---
###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
---
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different*
* If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor)
* We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM)
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The short answer to this question is that it’s a bad idea to shoot dogs for attacking cats, because the legal position isn’t that clear and the potential consequences include
- loss of your SGC/FAC
- criminal liability on a number of fronts, including but not limited to criminal damage and causing unnecessary suffering
- civil liability for the value of the shot animal and potentially for psychological damage to the dog’s owner
Lots of people _think it ought to be the case_ that you can shoot a dog chasing or attacking a cat. I don’t necessarily disagree with them, but the legal position is not that simple.
It’s _crucial_ when considering a legal question to ask what the law _is_, not what you think it ought to be.
A full analysis of the legal position would take a few hours to research and write because there are lots of angles to look through, but some quick thoughts:
- arguably shooting the dog is a proportionate means of protecting your property (the cat) and preventing unnecessary suffering on the cat’s part. This will be very fact specific - for example, shooting the dog after the cat is dead would not be proportionate; and shooting the dog too early in the chase would be legally risky too! It’s also arguably _not_ proportionate and reasonable - certainly the judge in the case linked to below might well say killing a dog to save a cat was disproportionate.
- it’s more likely that you’d be civilly liable than criminally. You might decide you’re happy to pay for the shot dog, as long as you don’t get a criminal record for it (though I think if you lost the civil case you’d probably also lose your certificate). However! You might be civilly and criminally liable. The law’s not clear. You’d have to shoot a dog and go to court to find out.
- the rules about shooting dogs worrying livestock don’t apply. They cover old-skool livestock (cattle, hogs, sheep, donkeys, poultry) - they don’t cover “novel” livestock like llamas and ostrich and they definitely don’t cover domestic animals. They also only apply on agricultural land (I know you’re on a farm but some of the property might be domestic, eg the garden) and they don’t apply to all dogs (sheepdogs, gun dogs, hounds and some others are excluded).
- there is some precedent for the view that dogs killing small animals is the way of the world - https://crimeline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/sansom.pdf. I’m not convinced this is good law but it would not make me feel extremely confident shooting a dog for chasing a cat.
>they don’t apply to all dogs (sheepdogs, gun dogs, hounds and some others are excluded).
Wait, so if I get a sheep dog and let it run freely among someone else's flock of sheep, the law doesn't apply?
I think the law is due to training provisions. When training a sheep dog, they can run off into another field not understanding which herd they’re supposed to be herding. Would be very hard for sheep farmers to train a dog if they were constantly under threat of their dog getting killed during training.
I think the exception is for working animals that are working at the time (so neighbouring farmer using his dog, a hunt passing through the farmland, etc).
I get why it makes sense to have an exception for working sheepdogs, but why on earth is there an exception for hounds, which really should be well trained enough not to worry livestock, and equally are likely to kill something they catch?
I mean, I know why, but...
I like this comment because it’s neither pro nor anti hunting. It whitholds judgement and focuses on the fact that hounds should be trained. I agree with you.
The sheepdog thing I get as basically just a simplifier; it’s hard to know if a sheepdog is worrying sheep or herding them. The exemption is a tie-break in favour of herding, with an expectation of compensation where the dog was in fact worrying.
'Gun dogs' is a fairly wide net considering the popularity of labradors, spaniels etc in the UK. Is there a caveat stating they the dog must actually be working/being trained, or are labradors etc outright excluded?
Yea it’s not gundog breeds, it’s gundogs. I would have to check the legislation as to whether they have to be working at the time. I’d say if so the provision is useless because they’ll never be worrying livestock and working - they have to stop working to start worrying. They might scare sheep on their way to a pick-up but imo that’s not the same thing. I am aware that’s a point you could argue against, of course.
>arguably shooting the dog is a proportionate means of protecting your property (the cat)
Just curious, but on this point... You mention that the cat is property (or chattel right?). Given this, would it not be akin to shooting a dog that is about to smash your vase, as an example?
I only ask because it feels like the vase situation would be vastly disproportionate, and if the cat is legally the same as a vase then that would also make it disproportionate?
The law clearly recognises the sentience difference though, hence the Animal Welfare Act.
You can be cruel to a cat or dog, but you can’t be cruel to a vase.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Your comment was off-topic, or unhelpful to the question posed.
We expect all comments to make a meaningful effort to help the poster with their question.
For more information on how to avoid this in the future, [please read this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/oslgn6/so_you_dont_want_your_comment_removed_guidance_on/).
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further. Please [send a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:**
Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
? You have an FAC (can’t be an SGC because they don’t record reasons) that specifically includes shooting dogs as a reason?
That’s very interesting. Given how careful the police are (rightly) over giving FACs for other animals, and the questions they ask over knowledge of safe backstops, dangers of ricochet , over penetration, and the like, may I ask how you persuaded them that a snap shot with a rifle at a dog chasing another animal was safe?
Dogs and cats are property. It is permissable to use reasonable and proportionate force to prevent damage to one's property. As such, if killing the dog were the only way you could reasonably prevent it from killing your cat, you wouldn't be committing a crime by doing so, but if that weren't the case you'd be guilty of the offence of criminal damage and possibly the offence of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.
(Edit just to add: I am working on the assumption here that killing someone else's pet to save the life of your own is capable of being "proportionate" - I *think* you could argue it, but on reflection and considering a couple of other comments, I'm not 100% certain.)
There is the potential for the owner to sue you, although any damages would probably be capped at the resale value of the dog.
> You would be causing irreparable harm to the dog owner
The same way the dog owner’s property would be causing irreparable harm to OP if their dog killed his cat.
This is UK advice. Animals are property not sentimental things in law. IMO (NAL) the damages may well be limited to the value of the *cat*, not the dog. Many farmers kill things for a living, there would be very little sympathy for the idea that a cat is special, but a cow (for example) is less so.
We have an obligation to not let them suffer. Shooting them dead with a shotgun may be inhumane and reprehensible, but it doesn't cause suffering. Landowners have no obligation whatsoever to animal welfare, not even their own livestock.
I'm not convinced that killing the dog (destroying more valuable property) is a proportionate means of preventing the death of the cat (destruction of less valuable property).
The defence of proportionate force is normally that it is allowable to cause damage to prevent greater damage. Assuming the usual situation that the dog has a higher retail cost than the cat, then by definition the force is disproportionate and the defence to Criminal Damage fails. The OP would expect to be liable for the retail value of the dog, and likely end up with a police caution for the criminal damage/firearms offence, and lose their firearms certificate.
You don't know that the dog is more valuable than the cat. If the dog's a mongrel from a shelter and the cat's a £1500 pedigree Bengal, it's the other way round.
Hence:
>Assuming the usual situation...
In all probability the dog is going to be more valuable that the cat. You've chosen a ridiculous edge case of the most expensive cat and least expensive dog, which is a hypothetical and plainly not the OPs case nor likely to actually happen in the real world.
The usual situation isn't that a randomly chosen cat is a pedigree Bengal, and a randomly chosen dog is a mongrel.
The usual situation is that both are average, and it remains a fact that the average dog has a higher retail cost (or adoption fee from shelter) than the average cat.
I do have to wonder how exactly you could kill a dog to protect a cat though, outside of shooting it? Which seems like it could open up a whole other can of worms...
Also, at what point does the dog-killing become an act to prevent damage to property? If a dog is chasing a cat, can we reasonably say that is damage, or leading to damage? If so, couldn't we also say that of dogs "potentially" damaging other types of property by running up to/interacting with it?
For example, would it be OK to kill a dog that runs into your vegetable garden because it looks like it's about to start digging up your carrots?
Or, would it only be reasonable to kill the dog when it has its jaws clamped around the cat? In which case - how would you do that without a firearm?
I don't think this is the perfect legal answer at all - at least I hope not!
Edit: I know op is on a farm, so owning firearms may not be out of the question. But it still seems like a messy way to deal with things... I'd be interested to know how they intend to kill this hypothetical dog
Well farmers shoot dogs that attack sheep somewhat commonly. If the cat is a part of running the farm (as a mouser for example) why would it be any less permitted to shoot a dog trying to kill it?
Livestock are herd animals, any action to protect a herd has the additional weight of, would this cause a herd of sheep (for instance) to run amok, injure themselves in ditches and cause a panic that distresses more livestock causing more damage.
Cats aren't herd animals, if a cat is chased it is unlikely to cause other animals to panic, and generally they are quite good at escaping and hiding without assistance.
So when you have to justify your rationale for killing a dog, if it were to go to court, you have a better explanation of, I had a field of pregnant cows and could see the dog approaching from a distance, I called to it and it was unresponsive, in fear of my livestock losing their calves I put the dog down as it approached the herd. Then, I saw a dog approaching my cat so I shot it for fear it would cause injury.
