Farmer shoots kennel dogs dead

Worcester News: SHOT: Millie and Benson SHOT: Millie and Benson

A DOG owner has been left “devastated” after her two pets were shot dead by a Leigh Sinton farmer when they fled boarding kennels while she was on holiday.

June Roden put one-year-old Millie and three-year-old Benson into Brookend Boarding Kennels, but the dogs escaped whilst playing in a field.

They were shot dead by a farmer who hit them in the chest to protect his livestock.

She had been on holiday with her husband Chris in Spain when she received a heartbreaking call from kennel staff informing her of the dogs’ death.

“We’re just devastated and we couldn’t believe it,” she said.

“They were just gorgeous dogs and a big part of our home life.”

She added the pets had not been discovered missing by kennel staff until 20 minutes after they had escaped, prompting an investigation by Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS), which is responsible for dog wardens and licensing.

Les Childs, owner of the kennels, said he was distraught by what had happened.

“My wife and I were deeply upset,” he said. “We’ve seven acres of ground here. We are still not sure how they managed to get out. It’s just been really tragic.

“60,000 dogs have used that field and over the eight years we’ve been here there’s been no incidents. I just can’t imagine how she must be feeling.

“They did sign to say that their dogs could go off lead and go into fields.

“They were aware that one of the dogs continually jumped the fence and they still brought their dogs to us after that. We do everything we can to make sure the dogs are safe.”

Mrs Roden, who lives in Kidderminster, said in a previous stay at Brookend Kennels it was discovered that Millie could jump the gate in the exercise field but she came straight back when called.

She said: “I was concerned but knew, as long as they accompanied the dogs, they would not run off.”

Andy Ferguson, WRS central operations manager said: “Worcestershire Regulatory Services is investigating the events that led up to the shooting.

“Once the facts have been established we will decide what action, if any, should be taken.”

A spokesman for West Mercia Police said there would not be an investigation into the farmer’s actions.

Comments (78)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:16pm Fri 5 Oct 12

damien- conservationist says...

What livestock where these dogs 'worrying' then? Is it lambing time? Does this farmer shoot the TB inspectors for causing aborts because he has to put them through the crush twice in 5 days. I think not.

These dogs were obviously lost and domesticated with collars on. They belonged to somebody. Farming folk I know of would take a bloody dim view if there neibour did this to their animals. There's no need, espeacially if you are half decent with stock and animals in the first place. Some farmers are not fit to hold a firearm certificate, he would have been better keeping the dogs alive and holding the kennel or owners to account for any damage done.
Farmers never get around to shooting the dog's, or prosecuting the owners of real rogue sheepkilling dog's, the terrible statistics are that they always shoot dogs who are with their owners just going for a walk which are much easier targets.
It dosnt help baiting the bloody countryside with placentas during lambing either, does it boy's.

Shooting somebodys pet dog should be a last resort, I hope this pillock gets his license taken off him, and like a lot of people, i want he law changed to make this sort of arbitary killing illegal.

Unfourtunatley for farmers, they do have to share the planet with other human beings and there are crossovers sometimes, killing pet dog's ,just another days work?

http://www.burtonmai
l.co.uk/News/Shot-de
ad-by-farmers-gun-20
102011.htm
What livestock where these dogs 'worrying' then? Is it lambing time? Does this farmer shoot the TB inspectors for causing aborts because he has to put them through the crush twice in 5 days. I think not. These dogs were obviously lost and domesticated with collars on. They belonged to somebody. Farming folk I know of would take a bloody dim view if there neibour did this to their animals. There's no need, espeacially if you are half decent with stock and animals in the first place. Some farmers are not fit to hold a firearm certificate, he would have been better keeping the dogs alive and holding the kennel or owners to account for any damage done. Farmers never get around to shooting the dog's, or prosecuting the owners of real rogue sheepkilling dog's, the terrible statistics are that they always shoot dogs who are with their owners just going for a walk which are much easier targets. It dosnt help baiting the bloody countryside with placentas during lambing either, does it boy's. Shooting somebodys pet dog should be a last resort, I hope this pillock gets his license taken off him, and like a lot of people, i want he law changed to make this sort of arbitary killing illegal. Unfourtunatley for farmers, they do have to share the planet with other human beings and there are crossovers sometimes, killing pet dog's ,just another days work? http://www.burtonmai l.co.uk/News/Shot-de ad-by-farmers-gun-20 102011.htm damien- conservationist

5:32pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Emma Lou says...

As a dog owner, I realise every farmer has the right to shoot any animal threatening his livestock, domesticated or not. This is one of those unfortunate situations where the dogs ended up losing their lives because they weren't where they should be.

The kennel hasn't had any other incidents, this is the first one. Should they have kept the dogs inside the kennel and not let them have the run of the fields knowing one of them has cleared a gate before? Should the owners have known better than to say, they've cleared a gate before and come back when called? Should the owners AND the kennel have recognised that whilst a dog might have perfect recall for their owners, they might not have perfect recall for anyone else, ESPECIALLY in a kennel by someone they're not used to?

There are so many variables here, and sadly, the dogs have paid the price.
As a dog owner, I realise every farmer has the right to shoot any animal threatening his livestock, domesticated or not. This is one of those unfortunate situations where the dogs ended up losing their lives because they weren't where they should be. The kennel hasn't had any other incidents, this is the first one. Should they have kept the dogs inside the kennel and not let them have the run of the fields knowing one of them has cleared a gate before? Should the owners have known better than to say, they've cleared a gate before and come back when called? Should the owners AND the kennel have recognised that whilst a dog might have perfect recall for their owners, they might not have perfect recall for anyone else, ESPECIALLY in a kennel by someone they're not used to? There are so many variables here, and sadly, the dogs have paid the price. Emma Lou

5:40pm Fri 5 Oct 12

denwood says...

well after reading the kennels statement i will not send my dogs there......such a sad shame. in my eyes the farmer wants a bullet up him shot gun happy? not the answer.
well after reading the kennels statement i will not send my dogs there......such a sad shame. in my eyes the farmer wants a bullet up him shot gun happy? not the answer. denwood

6:02pm Fri 5 Oct 12

spider666 says...

Sad sad story ---I had a Border Collie until she passed away in January and as obedient and well behaved as she was whenever we walked and livestock were nearby she would instinctively take an immediate interest in them and adopt a collie round up stance,Shame they were not noticed as missing earlier and it might have been a different story.I'm sure the farmer did not enjoy doing what he did.
Sad sad story ---I had a Border Collie until she passed away in January and as obedient and well behaved as she was whenever we walked and livestock were nearby she would instinctively take an immediate interest in them and adopt a collie round up stance,Shame they were not noticed as missing earlier and it might have been a different story.I'm sure the farmer did not enjoy doing what he did. spider666

6:11pm Fri 5 Oct 12

gemma6 says...

damien- conservationist wrote:
What livestock where these dogs 'worrying' then? Is it lambing time? Does this farmer shoot the TB inspectors for causing aborts because he has to put them through the crush twice in 5 days. I think not.

These dogs were obviously lost and domesticated with collars on. They belonged to somebody. Farming folk I know of would take a bloody dim view if there neibour did this to their animals. There's no need, espeacially if you are half decent with stock and animals in the first place. Some farmers are not fit to hold a firearm certificate, he would have been better keeping the dogs alive and holding the kennel or owners to account for any damage done.
Farmers never get around to shooting the dog's, or prosecuting the owners of real rogue sheepkilling dog's, the terrible statistics are that they always shoot dogs who are with their owners just going for a walk which are much easier targets.
It dosnt help baiting the bloody countryside with placentas during lambing either, does it boy's.

Shooting somebodys pet dog should be a last resort, I hope this pillock gets his license taken off him, and like a lot of people, i want he law changed to make this sort of arbitary killing illegal.

Unfourtunatley for farmers, they do have to share the planet with other human beings and there are crossovers sometimes, killing pet dog's ,just another days work?

http://www.burtonmai

l.co.uk/News/Shot-de

ad-by-farmers-gun-20

102011.htm
Totally agree with above.
[quote][p][bold]damien- conservationist[/bold] wrote: What livestock where these dogs 'worrying' then? Is it lambing time? Does this farmer shoot the TB inspectors for causing aborts because he has to put them through the crush twice in 5 days. I think not. These dogs were obviously lost and domesticated with collars on. They belonged to somebody. Farming folk I know of would take a bloody dim view if there neibour did this to their animals. There's no need, espeacially if you are half decent with stock and animals in the first place. Some farmers are not fit to hold a firearm certificate, he would have been better keeping the dogs alive and holding the kennel or owners to account for any damage done. Farmers never get around to shooting the dog's, or prosecuting the owners of real rogue sheepkilling dog's, the terrible statistics are that they always shoot dogs who are with their owners just going for a walk which are much easier targets. It dosnt help baiting the bloody countryside with placentas during lambing either, does it boy's. Shooting somebodys pet dog should be a last resort, I hope this pillock gets his license taken off him, and like a lot of people, i want he law changed to make this sort of arbitary killing illegal. Unfourtunatley for farmers, they do have to share the planet with other human beings and there are crossovers sometimes, killing pet dog's ,just another days work? http://www.burtonmai l.co.uk/News/Shot-de ad-by-farmers-gun-20 102011.htm[/p][/quote]Totally agree with above. gemma6

6:38pm Fri 5 Oct 12

New Kid on the Block says...

