Dogsey

The dog was only doing as nature intended-ie chasing and hunting.The owners however are the guilty party by NOT stopping him from doing so.People have got to learn that all land in this country belongs to someone and they do not have the right to do as they please.I hope the owners are feeling suitably guilty.

Rather upsetting for all concerned.....

Poor wee guy
I agree with Moobli tho - I think the farmer was OTT
He says he saw something he thought was a fox (not that you would mistake that dog for a fox) so he went and got his shotgun
So the dog he saw supposedly hurting one of his birds he then turned around to get his gun came back and shot the dog
all that time yet none of the birds were hurt at all
Yes the owners really learnt the hard way about keeping a dog on a lead - but it does say they were on a path and he got tru the hedge
imo the farmer should take some responsability there too - if a dog that size could get tru then so could a fox, so he isnt protecting his birds properly

A hard lesson, I do feel sorry for them because we all make mistakes and their boy paid the ultimate price

Poor Archie. I agree with Moobli.

I am afraid this is no different from the dogs which died when their owners were too stupid to either put their dogs on a lead or NOT walk in areas where there are frozen bodies of water.

Of the dogs that die because their owners are too stupid to put their dogs on a lead or or near roads.

Entirely forseeable.

Entirely preventable.

Was the farmer OTT? Who knows, how many times this dog or other dogs have done this before. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make all fields/livestock entirely fox/dog proof.

And in any case, if the hen had been a lamb/calf, what then? Is it reasonable to expect farmers to put dog proof fences around every field?

Of course not it would be cost prohibitive.

Is it reasonable to expect owners to either train their dogs to recall or keep their dogs on a lead?

Of course it is.

THEY were on a footpath, the DOG was not. They allowed their dog to go through the hedge.

The argument that the owners did not know what was on the other side of the hedge only serves to demonstrate how important it is to have control over your dog precisely because you do NOT know.

It could have been a road, a railway line, a cliff.

So, the outcome to the dog could have been the same, death.

Poor Archie, I would think the owners were unaware of the hens if he went through a hedge, I think it was over the top to kill a dog for attacking a hen. Could have happened to any off lead dogs.

My friend used to let her dogs off until they got in a field of sheep she didn't know were there and scared the life out of her!

How terribly sad. Yes, the dog should have been under control but I think the Farmer went way over the top. I thought they were only allowed to shoot as a last resort, not shoot first ask questions later. It's a hen not a ewe in lamb.

It is very sad and I am so sorry the poor dog was shot, but when oh when will people realise that all dogs should be on leads when out walking, no matter where they are walking. All dogs can be unpredictable at times, an interesting smell and off they go and as I'm sure most of us know our pets can have very selective hearing now and then.

Surely a long retractable lead is better than risking having your dog shot or lost.

the rural path was a bridleway so was presumably marked up as such.

Bridleway suggests horses could be using the same path.

It's complacency, basically. It's easy to assume that a rural path is safe, but very often quite the opposite is true. I do truly feel for the owners - they must be in a deep, dark place right now. I truly feel for the farmer who has livestock to protect and I am truly saddened that a poor dog has lost his life for being a dog.

Not the dog's fault - in his eyes he would be doing nothing wrong.

As owners, it's our responsibility to keep our animals safe. We all make mistakes and some mistakes are more costly than others, but please don't try to put the blame on the farmer here because it's his responsibility to keep his animals safe also.

I hate what's happened, I truly do. So very, very sad for all concerned

I agree with Mooblie. If this is the current legislation -

"Animals Act 1971
Protection of livestock against dogs
9 Killing of or injury to dogs worrying livestock.
(1)In any civil proceedings against a person (in this section referred to as the defendant) for killing or causing injury to a dog it shall be a defence to prove—
(a)that the defendant acted for the protection of any livestock and was a person entitled to act for the protection of that livestock; and
(b)that within forty-eight hours of the killing or injury notice thereof was given by the defendant to the officer in charge of a police station.
(2)For the purposes of this section a person is entitled to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if—
(a)the livestock or the land on which it is belongs to him or to any person under whose express or implied authority he is acting; and
(b)the circumstances are not such that liability for killing or causing injury to the livestock would be excluded by section 5(4) of this Act.
(3)Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person killing or causing injury to a dog shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if, either—
(a)the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or
(b)the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.
(4)For the purposes of this section the condition stated in either of the paragraphs of the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that it was satisfied and had reasonable ground for that belief.
(5)For the purposes of this section—
(a)an animal belongs to any person if he owns it or has it in his possession; and
(b)land belongs to any person if he is the occupier thereof."