Jump to content

Two huskies shot in hillsborough northern Ireland !


sniffynintendo

Recommended Posts

The report does indicate that the park is beside the site which isn't quite true.

The lane which runs to the site runs alongside the outer edge of the park. The lane then runs for a good half mile before the site is reached.

The site itself has fences around all the fields which are more than adequate to keep their animals in the fields and on site, which is the duty and responsibility of the facility.

As I've said previously Culcavy (where the owner lives) is approximately 1 and a half miles from Hillsborough park with an additional half a mile up to the test facility. That is 2 miles approx. from the owners house to where the dogs were shot and while it is sad that these dogs were shot it is the owners duty and responsibility to ensure that his animals are secured and unable to "worry" sheep.

As I said the owner is lucky not to be prosecuted for failing to secure his animals to the point where they were able to attack other animals.

A harsh lesson learned for him.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would like to know where all these people saying "a tranquiliser should've been used" imagine a government facility is going to get a tranquiliser gun from.

What were they supposed to do, ask the dogs to kindly stop worrying their sheep while they go and source one?

Seriously, tranquiliser guns are not standard issue on either farms or agricultural research stations and while they may have had access to some form of sedative used to sedate cattle or sheep who knows if this would work on dogs or be equally as lethal, never mind the fact the dogs would have to be caught, restrained and injected manually with a syringe and hypodermic.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the drugs used for tranquilizers are likely to be controlled substances, and while the government facility may be able to get them, all employees may not be able to have access to the drugs. I would assume that it would be more difficult for a private farmer to get access to controlled substances - I know that my vet has to log and account for every use of any such substance in his practice.

As to the dogs worrying the sheep, pregnant ewes are, I believe, highly susceptible to aborting their lambs when stressed - this being the case, they would need to remove the stress imposed by the dogs asap. It could be a case where the dogs might not only injure or kill a sheep or two, but cause a much larger loss of the current year's lambs! I live in a farming area, and know that I NEED to keep my dogs safely at home, or it's all too likely that they COULD be shot by my neighbors - so I do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe its the fault of both sides. The owner could have tried to secure his dogs better (maybe using a tie-out if they kept on escaping?) to ensure they didn't get shot...while the farmers could have used other methods before resorting to lethal action.

I understand the farmer's livelihood was at stake, but you don't see me shooting other people or animals that make ME worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know where all these people saying "a tranquiliser should've been used" imagine a government facility is going to get a tranquiliser gun from.

What were they supposed to do, ask the dogs to kindly stop worrying their sheep while they go and source one?

Seriously, tranquiliser guns are not standard issue on either farms or agricultural research stations and while they may have had access to some form of sedative used to sedate cattle or sheep who knows if this would work on dogs or be equally as lethal, never mind the fact the dogs would have to be caught, restrained and injected manually with a syringe and hypodermic.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

I didnt mean should have been used in this case. Thought it would be something a government sized facility would consider and if any ruling IS passed on the back of this mans petition it should be to resort to a tranq gun over bullets...but again, not for small, individual farms but something as big as this is made out to be (i dont know the place so could be totally wrong). (i was attemtping to say I dont agree with the petition in the nicest possible way lol as things can be easily misconstrued when written this way)

I should imagine any decent human would try anything before resorting to 'shoot to kill' and should imagine this has been very upsetting for the staff involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to be having a go at you Tams because you weren't the only one who mentioned tranquilisers.

But, really, have a look at the petition the owners are asking for justice but no mention of what they would like done, its a poorly thought out attempt to garner public sympathy for what was ultimately the owners error.

Really the only thing that will happen is the institute will be forced to install bigger fences around the whole site at a potential cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds of what is British taxpayers money and all because the owners didn't ensure they kept THEIR dogs on THEIR property and now want US to pay for their error.

This "someone must be to blame but not us" attitude really annoys me, big time.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't to be having a go at you Tams because you weren't the only one who mentioned tranguilisers.

But, really, have a look at the petition the owners are asking for justice but no mention of what they would like done, its a poorly thought out attempt to garner public sympathy for what was ultimately the owners error.

Really the only thing that will happen is the institute will be forced to install bigger fences around the whole site at a potential cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds of what is British taxpayers money and all because the owners didn't ensure they kept THEIR dogs on THEIR property and now want US to pay for their error.