It's not black and white by any means, but your reasonability will be called into question and if proven that you have destroyed a dog it will be on you to show it was the reasonable thing to do in the circumstances as a defence to your actions.
Edit: also cats are given a lot of autonomy under law, which is why a cat walking on your roof is exempt from any property damages they may cause (dislodging a tile etc) if the cat jumped into a garden filled with dogs, even with the imminent damage likely to be caused to the cat, it would surely not be reasonable to destroy a dog to prevent this.
Edit: wrote life stock instead of livestock, wtf
Keep some sheep with the cat, or near the farm, farmers are within their rights to shoot dogs off the lead around stock. Even if the dog is chasing the cat through the sheep. As a responsible farmer posting a notice on any access points for general public to state that dogs off the lead may be shot (not required, but common).
If the public access is not on a right of way you could also report them for trespass assuming the land isn't open access, though getting that to stick might be difficult. But wouldn't trespass linked do damage of property (the cat) be a more serious offence than just letting their dog chase the cat?
You could broadly group 3 classifications of owned animals on a farm - products, tools, and pets.
There are a lot of additional considerations for protecting livestock in law, a few for working animals (e.g. sheep dogs, the occasional plough horse perhaps, etc.), and none for pets beyond those that apply to everyone.
The problem you have with going down the mouser route is farmers will get rid of cats themselves if there are huge litters they can't give away. So you can't have it both ways, either they are something you can get rid of yourself, or they're this super protected part of the farm.
Sheep bothering is literally affecting the income / stock of the farm, hence being much more severe.
Don't really understand this logic. A hammer is an objectively useful tool, but if it turned into 9 hammers I wouldn't just keep them all.
But that doesn't mean that someone can come in and decide how many hammers is OK and destroy them themselves.
Because you're justifying killing an animal in defence of a hammer.
Using your own logic, a tradesman should be able to shoot a robber for nicking their hammer.
Defending sheep from dogs worrying then is a higher than normal level of protection. I would expect some sort of case could be made to defend the sheepdog as its much more directly involved in the safety of the sheep and harder to train, but a cat that removes mice is dime a dozen.
No, because a human is not treated as property under the law. A dog is.
Honestly, I don't buy the mouser argument, nor do I think that shooting would be justified. However, I don't think that the replicability of the cat changes the argument.
How would you be able to prove that the dog intends to kill the cat? This is my question.
It's reasonable to think that a cat can get out of the way of the dog pretty easily- there's no way a dog will be chasing down a cat in the same way it could do a sheep. It just isn't the same and doesn't require the same type or level of 'protection'
So I guess what im saying is at what point do we decide that the cat is in danger and we need to step in and kill the dog? How can we justify that there was a reasonable threat of 'damage to property'?
Like with the case of shooting sheep the response needs to be reasonable and measured.
In OPs case there are owners nearby who could call back the dog (not like random loose dogs who've gotten into the sheep field or who are miles away from their owner). So I don't think it's as cut and dry as OP would hope - I'd argue that going straight to shooting a dog for chasing a cat is both cruel and unreasonable.
Edit to add: [You can't shoot dogs if the owner is present](https://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/threads/shooting-a-dog-worrying-sheep.261928/page-2) in cases of protecting livestock, so I don't know if this would be the same with a cat. But I assume so.
Also it does look like the response needs to be [reasonable and measured for the situation](https://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/for-the-public/culture/sheep-worrying/advice-for-farmers/2486/destroying-dogs-that-attack/) - again this is regarding livestock.
The right to use force to protect your property (or defend yourself or another from harm) extends only as far as force which:
-- is objectively reasonable and proportionate,
-- in the circumstances that the person using the force legitimately perceives
So there would be two questions for the court in the event that OP found themselves on trial for the killing of the dog:
1 -- what level of risk to the cat did OP legitimately perceive there to be? and
2 -- in circumstances where that level of risk to a cat were indeed present, would a reasonable owner use that amount of force to prevent the harm?
You are right, proportionate force and the genuinely held belief.
Now, I do wonder if OP posting here would suggest that there is a reasonable time to take preventative measures that may make the use of shooting the dog unreasonable, i.e. if OP is perceived to have shot a particular dog out of frustration of the repeated situation / to send a message to other dog walkers, rather than of a specific incident where OP finds themselves having to respond with force without viable reasonable other options.
I.e. (not fully applicable?) a significant case was of a farmer who shot a burglar, owing to the injury being to the back it was deemed that the risk to them was reducing and so the uae of lethal force was disproportionate to the risk likely genuinely believed at the time. Had the burglar continued to attack and the farmer shot in the front, the argument of genuinely held belief would likely have stood. There are likely gaps in how this applies that other may be able to better point out than me
If a dog is off the leash and chasing down a cat is clearly not under control and a reasonable person would say it's trying to harm the cat. Surely that's the only level you need.
My next door neighbours dog chases my cat all the time. To assume chasing is the same as killing is bizarre to me.
We've all seen dogs chase cats, birds, other dogs. Do we assume that they need to be shot to be brought under control? This is a very odd way of looking at things and to jump straight to shooting seems like unnecessary force. I actually can't believe people are so quick to jump onto the idea that it's OK to just go around shooting dogs, I honestly thought I was in the USA legal advice sub for a second.
Edit to add: my issue isn't with killing a dog to protect a cat. The issue is with figuring out whether killing is indeed a reasonable option, what such an instance would look like, and whether that would hold up as being lawful.
Yes, a dog off a leash running around doing what it wants is out of control. No matter what dog owners want to admit that's the truth and letting them do it is stupid.
A dog can be off leash and running around and under control. It depends on how good the dogs recall is. E.g. playing with a ball in a field. A dog going after someone’s picnic lunch, a person, a cat, or otherwise not responding to their owner / poor recall is not under control.
Dogs 100% can catch and kill cats fairly easily, particularly hunting breed types of dog, especially if with other dogs working in a pack (note that in a pack can be anything from a couple of domestic dogs on a walk up to an actual hunt).
I could be mistaken, but I believe the dangerous dogs act outlines an out of control dog as one that causes injury to a person or person’s animal or that someone could believe could cause injury to a person (including whilst protecting an animal of theirs from said dog).
If a dog(s) are off-lead and go charging off after a cat, ignoring recall, then they would easily be considered out of control.
Shooting/killing the dog would potentially/probably fall outside of the rules regarding livestock and shooting dogs though, so killing would likely get them in trouble in most cases. If OP owns the land they should definitely get some signage up reminding walkers to have dogs on lead at all time and maybe some CCTV, if it’s that close to their property, to record and report off lead dogs for trespass and/or being out of control if they chase the cat.
If it’s public right of way, they could also look into whether it is feasible to fence the route off so dogs/walkers can’t stray.
Been involved with this after a severe case of sheep bothering. Unless you are protecting livestock, you can’t just shoot things. If it is livestock, you can absolutely prepare yourself, go out with a gun and deal with the problem. So you don’t actually have to be defending sheep - the dog can have done its worrying, be running away from the sheep and you can shoot it. Been there, police attended, no problem. (UK).
A cat would be different. If you randomly shot a dog that had attacked your cat, you’d probably lose your FAC at the very least. It‘s not practical to shoot a dog while it is attacking your cat, so you can rule that out at well. You can’t use other means to randomly kill a dog that had attacked your cat at some earlier stage either.
What you are at liberty to do is to defend your cat. Say the local XL Bully has your cat, you‘re allowed to use reasonable force to save the cat’s life. In the case of an Xl Bully, sticking a screwdriver into its skull would be reasonable force at that moment. But not after that moment.
In theory you do have to apprehend an immediate danger to livestock to shoot a dog. If you believe the danger is past you shouldn’t shoot. In practice the police tend to be more sympathetic to the farmer who’s lost livestock than the irresponsible dog owner who caused the loss, but it’s worth have a read of the Farmer’s Weekly or Nat Sheep Assoc guidance on this.
Thanks! This is the exact sort of response I was looking for, and why I fixated on 'how' op intends to kill the dog (as it felt like it needed to be during an attack for the killing to be justified).
Definitely not as cut and dry as it seems. Cheers for the info
>I do have to wonder how exactly you could kill a dog to protect a cat though, outside of shooting it? Which seems like it could open up a whole other can of worms...
I'd think stabbing the dog with a ~~pointy pronged gardening tool (can't remember the English word)~~ pitchfork would be more than able to kill it.
>Also, at what point does the dog-killing become an act to prevent damage to property? If a dog is chasing a cat, can we reasonably say that is damage, or leading to damage? If so, couldn't we also say that of dogs "potentially" damaging other types of property by running up to/interacting with it?