Why were these dogs unsupervised in a field that they were known to escape from?
It is no good saying that they will come back if called. It could be too late, a lot of damage can be done in twenty minutes.
In the article referred to by Damien the Farmer shot two dogs that had repeatedly chased his livestock causing two cows to abort. Meaning the dogs had caused the death of two calves.
The Derbyshire Police were obviously convinced he was in the right as they investigated but took no further action.
West Mercia Police are reported as saying there will not be an investigation into this case. That would indicate that the evidence shows the Farmer was in the right and taking reasonable action to defend his livestock (and livelihood)
Why were these dogs unsupervised in a field that they were known to escape from? It is no good saying that they will come back if called. It could be too late, a lot of damage can be done in twenty minutes. In the article referred to by Damien the Farmer shot two dogs that had repeatedly chased his livestock causing two cows to abort. Meaning the dogs had caused the death of two calves. The Derbyshire Police were obviously convinced he was in the right as they investigated but took no further action. West Mercia Police are reported as saying there will not be an investigation into this case. That would indicate that the evidence shows the Farmer was in the right and taking reasonable action to defend his livestock (and livelihood) New Kid on the Block

8:57pm Fri 5 Oct 12

damien- conservationist says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
Why were these dogs unsupervised in a field that they were known to escape from?
It is no good saying that they will come back if called. It could be too late, a lot of damage can be done in twenty minutes.
In the article referred to by Damien the Farmer shot two dogs that had repeatedly chased his livestock causing two cows to abort. Meaning the dogs had caused the death of two calves.
The Derbyshire Police were obviously convinced he was in the right as they investigated but took no further action.
West Mercia Police are reported as saying there will not be an investigation into this case. That would indicate that the evidence shows the Farmer was in the right and taking reasonable action to defend his livestock (and livelihood)
In derby the farmer 'claimed' that two cows aborted, they always do after a shooting. Gunfire in the proximity to cattle is more likely the cause, exactly the same as when a low flying plane goes overhead.
Cattle will see off dogs anyday, espeacially when there are calfs about, cows will outruna dog over distance and kill it if they can. The police were satisfied that the farmer had behaved within the law, that's all. His land, his cattle, his gun, his license, OK?
Emma Lou's comments are not based on common sense or knowlege. Just because a farmer has the right does not make it ok. What if children had been walking their dogs and had been running after them?
Were not talking about one dog here, but two. Good job they were nice and domesticated, made it easy for the pratt. Shot in the chests, you work it out, it was an execution.

Come down to a farm with me with and some dogs. See what a feild of cattle can do. Worrying, my arse...
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: Why were these dogs unsupervised in a field that they were known to escape from? It is no good saying that they will come back if called. It could be too late, a lot of damage can be done in twenty minutes. In the article referred to by Damien the Farmer shot two dogs that had repeatedly chased his livestock causing two cows to abort. Meaning the dogs had caused the death of two calves. The Derbyshire Police were obviously convinced he was in the right as they investigated but took no further action. West Mercia Police are reported as saying there will not be an investigation into this case. That would indicate that the evidence shows the Farmer was in the right and taking reasonable action to defend his livestock (and livelihood)[/p][/quote]In derby the farmer 'claimed' that two cows aborted, they always do after a shooting. Gunfire in the proximity to cattle is more likely the cause, exactly the same as when a low flying plane goes overhead. Cattle will see off dogs anyday, espeacially when there are calfs about, cows will outruna dog over distance and kill it if they can. The police were satisfied that the farmer had behaved within the law, that's all. His land, his cattle, his gun, his license, OK? Emma Lou's comments are not based on common sense or knowlege. Just because a farmer has the right does not make it ok. What if children had been walking their dogs and had been running after them? Were not talking about one dog here, but two. Good job they were nice and domesticated, made it easy for the pratt. Shot in the chests, you work it out, it was an execution. Come down to a farm with me with and some dogs. See what a feild of cattle can do. Worrying, my arse... damien- conservationist

8:58pm Fri 5 Oct 12

damien- conservationist says...

So, the dogs escaped and deserved to be shot??

Children climb over a school gate and deserve to be run over?
So, the dogs escaped and deserved to be shot?? Children climb over a school gate and deserve to be run over? damien- conservationist

9:09pm Fri 5 Oct 12

truth must out says...

“They did sign to say that their dogs could go off lead and go into fields.

“They were aware that one of the dogs continually jumped the fence and they still brought their dogs to us after that. We do everything we can to make sure the dogs are safe.”

That's a get out statement.......the last sentence means they should have been on a leash!!!
“They did sign to say that their dogs could go off lead and go into fields. “They were aware that one of the dogs continually jumped the fence and they still brought their dogs to us after that. We do everything we can to make sure the dogs are safe.” That's a get out statement.......the last sentence means they should have been on a leash!!! truth must out

9:17pm Fri 5 Oct 12

damien- conservationist says...

truth must out wrote:
“They did sign to say that their dogs could go off lead and go into fields.

“They were aware that one of the dogs continually jumped the fence and they still brought their dogs to us after that. We do everything we can to make sure the dogs are safe.”

That's a get out statement.......the last sentence means they should have been on a leash!!!
60.000 dogs, one incident, can you read?
Are you a lawyer?, I thought the issue was the killing of pets by a supposed farmer, not the syntax of some text.
[quote][p][bold]truth must out[/bold] wrote: “They did sign to say that their dogs could go off lead and go into fields. “They were aware that one of the dogs continually jumped the fence and they still brought their dogs to us after that. We do everything we can to make sure the dogs are safe.” That's a get out statement.......the last sentence means they should have been on a leash!!![/p][/quote]60.000 dogs, one incident, can you read? Are you a lawyer?, I thought the issue was the killing of pets by a supposed farmer, not the syntax of some text. damien- conservationist

9:31pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Hack says...

Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?
Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up? Hack

9:47pm Fri 5 Oct 12

damien- conservationist says...

Hack wrote:
Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?
It's a very good point. If the farmer has behaved with integrity, he should be willing to defend his actions? Or will he 'invent' a tale to cover his behaviour?

Cattle kill dogs, Cattle kill humans, cattle kill humans and cattle sometimes, espeacially when they are hormonal.
Or isn't he a real farmer, I cant see much grazing round there on google earth. Perhaps he's got six pet cows and they were worried?
[quote][p][bold]Hack[/bold] wrote: Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?[/p][/quote]It's a very good point. If the farmer has behaved with integrity, he should be willing to defend his actions? Or will he 'invent' a tale to cover his behaviour? Cattle kill dogs, Cattle kill humans, cattle kill humans and cattle sometimes, espeacially when they are hormonal. Or isn't he a real farmer, I cant see much grazing round there on google earth. Perhaps he's got six pet cows and they were worried? damien- conservationist

9:53pm Fri 5 Oct 12

mr.meldrew says...

agree with hack.name, interview.i think its over reaction .2 dogs...what if it had been 2 people playing around...
agree with hack.name, interview.i think its over reaction .2 dogs...what if it had been 2 people playing around... mr.meldrew

10:31pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Vox populi says...

damien- conservationist wrote:
Hack wrote:
Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?
It's a very good point. If the farmer has behaved with integrity, he should be willing to defend his actions? Or will he 'invent' a tale to cover his behaviour?

Cattle kill dogs, Cattle kill humans, cattle kill humans and cattle sometimes, espeacially when they are hormonal.
Or isn't he a real farmer, I cant see much grazing round there on google earth. Perhaps he's got six pet cows and they were worried?
What's the point?

You have already made your judgement in your own emotional way.

Dogs in wrong place at wrong time. Farmer was responsible for his animals and protected them. Somebody was responsible for the dogs at the time and failed in their duty.

Not the first time these stories have been put on here. Yes it's sad but the law doesn't account for emotion.
[quote][p][bold]damien- conservationist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hack[/bold] wrote: Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?[/p][/quote]It's a very good point. If the farmer has behaved with integrity, he should be willing to defend his actions? Or will he 'invent' a tale to cover his behaviour? Cattle kill dogs, Cattle kill humans, cattle kill humans and cattle sometimes, espeacially when they are hormonal. Or isn't he a real farmer, I cant see much grazing round there on google earth. Perhaps he's got six pet cows and they were worried?[/p][/quote]What's the point? You have already made your judgement in your own emotional way. Dogs in wrong place at wrong time. Farmer was responsible for his animals and protected them. Somebody was responsible for the dogs at the time and failed in their duty. Not the first time these stories have been put on here. Yes it's sad but the law doesn't account for emotion. Vox populi

10:49pm Fri 5 Oct 12

damien- conservationist says...

Vox populi wrote:
damien- conservationist wrote:
Hack wrote:
Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?
It's a very good point. If the farmer has behaved with integrity, he should be willing to defend his actions? Or will he 'invent' a tale to cover his behaviour?

Cattle kill dogs, Cattle kill humans, cattle kill humans and cattle sometimes, espeacially when they are hormonal.
Or isn't he a real farmer, I cant see much grazing round there on google earth. Perhaps he's got six pet cows and they were worried?
What's the point?

You have already made your judgement in your own emotional way.

Dogs in wrong place at wrong time. Farmer was responsible for his animals and protected them. Somebody was responsible for the dogs at the time and failed in their duty.

Not the first time these stories have been put on here. Yes it's sad but the law doesn't account for emotion.
What's the point?
You have commented havn't you, or are you against free speech?
My emotional way? nothing compared to the emotions of someone having their dogs slaughtered un-necessarily.

Everone makes mistakes, even you I emagine, it does not make a further mistake justified.

The law steps in when common sense fails or people behave innapropriatley, and has nothing to do with emotion as you say. However, the issue of law could have been avoided altogether.

The issue of law, and emotion are devisible, but emotion is a correct human response to recless beahviour on the part of the farmer who had a choice. The dogs did not.
What if it happened to you.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]damien- conservationist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hack[/bold] wrote: Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?[/p][/quote]It's a very good point. If the farmer has behaved with integrity, he should be willing to defend his actions? Or will he 'invent' a tale to cover his behaviour? Cattle kill dogs, Cattle kill humans, cattle kill humans and cattle sometimes, espeacially when they are hormonal. Or isn't he a real farmer, I cant see much grazing round there on google earth. Perhaps he's got six pet cows and they were worried?[/p][/quote]What's the point? You have already made your judgement in your own emotional way. Dogs in wrong place at wrong time. Farmer was responsible for his animals and protected them. Somebody was responsible for the dogs at the time and failed in their duty. Not the first time these stories have been put on here. Yes it's sad but the law doesn't account for emotion.[/p][/quote]What's the point? You have commented havn't you, or are you against free speech? My emotional way? nothing compared to the emotions of someone having their dogs slaughtered un-necessarily. Everone makes mistakes, even you I emagine, it does not make a further mistake justified. The law steps in when common sense fails or people behave innapropriatley, and has nothing to do with emotion as you say. However, the issue of law could have been avoided altogether. The issue of law, and emotion are devisible, but emotion is a correct human response to recless beahviour on the part of the farmer who had a choice. The dogs did not. What if it happened to you. damien- conservationist

11:17pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Vox populi says...

