Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 24th July 2008 Change Date

Life & Style - inside your Evening News every Thursday

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Farmer: 'I shot dogs to avoid more bloodshed'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 March 2008
A FARMER who shot and killed two pet huskies said he was trying to avoid a repeat of past "carnage" when dozens of his sheep had to be destroyed.
On Monday, the News told how dog owner Paul Gilchrist and his family were "distraught" at the loss of their dogs Czarina and Nero after they escaped and ran to Southside Farm, Gorebridge.


Mr Gilchrist is calling for a change in the law to prevent farmers from shooting dogs unless they can prove that livestock had been endangered. However, Southside Farm owner Keith Herdman (above) insisted today he had a duty to protect the sheep grazing on his fields, which belonged to another local farmer.

He said: "When I arrived one of the dogs was on top of a sheep so I was forced to shoot. I don't enjoy shooting dogs – and have kept dogs of my own in the past – but at what point do you decide an attack is taking place?

"I have a business to run. It's been tough enough recently with the foot-and-mouth restrictions without having to deal with sheep worrying.

"Around two or three years ago we had a couple of dogs repeatedly entering the fields and worrying the sheep. One morning we woke up to absolute carnage. There were sheep lying with their entrails hanging out and the ones that were still alive had to be shot."

Veterinary surgeon Kath Dun, who treats animals for both Mr Herdman and the owner of the sheep involved, said that no animals were injured by Mr Gilchrist's huskies last week. However, she confirmed that over 30 animals had to be put down after the previous incident, and defended Mr Herdman's right to protect livestock on his farm.

She said: "I'm sure these dogs were normally very friendly, family pets but having been allowed to escape and roam the countryside, which is an offence in itself, two dogs of any breed, but especially dogs of a pack nature like huskies, have the potential to become very dangerous animals."

Police said no action was being taken against either party, while Midlothian council confirmed that Mr Herdman was legally entitled to shoot the dogs.

However, Mr Gilchrist remains convinced that Mr Herdman's actions caused excessive and unnecessary suffering to his pets.

He said today: "Police did not find any wool in my dogs' mouths, and yet one was shot in the throat and left to suffer a prolonged death with two broken legs.

"Farmers should have to prove their sheep's lives were endangered before raising their guns, or at the very least be forced to ensure they finish the job as painlessly as possible."





The full article contains 453 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 March 2008 11:35 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Midlothian
 
1

allknowing,

26/03/2008 12:00:49
Ah, so the truth is out. The dogs had mounted a sheep and was attacking.

I fully support the farmer in his actions.

Mr Gilchrist, you Sir, should really take a look in the mirror and ask who is to blame, and the fact you dragged your kids to have their pic taken with you to try a make the public feel sorry for you is disgusting, hang your head in shame!!!!
2

Duncan in Edinburgh,

26/03/2008 12:06:48
Well someone's lying then, since the allegation from the family's side was that the dogs were called over by the farmer, who waited until they obediently sat at his feet before shooting them between the eyes.

Somehow the farmer's version sounds more realistic.
3

JulesF,

26/03/2008 12:08:12
'having been allowed to escape and roam the countryside, which is an offence in itself'

Why wasn't he prosecuted ? Unintentional wrongdoing perhaps ?

I fully support the farmer in his actions as well.
4

Vivas,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 12:12:44
100% support for the farmer.

The "responsible" dog-owner lost control of his dogs and is in no position to make claims about their subsequent behaviour from that point on.

The owner must be thinking about the Disney version of canine behaviour ... rather than the reality of "domesticated wolves" which is what dogs really are. No surprise that they revert to aspects of that primeval behaviour when encountering other animals in the wild...
5

Dood,

26/03/2008 12:14:55
Mon the Farmers!!!!!
6

Random,

26/03/2008 12:17:24
I think its sick that this farmer shot and killed these two dogs. Protect his sheep from what?? They will eventually end up dead anyway sitting on someones dinner plate. Farmer should be ashamed
7

UrbanFox,

26/03/2008 12:17:26
Yes, take a look in the mirror Paul Gilchrist, there's the person to blame.
8

Boswall,

26/03/2008 12:20:05
Sad that the farmer has felt the need to justify his actions…..sign of the times I suppose.