This "someone must be to blame but not us" attitude really annoys me, big time.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Agree totally. I get very wound up by that very same attitude. Not gonna lie...i read the article but didnt click to even look at the petition incase it was one of those 'click and your done' type situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree totally. I get very wound up by that very same attitude. Not gonna lie...i read the article but didnt click to even look at the petition incase it was one of those 'click and your done' type situations.

Tams, this is what the petition says:

Get Justice For Ice and Alaska

Greetings,

I just signed the following petition addressed to: The Government.

----------------

Get Justice For Ice and Alaska

Has taken me a while to come to terms with this, but last tuesday my 2 gorgeous husky's got free from their pen and made there way to Hillsborough public park, Northern Ireland, they both loved the park so much, only to be shot dead by A.F.B.I. A heartless gunman thinks it is smarter to shoot all pets that sway from the public park, rather to have suitable fencing. No signs to warn walkers about his trigger happiness. My dogs are gone, but NOT forgotten - Keith Johnston

----------------

Sincerely,

[Your name]

As you can see the owner is calling for "justice" for his pets but no actual mention of what form this justice should take. Also some of the language is very emotive :

1 - " a heartless gunman",

2 - "pets that sway away from the path",

3 - "suitable fencing"

and

4 - "no signs to warn walkers".

to address the points in order:

1 - The "gunman" was legally allowed to carry out the actions they took to protect the sheep under his/her care.

2 - the pets as I said earlier did not sway away from the path but escaped from the owners property and walked/ran approximately 2 miles to this site.

3 - suitable fencing is installed on this site, suitable to ensure that the sheep and cattle cannot escape but low enough for a large enough dog to jump over (sheep and cattle are not renowned for their jumping prowess).

4 - There are plenty of signs to warn people that they are approaching a testing facility and that trespassing is strictly prohibited (OK the dogs couldn't have read that but still, I'm sure you understand the point I'm trying to make).

As I said this petition is a poorly thought out attempt to garner sympathy and the owners will possibly be doing that to ensure they get "adequately compensated" for their loss, a loss which they are directly responsible for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tams, this is what the petition says:

Get Justice For Ice and Alaska

Greetings,

I just signed the following petition addressed to: The Government.

----------------

Get Justice For Ice and Alaska

Has taken me a while to come to terms with this, but last tuesday my 2 gorgeous husky's got free from their pen and made there way to Hillsborough public park, Northern Ireland, they both loved the park so much, only to be shot dead by A.F.B.I. A heartless gunman thinks it is smarter to shoot all pets that sway from the public park, rather to have suitable fencing. No signs to warn walkers about his trigger happiness. My dogs are gone, but NOT forgotten - Keith Johnston

----------------

Sincerely,

[Your name]

As you can see the owner is calling for "justice" for his pets but no actual mention of what form this justice should take. Also some of the language is very emotive :

1 - " a heartless gunman",

2 - "pets that sway away from the path",

3 - "suitable fencing"

and

4 - "no signs to warn walkers".

to address the points in order:

1 - The "gunman" was legally allowed to carry out the actions they took to protect the sheep under his/her care.

2 - the pets as I said earlier did not sway away from the path but escaped from the owners property and walked/ran approximately 2 miles to this site.

3 - suitable fencing is installed on this site, suitable to ensure that the sheep and cattle cannot escape but low enough for a large enough dog to jump over (sheep and cattle are not renowned for their jumping prowess).

4 - There are plenty of signs to warn people that they are approaching a testing facility and that trespassing is strictly prohibited (OK the dogs couldn't have read that but still, I'm sure you understand the point I'm trying to make).

As I said this petition is a poorly thought out attempt to garner sympathy and the owners will possibly be doing that to ensure they get "adequately compensated" for their loss, a loss which they are directly responsible for.

Goodness! That doesn't reflect the story well at all does it?! I feel for the member of staff that had to carry out the shooting. If it were my dogs...a petition would be the last thing on my mind. I'd be holed up in a corner.

The scenario is definitely a case of agree to disagree but the petition...doesn't seem right at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Skarre and sutsibe on this one. Expecting a facility like that to have a tranquilizer gun on hand on the off chance that someone's pet threaten's their sheep or cattle is absurd. It doesn't sound like this is a common occurrence, and why the hell should they have build fences to keep other people's animals out? What's next? A moat and patrolled guard?

It's unfortunate and it's tragic, but by all accounts the facility made every attempt to capture and stop the dogs first. If any of you have seen your huskies in predatory mode you know just how difficult it would be to stop them. The risk of them killing sheep or causing them to abort their fetuses (who cares how far along they are?) was very high, and in that industry you can't afford senseless loss.

