lot of stress and foot traffic.  Creaks, knocks and so on are not signs of the paranormal.

Thanks to TV sensationalism and the people who thrive by feeding on this, every haunting is now an "evil demonic presence"/ "a dark entity" and kids no longer have imaginary friends -no, those are all demons. "Shadow figures" and dark masses -these only began years after the internet  was filled with (known) student pranks but, no, these jokes are all 'genuine'. 

Every single house in the United States (unless TV has lied to me!) has a "porthole"/"window" or "door" to Hell or some such.  Whatever happened to the "It was a little old lady who smiled then vanished" ghosts?  We KNOW who to blame.

Hoaxing and fakery are not "scientific documentation of the afterlife/paranormal".  Why are the Electronic Voice Phenomena recordings, video footage and all the "new inventions tuned to spirit energy" not handed over to scientists for that "scientific verification"?  I would not accept the word of a single person associated with these hoax programmes.

If you have a GENUINE piece of footage of a strange creature, a flying saucer or anything paranormal you get it evaluated by people not involved in the paranormal, cryptozoology or ufology -because 97% of them would be doubted if they said the sun rises each day.  You do not upload it straight to You Tube and title it "100% genuine footage of----"  And if you are not willing to give your real name do not expect to be treated as anything other than a hoaxer and do not offer bull-shit like "this could ruin my career" -there are serious and strict confidentiality rules with serious scientists.

So, let's just remember that around 98% of what is shown on TV is fake.  "The TV says---" well,in one show "It" is all genuine.  The next show "It" is all fake or misidentification".  TV people want you in their viewing figures because that increases commercial revenue.  They ain't there for science.

Remember that and if you see or hear something: investigate and if you are out of your depth then get in touch. And remember this and let it be your scientific mantra.....

A Response

Might I just respond to a couple of remarks left in comments which I have deleted as I prefer to give absolutely no free publicity to any disreputable con men involved in cryptozoology or ufology -neither of which are scientific subjects, though some reputable scientists have delved into both.

Information used without my permission, twisted, re-worded and even used to indicate that I have worked with any "cryptozoological" centre are incorrect.  I have corresponded with and written for many organisations and publications over the last four decades.  Luckily, some I have learnt were disreputable very early on and severed all ties with.

Others I have had to wait until they begin showing their true faces.  The big fat bully boys who think they cam "muscle" ladies in their 70s or get "the gang" to run hate and rumour campaigns against someone but can say "I have no control over what others write -it is a free country".  Well, "free" so long as you agree with this particular person.

I am not and have NEVER been a part of or associated in any way with any cryptozoological body as anything other than a writer.

I will leave the matter there.