If it happened to me I would take responsibility for my actions. I feel for the owners as they were not in control of their animals at the time BUT somebody was responsible for the dogs NOT the farmer.

As you posted above: if a child gets out does it deserve to be run over?

Of course not but the parents are responsible.
If it happened to me I would take responsibility for my actions. I feel for the owners as they were not in control of their animals at the time BUT somebody was responsible for the dogs NOT the farmer. As you posted above: if a child gets out does it deserve to be run over? Of course not but the parents are responsible. Vox populi

11:28pm Fri 5 Oct 12

damien- conservationist says...

Vox populi wrote:
If it happened to me I would take responsibility for my actions. I feel for the owners as they were not in control of their animals at the time BUT somebody was responsible for the dogs NOT the farmer.

As you posted above: if a child gets out does it deserve to be run over?

Of course not but the parents are responsible.
Take responsibility when you are 500 miles away?
Who should take resposibility?, the dogs couldnt. Tame and shot throught the chest, two of them, they stood no chance whilst the farmer gave his own cattle aborts from the shooting!

How would you like it if it happened to you?. somebody tellin you you have got to take resposobility. The farmer had a choice, All farmers who do this are generally obnoxious individuals. He enjoyed killin those dogs.

I Feel for the owners, do you?, like hell.

And the kids', what if the driver was speeding, he didnt have to, the farmewr did not have to pull the trigger.
He could have had more handouts from another source then!
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: If it happened to me I would take responsibility for my actions. I feel for the owners as they were not in control of their animals at the time BUT somebody was responsible for the dogs NOT the farmer. As you posted above: if a child gets out does it deserve to be run over? Of course not but the parents are responsible.[/p][/quote]Take responsibility when you are 500 miles away? Who should take resposibility?, the dogs couldnt. Tame and shot throught the chest, two of them, they stood no chance whilst the farmer gave his own cattle aborts from the shooting! How would you like it if it happened to you?. somebody tellin you you have got to take resposobility. The farmer had a choice, All farmers who do this are generally obnoxious individuals. He enjoyed killin those dogs. I Feel for the owners, do you?, like hell. And the kids', what if the driver was speeding, he didnt have to, the farmewr did not have to pull the trigger. He could have had more handouts from another source then! damien- conservationist

11:35pm Fri 5 Oct 12

its-me-ed says...

Heres a few facts:

The dogs were shot in the chest with a 22 rifle so unless the 70 year old farmer is a crackshot it looks as though he called the dogs to him then executed them at close range. Unnecessary really because no sheep had been harmed.

The sheep that the dogs were allegedly worrying were not even his sheep.

The kennel owner Leslie Childs was abrupt to the point of rude when telephoning the owners to inform them that the dogs were dead and blamed them for having dogs that could escape from his field. Most dogs I know could teach houdini a few things.

Leslie Childs has not made any effort to contact the owners since the initial phone call. His attitude to this tragedy is appalling.

No sheep were injured at all.
Heres a few facts: The dogs were shot in the chest with a 22 rifle so unless the 70 year old farmer is a crackshot it looks as though he called the dogs to him then executed them at close range. Unnecessary really because no sheep had been harmed. The sheep that the dogs were allegedly worrying were not even his sheep. The kennel owner Leslie Childs was abrupt to the point of rude when telephoning the owners to inform them that the dogs were dead and blamed them for having dogs that could escape from his field. Most dogs I know could teach houdini a few things. Leslie Childs has not made any effort to contact the owners since the initial phone call. His attitude to this tragedy is appalling. No sheep were injured at all. its-me-ed

11:46pm Fri 5 Oct 12

damien- conservationist says...

its-me-ed wrote:
Heres a few facts:

The dogs were shot in the chest with a 22 rifle so unless the 70 year old farmer is a crackshot it looks as though he called the dogs to him then executed them at close range. Unnecessary really because no sheep had been harmed.

The sheep that the dogs were allegedly worrying were not even his sheep.

The kennel owner Leslie Childs was abrupt to the point of rude when telephoning the owners to inform them that the dogs were dead and blamed them for having dogs that could escape from his field. Most dogs I know could teach houdini a few things.

Leslie Childs has not made any effort to contact the owners since the initial phone call. His attitude to this tragedy is appalling.

No sheep were injured at all.
Says it all really about the unneccary nature of this incident. I did say they were executed which now looks probable.

I did say that these sorts of farmers are generally obxoxious which looks probable.

And I did say that he is not fit to have a licence..

As for the owner of the kennels I dunno, but I DO feel for the owners who will never get over this. I wonder if the farmer had any consience about killing somebodys pet dogs?

It's not lambing is it? A field of old yews arn't going to be pushed around too much by a couple of domestic dogs, (collars), they wern't travellers dogs after all. Good job for the farmer.
[quote][p][bold]its-me-ed[/bold] wrote: Heres a few facts: The dogs were shot in the chest with a 22 rifle so unless the 70 year old farmer is a crackshot it looks as though he called the dogs to him then executed them at close range. Unnecessary really because no sheep had been harmed. The sheep that the dogs were allegedly worrying were not even his sheep. The kennel owner Leslie Childs was abrupt to the point of rude when telephoning the owners to inform them that the dogs were dead and blamed them for having dogs that could escape from his field. Most dogs I know could teach houdini a few things. Leslie Childs has not made any effort to contact the owners since the initial phone call. His attitude to this tragedy is appalling. No sheep were injured at all.[/p][/quote]Says it all really about the unneccary nature of this incident. I did say they were executed which now looks probable. I did say that these sorts of farmers are generally obxoxious which looks probable. And I did say that he is not fit to have a licence.. As for the owner of the kennels I dunno, but I DO feel for the owners who will never get over this. I wonder if the farmer had any consience about killing somebodys pet dogs? It's not lambing is it? A field of old yews arn't going to be pushed around too much by a couple of domestic dogs, (collars), they wern't travellers dogs after all. Good job for the farmer. damien- conservationist

11:50pm Fri 5 Oct 12

damien- conservationist says...

What's the old boy using a .22 for? Too many people round those parts, better watch his background.

My mate a farmer has 600 head livestock and dosn't possess a rifle.

You might use a tight choke 12gauge with a long barrell to take out the odd fox though.
What's the old boy using a .22 for? Too many people round those parts, better watch his background. My mate a farmer has 600 head livestock and dosn't possess a rifle. You might use a tight choke 12gauge with a long barrell to take out the odd fox though. damien- conservationist

11:51pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Vox populi says...

Damien you obviously hate farmers, I get it...

I was not there. I can only use the facts stated in this article.

If the dogs weren't in the field they couldn't have been shot. Somebody was responsible for the dogs. Those are facts.

Apologies if you think applying reality over emotion means I don't care, it doesn't. The farmer has a right to protect his livestock. A person in charge of an animal is that under law.

It is a sad episode but attacking the farmer without reflection is short sighted and knee jerk.
Damien you obviously hate farmers, I get it... I was not there. I can only use the facts stated in this article. If the dogs weren't in the field they couldn't have been shot. Somebody was responsible for the dogs. Those are facts. Apologies if you think applying reality over emotion means I don't care, it doesn't. The farmer has a right to protect his livestock. A person in charge of an animal is that under law. It is a sad episode but attacking the farmer without reflection is short sighted and knee jerk. Vox populi

12:00am Sat 6 Oct 12

damien- conservationist says...

Vox populi wrote:
Damien you obviously hate farmers, I get it...

I was not there. I can only use the facts stated in this article.

If the dogs weren't in the field they couldn't have been shot. Somebody was responsible for the dogs. Those are facts.

Apologies if you think applying reality over emotion means I don't care, it doesn't. The farmer has a right to protect his livestock. A person in charge of an animal is that under law.

It is a sad episode but attacking the farmer without reflection is short sighted and knee jerk.
1/ dont hate farmers, hate tossers
2/ have you owned a dog, they dont always go where you want them too.It's a fact.
3/I'm sorry but your quoting what you think is the 'real' world. I have correctley said, I don't think his livestock were being worried and apparentley they were not. Also, the law quite often is an '****' A child runs point blank out in front of a car because you left the door open. The driver cannott stop. The farmer could have. CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE????

4/ Knee jerk?, you can add that to "I feel for the owner" I'm not knee jerk, the farmer was.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: Damien you obviously hate farmers, I get it... I was not there. I can only use the facts stated in this article. If the dogs weren't in the field they couldn't have been shot. Somebody was responsible for the dogs. Those are facts. Apologies if you think applying reality over emotion means I don't care, it doesn't. The farmer has a right to protect his livestock. A person in charge of an animal is that under law. It is a sad episode but attacking the farmer without reflection is short sighted and knee jerk.[/p][/quote]1/ dont hate farmers, hate tossers 2/ have you owned a dog, they dont always go where you want them too.It's a fact. 3/I'm sorry but your quoting what you think is the 'real' world. I have correctley said, I don't think his livestock were being worried and apparentley they were not. Also, the law quite often is an '****' A child runs point blank out in front of a car because you left the door open. The driver cannott stop. The farmer could have. CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE???? 4/ Knee jerk?, you can add that to "I feel for the owner" I'm not knee jerk, the farmer was. damien- conservationist

12:11am Sat 6 Oct 12

Vox populi says...

Check meaning of apparently Damien.

Not a word I would base my accusations and defamination of someones character with.

Yes I have owned dogs. If I owned a Doberman that I let loose in a primary school playground and it savaged 10 kids that would be fine wouldn't it? After all "they don't always go where you want" do they?
Check meaning of apparently Damien. Not a word I would base my accusations and defamination of someones character with. Yes I have owned dogs. If I owned a Doberman that I let loose in a primary school playground and it savaged 10 kids that would be fine wouldn't it? After all "they don't always go where you want" do they? Vox populi

12:23am Sat 6 Oct 12

damien- conservationist says...