Sucks that they were someone's beloved pets, but these are the risks we run. The owner can feel like they weren't at fault and it was a mere accident that the dogs escaped - either through inattention or inadequate maintenance of their pen we don't know - but he had highly predatory dogs in a rural environment where there are small livestock. Just because he never thought something like this could happen doesn't change anything.

And if what Skarre says is true, then the place is far enough away that they don't feel the need to even have signs to warn dog owners - again, this probably isn't a regular occurrence or the facility likely would have had some sort of contingency in place. But just because the facility had to shoot the dogs doesn't make them the evil, negligent ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two pet husky dogs were shot dead when they strayed onto the agri-science farm next to Hillsborough Forest Park.

Pets 'Ice' and 'Alaska' were shot dead by staff at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Farm (AFBI) last week after they were discovered worrying pregnant sheep.

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/im-devastated-says-owner-of-pet-huskies-shot-dead-on-farm-16102380.html#ixzz1jJyNbIdB

A petition has been launched

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-government-get-justice-for-ice-and-alaska#sign

oh ..dear far to much upsetting news ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the drugs used for tranquilizers are likely to be controlled substances, and while the government facility may be able to get them, all employees may not be able to have access to the drugs. I would assume that it would be more difficult for a private farmer to get access to controlled substances - I know that my vet has to log and account for every use of any such substance in his practice.

As to the dogs worrying the sheep, pregnant ewes are, I believe, highly susceptible to aborting their lambs when stressed - this being the case, they would need to remove the stress imposed by the dogs asap. It could be a case where the dogs might not only injure or kill a sheep or two, but cause a much larger loss of the current year's lambs! I live in a farming area, and know that I NEED to keep my dogs safely at home, or it's all too likely that they COULD be shot by my neighbors - so I do!

This is correct. Tranquillisers and sedatives are contolled drugs and must be kept in a locked safe on a vets' premises (and possibly the zoo I think). We cannot dispense them for farmers to use themselves, not even to government owned facilities. To my knowledge, the Lisburn dog wardens (lovely people by the way, very compassionate and professional in the face of difficult circumstances) cannot keep sedatives. I don't know of any farmers or "ordinary" vets in Northern Ireland who have a tranquilliser gun....you can't just adapt a normal shotgun or rifle into a tranq gun. Perhaps someone who knows more about zoo medicine than I do will correct me, but I think that the sedatives in a tranquilliser gun differ from the ones used under normal circumstances in a vet practice . The ones that vets use in practice have to be injected directly into the animal, take 5-10 minutes to start working, and do not work well when the animal is already very would up (adrenaline competes with the sedative, so we inject the animal then leave it in a quiet, darkened room to settle while the sedative takes effect). The stuff used in tranq guns that you see in wildlife vet documentaries is, I believe, Immobilon. This is so dangerous to humans that if you even get scraped by the tip of a dart with the stuff, or get some splashed in your eye, you can die of respiratory depression in minutes. You need to get specialist training to use a tranq gun and there has to be a trained assistant standing by with a syringeful of antidote to inject you with if anything goes wrong. I am not sure about the potential accuracy and range of a tranquilliser gun compared to a rifle, but I think it is likely nowhere near as good. Plus, even with a well placed dart it can take several minutes for an animal to slow down, then go down. More than enough time for quite a few pregnant ewes to die of shock, or suffer such stress from being chased that they abort their lambs. Ewes which have aborted are very prone to retaining the placenta and quite often die of blood poisoning despite treatment, which is sad and frustrating. So, the sheep does not have to have its throat ripped out to be harmed. Our own sheep on the farm at home are in lamb now - as are most ewes in the winter - and we will not even bring our dogs round the edge of the fields they're in on a lead for fear of causing stress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is correct. Tranquillisers and sedatives are contolled drugs and must be kept in a locked safe on a vets' premises (and possibly the zoo I think). We cannot dispense them for farmers to use themselves, not even to government owned facilities. To my knowledge, the Lisburn dog wardens (lovely people by the way, very compassionate and professional in the face of difficult circumstances) cannot keep sedatives. I don't know of any farmers or "ordinary" vets in Northern Ireland who have a tranquilliser gun....you can't just adapt a normal shotgun or rifle into a tranq gun. Perhaps someone who knows more about zoo medicine than I do will correct me, but I think that the sedatives in a tranquilliser gun differ from the ones used under normal circumstances in a vet practice . The ones that vets use in practice have to be injected directly into the animal, take 5-10 minutes to start working, and do not work well when the animal is already very would up (adrenaline competes with the sedative, so we inject the animal then leave it in a quiet, darkened room to settle while the sedative takes effect). The stuff used in tranq guns that you see in wildlife vet documentaries is, I believe, Immobilon. This is so dangerous to humans that if you even get scraped by the tip of a dart with the stuff, or get some splashed in your eye, you can die of respiratory depression in minutes. You need to get specialist training to use a tranq gun and there has to be a trained assistant standing by with a syringeful of antidote to inject you with if anything goes wrong. I am not sure about the potential accuracy and range of a tranquilliser gun compared to a rifle, but I think it is likely nowhere near as good. Plus, even with a well placed dart it can take several minutes for an animal to slow down, then go down. More than enough time for quite a few pregnant ewes to die of shock, or suffer such stress from being chased that they abort their lambs. Ewes which have aborted are very prone to retaining the placenta and quite often die of blood poisoning despite treatment, which is sad and frustrating. So, the sheep does not have to have its throat ripped out to be harmed. Our own sheep on the farm at home are in lamb now - as are most ewes in the winter - and we will not even bring our dogs round the edge of the fields they're in on a lead for fear of causing stress.