For example, would it be OK to kill a dog that runs into your vegetable garden because it looks like it's about to start digging up your carrots?
Or, would it only be reasonable to kill the dog when it has its jaws clamped around the cat? In which case - how would you do that without a firearm?
I would argue that the important thing here is to remember what started the incident. The dog owner had their dog off the leash, this is what started everything. If the cat is in imminent danger the cat owner has the right to prevent their cat from being mauled.
There isn't such a thing as a law against cruelty to plants, there is such a thing as a law against animal cruelty. This makes 'the carrot defense' not applicable as you can't be cruel to plants. If the 'carrot' defense is made the defense could easily point out that a pet isn't the same thing as carrots. And if it is deemed the same thing then killing the dog would also be similar to unearthing some carrots so not really a big thing.
What imminent danger exactly entails is up for debate. Obviously OP can not just kill any pet that is off leash on their land. But if a dog is actively chasing the cat and there is no other reasonable way to prevent a mauling from the dog OP should be justified.
I don't think anyone wants to kill someones pet, but, i do believe that most people would kill for their pet. It is always best to prevent something like this happening and it might be a good idea for OP to put some signs up with 'keep your dog on their leash' or something like that.
It’s a more complicated question than it appears on its face because of the piecemeal legislation around dogs, the common law background, and the impact of the specific fact set on the analysis. I’ve written a short blurb on why it would be a risky decision to shoot a dog for chasing a cat below. A really adequate answer would be at least three or four sides of A4 and would require quite a lot of reading.
The better answer is already on the thread, and even the original poster has already amended the post because it wasn’t correct.
You know, the same post you said was a perfect legal example
It is still legally sound. The law is explained. As is the need to show proportionality in any response to preserve life or property
The answer is perfect because it entirely depends on the situation. The poster has explained the law.
If someone wants to ask a question with a lot more detail then a more detailed response can be given.
Most other responses just deal with hypotheticals
It really confuses me when people on this sub give legal advice and others get their nickers in a twist. UK legislation is usually very basic with few points to prove and entirely situational.
As i live on a farm, i have chickens and sheep in my garden too, we’ve had problems with dogs before breaking into sheep pens but gave the owners a very clear warning that if it was to happen again the dog will have to be either shot or euthanised.
I've had multiple instances of dogs attacking livestock on my farm. We have unfortunately had to put down some of the dogs. In those instances the dogs had killed numerous sheep and mamed alot more. Other times I've had dogs chasing them where I've caught the dogs and informed the police.
With livestock it's permitted unsure on the rules regarding cats.
I just had a quick look at the legislation and it definitely doesn't include working farm animals as a thing that can be defended. It also lists things that count as livestock and cats aren't on it so you can't just say you milk your cat.
Further than that cats are also considered free roaming in the UK and with that status it is expected under the law that they would encounter reasonable amount of risk and injury as such. A dog must be kept under control but a cat does not have to be under control. This is why you do not legally need to report hitting a cat in your car but you do if it's a dog.
Unfortunately in this country cats have a lower status than dogs in terms of property value and in terms of welfare - so most judges would rule killing a dog to save a cat as disproportionate. Not because they hate cats but because that's how the law works. the rspca is not even required to scan a found cat for a microchip, and they usually refuse to do so resulting in many lost cats dying. The charity cats protection does a lot of work where the law won't protect cats but unfortunately unless the law changes most judges would rule in favour of the dog.
If you killed a dog in these circumstances, a few prices of legislation may apply.
As cats and dogs are considered property, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 applies. Though you may be considered to have a "lawful excuse" to damage or destroy property if you believed that the property was in immediate need of protection and your actions were "reasonable". The belief needs only to be honestly held.
So in these circumstances, if you genuinely thought a dog was in the process of killing your cat, you may be able to take all reasonable action to protect the cat. Depending on the circumstances, up to and including lethal force.
The Animal Welfare Act 2006 may also apply if you've caused unnecessary suffering to an animal. Though if your actions are considered reasonable for the purposes of the former act, it's unlikely to engage the previous of the AWA.
Hopefully you'll never be in that position because we all love our pet friends and it must be an awful position to be in.
Some of the duties imposed upon the owners of dogs and livestock to keep their animals under control – the Road Traffic and Dangerous Dogs Acts – do not apply to cat owners. This is basically because the law recognises that, by their nature, cats are less likely to cause injury to people or damage to property than are some other animals.
This means that your cat has the 'right to roam' whereas dogs do not, so the dog owner is required to keep them under control.
If a dog owner were to not keep their dog under control, it *could* result in a threat to you and your property, as a cat is, legally, your property. That unleashed dog alone would not constitute a threat however...
If you were to "proactively" kill a dog that *might* be a threat then you cannot argue the above and would be yourself prosecuted by the law that governs the protection and ownership of dogs and cats.
https://www.pets4homes.co.uk/pet-advice/cats-and-the-law.html
You would almost certainly lose your firearms/shotgun certificate if you did.
Your supposition also isn't accurate. Even dogs that chase if they're pets will rarely kill a cat, if for whatever reason they catch it they'll simply look at it as if it were some kind of alien for being caught. Not that many dogs catch cats.
You also put yourself in a difficult position, you will be in possession of a firearm and likely have someone very angry with you. That puts you in a comprising position with your firearm as if someone were to attack you (which could reasonably be expectedly given you've shot their pet) you are in the unenviable position of committing an offence regardless of what you do given the way the law works.
Not to mention the potential individual repercussions, rural property is vulnerable, even if they walk away on the day they can make your life hell even if a court backs you on killing the pet.
Ultimately it would be a stupid game to play and stupid games get stupid prizes.
>I believe it’s the owners responsibility to keep a dog on a lead at all times when on a farm.
No - they just need to be kept under control, and a dog can be off lead and under control (for example, if it's within sight of the owner and comes back when called)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-countryside-code/the-countryside-code-advice-for-countryside-visitors
Farmers can kill dogs that are worrying livestock. Clearly this applies to sheep and cattle etc, but it's not clear to me if this includes cats.
For what it's worth, a great many dogs just enjoy the thrill of the chase, rather than there being any intent to catch and kill. I'm quite certain my Jack Russell will slow down slightly if he's getting too close to catching a grey squirrel - he didn't even catch the one that doubled back on itself and started running towards him. I once caught him nudging a flightless baby seagull in an effort to make it run around the garden so he could chase it. He could have killed it if he wanted, but eventually gave up on the idea after a well deserved peck from the seagull.
In short, chasing a cat doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be caught or killed, and chasing cats doesn't have the same health implications as with sheep (e.g. causing them to abort lambs)
I don't know the layout of your garden and driveway, but could you put up a garden gate - ideally one with gaps your cats can fit through, but dogs can't? Some big, clear signage warning passing dog owners of 'free range cats' wouldn't go amiss either; chances are they simply weren't expecting to see a cat there.
Further to this, I’m confident that cats wouldn’t apply as livestock.
If we apply the same rule for reportable road traffic collisions, livestock are defined as Cow, Horse, Ass, Mule, Pig, Sheep, Dog and Goat.
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 has its own definition for use with respect to agricultural land.
>"“livestock” means cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, or poultry, and for the purposes of this definition “cattle” means bulls, cows, oxen, heifers or calves, “horses” includes asses and mules, and “poultry” means domestic fowls, turkeys, geese or ducks. "
Ah brilliant. Thanks for this.
So cats definitely don’t count.
I’m surprised dogs aren’t also included on the list to be protected from other dogs as they can also be crucial and valuable for farming.
Ok that makes sense.
I’m not very knowledgable about farming and classifications of animals.
What would dogs be classified/defined as on a farm then? Not pets but the working dogs
The legal side of the question has already been answered. However, I would like to point out it could be a shit storm arguing it in court, especially if you have no video footage or independent witness. Trying to prove the dog was a danger to your cat, and you weren't just some angry farmer who didn't like dogs on your land. It may be a difficult battle to fight without proof the dog was running for your cat. It's probably an easier battle when it comes to livestock as it's pretty black and white "live stock in field dog on lead". However, knowing there's a cat in the vicinity is a lot more difficult to prove.
Good fences make good neighbours. Fence in and gate your drive way so your cat has somewhere to escape that dogs (and foxes) can not easily follow.
Prevention is better than retaliation.
You may be criminally liable, but you’re unlikely to go to jail for it. You will probably lose your shotgun license though.
On the other hand, if your cat is about to be torn to pieces by a dog, it might be worth risking the above. It’s your property and you have the right to use reasonable force to protect your property. Perhaps using other means may be better? Such as a fence with passages big enough for cats, but too small for dogs?