Domesticated dogs are known to change completely in the presence of sheep and particularly in lambing season, they turn into ferocious killers. One of those situations where instant action was required, it’s impractical to expect there to be time to contact the owners or expect the dogs to just lose interest.
9

,

26/03/2008 12:22:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

Thane of Kirkcaldy,

Dancing in the Streets of Raith 26/03/2008 12:24:21
I live in the countryside, own a large dog and have fields of farmer's livestock near me. I invested in an electric radio fence which keeps my dog on our property, not rampaging loose on farmer's land. This has worked for seven years, ever since my dog was a pup.
My sympathies are 100% with the farmer - any other conclusion would be crass as exhibited by #6.
11

Finbarr Saunders,

26/03/2008 12:27:03
Get orfff my laaand!

Shooting the two dogs dead seems a bit rough.

Couldn't he have shot them with a tranqualizer or sued the dog owners for whatever losses he sustained?
12

Liz,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 12:30:35
#6
"Protect his sheep from what?? "
Read the article - a previous occourence on this farm resulted in 20 sheep being killed/put down, think of the cruelty to the sheep before defending the dogs too much.
Yes, the sheep (or more accurately the lambs) would have ended up eventually on our dinner plates. But as is the nature of farming, a farmer can only get any income (and you can only get the lamb on your plate) if his animals live long enough to get to market.

I agree it is a massive shame the dogs were killed but the farmers actions are unstandable given the potential for damage to the flock.

13

Tricky Dickie ,

26/03/2008 12:31:03
#8

Funny you should say that, my King Charles is a ferocious killer during lambing season aswell....scares the sh#t out of me!!
14

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 12:35:10
Well said 11.
15

embratom,

Galsgow 26/03/2008 12:37:16
The following legislation covers sheep worrying etc.
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953
The Animals Act 1971

The dog does not have to attack the animal - mere chasing is enough. The dog owner can be charged and can also be liable for any costs - so I think Mr Gilchrist is very fortunate in this instance. Mr Gilchrist believes that the dogs suffered unnecessarily etc - how does he know.?
16

,

26/03/2008 12:37:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

,

26/03/2008 12:38:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 12:41:06
So 1 why the need to shoot the second dog when it was clearly trying to escape ? In the throat and how did the 2 broken legs come about!
19

Jakey Rowling,

26/03/2008 12:42:08
#11
This is one of the top sheep farmers in the country, he's outstanding in his field.

Just look at the picture.
20

Wee Jimmie,

Lothian 26/03/2008 12:42:42
Mr Gilchrist,

You woul drather twenty sheep had their guts pulled out and the farmer try to sue you in court. When he won your dogs would have been put down then as well.

The tranqualiser scenario is ridiculous, moving target range 20 yds 30 max for a Paxarm.

And as a qualified pest control man yourself Mr, Gilchrist when you have shot "Pests" you know how difficult it is.

Have you ever shot a rabbit and it ran underground squeeling? did you dig it out to make sure the end was as quick as you could make it?

When you have shot a bird and winged it did you follow up till you found and dispatched it swiftly.

Have you ever in your "pest" control work with a gun shot any deer?

21

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 12:43:00
Vet reports 15.
22

Wee Jimmie,

Lothian 26/03/2008 12:47:44
The vet reports show nothing apart from GST and prove nothing.

I still see no prosecution pending for the farmer.
23

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 12:47:53
All read the paper even his own vet said no sheep were injured viciously or through worry.
24

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 12:50:47
I on the other hand have reports that the dogs suffered unnecessarily.
25

Poppy123,

26/03/2008 12:51:53
This is a terrible shame what happened to these dogs, but the fact is the farmer done what he had to do. Maybe there should be other ways rather than killing them. But what??? I would imagine the farmer didn’t have much time to sit about and think of other ways. I would also imagine he didn’t enjoy shooting the dogs.
The dogs should never have been roaming and the fence should have been fixed, however – accidents do happen.
I do not believe Mr Gilchrist is blaming the farmer, more the law. Rather than a slagging match over this – more thought could be put into keeping dogs of farmers land without killing them straight out.
Under the circumstances that this incident happened, the farmer had no alternative. This does not mean we cannot suggest ways for this not to happen again.
26

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 12:51:58
Sorry dog ! not dogs.
27