Very informative, thank you!

And welcome to the forum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Irishvet, very interesting. I read up a bit on tranq guns and their use on dogs when the thread was first posted, and I honestly don't think they are the answer to the problem.

We as husky owners know all too well about their prey drive, and adventurous spirit and it is our responsible to ensure they are safe and contained for their own safety. Blaming the farmer/s is just passing the buck :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an update to this story and take this with a pinch of salt.

The rumours in and around the local area is that these 2 pets actually escaped either on Sunday evening or Monday morning and that the local dog warden was looking for them all day Monday.

It was only on the Tuesday that they wandered onto this land and started to worry shhep.

So the owner let the dogs run for up to 2 days before they were shot they did not just stray off the path as he seems to imply.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the owner of the Huskies should shoulder most of the blame as they are/were his dogs & as such should have been securely fenced at home.

However, I also agree that perhaps the facility should have higher fencing. most government facilities have high fencing, not only to keep things in but also to keep people out!

I know this was a government facility & not a normal farm but it amazes me that people actually believe that farmers have an automatic right to shoot your dog if it worries sheep.

Farmers DO NOT have a legal right to shoot a dog worrying stock.

The farmer has a legal defence for his actions but he would still have committed an offence - that being criminal damage - if he shot a dog. It is then up to the farmer to prove in a court that his actions where legal.

Animals Act 1971

3)Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person killing or causing injury to a dog shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if, eitherâ€â€

(a)the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or

(b)the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the owner of the Huskies should shoulder most of the blame as they are/were his dogs & as such should have been securely fenced at home.

However, I also agree that perhaps the facility should have higher fencing. most government facilities have high fencing, not only to keep things in but also to keep people out!

Why would higher fencing make a difference? I doubt the dogs went over the fence - more likely through or under it. A fence built to contain cattle and sheep is easily negotiable for a dog, and as I understand it Britain does not have to worry about predators like coyotes dining on their sheep (which, incidentally, "dog-proof" fencing does little to hinder). So I say again, why should a farm - government run or not - invest the extra expense of building impenetrable fence constructs around 200 hectares of land when all other people are expected by law to have their dogs under control?

The farmer has a legal defence for his actions but he would still have committed an offence - that being criminal damage - if he shot a dog. It is then up to the farmer to prove in a court that his actions where legal.

Animals Act 1971

3)Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person killing or causing injury to a dog shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if, eitherâ€â€

(a)the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or

(b)the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.

According to the article the facility more than met both of those conditions, which would be why no charges are even threatening to be laid. They tried to catch the dogs - "the dogs got away and went into a field of sheep and that's when they were shot." And then "Despite repeated and concerted efforts, staff were unable to stop the dogs worrying the sheep... As the sheep were in a highly distressed condition, and given the risk of loss of unborn lambs, there was no option but to shoot the dogs using a legally held firearm to protect the flock."