Vox populi wrote:
Check meaning of apparently Damien.

Not a word I would base my accusations and defamination of someones character with.

Yes I have owned dogs. If I owned a Doberman that I let loose in a primary school playground and it savaged 10 kids that would be fine wouldn't it? After all "they don't always go where you want" do they?
Check the meaning of 'Corroboration', which means that 'Apparentley' was in context with what I am saying.

The farmer has defamed his own personality.

the dogs did not savage anything, the farmer could make a judgement. You are being imotive, I am pointing out the background to this like a barrister would.

People have given up everything to preserve their dogs lives for much worse than this in courts. Not because they are irresposible, but because they care, because they are human.

The dog's were not 'let loose' as you put it, they had escaped and had the misfourtune to be in the proximity of this moron. Everybody loses dogs at some time or another. Is this really a fair outcome?. No of course it is not, they are returned normally in good health and sometimes by farmers as my friends have done countlessly.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: Check meaning of apparently Damien. Not a word I would base my accusations and defamination of someones character with. Yes I have owned dogs. If I owned a Doberman that I let loose in a primary school playground and it savaged 10 kids that would be fine wouldn't it? After all "they don't always go where you want" do they?[/p][/quote]Check the meaning of 'Corroboration', which means that 'Apparentley' was in context with what I am saying. The farmer has defamed his own personality. the dogs did not savage anything, the farmer could make a judgement. You are being imotive, I am pointing out the background to this like a barrister would. People have given up everything to preserve their dogs lives for much worse than this in courts. Not because they are irresposible, but because they care, because they are human. The dog's were not 'let loose' as you put it, they had escaped and had the misfourtune to be in the proximity of this moron. Everybody loses dogs at some time or another. Is this really a fair outcome?. No of course it is not, they are returned normally in good health and sometimes by farmers as my friends have done countlessly. damien- conservationist

12:29am Sat 6 Oct 12

Vox populi says...

What your arguement states is that only the farmer is responsible for his actions shooting the dogs.

The dog owners or whoever they were in the care of have no responsibility at all to the animals or anyone around them.

Is that a fair outcome :-) ?
What your arguement states is that only the farmer is responsible for his actions shooting the dogs. The dog owners or whoever they were in the care of have no responsibility at all to the animals or anyone around them. Is that a fair outcome :-) ? Vox populi

12:46am Sat 6 Oct 12

damien- conservationist says...

Vox populi wrote:
What your arguement states is that only the farmer is responsible for his actions shooting the dogs.

The dog owners or whoever they were in the care of have no responsibility at all to the animals or anyone around them.

Is that a fair outcome :-) ?
What your saying is that the farmer has no other role than executioner in these situations. Yes?

Secondly, do I have to assume that if my dog runs after a rabbit in front of a farmer it will be instantly shot even though I had been calling it and it is an accident?

Your talking in extremes again, of course owners have a resposibilty.

I notice that you are dis-regarding the comments of the ealier poster regarding the circumstance of these dogs deaths?

I object to this happening beacuse the I knew the MO, and I was right. The guy is a tosser, and most farmers who do this are. Simple as that.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: What your arguement states is that only the farmer is responsible for his actions shooting the dogs. The dog owners or whoever they were in the care of have no responsibility at all to the animals or anyone around them. Is that a fair outcome :-) ?[/p][/quote]What your saying is that the farmer has no other role than executioner in these situations. Yes? Secondly, do I have to assume that if my dog runs after a rabbit in front of a farmer it will be instantly shot even though I had been calling it and it is an accident? Your talking in extremes again, of course owners have a resposibilty. I notice that you are dis-regarding the comments of the ealier poster regarding the circumstance of these dogs deaths? I object to this happening beacuse the I knew the MO, and I was right. The guy is a tosser, and most farmers who do this are. Simple as that. damien- conservationist

12:50am Sat 6 Oct 12

damien- conservationist says...

Sorry, just to re-itterate. I'm not saying JUST the farmer is responsible, but you seem to be saying he has no leeway, no alternative, and no compunction. In other words, he is just an executioner.
Sorry, just to re-itterate. I'm not saying JUST the farmer is responsible, but you seem to be saying he has no leeway, no alternative, and no compunction. In other words, he is just an executioner. damien- conservationist

9:17am Sat 6 Oct 12

Vox populi says...

I don't disregard earlier comments. I was not there as mentioned. I only comment on the article as stated.

That is exactly what you are saying, the person in charge of the dog has no responsibility for it which in effect makes it a wild animal.

Dogs should not have been there. They were in the wrong place because the person responsible for them screwed up. If they hadn't of been there they would not have been shot. No different to them escaping onto the motorway however you choose to blame the farmer because you believe that in the act of shooting them he had free will and no right or need to protect his livestock.

If I was the owner I would be suing the kennels which is where the real fault lies not the farmer.
I don't disregard earlier comments. I was not there as mentioned. I only comment on the article as stated. That is exactly what you are saying, the person in charge of the dog has no responsibility for it which in effect makes it a wild animal. Dogs should not have been there. They were in the wrong place because the person responsible for them screwed up. If they hadn't of been there they would not have been shot. No different to them escaping onto the motorway however you choose to blame the farmer because you believe that in the act of shooting them he had free will and no right or need to protect his livestock. If I was the owner I would be suing the kennels which is where the real fault lies not the farmer. Vox populi

9:47am Sat 6 Oct 12

manifeellikeawoman says...

Les Childs says "still not sure how they got out"
He was exercising them "off lead" along with two other dogs "on lead" and watched them run off and jump the fence! Then waited 20 minutes (apparently, probably longer) to go and look for them!
Les Childs clearly doesn't deserve the license he possesses to attempt to look after other peoples dogs!
Les Childs says "still not sure how they got out" He was exercising them "off lead" along with two other dogs "on lead" and watched them run off and jump the fence! Then waited 20 minutes (apparently, probably longer) to go and look for them! Les Childs clearly doesn't deserve the license he possesses to attempt to look after other peoples dogs! manifeellikeawoman

12:37pm Sat 6 Oct 12

thecigarman says...

damien- conservationist wrote:
What livestock where these dogs 'worrying' then? Is it lambing time? Does this farmer shoot the TB inspectors for causing aborts because he has to put them through the crush twice in 5 days. I think not. These dogs were obviously lost and domesticated with collars on. They belonged to somebody. Farming folk I know of would take a bloody dim view if there neibour did this to their animals. There's no need, espeacially if you are half decent with stock and animals in the first place. Some farmers are not fit to hold a firearm certificate, he would have been better keeping the dogs alive and holding the kennel or owners to account for any damage done. Farmers never get around to shooting the dog's, or prosecuting the owners of real rogue sheepkilling dog's, the terrible statistics are that they always shoot dogs who are with their owners just going for a walk which are much easier targets. It dosnt help baiting the bloody countryside with placentas during lambing either, does it boy's. Shooting somebodys pet dog should be a last resort, I hope this pillock gets his license taken off him, and like a lot of people, i want he law changed to make this sort of arbitary killing illegal. Unfourtunatley for farmers, they do have to share the planet with other human beings and there are crossovers sometimes, killing pet dog's ,just another days work? http://www.burtonmai l.co.uk/News/Shot-de ad-by-farmers-gun-20 102011.htm
this is soo wrong what is wrong with u, the owner of the kennels knew that the dog would jump the fence or gate if left alone, you odviously have a vendetta against farmers, as for your satistics where did u get them from off the back of a crisp packet. its a very tragic case and no farmer wants to hurt any animal, but they have a duty to protect there livestock and land.
If a robber came into your house would u sit and watch while he attack your animals?.
my heart goes out to the owners of the dogs it would devastate me if something similiar happend to my pets.
The dogs should of been supervised the warnings were there. By the way im not a farmer.
[quote][p][bold]damien- conservationist[/bold] wrote: What livestock where these dogs 'worrying' then? Is it lambing time? Does this farmer shoot the TB inspectors for causing aborts because he has to put them through the crush twice in 5 days. I think not. These dogs were obviously lost and domesticated with collars on. They belonged to somebody. Farming folk I know of would take a bloody dim view if there neibour did this to their animals. There's no need, espeacially if you are half decent with stock and animals in the first place. Some farmers are not fit to hold a firearm certificate, he would have been better keeping the dogs alive and holding the kennel or owners to account for any damage done. Farmers never get around to shooting the dog's, or prosecuting the owners of real rogue sheepkilling dog's, the terrible statistics are that they always shoot dogs who are with their owners just going for a walk which are much easier targets. It dosnt help baiting the bloody countryside with placentas during lambing either, does it boy's. Shooting somebodys pet dog should be a last resort, I hope this pillock gets his license taken off him, and like a lot of people, i want he law changed to make this sort of arbitary killing illegal. Unfourtunatley for farmers, they do have to share the planet with other human beings and there are crossovers sometimes, killing pet dog's ,just another days work? http://www.burtonmai l.co.uk/News/Shot-de ad-by-farmers-gun-20 102011.htm[/p][/quote]this is soo wrong what is wrong with u, the owner of the kennels knew that the dog would jump the fence or gate if left alone, you odviously have a vendetta against farmers, as for your satistics where did u get them from off the back of a crisp packet. its a very tragic case and no farmer wants to hurt any animal, but they have a duty to protect there livestock and land. If a robber came into your house would u sit and watch while he attack your animals?. my heart goes out to the owners of the dogs it would devastate me if something similiar happend to my pets. The dogs should of been supervised the warnings were there. By the way im not a farmer. thecigarman

12:54pm Sat 6 Oct 12

its-me-ed says...

its-me-ed wrote:
Heres a few facts:

The dogs were shot in the chest with a 22 rifle so unless the 70 year old farmer is a crackshot it looks as though he called the dogs to him then executed them at close range. Unnecessary really because no sheep had been harmed.

The sheep that the dogs were allegedly worrying were not even his sheep.