Tricky Dickie ,

26/03/2008 12:53:06
#23

Dugs shouldnt have been in the field with sheep, end of!! As you say, no sheep were injured viciously, does that mean they were just injured as a result?
28

exile-lad,

Outside 26/03/2008 12:56:43
Farmer 1 - Yuppies 0

for those who are with the man and his dogs - lets just say they attacked you in the street or maybe just chased you ! i bet you would be wanting the dogs put down ?

people with pets should be responsible for them - just like people who have children should be responsible for them - thats whats wrong now people have no respect for anyone or anything
29

techpunk,

26/03/2008 12:57:26
(in archetypal ENN commentator fashion):

shooting was too good for these dogs!

bring back the birch!

bring back national service!
30

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 12:59:01
Can you poeple not read the vet reported no injuries to the sheep!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes the dogs shouldn't have been there but come on how was the sheep not injured in the blast ?
31

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 13:01:37
Why where the sheep still in the field at 7pm when i went to pick up the dogs !
32

allknowing,

26/03/2008 13:05:24
#30+31

Mr G, you are making matters worse for yourself.

So, here we have a field of sheep, during lambing season, being chased around by two dogs.
So using your logic, you want to wait until the sheep have been attacked before taking action???Is this your stance?

If I was a fermer, I would want to take action BEFORE sheep were killed/injured.

You have not got a leg to stand on. You knew of a hole in your fence, be it your neighbours fault or otherwise, you did jack all to fix it.

You are not responsible enough to look after dogs, never mind kids!
33

allknowing,

26/03/2008 13:06:20
#31
Re your question "Why where the sheep still in the field at 7pm when i went to pick up the dogs !"

WHY NOT, its his field, not yours!!!!
34

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 13:07:30
People that take a pop at kids need locked up !
35

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 13:07:32
People that take a pop at kids need locked up !
36

Sarcasm,

26/03/2008 13:09:26
30 - because he's a good shot?
31 - why not, do they need to be tucked up at a certain time.

"yes the dogs shouldn't have been there..." admission undermines any argument you have.

Your argument is ridiculous, how much does a huskie puppy go for these days.




37

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 13:10:55
So why where they not being checked over incase of aborting lambs ?
38

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 13:12:32
Well a no you can buy a sheep for £8.50 on ebay !
39

Poppy123,

26/03/2008 13:14:26
No 32 - If it were Mr Gilchrists daughter who discovered the gap in the fence, there is not much he can do about it if he knows nothing about it. As I say accidents happen and this would be the reason for the dogs escaping, we're not all perfect. I'm sure he never opened the gate and said 'On you go dogs away and get shot'!
And to say not resposible to look after kids is very harsh.
40

HZ,

26/03/2008 13:15:58
I've owned and walked dogs in the countryside my entire life and even as a child I knew MY responsibility to ensure that they did not cause a nuisance to livestock and the consequences that neglecting such a responsibility could bring. Perhaps until Mr Gilchrist should refrain from owning any further dogs until he can learn and accept such responsibilty and realises that it extends beyond the welfare of his own animals. His neglect allowed those dogs to roam free and ultimately that is why they died. Would Mr Gilchrist be acting any differently if they had instead caused a car accident? His crying to the press and passing of blame is shameful.
41

Sarcasm,

26/03/2008 13:16:54
38.
You need to reverse your argument.

I believe it's not the first time you've made a ewe turn.

Is this maybe part of the problem.
42

allknowing,

26/03/2008 13:17:25
PG, go and play with the buses.

If I was the farmer, I would haul you up in front of court.

Doesnt matter if the sheep costs 99p, or £1000, it has a right to be protected, as confirmed by the police, SSPCA and now your very own vet.

Do us all a favour, next time you get a dog( I would ban you), make sure you provide a secure pen for it!!!

Responsibility, go and get some!
43

,

26/03/2008 13:17:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

Dazzadini,

26/03/2008 13:18:08
The Law obviously does need changed.

Dogs and other so called pests are entitled to be protected from these gun happy farmers.

If the sheep are so precious then protect them better.
45

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 13:18:21
Read the statements 40.
46

,

26/03/2008 13:19:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

Dazzadini,

26/03/2008 13:20:05
trickie dickie you are an a**e lets hope nothing like this happens to you eh! thats assuming anyone would put up with a half wit like you.