It doesn't say at what point the dog warden was called, but the dogs would not leave, were not being controlled by any person and at the time there was no practical means of ascertaining to whom they belonged. So they have a pretty sound legal defense right from the getgo, and if what Skarre says is true, the owner has even less of a leg to stand on. It's not as though the dogs made a beeline for the farm and were shot within hours of escaping their home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would higher fencing make a difference? I doubt the dogs went over the fence - more likely through or under it. A fence built to contain cattle and sheep is easily negotiable for a dog, and as I understand it Britain does not have to worry about predators like coyotes dining on their sheep (which, incidentally, "dog-proof" fencing does little to hinder). So I say again, why should a farm - government run or not - invest the extra expense of building impenetrable fence constructs around 200 hectares of land when all other people are expected by law to have their dogs under control?

According to the article the facility more than met both of those conditions, which would be why no charges are even threatening to be laid. They tried to catch the dogs - "the dogs got away and went into a field of sheep and that's when they were shot." And then "Despite repeated and concerted efforts, staff were unable to stop the dogs worrying the sheep... As the sheep were in a highly distressed condition, and given the risk of loss of unborn lambs, there was no option but to shoot the dogs using a legally held firearm to protect the flock."

It doesn't say at what point the dog warden was called, but the dogs would not leave, were not being controlled by any person and at the time there was no practical means of ascertaining to whom they belonged. So they have a pretty sound legal defense right from the getgo, and if what Skarre says is true, the owner has even less of a leg to stand on. It's not as though the dogs made a beeline for the farm and were shot within hours of escaping their home.

It all depends on what you class as high fencing. As I said in my previous post, most government ' facilities' have high (8/9 ft) fences, not normal farm fencing, to keep PEOPLE out. Thats what I was getting at.

The point I raised about shooting was a general statement really about how farmers assume they can just shoot a dog. They can't.

From that article it would appear that the facility captured the dogs but failed to secure them which is the real shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As husky owners, we all know how crafty the little buggers can be. The staff probably did absolutely everything they could but ultimately their responsibility is with their livestock and as someone said earlier, a pregnant ewe will miscarry when distressed. I should imagine, even with the shooting, that still some lambs were lost.

2 days??? Funny how he doesn't mention that in his petition!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly a tranquilliser gun will not work fast enough to protect the sheep... In calm circumstances in a zoo setting it would take 15 to 20 mins for a wolf to go down after it is tranqed. The wolf would gave to be separated from the pack as wolves and dogs are known to turn kn and even kill pack members that are acting tranquilised and odd.

Though it is possible the pain of being hit might distract them, a husky in full prey drive is unlikely to be phased by a bee sting and the adrenaline running through their system would mean a high enough dose to drop them would likely be fatal. A paintball gun might be a better option providing distraction and at the same time marking the offending dog.

But when the flock is at risk, remembering its not just the sheep the dog may kill, pregnant sheep will abort their lambs if stressed, the farmer could lose his entire years lambs. Sometimes there really is only one solution.

My Samoyed once got into a flock of sheep. She didn't hurt them but she chased them up and down the field, the only reason the farmer didn't shoot her was because he couldn't tell her apart from the sheep. Once caught I offered to pay for any lost lambs at full year old meat rate, but the farmer admitted the fault was with his children who had laid a plank of wood across the canal allowing her to get in to the sheep.

We were very lucky.

I wouldn't have blamed the farmer if he had shot her. I would have blamed myself:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly a tranquilliser gun will not work fast enough to protect the sheep... In calm circumstances in a zoo setting it would take 15 to 20 mins for a wolf to go down after it is tranqed. The wolf would gave to be separated from the pack as wolves and dogs are known to turn kn and even kill pack members that are acting tranquilised and odd.

Though it is possible the pain of being hit might distract them, a husky in full prey drive is unlikely to be phased by a bee sting and the adrenaline running through their system would mean a high enough dose to drop them would likely be fatal. A paintball gun might be a better option providing distraction and at the same time marking the offending dog.

But when the flock is at risk, remembering its not just the sheep the dog may kill, pregnant sheep will abort their lambs if stressed, the farmer could lose his entire years lambs. Sometimes there really is only one solution.

My Samoyed once got into a flock of sheep. She didn't hurt them but she chased them up and down the field, the only reason the farmer didn't shoot her was because he couldn't tell her apart from the sheep. Once caught I offered to pay for any lost lambs at full year old meat rate, but the farmer admitted the fault was with his children who had laid a plank of wood across the canal allowing her to get in to the sheep.

We were very lucky.