The kennel owner Leslie Childs was abrupt to the point of rude when telephoning the owners to inform them that the dogs were dead and blamed them for having dogs that could escape from his field. Most dogs I know could teach houdini a few things.

Leslie Childs has not made any effort to contact the owners since the initial phone call. His attitude to this tragedy is appalling.

No sheep were injured at all.
Correction, it was a shotgun the farmer used not a 22 rifle. I was misinformed.
[quote][p][bold]its-me-ed[/bold] wrote: Heres a few facts: The dogs were shot in the chest with a 22 rifle so unless the 70 year old farmer is a crackshot it looks as though he called the dogs to him then executed them at close range. Unnecessary really because no sheep had been harmed. The sheep that the dogs were allegedly worrying were not even his sheep. The kennel owner Leslie Childs was abrupt to the point of rude when telephoning the owners to inform them that the dogs were dead and blamed them for having dogs that could escape from his field. Most dogs I know could teach houdini a few things. Leslie Childs has not made any effort to contact the owners since the initial phone call. His attitude to this tragedy is appalling. No sheep were injured at all.[/p][/quote]Correction, it was a shotgun the farmer used not a 22 rifle. I was misinformed. its-me-ed

12:57pm Sat 6 Oct 12

its-me-ed says...

Hack wrote:
Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?
I agree. A word from the farmer would be interesting. I think there is a history between farmer and the kennel owner. Come on worcester news, interview the farmer.
[quote][p][bold]Hack[/bold] wrote: Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?[/p][/quote]I agree. A word from the farmer would be interesting. I think there is a history between farmer and the kennel owner. Come on worcester news, interview the farmer. its-me-ed

1:31pm Sat 6 Oct 12

New Kid on the Block says...

its-me-ed wrote:
Hack wrote:
Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?
I agree. A word from the farmer would be interesting. I think there is a history between farmer and the kennel owner. Come on worcester news, interview the farmer.
Don't you mean, Lets name the Farmer so we can cause him as much trouble as possible?
If he is named this topic will be shut down instantly. Worcester News could not risk the possibility of some idiot deciding to cause trouble for man who the police have deemed innocent.
There have already been posts that are are almost certainly libelous so be careful and get your facts right before you post. Or you may come to regret your hot headed postings when Murray removes them and possibly bans you from the site.
[quote][p][bold]its-me-ed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hack[/bold] wrote: Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?[/p][/quote]I agree. A word from the farmer would be interesting. I think there is a history between farmer and the kennel owner. Come on worcester news, interview the farmer.[/p][/quote]Don't you mean, Lets name the Farmer so we can cause him as much trouble as possible? If he is named this topic will be shut down instantly. Worcester News could not risk the possibility of some idiot deciding to cause trouble for man who the police have deemed innocent. There have already been posts that are are almost certainly libelous so be careful and get your facts right before you post. Or you may come to regret your hot headed postings when Murray removes them and possibly bans you from the site. New Kid on the Block

1:42pm Sat 6 Oct 12

manifeellikeawoman says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
its-me-ed wrote:
Hack wrote:
Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?
I agree. A word from the farmer would be interesting. I think there is a history between farmer and the kennel owner. Come on worcester news, interview the farmer.
Don't you mean, Lets name the Farmer so we can cause him as much trouble as possible?
If he is named this topic will be shut down instantly. Worcester News could not risk the possibility of some idiot deciding to cause trouble for man who the police have deemed innocent.
There have already been posts that are are almost certainly libelous so be careful and get your facts right before you post. Or you may come to regret your hot headed postings when Murray removes them and possibly bans you from the site.
Please tell us New Kid on the Block, which posts on here are "almost certainly libellous" ?
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its-me-ed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hack[/bold] wrote: Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?[/p][/quote]I agree. A word from the farmer would be interesting. I think there is a history between farmer and the kennel owner. Come on worcester news, interview the farmer.[/p][/quote]Don't you mean, Lets name the Farmer so we can cause him as much trouble as possible? If he is named this topic will be shut down instantly. Worcester News could not risk the possibility of some idiot deciding to cause trouble for man who the police have deemed innocent. There have already been posts that are are almost certainly libelous so be careful and get your facts right before you post. Or you may come to regret your hot headed postings when Murray removes them and possibly bans you from the site.[/p][/quote]Please tell us New Kid on the Block, which posts on here are "almost certainly libellous" ? manifeellikeawoman

2:01pm Sat 6 Oct 12

thecigarman says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
its-me-ed wrote:
Hack wrote: Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?
I agree. A word from the farmer would be interesting. I think there is a history between farmer and the kennel owner. Come on worcester news, interview the farmer.
Don't you mean, Lets name the Farmer so we can cause him as much trouble as possible? If he is named this topic will be shut down instantly. Worcester News could not risk the possibility of some idiot deciding to cause trouble for man who the police have deemed innocent. There have already been posts that are are almost certainly libelous so be careful and get your facts right before you post. Or you may come to regret your hot headed postings when Murray removes them and possibly bans you from the site.
i totally agree with you.
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]its-me-ed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hack[/bold] wrote: Name the farmer.Interview the farmer. Come on WN, let's see the f/up?[/p][/quote]I agree. A word from the farmer would be interesting. I think there is a history between farmer and the kennel owner. Come on worcester news, interview the farmer.[/p][/quote]Don't you mean, Lets name the Farmer so we can cause him as much trouble as possible? If he is named this topic will be shut down instantly. Worcester News could not risk the possibility of some idiot deciding to cause trouble for man who the police have deemed innocent. There have already been posts that are are almost certainly libelous so be careful and get your facts right before you post. Or you may come to regret your hot headed postings when Murray removes them and possibly bans you from the site.[/p][/quote]i totally agree with you. thecigarman

2:02pm Sat 6 Oct 12

Vox populi says...

libel  
1    (Law)  
a  the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, as by a written or printed statement, picture, etc.  
b  the act of publishing such matter  
2  any defamatory or unflattering representation or statement  


Oh that'll be the description of the farmer then....
libel   1    (Law)   a  the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, as by a written or printed statement, picture, etc.   b  the act of publishing such matter   2  any defamatory or unflattering representation or statement   Oh that'll be the description of the farmer then.... Vox populi

3:20pm Sat 6 Oct 12

Hack says...

My post seems have raised hackles. Pet dogs were shot by a farmer. The field has been used by dog owners. The owner of the dogs is outraged. I interpret this as shouting 'foul'. The WN runs the story based on the owner's complaint. Police give a comment, which, in effect, says they have no interest in following up. Farmers have the right to shoot dogs on their land, stock threatened or no; a moot point. The law favours the farmer. WN will at least consider speaking to the farmer; for balance. But if the farmer refuses to speak there is little more that can printed, other than 'no comment.'
My post seems have raised hackles. Pet dogs were shot by a farmer. The field has been used by dog owners. The owner of the dogs is outraged. I interpret this as shouting 'foul'. The WN runs the story based on the owner's complaint. Police give a comment, which, in effect, says they have no interest in following up. Farmers have the right to shoot dogs on their land, stock threatened or no; a moot point. The law favours the farmer. WN will at least consider speaking to the farmer; for balance. But if the farmer refuses to speak there is little more that can printed, other than 'no comment.' Hack

3:20pm Sat 6 Oct 12

Hack says...

My post seems have raised hackles. Pet dogs were shot by a farmer. The field has been used by dog owners. The owner of the dogs is outraged. I interpret this as shouting 'foul'. The WN runs the story based on the owner's complaint. Police give a comment, which, in effect, says they have no interest in following up. Farmers have the right to shoot dogs on their land, stock threatened or no; a moot point. The law favours the farmer. WN will at least consider speaking to the farmer; for balance. But if the farmer refuses to speak there is little more that can printed, other than 'no comment.'
My post seems have raised hackles. Pet dogs were shot by a farmer. The field has been used by dog owners. The owner of the dogs is outraged. I interpret this as shouting 'foul'. The WN runs the story based on the owner's complaint. Police give a comment, which, in effect, says they have no interest in following up. Farmers have the right to shoot dogs on their land, stock threatened or no; a moot point. The law favours the farmer. WN will at least consider speaking to the farmer; for balance. But if the farmer refuses to speak there is little more that can printed, other than 'no comment.' Hack

4:02pm Sat 6 Oct 12

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

I've seen what a couple of "domesticated" pet dogs can do to sheep. Believe me it's not pleasant! And it's not just the sheep they actually attack - it's the rest of the flock that get frightened and scatter in all directions - into barbed wire, deep water etc. It comes down to this for the farmer, does he shoot two dogs or does he risk losing some of his flock which are his livelihood? The dogs might have collars on - but that does not mean they are not capable of harm!
I've seen what a couple of "domesticated" pet dogs can do to sheep. Believe me it's not pleasant! And it's not just the sheep they actually attack - it's the rest of the flock that get frightened and scatter in all directions - into barbed wire, deep water etc. It comes down to this for the farmer, does he shoot two dogs or does he risk losing some of his flock which are his livelihood? The dogs might have collars on - but that does not mean they are not capable of harm! imustbeoldiwearacap

4:35pm Sat 6 Oct 12

manifeellikeawoman says...