48

Duncan in Edinburgh,

26/03/2008 13:23:33
P.Gilchrist, you aren't being very clear at all here. Are you the owner of the dogs? If so, can you please explain whether you accept that one of your dogs was on top of a sheep, as the farmer alleges? And if so, do you accept that it was reasonable for the farmer to shoot that dog?
49

Sarcasm,

26/03/2008 13:24:17
45
Veterinary surgeon Kath Dun defended Mr Herdman's right to protect livestock on his farm and said "I'm sure these dogs were normally very friendly, family pets but having been allowed to escape and roam the countryside, which is an offence in itself, two dogs of any breed, but especially dogs of a pack nature like huskies, have the potential to become very dangerous animals."

When's the funeral?
50

Brian Ferrari,

26/03/2008 13:25:50
#31

Presumably because the dogs were dead and not worrying the sheep any more. Where would you suggest they should be put?

I can't see how a farmer is expected to wait until a dog attacks his animals before he shoots it. If it is attacking he would have to separate the animal from the dog before shooting.

I have sympathy for the dog owner as he has lost his pets, but if there is any fault, it is his and not anyone elses.
51

Dazzadini,

26/03/2008 13:26:09
#40 Mr Gilchrist is not trying to pass or assign blame.

If you had taken the time to read all comments you have realised that all he is concered with is the manner to which the dogs were murdered by the farmer.

All he is trying to do i raise awareness to come with a better option for both dog owners and farmers so this does not come up again.
52

HZ,

26/03/2008 13:26:16
#45 Yes, I can read Mr Gilchrist. There was one offence committed and there is nothing in today or yesterday's statements that suggest that the blame for that offence lies with anyone other than yourself. Your complaints merely add to the impression of someone unable to accept their responsibities or the outcome of their actions.
53

Tricky Dickie ,

26/03/2008 13:26:36
#47

And why is that? This Gilchrist guy is taking the p#ss, not even convinced this is the real man in question!

What if your dog etc is attacked in your garden by a fox, what would you do? If you had a gun im sure you would shoot the fox! His dogs shouldnt have been in the field...end of!

54

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 13:28:01
#48 If your not going to read everything dont comment!
55

Dazzadini,

26/03/2008 13:29:22
#53 read 51. I'm sure you'll agree there has to be a more humane way to handle a situation like this
56

Tricky Dickie ,

26/03/2008 13:30:02
#51

How about this for a solution..dont let your dogs loose in a field with sheep? How far did these dogs rome loose before entering the field? about a mile if i remember! Not very well trained animals if you ask me!
57

Poppy123,

26/03/2008 13:30:20
No 55 - I think this is what needs to be addressed.
58

Poppy123,

26/03/2008 13:32:44
No 56!!! They're dogs, they like adventure, they may still have been trained but fancied a play about in a field. They would have roamed for as long as some one was trying to find them, believe it or not, people were looking for them.
59

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 13:33:01
#57&55 that has been my point from the start cheers for taking time to read.
60

Dazzadini,

26/03/2008 13:34:50
#56 How well the dogs were trained was not even in the statement i made. Not the issue here.

The issue is how it is handled by the farmer try to understand this time.
61

,

26/03/2008 13:35:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
62

HZ,

26/03/2008 13:35:05
#51 'murdered' is an ridiculously emotive and inappropriate phrase to use. However, there is a better option for dog owners and farmers - good, responsbile dog ownership.
63

Duncan in Edinburgh,

26/03/2008 13:35:36
#54 I have read everything. You haven't been at all clear, and I think it would help to clarify things if you answered my questions. You appear only to be questioning the treatment of one dog. Does that mean that you accept that the treatment of the other dog was reasonable?

It's a simple question.
64

allknowing,

26/03/2008 13:36:00
Poppy, i think you live in the clouds.

Farmer walks out, see two dogs running around scaring sheep and mounting one.

So he stands there, with his gun and asks himself, while all the time the sheep are being distressed, "right, how do I stop this, should I go back into the kitchen, unwrap a piece of meat, and try to coax the dogs, do i try to call them over, OR, do I act within the law, and shoot them dead, thus saving the livestock from all sorts of injurys" You tell me!