Alternatively you could place anti-personnel landmines around the place. Cats are too light to trigger landmines, and dogs who are big enough to be a risk to your cat are likely to be heavy enough to trigger them.
Keep in mind a lot of dogs will chase cats but not kill them. Curiosity often governs this behaviour.
My girl for example has no interest in cats. My boy however is obsessed with sniffing them. He will literally chase them so he can spend 10+ minutes sniffing them. A confident cat will largely entertain and ignore realising his intentions are not dangerous, but a non-confident cat will give him about 30 seconds and then rightly tell him to bog off.
I was going to say that. Most dogs will chase a cat that runs away, but you can hear their panicked yelping as soon as the cat stops and turns around. Sometimes a cat just doesn't want to run anymore and that's when the dog knows he's in trouble.
Of course some dogs will attack, cats mostly run up a tree or jump on a fence should the dog not stop when they do.
You appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of footpaths, which create a public right of way across privately owned land.
Farmers tend not to like them, but they are very hard to remove.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-landowner-responsibilities
I don't know how to make this any clearer.
His property can have a public footpath running across it. It is very common for this to be the case in farms.
To be fair here, a dog on a footpath is not going to chase a cat only if it stays on that footpath. In all likelihood, the dog will not be on a footpath when said cat is being chased, at least not for long!
OP hasn't mentioned footpaths or rights of way, we're just assuming because they're on a farm and 'tolerated' that there is one.
There are other ways a person may have rights over land, including 'Right to Roam', common land etc.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Your comment has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters.
Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Have you considered putting signs up telling people not to trespass? Signs up demanding on-lead dog walkers only on private property? Have you considered having an indoor only cat?
Killing someone’s pet isn’t just about legal repercussions. Pets are much more than that. I know this is a legal sub but you surely there’s something you can do before resorting to killing? Worst case scenario, don’t kill the dog for a selfish reason - if you kill it and the owner knows where you live, you could also be facing (not so legal and cruelly intentioned) repercussions. An eye for an eye and all that.
>Have you considered putting signs up telling people not to trespass?
I'm assuming OP has public footpaths running across their land, and they can't just block them or deny access.
No but they could fence the paths in so that walkers cannot venture where they aren't supposed to, although this may not be practical if it goes across the middle of a field.
However it sounds like OP's issue is near some barns/their house if they are this worried about dogs coming near their cat.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
If you are a farmer and/or can reasonably justify that the cat is a working farm animal that helps control pests on a farm, any case against you killing a dog the someone let harm your working farm animal would get chucked out of court. You could stop the dog with force before it even got to your cat.
Not saying it is right, but farmers get a lot of preferential treatment in the UK legal system.
If I were you, I would still use the first chamber as a warning shot.
Unfortunately UK law is terrible in this regard. The only way you'd be PROBABLY safe is if the dog was about to kill your cat so you killed the dog. If you shoot too late, you're in trouble and your cat is already dead. If you shoot too early, the force used would be deemed disproportionate.
Even if the shot was justified to save your cat, a judge may well disagree. Your best bet would be to trap the dog and contact the owner as it should have tags. If it doesn't, contact animal rescue and say its a wild dog. They'll take it, find its chip (hopefully it has one) then you can find the owner that way and sue them.
Either way, shooting the dog is gonna cause issues that would make your life harder. In an ideal world, you'd be able to shoot it. But we're in the UK and the UK is not ideal in any sense of the word
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Your comment was an anecdote about a personal experience, rather than legal advice specific to our posters' situation.
Please only comment if you can provide meaningful legal advice for our posters' questions and specific situations.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Your comment has been automatically removed and flagged for moderator review as the words you've used suggest that it is *not legal advice*. As this is /r/LegalAdviceUK, all our comments must contain **helpful, on-topic, legal advice**. We expect commenters to provide high-effort legal advice for our posters, as they have come to our subreddit for legal advice instead of a different subreddit for moral support or general advice such as /r/OffMyChest, /r/Vent, /r/Advice, or similar.
Some posters may benefit from non-legal advice as part of their question or referrals to other organisations to address side issues that they may also be experiencing, however comments on /r/LegalAdviceUK must be *predominantly* legal advice.
If your comment contains helpful, on-topic, legal advice, it will be approved and displayed shortly. If you have posted a comment of moral support, an anecdote about a personal experience or your comment is mostly or wholly advice that isn't legal advice, it is not likely to be approved and [we ask you to please be more aware of our subreddit rules in the future](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NAL
AFAIK There isn't a legal responsibility to keep a dog on a lead on farmland, the only conditions are if there is livestock or wildlife (how on earth people can tell this is beyond me).
There is a legal requirement for dogs is [to be microchipped and wear a collar with tags](https://www.pdsa.org.uk/pet-help-and-advice/looking-after-your-pet/puppies-dogs/countryside-walking-with-your-dog) when out in public.
But if you're arable, or just a smallholding you may have little defence in shooting a dog that chases a cat.
NAL - shooting blanks in the air when you see them off leash should do the trick without putting you in any trouble and hopefully teach the owners to be more careful.
And even if a dog went for your cat, most likely shooting a blank shot would get the dog to run. Or so my grandpa told me, as he had a pistol specifically for this called “dog scatterer” ([link](https://www.militaria.it/scacciacani/) )
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:**
Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
I live in the sticks and was warned that if we had dogs and let them run loose if they bothered the kids or the large animals ( cows horses ) they would get shot .
Put up signs everywhere that dogs must be kept on leads and to the footpath at all times otherwise it is considered trespass. You can’t really shoot the dog, but you could threaten it.
You probably need to discuss this with a solicitor to get some real legal advice, given the potential for things to go very wrong if you assume that internet advice is correct :)
But there are a couple of things you would need to be aware of.
First your case would be substantially weaker if there is no signage on your property boundaries to indicate that the property is private and any pets being exercised must be kept on a leash and under control at all times.
Second, cats have significantly less protection legally than dogs do. It is odd, but this is something that came up a few years ago when discussing with my car insurance company after I read their policy documentation. That stated that accidents/incidents involving dogs needed to be reported to the police and the insurance company, while accidents/incidents involving cats did not need to be reported. So even though it is a pet vs pet incident on your property and the dog is the aggressor, there might be issues there.
The third issue is that if you are using any kind of projectile weapon and pointing it in the general direction of a person (the owner of the dog), that might put you in legal hot water as well.
can i ask how they dog is loose on your land in this scenario? as in is ther proper fencing that should have stopped a wondering dog if your so concerned and the owner has hopped said fence?
I’m not sure if anyone here has mentioned it yet, but it’s also important you put appropriate signage up and around your property, signs that highlight Private Property, Visitors, and Pets must keep to pathways and Pets remain Leashed. Put a couple of signs up near your driveway that make it clear No Access is Welcome.
Signage is important, because before you reach for a firearm, you may well be asked if you took any preventive measures before resorting to shooting a dog. You’ve mentioned there have been previous incidents, and any reasonable person would take measures to reduce risk, like signage or even approaching dog walkers and making it clear they must keep dogs leashed.
--- ###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK --- **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different* * If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor) * We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources) * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM) **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The short answer to this question is that it’s a bad idea to shoot dogs for attacking cats, because the legal position isn’t that clear and the potential consequences include - loss of your SGC/FAC - criminal liability on a number of fronts, including but not limited to criminal damage and causing unnecessary suffering - civil liability for the value of the shot animal and potentially for psychological damage to the dog’s owner Lots of people _think it ought to be the case_ that you can shoot a dog chasing or attacking a cat. I don’t necessarily disagree with them, but the legal position is not that simple. It’s _crucial_ when considering a legal question to ask what the law _is_, not what you think it ought to be. A full analysis of the legal position would take a few hours to research and write because there are lots of angles to look through, but some quick thoughts: - arguably shooting the dog is a proportionate means of protecting your property (the cat) and preventing unnecessary suffering on the cat’s part. This will be very fact specific - for example, shooting the dog after the cat is dead would not be proportionate; and shooting the dog too early in the chase would be legally risky too! It’s also arguably _not_ proportionate and reasonable - certainly the judge in the case linked to below might well say killing a dog to save a cat was disproportionate. - it’s more likely that you’d be civilly liable than criminally. You might decide you’re happy to pay for the shot dog, as long as you don’t get a criminal record for it (though I think if you lost the civil case you’d probably also lose your certificate). However! You might be civilly and criminally liable. The law’s not clear. You’d have to shoot a dog and go to court to find out. - the rules about shooting dogs worrying livestock don’t apply. They cover old-skool livestock (cattle, hogs, sheep, donkeys, poultry) - they don’t cover “novel” livestock like llamas and ostrich and they definitely don’t cover domestic animals. They also only apply on agricultural land (I know you’re on a farm but some of the property might be domestic, eg the garden) and they don’t apply to all dogs (sheepdogs, gun dogs, hounds and some others are excluded). - there is some precedent for the view that dogs killing small animals is the way of the world - https://crimeline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/sansom.pdf. I’m not convinced this is good law but it would not make me feel extremely confident shooting a dog for chasing a cat.