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
I've seen what a couple of "domesticated" pet dogs can do to sheep. Believe me it's not pleasant! And it's not just the sheep they actually attack - it's the rest of the flock that get frightened and scatter in all directions - into barbed wire, deep water etc. It comes down to this for the farmer, does he shoot two dogs or does he risk losing some of his flock which are his livelihood? The dogs might have collars on - but that does not mean they are not capable of harm!
Not one sheep was harmed during this incident! Not a single mark on one animal - apart from the two dogs that were shot - in the chest! If they were attacking a sheep how could the farmer have shot them BOTH in the chest?
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: I've seen what a couple of "domesticated" pet dogs can do to sheep. Believe me it's not pleasant! And it's not just the sheep they actually attack - it's the rest of the flock that get frightened and scatter in all directions - into barbed wire, deep water etc. It comes down to this for the farmer, does he shoot two dogs or does he risk losing some of his flock which are his livelihood? The dogs might have collars on - but that does not mean they are not capable of harm![/p][/quote]Not one sheep was harmed during this incident! Not a single mark on one animal - apart from the two dogs that were shot - in the chest! If they were attacking a sheep how could the farmer have shot them BOTH in the chest? manifeellikeawoman

6:40pm Sat 6 Oct 12

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

manifeellikeawoman wrote:
imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
I've seen what a couple of "domesticated" pet dogs can do to sheep. Believe me it's not pleasant! And it's not just the sheep they actually attack - it's the rest of the flock that get frightened and scatter in all directions - into barbed wire, deep water etc. It comes down to this for the farmer, does he shoot two dogs or does he risk losing some of his flock which are his livelihood? The dogs might have collars on - but that does not mean they are not capable of harm!
Not one sheep was harmed during this incident! Not a single mark on one animal - apart from the two dogs that were shot - in the chest! If they were attacking a sheep how could the farmer have shot them BOTH in the chest?
The farmer does not have second sight - he has no idea what the dogs will do next - will they attack, or will they just run off? Most if not all farmers/shepherds have seen the result of dogs attacking sheep and cattle, so from his point of view he has no alternative - the dogs were not under anyones control, they were near his flock. I know it's a difficult question which is better, two dead dogs or half a dozen dead or maimed sheep? (The two dogs I saw were responsible for 3 sheep maimed - but not dead - they had to be put down - and 2 sheep drowned in the Worcester Birmingham Canal and the farmer totally distraught!)
[quote][p][bold]manifeellikeawoman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: I've seen what a couple of "domesticated" pet dogs can do to sheep. Believe me it's not pleasant! And it's not just the sheep they actually attack - it's the rest of the flock that get frightened and scatter in all directions - into barbed wire, deep water etc. It comes down to this for the farmer, does he shoot two dogs or does he risk losing some of his flock which are his livelihood? The dogs might have collars on - but that does not mean they are not capable of harm![/p][/quote]Not one sheep was harmed during this incident! Not a single mark on one animal - apart from the two dogs that were shot - in the chest! If they were attacking a sheep how could the farmer have shot them BOTH in the chest?[/p][/quote]The farmer does not have second sight - he has no idea what the dogs will do next - will they attack, or will they just run off? Most if not all farmers/shepherds have seen the result of dogs attacking sheep and cattle, so from his point of view he has no alternative - the dogs were not under anyones control, they were near his flock. I know it's a difficult question which is better, two dead dogs or half a dozen dead or maimed sheep? (The two dogs I saw were responsible for 3 sheep maimed - but not dead - they had to be put down - and 2 sheep drowned in the Worcester Birmingham Canal and the farmer totally distraught!) imustbeoldiwearacap

1:40am Sun 7 Oct 12

TheIndependentPolitician says...

SOS; German Shepherd
SOS; German Shepherd TheIndependentPolitician

10:16am Sun 7 Oct 12

New Kid on the Block says...

Is this a new record for rambling rubbish?
23 entries from the same person with no other comments?
Is this a new record for rambling rubbish? 23 entries from the same person with no other comments? New Kid on the Block

10:36am Sun 7 Oct 12

Maggie Would says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
Is this a new record for rambling rubbish?
23 entries from the same person with no other comments?
I've just counted them and was going to say exactly the same, New Kid, but you got here first. I think we have a genuine loony on our hands. If you look at any threads with lots of comments, they are mostly his.
Totally hatstand, he is.
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: Is this a new record for rambling rubbish? 23 entries from the same person with no other comments?[/p][/quote]I've just counted them and was going to say exactly the same, New Kid, but you got here first. I think we have a genuine loony on our hands. If you look at any threads with lots of comments, they are mostly his. Totally hatstand, he is. Maggie Would

10:40am Sun 7 Oct 12

jovialcommonsense says...

SOS; TheIndependentPoliti
cian
SOS; TheIndependentPoliti cian jovialcommonsense

11:57am Sun 7 Oct 12

Hack says...

TheIndependentPoliti
cian
wrote:
SOS; Jack Russell Terrier
I have two JR's. They chase cats, squirrels, rabbits, dig for moles and are keen hunters of coypu, trying to get at them below ground in their 'burrows'. I would never allow them off a lead with stock nearby. If they escaped and were shot for attacking sheep, or just chasing them, I would be devastated as like most dogs they are part of our family. I would have to accept the farmer's legal right to protect his stock. That said today I saw several groups of hunters with dogs out shooting. I would expect a farmer to shoot his/her own dog if it started attacking/worrying stock.
[quote][p][bold]TheIndependentPoliti cian[/bold] wrote: SOS; Jack Russell Terrier[/p][/quote]I have two JR's. They chase cats, squirrels, rabbits, dig for moles and are keen hunters of coypu, trying to get at them below ground in their 'burrows'. I would never allow them off a lead with stock nearby. If they escaped and were shot for attacking sheep, or just chasing them, I would be devastated as like most dogs they are part of our family. I would have to accept the farmer's legal right to protect his stock. That said today I saw several groups of hunters with dogs out shooting. I would expect a farmer to shoot his/her own dog if it started attacking/worrying stock. Hack

12:45pm Sun 7 Oct 12

jovialcommonsense says...

What are you?
Where are you?
Who are you?
Why are you?
When are you going to take a rest?
Here's one not on your list. How are you?

I cannot even understand why I'm asking!
What are you? Where are you? Who are you? Why are you? When are you going to take a rest? Here's one not on your list. How are you? I cannot even understand why I'm asking! jovialcommonsense

5:46pm Sun 7 Oct 12

pinkfluff says...

A big genuine lol from me........is there something in the water?
A big genuine lol from me........is there something in the water? pinkfluff

6:23pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Sleepless in Droitwich says...

This site should be called:- The Independent Politician Show.
What a div.
This site should be called:- The Independent Politician Show. What a div. Sleepless in Droitwich

7:03pm Sun 7 Oct 12

thecigarman says...

TheIndependentPoliti
cian
wrote:
I think the reputation of the Staffies means they should be culled and anyone who has a tattoo or is obese, should be barred from owning one!!!
you cant just blame certain breeds. you havent got a clue what you on about.
[quote][p][bold]TheIndependentPoliti cian[/bold] wrote: I think the reputation of the Staffies means they should be culled and anyone who has a tattoo or is obese, should be barred from owning one!!![/p][/quote]you cant just blame certain breeds. you havent got a clue what you on about. thecigarman

7:11pm Sun 7 Oct 12

thecigarman says...

The independent politician should be banned from the sight. he odviously has ran out of medication.
The independent politician should be banned from the sight. he odviously has ran out of medication. thecigarman

7:38pm Sun 7 Oct 12

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

thecigarman wrote:
The independent politician should be banned from the sight. he odviously has ran out of medication.
Report him! He's on an ego (or acid) trip
[quote][p][bold]thecigarman[/bold] wrote: The independent politician should be banned from the sight. he odviously has ran out of medication.[/p][/quote]Report him! He's on an ego (or acid) trip imustbeoldiwearacap

7:49pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Hack says...

TheIndependentPoliti
cian
wrote:
I'm now commenting on car crash carnage sparks safety call and the other discussion about blue badges if anyone amongst the intellectually brain dead of Worcester would like to join in!!
You need to look in the mirror. Pathetic. Life, you do not have. Your posts are self promoting as you have little else. No wonder WN ignores this trivia. Saddo.
[quote][p][bold]TheIndependentPoliti cian[/bold] wrote: I'm now commenting on car crash carnage sparks safety call and the other discussion about blue badges if anyone amongst the intellectually brain dead of Worcester would like to join in!![/p][/quote]You need to look in the mirror. Pathetic. Life, you do not have. Your posts are self promoting as you have little else. No wonder WN ignores this trivia. Saddo. Hack

8:24pm Sun 7 Oct 12

baz2107 says...

I think the farmer needs to be named, I have 2 collies and they both go off their leads because they are obedient dogs.

Too man farmers are trigger happy, were the dogs actually causing any problem to their live stock? or were they just being Billy Big Balls because they have a gun? Their actions have made a family completely distraught-if you cant attack an intruder on your own home why can you shoot a family pet who intrudes (without intent)

The kennels are appalling for their part too, such a sad story
I think the farmer needs to be named, I have 2 collies and they both go off their leads because they are obedient dogs. Too man farmers are trigger happy, were the dogs actually causing any problem to their live stock? or were they just being Billy Big Balls because they have a gun? Their actions have made a family completely distraught-if you cant attack an intruder on your own home why can you shoot a family pet who intrudes (without intent) The kennels are appalling for their part too, such a sad story baz2107

8:43am Mon 8 Oct 12

Maggie Would says...

No comments on this thread so far today.
Do you think he's gone?
Is it safe to come out yet?
No comments on this thread so far today. Do you think he's gone? Is it safe to come out yet? Maggie Would

8:56am Mon 8 Oct 12

Smyffie says...

Maggie Would wrote:
No comments on this thread so far today.
Do you think he's gone?
Is it safe to come out yet?
I heard he'd gone to speak to the farmer personally to get his point of view.......maybe he just ended up gettin one in the chest himself for the team!!
[quote][p][bold]Maggie Would[/bold] wrote: No comments on this thread so far today. Do you think he's gone? Is it safe to come out yet?[/p][/quote]I heard he'd gone to speak to the farmer personally to get his point of view.......maybe he just ended up gettin one in the chest himself for the team!! Smyffie

10:39am Mon 8 Oct 12

thecigarman says...