End of the day, if the dogs were kept responsibily, they would not have been shot.Fly with the crows, get shot with the crows!!!!
65

Tricky Dickie ,

26/03/2008 13:36:27
#58

A mile to find a field in Gorebridge? Cleary roamed to find a field with sheep to have fun then and attack them, unless the sheep were throwing a ball for them?
66

Poppy123,

26/03/2008 13:36:49
Bleeding to death with broken bones does not sound humane
67

Poppy123,

26/03/2008 13:39:47
No 65 - My point is they're dogs, whether they are trained is not the point. They ended up in a field with sheep - I'm sure they wouldn't of been aware of any harm being done. So what if they wandered all the way there, that's what dogs do. Did you think they would sit tight at the door step, I don;t think so.
68

,

26/03/2008 13:39:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
69

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/03/2008 13:40:30
He's protecting his property , as the sheeps will be made into pies anyway for us (and possibly dog meat).

Strange topsy turvy world and I may be Autistic.



70

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/03/2008 13:42:18
The fairest thing would be to

A) Shoot the Dogs
B) Shoot the Sheep who was injured
C) Shoot the rest of the sheep
D) Shoot himself based solely on his appearance.
71

Poppy123,

26/03/2008 13:43:48
No 68 - The 1st dog may of dies out right - the second one ended up is serious pain, bleeding with 2 broken legs - if it killed staright away that would of been a different kettle of fish. But really - the argument is for an alternative rather than shooting dead!
72

P.Gilchrist,

26/03/2008 13:44:05
Sorry 68 but vets no better than you ! the second dog blead to death.
73

Dazzadini,

26/03/2008 13:48:15
Mr Gilchrist for once i do agree with Foo #46.

This is one debate that is going to end in a stalemate no matter what people say.

It's no way to loose two very much loved family pets but it has happened now and no amount of opinions is going to bring them back.

I peronally think the law does need changed a farmer does have right to protect his livestock something you have said yourself but the manner of protection needs to be changed and there is always another soloution no matter what the countryside folk may think just because it's the law does make it right.
74

Tricky Dickie ,

26/03/2008 13:48:26
#67

I know what your point is, just not very valid! You say they ended up in a field with sheep not nowing they are doing any harm. I know that but one was on top of a sheep so it got shot! Whats the farmer meant to do??

I have a dog myself and it wont wander out my back garden if the gate is left open because it knows its wrong. It wouldnt roam for over a mile..not many dogs who have responsible owners roam like that!
75

,

26/03/2008 13:49:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
76

alex patersons English teacher,

26/03/2008 13:49:43
#72
my hert bleads for you to.
77

anoni moose,

loanhead 26/03/2008 13:51:04
oh and no sheep in the picture did the grumpy auld git worry them to death!!!
78

Arrow,

edinburgh 26/03/2008 13:53:13
one way to teach a dog not to go near sheep is as a pup put in into a pen with a a ram and after a bit of aversion therapy it wil not even look at a sheep never mind chase it. a number of gamekeepers in the borders used to train their retreivers that way. better way is of course to keep your dogs under control at all times in the countryside. i think that Mr Gilchrist protests too much and is clearly trying to blame the farmer for an incident that he and he alone was responsible by not having his dogs in a secure enclosed area.
as for the numpties that believe that farmers walk about with dart firing shotguns they should get out more but they are typical townies. perhaps the farmer sholud have sought out the dogs social workers or paid the dog owner compensation for inhibiting the dogs natural boisterous behaviour. i love dogs and have and a number of Labs but i took great care not to have them in the same vicinty as sheep unless under control.
79

alex patersons English teacher,

26/03/2008 13:54:53
#75
The farmer shot hippopotamuses and they are in a critical condition,Wow hold the front page.

does Gil Christ no about this.
80

Poppy123,

26/03/2008 13:56:39
No 74 - I agree with the farmer shooting the dog - he had no choice. My argument is there should be other ways rather than killing them! Under these circumstances he couldn't do anything elese, that doesn't mean things can't change.
I actually have 2 dogs, both aged 4 and I can guarantee if the gate was left open - 1 would stay put and the other would wander without a doubt, he's a chance. My point, I have had both sice pups but both very different natured. I have however, trained both the saome. ???
81

AuldReekie,

edinburgh 26/03/2008 13:58:46
There's no escaping the fact that the farmer acted within his rights, but I still can't help wondering if he could have played out the scenario differently.
When he saw one dog on top of a sheep, he said "he was forced to shoot", but what about the other dog?
I'm wondering if a flashback, to what happened to his sheep a few year ago, was on his mind, when he squeezed the trigger?