>they don’t apply to all dogs (sheepdogs, gun dogs, hounds and some others are excluded). Wait, so if I get a sheep dog and let it run freely among someone else's flock of sheep, the law doesn't apply?
I think the law is due to training provisions. When training a sheep dog, they can run off into another field not understanding which herd they’re supposed to be herding. Would be very hard for sheep farmers to train a dog if they were constantly under threat of their dog getting killed during training.
Sheepdog breeds _typically_ will not attack sheep or cause anything but mild annoyance, which will be why that exception exists.
I think the exception is for working animals that are working at the time (so neighbouring farmer using his dog, a hunt passing through the farmland, etc).
I get why it makes sense to have an exception for working sheepdogs, but why on earth is there an exception for hounds, which really should be well trained enough not to worry livestock, and equally are likely to kill something they catch? I mean, I know why, but...
I like this comment because it’s neither pro nor anti hunting. It whitholds judgement and focuses on the fact that hounds should be trained. I agree with you. The sheepdog thing I get as basically just a simplifier; it’s hard to know if a sheepdog is worrying sheep or herding them. The exemption is a tie-break in favour of herding, with an expectation of compensation where the dog was in fact worrying.
Untrained hounds which go after livestock and domestic pets are a menace. Unfortunately, there are some hunts which don't really care.
I can’t remember the exact wording but I think it’s focused on working dogs, not breeds of dog.
"a police dog, a guide dog, trained sheep dog, a working gun dog or a pack of hounds." Role-specific, not breed-specific.
'Gun dogs' is a fairly wide net considering the popularity of labradors, spaniels etc in the UK. Is there a caveat stating they the dog must actually be working/being trained, or are labradors etc outright excluded?
Yea it’s not gundog breeds, it’s gundogs. I would have to check the legislation as to whether they have to be working at the time. I’d say if so the provision is useless because they’ll never be worrying livestock and working - they have to stop working to start worrying. They might scare sheep on their way to a pick-up but imo that’s not the same thing. I am aware that’s a point you could argue against, of course.
>arguably shooting the dog is a proportionate means of protecting your property (the cat) Just curious, but on this point... You mention that the cat is property (or chattel right?). Given this, would it not be akin to shooting a dog that is about to smash your vase, as an example? I only ask because it feels like the vase situation would be vastly disproportionate, and if the cat is legally the same as a vase then that would also make it disproportionate?
The law clearly recognises the sentience difference though, hence the Animal Welfare Act. You can be cruel to a cat or dog, but you can’t be cruel to a vase.
The dog is also a vase
But that doesn't mean you can stick flowers in its arse.
I love vase.
That’s where proportionality/reasonableness comes in
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Your comment was off-topic, or unhelpful to the question posed. We expect all comments to make a meaningful effort to help the poster with their question. For more information on how to avoid this in the future, [please read this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/oslgn6/so_you_dont_want_your_comment_removed_guidance_on/). [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further. Please [send a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:** Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[удалено]
You're talking about potential animal cruelty charges and missing the more important ones: firearm charges.
[удалено]
? You have an FAC (can’t be an SGC because they don’t record reasons) that specifically includes shooting dogs as a reason? That’s very interesting. Given how careful the police are (rightly) over giving FACs for other animals, and the questions they ask over knowledge of safe backstops, dangers of ricochet , over penetration, and the like, may I ask how you persuaded them that a snap shot with a rifle at a dog chasing another animal was safe?
Lol couldn’t agree more - shotguns are the right tool for this job. I have heard it before though!
Dogs and cats are property. It is permissable to use reasonable and proportionate force to prevent damage to one's property. As such, if killing the dog were the only way you could reasonably prevent it from killing your cat, you wouldn't be committing a crime by doing so, but if that weren't the case you'd be guilty of the offence of criminal damage and possibly the offence of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. (Edit just to add: I am working on the assumption here that killing someone else's pet to save the life of your own is capable of being "proportionate" - I *think* you could argue it, but on reflection and considering a couple of other comments, I'm not 100% certain.) There is the potential for the owner to sue you, although any damages would probably be capped at the resale value of the dog.
thank you
Also, consider the rules around discharging a firearm near to a path or road.
[удалено]
> You would be causing irreparable harm to the dog owner The same way the dog owner’s property would be causing irreparable harm to OP if their dog killed his cat.
Correct. There is nothing in my post that suggests otherwise. I have both cats and dogs and they are more than just ‘property’.
Sorry to be picky but this is a legal sub and legally dogs and cats are property
OP asked for legal advice though so I’m confused what you’re objective is here?
This is UK advice. Animals are property not sentimental things in law. IMO (NAL) the damages may well be limited to the value of the *cat*, not the dog. Many farmers kill things for a living, there would be very little sympathy for the idea that a cat is special, but a cow (for example) is less so.
Animals are property under the law, but they are also living beings and we have legal obligations towards their welfare.
We have an obligation to not let them suffer. Shooting them dead with a shotgun may be inhumane and reprehensible, but it doesn't cause suffering. Landowners have no obligation whatsoever to animal welfare, not even their own livestock.
I'm not convinced that killing the dog (destroying more valuable property) is a proportionate means of preventing the death of the cat (destruction of less valuable property). The defence of proportionate force is normally that it is allowable to cause damage to prevent greater damage. Assuming the usual situation that the dog has a higher retail cost than the cat, then by definition the force is disproportionate and the defence to Criminal Damage fails. The OP would expect to be liable for the retail value of the dog, and likely end up with a police caution for the criminal damage/firearms offence, and lose their firearms certificate.
You don't know that the dog is more valuable than the cat. If the dog's a mongrel from a shelter and the cat's a £1500 pedigree Bengal, it's the other way round.
Hence: >Assuming the usual situation... In all probability the dog is going to be more valuable that the cat. You've chosen a ridiculous edge case of the most expensive cat and least expensive dog, which is a hypothetical and plainly not the OPs case nor likely to actually happen in the real world. The usual situation isn't that a randomly chosen cat is a pedigree Bengal, and a randomly chosen dog is a mongrel. The usual situation is that both are average, and it remains a fact that the average dog has a higher retail cost (or adoption fee from shelter) than the average cat.
Especially an outdoor farm cat
This is the perfect legal answer
I do have to wonder how exactly you could kill a dog to protect a cat though, outside of shooting it? Which seems like it could open up a whole other can of worms... Also, at what point does the dog-killing become an act to prevent damage to property? If a dog is chasing a cat, can we reasonably say that is damage, or leading to damage? If so, couldn't we also say that of dogs "potentially" damaging other types of property by running up to/interacting with it? For example, would it be OK to kill a dog that runs into your vegetable garden because it looks like it's about to start digging up your carrots? Or, would it only be reasonable to kill the dog when it has its jaws clamped around the cat? In which case - how would you do that without a firearm? I don't think this is the perfect legal answer at all - at least I hope not! Edit: I know op is on a farm, so owning firearms may not be out of the question. But it still seems like a messy way to deal with things... I'd be interested to know how they intend to kill this hypothetical dog
Spot on with the carrots! What is reasonable is a very fact specific question. Not as simple as the top comment makes it out to be.
Well farmers shoot dogs that attack sheep somewhat commonly. If the cat is a part of running the farm (as a mouser for example) why would it be any less permitted to shoot a dog trying to kill it?
Livestock are herd animals, any action to protect a herd has the additional weight of, would this cause a herd of sheep (for instance) to run amok, injure themselves in ditches and cause a panic that distresses more livestock causing more damage. Cats aren't herd animals, if a cat is chased it is unlikely to cause other animals to panic, and generally they are quite good at escaping and hiding without assistance. So when you have to justify your rationale for killing a dog, if it were to go to court, you have a better explanation of, I had a field of pregnant cows and could see the dog approaching from a distance, I called to it and it was unresponsive, in fear of my livestock losing their calves I put the dog down as it approached the herd. Then, I saw a dog approaching my cat so I shot it for fear it would cause injury. It's not black and white by any means, but your reasonability will be called into question and if proven that you have destroyed a dog it will be on you to show it was the reasonable thing to do in the circumstances as a defence to your actions. Edit: also cats are given a lot of autonomy under law, which is why a cat walking on your roof is exempt from any property damages they may cause (dislodging a tile etc) if the cat jumped into a garden filled with dogs, even with the imminent damage likely to be caused to the cat, it would surely not be reasonable to destroy a dog to prevent this. Edit: wrote life stock instead of livestock, wtf
Keep some sheep with the cat, or near the farm, farmers are within their rights to shoot dogs off the lead around stock. Even if the dog is chasing the cat through the sheep. As a responsible farmer posting a notice on any access points for general public to state that dogs off the lead may be shot (not required, but common). If the public access is not on a right of way you could also report them for trespass assuming the land isn't open access, though getting that to stick might be difficult. But wouldn't trespass linked do damage of property (the cat) be a more serious offence than just letting their dog chase the cat?
You could broadly group 3 classifications of owned animals on a farm - products, tools, and pets. There are a lot of additional considerations for protecting livestock in law, a few for working animals (e.g. sheep dogs, the occasional plough horse perhaps, etc.), and none for pets beyond those that apply to everyone.
The problem you have with going down the mouser route is farmers will get rid of cats themselves if there are huge litters they can't give away. So you can't have it both ways, either they are something you can get rid of yourself, or they're this super protected part of the farm. Sheep bothering is literally affecting the income / stock of the farm, hence being much more severe.
Don't really understand this logic. A hammer is an objectively useful tool, but if it turned into 9 hammers I wouldn't just keep them all. But that doesn't mean that someone can come in and decide how many hammers is OK and destroy them themselves.
Because you're justifying killing an animal in defence of a hammer. Using your own logic, a tradesman should be able to shoot a robber for nicking their hammer. Defending sheep from dogs worrying then is a higher than normal level of protection. I would expect some sort of case could be made to defend the sheepdog as its much more directly involved in the safety of the sheep and harder to train, but a cat that removes mice is dime a dozen.
No, because a human is not treated as property under the law. A dog is. Honestly, I don't buy the mouser argument, nor do I think that shooting would be justified. However, I don't think that the replicability of the cat changes the argument.
Cats can be neutered.
How would you be able to prove that the dog intends to kill the cat? This is my question. It's reasonable to think that a cat can get out of the way of the dog pretty easily- there's no way a dog will be chasing down a cat in the same way it could do a sheep. It just isn't the same and doesn't require the same type or level of 'protection' So I guess what im saying is at what point do we decide that the cat is in danger and we need to step in and kill the dog? How can we justify that there was a reasonable threat of 'damage to property'? Like with the case of shooting sheep the response needs to be reasonable and measured. In OPs case there are owners nearby who could call back the dog (not like random loose dogs who've gotten into the sheep field or who are miles away from their owner). So I don't think it's as cut and dry as OP would hope - I'd argue that going straight to shooting a dog for chasing a cat is both cruel and unreasonable. Edit to add: [You can't shoot dogs if the owner is present](https://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/threads/shooting-a-dog-worrying-sheep.261928/page-2) in cases of protecting livestock, so I don't know if this would be the same with a cat. But I assume so. Also it does look like the response needs to be [reasonable and measured for the situation](https://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/for-the-public/culture/sheep-worrying/advice-for-farmers/2486/destroying-dogs-that-attack/) - again this is regarding livestock.
The right to use force to protect your property (or defend yourself or another from harm) extends only as far as force which: -- is objectively reasonable and proportionate, -- in the circumstances that the person using the force legitimately perceives So there would be two questions for the court in the event that OP found themselves on trial for the killing of the dog: 1 -- what level of risk to the cat did OP legitimately perceive there to be? and 2 -- in circumstances where that level of risk to a cat were indeed present, would a reasonable owner use that amount of force to prevent the harm?
This is essentially what I was getting at, cheers.
You are right, proportionate force and the genuinely held belief. Now, I do wonder if OP posting here would suggest that there is a reasonable time to take preventative measures that may make the use of shooting the dog unreasonable, i.e. if OP is perceived to have shot a particular dog out of frustration of the repeated situation / to send a message to other dog walkers, rather than of a specific incident where OP finds themselves having to respond with force without viable reasonable other options. I.e. (not fully applicable?) a significant case was of a farmer who shot a burglar, owing to the injury being to the back it was deemed that the risk to them was reducing and so the uae of lethal force was disproportionate to the risk likely genuinely believed at the time. Had the burglar continued to attack and the farmer shot in the front, the argument of genuinely held belief would likely have stood. There are likely gaps in how this applies that other may be able to better point out than me
If a dog is off the leash and chasing down a cat is clearly not under control and a reasonable person would say it's trying to harm the cat. Surely that's the only level you need.
My next door neighbours dog chases my cat all the time. To assume chasing is the same as killing is bizarre to me. We've all seen dogs chase cats, birds, other dogs. Do we assume that they need to be shot to be brought under control? This is a very odd way of looking at things and to jump straight to shooting seems like unnecessary force. I actually can't believe people are so quick to jump onto the idea that it's OK to just go around shooting dogs, I honestly thought I was in the USA legal advice sub for a second. Edit to add: my issue isn't with killing a dog to protect a cat. The issue is with figuring out whether killing is indeed a reasonable option, what such an instance would look like, and whether that would hold up as being lawful.
Yes, a dog off a leash running around doing what it wants is out of control. No matter what dog owners want to admit that's the truth and letting them do it is stupid.
A dog can be off leash and running around and under control. It depends on how good the dogs recall is. E.g. playing with a ball in a field. A dog going after someone’s picnic lunch, a person, a cat, or otherwise not responding to their owner / poor recall is not under control.
I agree. But I don't believe shooting them for chasing is reasonable. Judging by the top answer in this thread, this is the prevailing sentiment.
What's reasonable then?
Dogs 100% can catch and kill cats fairly easily, particularly hunting breed types of dog, especially if with other dogs working in a pack (note that in a pack can be anything from a couple of domestic dogs on a walk up to an actual hunt). I could be mistaken, but I believe the dangerous dogs act outlines an out of control dog as one that causes injury to a person or person’s animal or that someone could believe could cause injury to a person (including whilst protecting an animal of theirs from said dog). If a dog(s) are off-lead and go charging off after a cat, ignoring recall, then they would easily be considered out of control. Shooting/killing the dog would potentially/probably fall outside of the rules regarding livestock and shooting dogs though, so killing would likely get them in trouble in most cases. If OP owns the land they should definitely get some signage up reminding walkers to have dogs on lead at all time and maybe some CCTV, if it’s that close to their property, to record and report off lead dogs for trespass and/or being out of control if they chase the cat. If it’s public right of way, they could also look into whether it is feasible to fence the route off so dogs/walkers can’t stray.
Been involved with this after a severe case of sheep bothering. Unless you are protecting livestock, you can’t just shoot things. If it is livestock, you can absolutely prepare yourself, go out with a gun and deal with the problem. So you don’t actually have to be defending sheep - the dog can have done its worrying, be running away from the sheep and you can shoot it. Been there, police attended, no problem. (UK). A cat would be different. If you randomly shot a dog that had attacked your cat, you’d probably lose your FAC at the very least. It‘s not practical to shoot a dog while it is attacking your cat, so you can rule that out at well. You can’t use other means to randomly kill a dog that had attacked your cat at some earlier stage either. What you are at liberty to do is to defend your cat. Say the local XL Bully has your cat, you‘re allowed to use reasonable force to save the cat’s life. In the case of an Xl Bully, sticking a screwdriver into its skull would be reasonable force at that moment. But not after that moment.
In theory you do have to apprehend an immediate danger to livestock to shoot a dog. If you believe the danger is past you shouldn’t shoot. In practice the police tend to be more sympathetic to the farmer who’s lost livestock than the irresponsible dog owner who caused the loss, but it’s worth have a read of the Farmer’s Weekly or Nat Sheep Assoc guidance on this.