I wouldn't have blamed the farmer if he had shot her. I would have blamed myself:(

Now I didnt know it took so long with a tranq gun! Wow! Have only ever seen them used on monkeys (tho a blow dart not a gun) and it was ever so quick. But yeh...20 mins....wow. Learn something new every day! Guess I oughta take back my tranq suggestion, :-S. Poor dogs, poor sheep, poor staff, poor owner. Sad day all round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Hi All

I have just came across this discussion regards the Husky's which were shot.... My name is Keith Johnston.. I owned the 2 dogs :(

I can see once again there has been a lot off mixed thoughts, mixed feelings & certainly tell tale story's!!!!!! Were do I start .........

Well the first thing I would like to clear up is this daft accusation that my dog's were running free from sunday 1st jan .. The photo is off Alaska lying over my leg, on my bed on Monday evening, 2nd Jan, Ice is on floor, the place they both stayed to Tuesday morning, before I placed them outside to get some fresh air, were they got fed!! A normal practise for my dogs.... Whoever started that makes me sick..

I suppose John... I am turning my attention to you!! You seem to know a lot about this, Were the dogs live, how far away, you know the research etc. You are even willing to play devil's advocate "as you put it" ... Why? Do you think it is fine the dogs died because of my mistake they got loose?! What is in this for you to prove that this was acceptable??!

Farmers protecting there livestock...... Do they really care about there livestock on this farm, really??? Well this was my point about the situation...... Below I have a picture, This picture is a fence, a fence supplied by the government A.F.B.I, a fence which they hope to protect there livestock right beside a beautiful, wonderful public park, a park used by thousands yearly right across this province, You will not enter this park without seeing family's walking there beloved, domesticated pets...

So with this in mind... What is the best protection?? A rifle? or a suitable fence .... You can on about the farmers having rights to protect there animals & its my fault they got out etc. But the facts is.. This is a public park, not out in the wilderness!!! My dogs made there way to here on that date, why? Cause it was a place they knew well, A place I taught them to love, a place for a few hours they could feel like a dog. And guess what.... there's thousand's of family's leading there pets to a danger zone and they don't even know it.....

See I am for the sheep .. as well as the dogs, I love animals, I loved my dogs ..... With the A.F.B.I Hillsborough, I don't quite get it :/ .... Lets say that my 2 dogs entered that field, killed 5 sheep before they commence the shooting off the 2 dogs!!!!! Was this a success in protecting the sheep???!!! I am really confused to this law about farmers protecting there livestock .... I see that situation than no more than revenge for the sheep... certainly done no good in protecting them.... Is suitable fencing any more appealing now..... Or do they really care about it?? They didn't care much about playing dog's.......

I am going to move on to the petition .... As you can see the petition was set up from a friend off mine on the day I broke the news, go have a look, ... She was horrified like many off us and probably didn't think off a proper introduction ..... The statement wrote on that is my comment on facebook when I broke the news to my friends.... she had paste that from my page.... I am so touched by all my friends help, must thank the near 1200 who signed it, you all knew the full story & exactly what the petition was about. xx

I have the full report beside me right now, they never attacked sheep, they had the dogs caught and put in a store room.... They havn't bothered explaining how they got out off this store.... Alaska was shot dead by a single shot... Ice was shot at, 1st one missed, 2nd one scuffed him & 3rd killed him..... Seems to me my wee man was trying to legg it after he heard Alaska's gun shot ..... No air shots before hand :(... This is all I have to say on this matter for the mean time.

Thank you all for all your kind comments... Sorry its so late as I only discovered this discussion .... I will not let my dogs be remembered as these running wild beasts, they were 2 adorable luving dogs, never showed aggression in there short life's .... I have a ton off informations in front off me. I am working hard to justify that this was to quick & severe punishment for 2 dogs which crossed a imaginary line ... Not 1 person from A.F.B.I will come forward and justify that there actions were correct... I am having to use local mp to receive any answers for what has happened.... The dogs were also shot on arrival off the dog warden.

Please if there is any doubt off anything regards this, or if any1 knows any information regards this.... Pls pls pls contact me ... You can find me here or on facebook ..... I am not hiding behind a petition

Thank you xxxxxxpost-2303-13832940822151_thumb.jpg

[ATTACH=full]38721[/ATTACH]

post-6967-13586019763391_thumb.png

post-6967-13586019764724_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy , along with dressing your husky as a unicorn on the first Thursday of each month