82

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/03/2008 13:59:55
I thought Hippocrates was a vegetarian , then again he would say that.
83

allknowing,

26/03/2008 14:00:57
#80, what other ways???? You have 30 seconds to stop the attack before a sheep is injured, tell me what you would do!

GO.......
84

Duncan in Edinburgh,

26/03/2008 14:02:48
#82 What a Hippocratic oaf.
85

Tricky Dickie ,

26/03/2008 14:05:42
#80
Like what then? Wound them? Might be too far away to tranquilise? them.

Farmers loose thousands of pounds a year to lost sheep/lambs, mainly foxes however so he isnt going to stand about and ponder. It really is up to the owner. If there is a chance a dog can escape from there garden and wander off then they should be tied up and take no chances. Yes it was through a hole in the fence but what if someone leaves a gate open? It happens.
86

head,

edi 26/03/2008 14:06:07
whats the chances of someone getting away with shooting a farmer the next time they scare a dog in the street ?
87

Poppy123,

26/03/2008 14:06:07
No 83 - this is my point - can you not read, i just said I would of done the same, but this incident has brought everything to light, so other ways can be suggested. This would mean if it were to happen again and you only had 30 secs to think you would know what to do without shooting them dead! It's the killing of the dogs that bothers me. Under these circumstances the farmer had no other option, but that doesn't mean this is set in stone and other options cannot be suggested.
88

Liz,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 14:08:30
#81
"I'm wondering if a flashback, to what happened to his sheep a few year ago, was on his mind, when he squeezed the trigger?"
I would think almost certainly, yes. Loosing 20 stock and dealing with the injured animals in the past is bound to have had an effect on his judgement - to make sure it does not happen again.

and #75; You have heard he does not have a licence for the gun?! - well if that were true how come the police are not prosecuting him for holding a firearm without a licence?! - stop making things up/listening to gossip
89

Brian Ferrari,

26/03/2008 14:08:38
#80

OK - how about teaching farmers to use a rope lassoo so he can twirl it round his head, like they did on the High Chapparal and The Virginian, and catch the dog that way?

Cheap. Harmless. And really quite simple.
90

Liz,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 14:10:38
#87
But what about the lives of the sheep? Do they not deserve to be protected from the dogs?

What if the farmer had stood back and watched as the sheep were killed one by one? That would have made the papers for being cruel too.
91

Poppy123,

26/03/2008 14:12:06
No 89, what age are you 12!!
I'm just saying other options may be explored here. Be realistic
92

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/03/2008 14:13:24
on a serious note , humans are the only animals who will investigate scary noises.

He could have fired over their heads and they would have scarpered but he doesnt look that bright.
93

allknowing,

26/03/2008 14:15:50
Poppy, stop blithering on. Answer my question, what would you advise farmers to do in the future. Mind, they have 30seconds or less to do it. GO......
94

Brian Ferrari,

26/03/2008 14:17:00
Looking at that picture again, I can see a couple of beds in the field. Do you think the farmer and his missus are camping out these nights to protect their flock?
95

Duncan in Edinburgh,

26/03/2008 14:17:36
#92 Not true. I used to have a cat which liked to investigate my nose. Oh, sorry.
96

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/03/2008 14:18:16
Four POster beds too Brian but with the canopies missing.

Very Strange.
97

Poppy123,

26/03/2008 14:19:12
#93 I don't know what I would - I have no idea how that type of work actually works. But I would imagine there are better options rather than shooting dead!! All I'm saying is to be open to other suggestions. I'm sorry I'm not an expert in that area so can't answer it. Under these circumstances I would of shot the dogs, due to having no other alternative. Surely there are other ways
98

newife,

26/03/2008 14:22:51
Mr & Mrs Gilchrist you know this is YOUR fault, it's just a shame two dogs had to die before you would spend the money on providing a safe secure enviroment for your dogs to live. No matter who's fence it is, its your responsability to fix it!!. These are the most basic requirements of dog ownership and you should have known that being a "Dog breeder" No one has asked about your breeders lisence I do hope you have one???? Not much public support for you I'm afraid!!!
99

AuldReekie,

edinburgh 26/03/2008 14:26:49
#92

Firing over their heads to get them to scarper, is a good point.