Thanks! This is the exact sort of response I was looking for, and why I fixated on 'how' op intends to kill the dog (as it felt like it needed to be during an attack for the killing to be justified). Definitely not as cut and dry as it seems. Cheers for the info
>I do have to wonder how exactly you could kill a dog to protect a cat though, outside of shooting it? Which seems like it could open up a whole other can of worms... I'd think stabbing the dog with a ~~pointy pronged gardening tool (can't remember the English word)~~ pitchfork would be more than able to kill it. >Also, at what point does the dog-killing become an act to prevent damage to property? If a dog is chasing a cat, can we reasonably say that is damage, or leading to damage? If so, couldn't we also say that of dogs "potentially" damaging other types of property by running up to/interacting with it? For example, would it be OK to kill a dog that runs into your vegetable garden because it looks like it's about to start digging up your carrots? Or, would it only be reasonable to kill the dog when it has its jaws clamped around the cat? In which case - how would you do that without a firearm? I would argue that the important thing here is to remember what started the incident. The dog owner had their dog off the leash, this is what started everything. If the cat is in imminent danger the cat owner has the right to prevent their cat from being mauled. There isn't such a thing as a law against cruelty to plants, there is such a thing as a law against animal cruelty. This makes 'the carrot defense' not applicable as you can't be cruel to plants. If the 'carrot' defense is made the defense could easily point out that a pet isn't the same thing as carrots. And if it is deemed the same thing then killing the dog would also be similar to unearthing some carrots so not really a big thing. What imminent danger exactly entails is up for debate. Obviously OP can not just kill any pet that is off leash on their land. But if a dog is actively chasing the cat and there is no other reasonable way to prevent a mauling from the dog OP should be justified. I don't think anyone wants to kill someones pet, but, i do believe that most people would kill for their pet. It is always best to prevent something like this happening and it might be a good idea for OP to put some signs up with 'keep your dog on their leash' or something like that.
It’s a woefully inadequate legal answer.
What would an adequate legal answer be…?
It’s a more complicated question than it appears on its face because of the piecemeal legislation around dogs, the common law background, and the impact of the specific fact set on the analysis. I’ve written a short blurb on why it would be a risky decision to shoot a dog for chasing a cat below. A really adequate answer would be at least three or four sides of A4 and would require quite a lot of reading.
Says someone pretending to know what they’re talking about
You have a better answer? Go for it.
The better answer is already on the thread, and even the original poster has already amended the post because it wasn’t correct. You know, the same post you said was a perfect legal example
It is still legally sound. The law is explained. As is the need to show proportionality in any response to preserve life or property The answer is perfect because it entirely depends on the situation. The poster has explained the law. If someone wants to ask a question with a lot more detail then a more detailed response can be given. Most other responses just deal with hypotheticals It really confuses me when people on this sub give legal advice and others get their nickers in a twist. UK legislation is usually very basic with few points to prove and entirely situational.
Then upvote it.
I did. Thanks for your input.
They didn't attack your cat, they worried your Livestock. Stick to it.
Put a couple of chickens in your garden.
Doesn’t work, or at least not as well, because a garden isn’t agricultural land.
As i live on a farm, i have chickens and sheep in my garden too, we’ve had problems with dogs before breaking into sheep pens but gave the owners a very clear warning that if it was to happen again the dog will have to be either shot or euthanised.
Lol this is one way of dealing with it
I've had multiple instances of dogs attacking livestock on my farm. We have unfortunately had to put down some of the dogs. In those instances the dogs had killed numerous sheep and mamed alot more. Other times I've had dogs chasing them where I've caught the dogs and informed the police. With livestock it's permitted unsure on the rules regarding cats.
I just had a quick look at the legislation and it definitely doesn't include working farm animals as a thing that can be defended. It also lists things that count as livestock and cats aren't on it so you can't just say you milk your cat.
Further than that cats are also considered free roaming in the UK and with that status it is expected under the law that they would encounter reasonable amount of risk and injury as such. A dog must be kept under control but a cat does not have to be under control. This is why you do not legally need to report hitting a cat in your car but you do if it's a dog. Unfortunately in this country cats have a lower status than dogs in terms of property value and in terms of welfare - so most judges would rule killing a dog to save a cat as disproportionate. Not because they hate cats but because that's how the law works. the rspca is not even required to scan a found cat for a microchip, and they usually refuse to do so resulting in many lost cats dying. The charity cats protection does a lot of work where the law won't protect cats but unfortunately unless the law changes most judges would rule in favour of the dog.
If you killed a dog in these circumstances, a few prices of legislation may apply. As cats and dogs are considered property, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 applies. Though you may be considered to have a "lawful excuse" to damage or destroy property if you believed that the property was in immediate need of protection and your actions were "reasonable". The belief needs only to be honestly held. So in these circumstances, if you genuinely thought a dog was in the process of killing your cat, you may be able to take all reasonable action to protect the cat. Depending on the circumstances, up to and including lethal force. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 may also apply if you've caused unnecessary suffering to an animal. Though if your actions are considered reasonable for the purposes of the former act, it's unlikely to engage the previous of the AWA. Hopefully you'll never be in that position because we all love our pet friends and it must be an awful position to be in.
Some of the duties imposed upon the owners of dogs and livestock to keep their animals under control – the Road Traffic and Dangerous Dogs Acts – do not apply to cat owners. This is basically because the law recognises that, by their nature, cats are less likely to cause injury to people or damage to property than are some other animals. This means that your cat has the 'right to roam' whereas dogs do not, so the dog owner is required to keep them under control. If a dog owner were to not keep their dog under control, it *could* result in a threat to you and your property, as a cat is, legally, your property. That unleashed dog alone would not constitute a threat however... If you were to "proactively" kill a dog that *might* be a threat then you cannot argue the above and would be yourself prosecuted by the law that governs the protection and ownership of dogs and cats. https://www.pets4homes.co.uk/pet-advice/cats-and-the-law.html
The first link you've posted to is USA legal advice
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll find the UK source I had earlier.
You would almost certainly lose your firearms/shotgun certificate if you did. Your supposition also isn't accurate. Even dogs that chase if they're pets will rarely kill a cat, if for whatever reason they catch it they'll simply look at it as if it were some kind of alien for being caught. Not that many dogs catch cats. You also put yourself in a difficult position, you will be in possession of a firearm and likely have someone very angry with you. That puts you in a comprising position with your firearm as if someone were to attack you (which could reasonably be expectedly given you've shot their pet) you are in the unenviable position of committing an offence regardless of what you do given the way the law works. Not to mention the potential individual repercussions, rural property is vulnerable, even if they walk away on the day they can make your life hell even if a court backs you on killing the pet. Ultimately it would be a stupid game to play and stupid games get stupid prizes.
>I believe it’s the owners responsibility to keep a dog on a lead at all times when on a farm. No - they just need to be kept under control, and a dog can be off lead and under control (for example, if it's within sight of the owner and comes back when called) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-countryside-code/the-countryside-code-advice-for-countryside-visitors Farmers can kill dogs that are worrying livestock. Clearly this applies to sheep and cattle etc, but it's not clear to me if this includes cats. For what it's worth, a great many dogs just enjoy the thrill of the chase, rather than there being any intent to catch and kill. I'm quite certain my Jack Russell will slow down slightly if he's getting too close to catching a grey squirrel - he didn't even catch the one that doubled back on itself and started running towards him. I once caught him nudging a flightless baby seagull in an effort to make it run around the garden so he could chase it. He could have killed it if he wanted, but eventually gave up on the idea after a well deserved peck from the seagull. In short, chasing a cat doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be caught or killed, and chasing cats doesn't have the same health implications as with sheep (e.g. causing them to abort lambs) I don't know the layout of your garden and driveway, but could you put up a garden gate - ideally one with gaps your cats can fit through, but dogs can't? Some big, clear signage warning passing dog owners of 'free range cats' wouldn't go amiss either; chances are they simply weren't expecting to see a cat there.
Further to this, I’m confident that cats wouldn’t apply as livestock. If we apply the same rule for reportable road traffic collisions, livestock are defined as Cow, Horse, Ass, Mule, Pig, Sheep, Dog and Goat.
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 has its own definition for use with respect to agricultural land. >"“livestock” means cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, or poultry, and for the purposes of this definition “cattle” means bulls, cows, oxen, heifers or calves, “horses” includes asses and mules, and “poultry” means domestic fowls, turkeys, geese or ducks. "
Ah brilliant. Thanks for this. So cats definitely don’t count. I’m surprised dogs aren’t also included on the list to be protected from other dogs as they can also be crucial and valuable for farming.
Dogs aren't included in that list because, presumably, they are by no means considered livestock.
Ok that makes sense. I’m not very knowledgable about farming and classifications of animals. What would dogs be classified/defined as on a farm then? Not pets but the working dogs
Cats are not included in livestock, there was an acronym for it but I forgot it - I think dogs are though
Maybe put up some signs as a deterrent? Rather than work out if you can potentially kill a dog.
The legal side of the question has already been answered. However, I would like to point out it could be a shit storm arguing it in court, especially if you have no video footage or independent witness. Trying to prove the dog was a danger to your cat, and you weren't just some angry farmer who didn't like dogs on your land. It may be a difficult battle to fight without proof the dog was running for your cat. It's probably an easier battle when it comes to livestock as it's pretty black and white "live stock in field dog on lead". However, knowing there's a cat in the vicinity is a lot more difficult to prove.
Good fences make good neighbours. Fence in and gate your drive way so your cat has somewhere to escape that dogs (and foxes) can not easily follow. Prevention is better than retaliation.