TheIndependentPoliti
cian
wrote:
Cigarman - it's only certain breeds that are responsible and quite a few of them live in Dines Green!!!
That comment just shows what u are. still Dines green is better than a ward at Rampton where u reside, there are some real decent people who live up dines green, you should try being nice for a change who knows it might make you feel better.
[quote][p][bold]TheIndependentPoliti cian[/bold] wrote: Cigarman - it's only certain breeds that are responsible and quite a few of them live in Dines Green!!![/p][/quote]That comment just shows what u are. still Dines green is better than a ward at Rampton where u reside, there are some real decent people who live up dines green, you should try being nice for a change who knows it might make you feel better. thecigarman

11:36am Mon 8 Oct 12

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

Have you noticed the mods have deleted "TheIndependentPolit
ician" Now can we get back to the point? Any dog no matter how well "trained" can revert to type - around livestock they should be under control and on a lead. If you let them loose around livestock you are being irresponsible (see RSPCA guidlines)
Have you noticed the mods have deleted "TheIndependentPolit ician" Now can we get back to the point? Any dog no matter how well "trained" can revert to type - around livestock they should be under control and on a lead. If you let them loose around livestock you are being irresponsible (see RSPCA guidlines) imustbeoldiwearacap

11:52am Mon 8 Oct 12

New Kid on the Block says...

Now perhaps people can see why I use an alias.
Would you want a fruit loop like "The Independent Politician " finding out your address or phone number?
Now perhaps people can see why I use an alias. Would you want a fruit loop like "The Independent Politician " finding out your address or phone number? New Kid on the Block

12:07pm Mon 8 Oct 12

thecigarman says...

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
Have you noticed the mods have deleted "TheIndependent
Polit ician" Now can we get back to the point? Any dog no matter how well "trained" can revert to type - around livestock they should be under control and on a lead. If you let them loose around livestock you are being irresponsible (see RSPCA guidlines)
i totally agree unless we were there we dont know all the facts. The warnings were there, a friend of mine has a kennels and if theres any inkling that a dog escapes they keep them on a lead but lets them have a good run in the tennis court where they cant escape.
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: Have you noticed the mods have deleted "TheIndependent Polit ician" Now can we get back to the point? Any dog no matter how well "trained" can revert to type - around livestock they should be under control and on a lead. If you let them loose around livestock you are being irresponsible (see RSPCA guidlines)[/p][/quote]i totally agree unless we were there we dont know all the facts. The warnings were there, a friend of mine has a kennels and if theres any inkling that a dog escapes they keep them on a lead but lets them have a good run in the tennis court where they cant escape. thecigarman

12:07pm Mon 8 Oct 12

thecigarman says...

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
Have you noticed the mods have deleted "TheIndependent
Polit ician" Now can we get back to the point? Any dog no matter how well "trained" can revert to type - around livestock they should be under control and on a lead. If you let them loose around livestock you are being irresponsible (see RSPCA guidlines)
i totally agree unless we were there we dont know all the facts. The warnings were there, a friend of mine has a kennels and if theres any inkling that a dog escapes they keep them on a lead but lets them have a good run in the tennis court where they cant escape.
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: Have you noticed the mods have deleted "TheIndependent Polit ician" Now can we get back to the point? Any dog no matter how well "trained" can revert to type - around livestock they should be under control and on a lead. If you let them loose around livestock you are being irresponsible (see RSPCA guidlines)[/p][/quote]i totally agree unless we were there we dont know all the facts. The warnings were there, a friend of mine has a kennels and if theres any inkling that a dog escapes they keep them on a lead but lets them have a good run in the tennis court where they cant escape. thecigarman

11:58am Tue 9 Oct 12

MakeUthink says...

It's sad how certain people become so 'vicious' on this site. It's easier to 'bad-mouth' somebody when not face-to-face. I would be interested if there was an arranged 'debate' in a place like the Guildhall. All (WN specific-article) parties could be invited. Then see how loud and threatening they are, when in the same room, no longer anonymous, and with an invited audience to listen in, and respond, to all the (WN) contributors. It's got to be worth a try, WN?
It's sad how certain people become so 'vicious' on this site. It's easier to 'bad-mouth' somebody when not face-to-face. I would be interested if there was an arranged 'debate' in a place like the Guildhall. All (WN specific-article) parties could be invited. Then see how loud and threatening they are, when in the same room, no longer anonymous, and with an invited audience to listen in, and respond, to all the (WN) contributors. It's got to be worth a try, WN? MakeUthink

12:36pm Tue 9 Oct 12

thecigarman says...

MakeUthink wrote:
It's sad how certain people become so 'vicious' on this site. It's easier to 'bad-mouth' somebody when not face-to-face. I would be interested if there was an arranged 'debate' in a place like the Guildhall. All (WN specific-article) parties could be invited. Then see how loud and threatening they are, when in the same room, no longer anonymous, and with an invited audience to listen in, and respond, to all the (WN) contributors. It's got to be worth a try, WN?
Good idea.
[quote][p][bold]MakeUthink[/bold] wrote: It's sad how certain people become so 'vicious' on this site. It's easier to 'bad-mouth' somebody when not face-to-face. I would be interested if there was an arranged 'debate' in a place like the Guildhall. All (WN specific-article) parties could be invited. Then see how loud and threatening they are, when in the same room, no longer anonymous, and with an invited audience to listen in, and respond, to all the (WN) contributors. It's got to be worth a try, WN?[/p][/quote]Good idea. thecigarman

4:17pm Tue 9 Oct 12

taffyboio says...

Why is there no investigation taking place by the police? Without an investigation how do they know if the farmer was justified in his actions? If I were the owners I would make a complaint of criminal damage, until the farmer is interviewed his grounds or intentions cannot be ascertained. As it is not lambing season I think he is struggling to justify his actions! As previously mentioned the gun shot would probably cause more distress than 2 sheep dogs in a field of sheep!
Why is there no investigation taking place by the police? Without an investigation how do they know if the farmer was justified in his actions? If I were the owners I would make a complaint of criminal damage, until the farmer is interviewed his grounds or intentions cannot be ascertained. As it is not lambing season I think he is struggling to justify his actions! As previously mentioned the gun shot would probably cause more distress than 2 sheep dogs in a field of sheep! taffyboio

8:23pm Tue 9 Oct 12

onelifeliveit says...

Living just up the road from this kennels (shouting distance you might say,that being SHUT UP YOU ****** ********,kennel owner not me by the way) dogs escape much more than he obviously reports.The fence around the secure field is minimal and the place is surrounded by sheep.Damage can be done to ewes and lambs at any age.The stupid things will break their necks in fences just to get away from a dog.So tragic as this is I know who I blmae.Oh and the police will have investigated.They alwats do with guns.
Living just up the road from this kennels (shouting distance you might say,that being SHUT UP YOU ****** ********,kennel owner not me by the way) dogs escape much more than he obviously reports.The fence around the secure field is minimal and the place is surrounded by sheep.Damage can be done to ewes and lambs at any age.The stupid things will break their necks in fences just to get away from a dog.So tragic as this is I know who I blmae.Oh and the police will have investigated.They alwats do with guns. onelifeliveit

8:44pm Tue 9 Oct 12

jdeb11 says...

I have come across this individual farmer, he has been nothing but aggressive, abusive and downright nasty. Whilst walking on a legitimate right of way path, with dogs on leads he has been confrontational and threatening. It is no surprise to find out that this individual has shot animals it was only a matter of time.
I have come across this individual farmer, he has been nothing but aggressive, abusive and downright nasty. Whilst walking on a legitimate right of way path, with dogs on leads he has been confrontational and threatening. It is no surprise to find out that this individual has shot animals it was only a matter of time. jdeb11

10:28pm Tue 9 Oct 12

thecigarman says...

jdeb11 wrote:
I have come across this individual farmer, he has been nothing but aggressive, abusive and downright nasty. Whilst walking on a legitimate right of way path, with dogs on leads he has been confrontational and threatening. It is no surprise to find out that this individual has shot animals it was only a matter of time.
you are mates with the kennel owners then, if he was nasty to u when you,d done nothing wrong why dident u report it?
[quote][p][bold]jdeb11[/bold] wrote: I have come across this individual farmer, he has been nothing but aggressive, abusive and downright nasty. Whilst walking on a legitimate right of way path, with dogs on leads he has been confrontational and threatening. It is no surprise to find out that this individual has shot animals it was only a matter of time.[/p][/quote]you are mates with the kennel owners then, if he was nasty to u when you,d done nothing wrong why dident u report it? thecigarman

12:27pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Vox populi says...

Honestly I don't see what the farmer has to do with it.

If he is nasty or nice it means nothing. The fact remains the dogs were in his field and present a danger to his animals therefore he has the LEGAL RIGHT to shoot them.

They should NOT have been in the field which is the issue i.e. somebody had responsibility for them, at the time: the kennel owner. If they were on a lead or not in the field then they wouldn't have been shot.

I like dogs and I understand that they are fluffier and nicer than sheep but please they are a domestic pet that the owner or guardian is responsible for. You cant have it both ways by saying "how could he kill a loverly domestic cute family animal" then say "oh he's only acting on his instincts" when he chews on a sheep…. Its your responsibility to ensure the dog doesn't get that opportunity.
Honestly I don't see what the farmer has to do with it. If he is nasty or nice it means nothing. The fact remains the dogs were in his field and present a danger to his animals therefore he has the LEGAL RIGHT to shoot them. They should NOT have been in the field which is the issue i.e. somebody had responsibility for them, at the time: the kennel owner. If they were on a lead or not in the field then they wouldn't have been shot. I like dogs and I understand that they are fluffier and nicer than sheep but please they are a domestic pet that the owner or guardian is responsible for. You cant have it both ways by saying "how could he kill a loverly domestic cute family animal" then say "oh he's only acting on his instincts" when he chews on a sheep…. Its your responsibility to ensure the dog doesn't get that opportunity. Vox populi

1:00pm Wed 10 Oct 12

thecigarman says...