I wonder if that would have been the best approach?

I'm assuming that the farmer had a double barrelled shotgun (with 2 shots) and he didn't want to waste one of them, so he wasted the dogs instead.




100

allknowing,

26/03/2008 14:27:26
#97 so you have no other option abr to shoot, and you are the one calling for change.

Go back to making youy tomato chutney, safe in the knowlegde that people who actully have a brain will look after you and take tough decisions.

When animals are chasing and scaring other farm animals, there are NO other options. FULL STOP. They isnt time to fan#y around trying to get them to sit, or walk into a dog box.

Jut be gratefull the farmer didnt have two wee kids of his own, playing around his farm house, and the dogs took interest!!!
101

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/03/2008 14:27:26
Can you all please read my comment at 92.

Thanks. That is the answer to this dilemna.

This Jakey who lives in a field shouldnt have done this.

Morally , what right does he have to shoot pets to protect animals he will utlimately slaughter ?
102

Mike_d,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 14:30:51
Why on earth did the EN report this as some sort of sob story in the first place?

The law is totally on the farmer's side and he had every right to do what he did. Surely all dog owners know that this is the case where dogs and livestock are concerned? Dogs are unpredictable animals, even moreso when around other animals. So what if no sheep were hurt this time? Was he supposed to just ask the dogs nicely to stop what they were doing? This is his livelihood we're talking about.

Its amazing how no-one seems capable of taking responsibility for anything these days and always try to find someone else to blame.
103

Poppy123,

26/03/2008 14:32:18
#100 - 2 wee kids - they were dogs not wolves!!!! For goodness sake, talk about being narrow minded. Maybe a name change from 'allknowing' to Mr Know It All wouldn't go a miss!! Trying to think of other ways may be an idea rather than thinking of other sarcastic comments

104

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/03/2008 14:35:34
Ask yourself, if this man came into your house , would you trust him ?
105

Brian Ferrari,

26/03/2008 14:37:47
Mario, I don't think this is one for The Moral Maze - not looking at this gentleman anyway.

I suspect this was a case of "Business is business. I know my rights. The last time the dugs got away, but this time, there'll be no chance they'll cause any more trouble....." In the end, that may be why they got both barrels.
106

Tricky Dickie ,

26/03/2008 14:39:34
#97

The farmer was correct, we all admit that. Why dont you not focus you attention on the seals that are about to be culled and skinned alive by humans so you can have a nice furry handbag!

Taxi.........
107

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/03/2008 14:39:59
True Brian , theres no much point in me sitting on my high hippopotamus here.

But to be frank he reminds me of a nippy bus driver or a nippy bowler and I dont like them.
108

Liz,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 14:40:34
#101
He had the right to shoot the dogs as a sheep dead in a field with a dead lamb and its guts hanging out is worthless (in fact he would probably have to pay for their disposal). Farm animals have the right to be protected - spare a thought for the sheep who had the dog on top of it, I doubt it thought the dog so cute and fluffy.

The dogs should not have been there - end of story.
109

allknowing,

26/03/2008 14:40:59
Poppy Poppy, read my post again...

I said "Jut be gratefull the farmer didnt have two wee kids of his own, playing around his farm house, and the dogs took interest!!!"

Go one, away you go too and play with the busses. Think you have been at the glue again!

So, you think we should change the law, but you dont know what to!!! Come on, how can anyone take you seriously!
110

Poppy123,

26/03/2008 14:44:05
#106 Get a grip
The farmer was right in this case, defo I suppose this is the only thing we seem to agree on!! Doesn't mean there will never be alternatives because you say so.
And get the taxi when your shouting.

111

Brian Ferrari,

26/03/2008 14:47:56
I think there's a little bit of a frisson between Poppy and allknowing.

You could be in there gal!
112

AuldReekie,

edinburgh 26/03/2008 14:49:02
#101 Liz

What you are refering to, was a previous incident and there was no evidence in the present case, other than the farmer stating that "one of the dogs was on top of a sheep".
It's true that he had the "right" to shoot the dogs, but just because someone can have the law on their side, doesn't mean that it is beyond being questioned.
113

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/03/2008 14:49:56
A bit of sexual tension,