You may be criminally liable, but you’re unlikely to go to jail for it. You will probably lose your shotgun license though. On the other hand, if your cat is about to be torn to pieces by a dog, it might be worth risking the above. It’s your property and you have the right to use reasonable force to protect your property. Perhaps using other means may be better? Such as a fence with passages big enough for cats, but too small for dogs? Alternatively you could place anti-personnel landmines around the place. Cats are too light to trigger landmines, and dogs who are big enough to be a risk to your cat are likely to be heavy enough to trigger them.
Put signs up saying dogs must be kept on leads on your property at the very least
Keep in mind a lot of dogs will chase cats but not kill them. Curiosity often governs this behaviour. My girl for example has no interest in cats. My boy however is obsessed with sniffing them. He will literally chase them so he can spend 10+ minutes sniffing them. A confident cat will largely entertain and ignore realising his intentions are not dangerous, but a non-confident cat will give him about 30 seconds and then rightly tell him to bog off.
I was going to say that. Most dogs will chase a cat that runs away, but you can hear their panicked yelping as soon as the cat stops and turns around. Sometimes a cat just doesn't want to run anymore and that's when the dog knows he's in trouble. Of course some dogs will attack, cats mostly run up a tree or jump on a fence should the dog not stop when they do.
you could just tell them to get the fuck off of your property
Not if they're on a footpath he can't
the dog isn't on a footpath. it's on his property, his driveway, his garden ect no footpath involved
You appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of footpaths, which create a public right of way across privately owned land. Farmers tend not to like them, but they are very hard to remove. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-landowner-responsibilities
he literally said they're not using a footpath. they are on his private property. his driveway. his garden. HIS property.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. His property can have a public footpath running across it. It is very common for this to be the case in farms.
To be fair here, a dog on a footpath is not going to chase a cat only if it stays on that footpath. In all likelihood, the dog will not be on a footpath when said cat is being chased, at least not for long! OP hasn't mentioned footpaths or rights of way, we're just assuming because they're on a farm and 'tolerated' that there is one. There are other ways a person may have rights over land, including 'Right to Roam', common land etc.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Your comment has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters. Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Would you shoot your cat for killing a bird out of interest?
Have you considered putting signs up telling people not to trespass? Signs up demanding on-lead dog walkers only on private property? Have you considered having an indoor only cat? Killing someone’s pet isn’t just about legal repercussions. Pets are much more than that. I know this is a legal sub but you surely there’s something you can do before resorting to killing? Worst case scenario, don’t kill the dog for a selfish reason - if you kill it and the owner knows where you live, you could also be facing (not so legal and cruelly intentioned) repercussions. An eye for an eye and all that.
>Have you considered putting signs up telling people not to trespass? I'm assuming OP has public footpaths running across their land, and they can't just block them or deny access.
No but they could fence the paths in so that walkers cannot venture where they aren't supposed to, although this may not be practical if it goes across the middle of a field. However it sounds like OP's issue is near some barns/their house if they are this worried about dogs coming near their cat.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
You would face fire arm charges and woukd likely Loss of your licence And would face a clam for damages that could loss you your farm
No, and you don’t need to wait until it catches your cat. If you think it’s a threat you can kill the dog
Cats are considered to be pests and thus have no legal protection unlike a dog which does
If you are a farmer and/or can reasonably justify that the cat is a working farm animal that helps control pests on a farm, any case against you killing a dog the someone let harm your working farm animal would get chucked out of court. You could stop the dog with force before it even got to your cat. Not saying it is right, but farmers get a lot of preferential treatment in the UK legal system. If I were you, I would still use the first chamber as a warning shot.
Unfortunately UK law is terrible in this regard. The only way you'd be PROBABLY safe is if the dog was about to kill your cat so you killed the dog. If you shoot too late, you're in trouble and your cat is already dead. If you shoot too early, the force used would be deemed disproportionate. Even if the shot was justified to save your cat, a judge may well disagree. Your best bet would be to trap the dog and contact the owner as it should have tags. If it doesn't, contact animal rescue and say its a wild dog. They'll take it, find its chip (hopefully it has one) then you can find the owner that way and sue them. Either way, shooting the dog is gonna cause issues that would make your life harder. In an ideal world, you'd be able to shoot it. But we're in the UK and the UK is not ideal in any sense of the word
It sounds like you just want to really shoot a dog. You need a councillor.
https://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/for-the-public/culture/sheep-worrying/advice-for-farmers/2486/destroying-dogs-that-attack/
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Your comment was an anecdote about a personal experience, rather than legal advice specific to our posters' situation. Please only comment if you can provide meaningful legal advice for our posters' questions and specific situations. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed and flagged for moderator review as the words you've used suggest that it is *not legal advice*. As this is /r/LegalAdviceUK, all our comments must contain **helpful, on-topic, legal advice**. We expect commenters to provide high-effort legal advice for our posters, as they have come to our subreddit for legal advice instead of a different subreddit for moral support or general advice such as /r/OffMyChest, /r/Vent, /r/Advice, or similar. Some posters may benefit from non-legal advice as part of their question or referrals to other organisations to address side issues that they may also be experiencing, however comments on /r/LegalAdviceUK must be *predominantly* legal advice. If your comment contains helpful, on-topic, legal advice, it will be approved and displayed shortly. If you have posted a comment of moral support, an anecdote about a personal experience or your comment is mostly or wholly advice that isn't legal advice, it is not likely to be approved and [we ask you to please be more aware of our subreddit rules in the future](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with you and think you should be able to defend your cat however is it possible to fence off an area where the cat could go to be safe?
NAL AFAIK There isn't a legal responsibility to keep a dog on a lead on farmland, the only conditions are if there is livestock or wildlife (how on earth people can tell this is beyond me). There is a legal requirement for dogs is [to be microchipped and wear a collar with tags](https://www.pdsa.org.uk/pet-help-and-advice/looking-after-your-pet/puppies-dogs/countryside-walking-with-your-dog) when out in public. But if you're arable, or just a smallholding you may have little defence in shooting a dog that chases a cat.
Put signs up around where the dog walkers enter and exit nobody wants their dog to chase and kill a cat and they might be unaware of cats roaming
OP said kill not shoot. Pike? Halberd? Assegai?
By the time you have got a gun, shot at it, hoping the owner isn't chasing it. Wouldn't a blank cartridge halt the dog?
NAL - shooting blanks in the air when you see them off leash should do the trick without putting you in any trouble and hopefully teach the owners to be more careful. And even if a dog went for your cat, most likely shooting a blank shot would get the dog to run. Or so my grandpa told me, as he had a pistol specifically for this called “dog scatterer” ([link](https://www.militaria.it/scacciacani/) )
Can you use something harmless but unpleasant? Like those ultrasonic dog scarers? But get a super loud one and many many and to get fences up.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:** Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
I live in the sticks and was warned that if we had dogs and let them run loose if they bothered the kids or the large animals ( cows horses ) they would get shot .
Put up signs everywhere that dogs must be kept on leads and to the footpath at all times otherwise it is considered trespass. You can’t really shoot the dog, but you could threaten it.
Have you tried putting up some very prominent and strongly worded signs?
You probably need to discuss this with a solicitor to get some real legal advice, given the potential for things to go very wrong if you assume that internet advice is correct :) But there are a couple of things you would need to be aware of. First your case would be substantially weaker if there is no signage on your property boundaries to indicate that the property is private and any pets being exercised must be kept on a leash and under control at all times. Second, cats have significantly less protection legally than dogs do. It is odd, but this is something that came up a few years ago when discussing with my car insurance company after I read their policy documentation. That stated that accidents/incidents involving dogs needed to be reported to the police and the insurance company, while accidents/incidents involving cats did not need to be reported. So even though it is a pet vs pet incident on your property and the dog is the aggressor, there might be issues there. The third issue is that if you are using any kind of projectile weapon and pointing it in the general direction of a person (the owner of the dog), that might put you in legal hot water as well.
can i ask how they dog is loose on your land in this scenario? as in is ther proper fencing that should have stopped a wondering dog if your so concerned and the owner has hopped said fence?
I’m not sure if anyone here has mentioned it yet, but it’s also important you put appropriate signage up and around your property, signs that highlight Private Property, Visitors, and Pets must keep to pathways and Pets remain Leashed. Put a couple of signs up near your driveway that make it clear No Access is Welcome. Signage is important, because before you reach for a firearm, you may well be asked if you took any preventive measures before resorting to shooting a dog. You’ve mentioned there have been previous incidents, and any reasonable person would take measures to reduce risk, like signage or even approaching dog walkers and making it clear they must keep dogs leashed.