Vox populi wrote:
Honestly I don't see what the farmer has to do with it. If he is nasty or nice it means nothing. The fact remains the dogs were in his field and present a danger to his animals therefore he has the LEGAL RIGHT to shoot them. They should NOT have been in the field which is the issue i.e. somebody had responsibility for them, at the time: the kennel owner. If they were on a lead or not in the field then they wouldn't have been shot. I like dogs and I understand that they are fluffier and nicer than sheep but please they are a domestic pet that the owner or guardian is responsible for. You cant have it both ways by saying "how could he kill a loverly domestic cute family animal" then say "oh he's only acting on his instincts" when he chews on a sheep…. Its your responsibility to ensure the dog doesn't get that opportunity.
SPOT ON.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: Honestly I don't see what the farmer has to do with it. If he is nasty or nice it means nothing. The fact remains the dogs were in his field and present a danger to his animals therefore he has the LEGAL RIGHT to shoot them. They should NOT have been in the field which is the issue i.e. somebody had responsibility for them, at the time: the kennel owner. If they were on a lead or not in the field then they wouldn't have been shot. I like dogs and I understand that they are fluffier and nicer than sheep but please they are a domestic pet that the owner or guardian is responsible for. You cant have it both ways by saying "how could he kill a loverly domestic cute family animal" then say "oh he's only acting on his instincts" when he chews on a sheep…. Its your responsibility to ensure the dog doesn't get that opportunity.[/p][/quote]SPOT ON. thecigarman

8:17pm Wed 10 Oct 12

onelifeliveit says...

Yep agree with the above.
Plus I have been shouted at by the kennel owner whilst walking on the footpath near his property.
Yep agree with the above. Plus I have been shouted at by the kennel owner whilst walking on the footpath near his property. onelifeliveit

10:17am Thu 11 Oct 12

jdeb11 says...

I have no connection to the kennel owner and "report it".... to who? For goodness sake , just because someone is not pleasant to you ... do you really go running to the authorities? no wonder the police are overworked!! This farmer did not like me taking my dogs on the pathway that runs in his field! Tough the countryside act allows access ! I know mine was a difference circumstance to these dogs out on their own , however I was just writing about my interaction with this individual.
I have no connection to the kennel owner and "report it".... to who? For goodness sake , just because someone is not pleasant to you ... do you really go running to the authorities? no wonder the police are overworked!! This farmer did not like me taking my dogs on the pathway that runs in his field! Tough the countryside act allows access ! I know mine was a difference circumstance to these dogs out on their own , however I was just writing about my interaction with this individual. jdeb11

10:27am Thu 11 Oct 12

AlexKear says...

Oh dear, what a row! Is all really needed? The kennell owner was negligent. He knew the dogs may jump the fence, he charges for the service, so look after them! Ok, the farmer could have done things differently, but the dogs should not have been there in the first place. Tragic I know, but we have lost cats and dogs to roads, and we have to accept responsibility as we should have better control. We lost all our hens to mr fix earlier this year....if I had a gun I'd shoot him too, but would this be classed as wrong too?...I feel the morale of the story is both human beings and animals need to learn to get on with each other a bit more
Oh dear, what a row! Is all really needed? The kennell owner was negligent. He knew the dogs may jump the fence, he charges for the service, so look after them! Ok, the farmer could have done things differently, but the dogs should not have been there in the first place. Tragic I know, but we have lost cats and dogs to roads, and we have to accept responsibility as we should have better control. We lost all our hens to mr fix earlier this year....if I had a gun I'd shoot him too, but would this be classed as wrong too?...I feel the morale of the story is both human beings and animals need to learn to get on with each other a bit more AlexKear

10:36am Thu 11 Oct 12

dogsowner says...

The farmer who shot my dogs was not the owner of the sheep or the field.
He could have easily caught my dogs.They would go to anybody.
Had he fired a shot in the air , they would have run a mile. But he choose to enter another farmer's field and execute my dogs.They were both shot in the chest and were probably running up to him with wagging tails.
I KNEW MY DOGS. He should have phoned the farmer who owned these sheep who would probably been more compassionate. The police have interveiwed this dog killer but will not disclose his name to me. They have decided not to press charges on the farmer (dog killer)or the kennels.
There should be a change in the law to stop incidents like this .No sheep were injured.My dogs were trying to herd sheep which is their natural instinct.The kennels should not have lost my dogs!!!!
The farmer who shot my dogs was not the owner of the sheep or the field. He could have easily caught my dogs.They would go to anybody. Had he fired a shot in the air , they would have run a mile. But he choose to enter another farmer's field and execute my dogs.They were both shot in the chest and were probably running up to him with wagging tails. I KNEW MY DOGS. He should have phoned the farmer who owned these sheep who would probably been more compassionate. The police have interveiwed this dog killer but will not disclose his name to me. They have decided not to press charges on the farmer (dog killer)or the kennels. There should be a change in the law to stop incidents like this .No sheep were injured.My dogs were trying to herd sheep which is their natural instinct.The kennels should not have lost my dogs!!!! dogsowner

1:09pm Thu 11 Oct 12

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

dogsowner wrote:
The farmer who shot my dogs was not the owner of the sheep or the field.
He could have easily caught my dogs.They would go to anybody.
Had he fired a shot in the air , they would have run a mile. But he choose to enter another farmer's field and execute my dogs.They were both shot in the chest and were probably running up to him with wagging tails.
I KNEW MY DOGS. He should have phoned the farmer who owned these sheep who would probably been more compassionate. The police have interveiwed this dog killer but will not disclose his name to me. They have decided not to press charges on the farmer (dog killer)or the kennels.
There should be a change in the law to stop incidents like this .No sheep were injured.My dogs were trying to herd sheep which is their natural instinct.The kennels should not have lost my dogs!!!!
I'm sorry your dogs were shot, but if as you say they were trying to herd the sheep, had the farmer had not intervened then the sheep could have been severely injured or killed. Your dogs were unfortunately not under control. And do not blame the farmer - the ultimate reponsibility is the kennels!
[quote][p][bold]dogsowner[/bold] wrote: The farmer who shot my dogs was not the owner of the sheep or the field. He could have easily caught my dogs.They would go to anybody. Had he fired a shot in the air , they would have run a mile. But he choose to enter another farmer's field and execute my dogs.They were both shot in the chest and were probably running up to him with wagging tails. I KNEW MY DOGS. He should have phoned the farmer who owned these sheep who would probably been more compassionate. The police have interveiwed this dog killer but will not disclose his name to me. They have decided not to press charges on the farmer (dog killer)or the kennels. There should be a change in the law to stop incidents like this .No sheep were injured.My dogs were trying to herd sheep which is their natural instinct.The kennels should not have lost my dogs!!!![/p][/quote]I'm sorry your dogs were shot, but if as you say they were trying to herd the sheep, had the farmer had not intervened then the sheep could have been severely injured or killed. Your dogs were unfortunately not under control. And do not blame the farmer - the ultimate reponsibility is the kennels! imustbeoldiwearacap

2:49pm Thu 11 Oct 12

dogsowner says...

My one dog "Benson" has tried to herd sheep before ,in fields ajoining our house.He didn't hurt any sheep and when he got tired he just stood and barked.HE WAS A SHEEP DOG!!!!
That farmer could have controled the dogs with ease.They would have come to him but preferred get some target practice so he shot them.
I would bought the owner of those sheep
another 1000 sheep had my dogs been spared.They were not just pets,they were part of our family and are irreplaceable.Just remember,the man who shot them did not own those sheep
My one dog "Benson" has tried to herd sheep before ,in fields ajoining our house.He didn't hurt any sheep and when he got tired he just stood and barked.HE WAS A SHEEP DOG!!!! That farmer could have controled the dogs with ease.They would have come to him but preferred get some target practice so he shot them. I would bought the owner of those sheep another 1000 sheep had my dogs been spared.They were not just pets,they were part of our family and are irreplaceable.Just remember,the man who shot them did not own those sheep dogsowner

4:27pm Thu 11 Oct 12

thecigarman says...

dogsowner wrote:
My one dog "Benson" has tried to herd sheep before ,in fields ajoining our house.He didn't hurt any sheep and when he got tired he just stood and barked.HE WAS A SHEEP DOG!!!! That farmer could have controled the dogs with ease.They would have come to him but preferred get some target practice so he shot them. I would bought the owner of those sheep another 1000 sheep had my dogs been spared.They were not just pets,they were part of our family and are irreplaceable.Just remember,the man who shot them did not own those sheep
My heart goes out to you but its the kennels fault all the warnings were there that at least 1 dog would escape, they should of been in a secure exercise area or not left off the leads or on there own. The kennel owners should of learnt from previous incidents. Its all very sad.
[quote][p][bold]dogsowner[/bold] wrote: My one dog "Benson" has tried to herd sheep before ,in fields ajoining our house.He didn't hurt any sheep and when he got tired he just stood and barked.HE WAS A SHEEP DOG!!!! That farmer could have controled the dogs with ease.They would have come to him but preferred get some target practice so he shot them. I would bought the owner of those sheep another 1000 sheep had my dogs been spared.They were not just pets,they were part of our family and are irreplaceable.Just remember,the man who shot them did not own those sheep[/p][/quote]My heart goes out to you but its the kennels fault all the warnings were there that at least 1 dog would escape, they should of been in a secure exercise area or not left off the leads or on there own. The kennel owners should of learnt from previous incidents. Its all very sad. thecigarman

4:46pm Thu 11 Oct 12

dogsowner says...

I agree that the main fault lies with the kennel.
We were informed of the shooting by the kennels while we were on holiday in the south of spain.
We have not had any contact by the kennels since!
Not a phone call or even a letter.
It took us three days to drive home and then had to collect the bodies of our dogs ourselves from a vet in Malvern.

What were the previous incidents where
dogs have escaped from the kennels??
Les Childs (kennel owner) told me that no dogs have ever got out of his field!
Had I of known this , I would never had used them.
I agree that the main fault lies with the kennel. We were informed of the shooting by the kennels while we were on holiday in the south of spain. We have not had any contact by the kennels since! Not a phone call or even a letter. It took us three days to drive home and then had to collect the bodies of our dogs ourselves from a vet in Malvern. What were the previous incidents where dogs have escaped from the kennels?? Les Childs (kennel owner) told me that no dogs have ever got out of his field! Had I of known this , I would never had used them. dogsowner

5:21pm Thu 11 Oct 12

thecigarman says...

Thats terrible, hes just in it for the monie. or he would of came to see you etc etc, yes previous escapes. ask him.
Thats terrible, hes just in it for the monie. or he would of came to see you etc etc, yes previous escapes. ask him. thecigarman

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree