Anyone see Close Up tonight re dog/chicken carnage?

Whatever happened and whether the dog was as fault or not - it has since died after jumping a fence while at a caregivers and being hit by a car - Mark Sainsbury really needs to do his job. Unless someone can tell me differently, he did not once ask the farmer if his dog had been free to roam at the time the hens were killed. Wouldn't that have been an obvious question?

Having said that, for the council/dog control to have kept the dog in a cage for 180 days is abuse of the dog. Court case still pending but that is just not on. The Court system needs a boot big time in cases such as this...in my opinion!

DiDi;252746 wrote: Having said that, for the council/dog control to have kept the dog in a cage for 180 days is abuse of the dog. Court case still pending but that is just not on. The Court system needs a boot big time in cases such as this...in my opinion!

I didn't see it...but I do know when I was bitten years ago and the dog impounded, I was very grateful that they were able to convince the owner to have it put down before going through a court case - as the waiting time for a court case was months, and without the owners permission to destroy, the dog would have had to have been kept in 'custody' during that time... unfortunately it's the way the law is written...

Yes, I did see it and thought the whole saga was appalling. Had to feel sorry for the farmer - loosing one of his best working dogs. Feel sorry for the chicken owners as well as we have also had this happen. But I don't feel it was worth going to court over.
What sort of Foster home was the dog in where he could just jump a fence and get hit by a car. Surely the council wasn't stupid enough to put a working dog in a town foster home????? But I guess it was better than being in a cage for all that time.
There are no winners in this type of situation. But the Council is continuing with the court action - what a waste of time and money.

I did see most of that program.

About 40 years ago my border collie dog killed 3-4 of my neighbours chooks, he was a good cattle dog and my neighbour respected that and fortunately for me we resolved it by me paying for replacement chooks and "sort of" agreeing that should it happen again I would relocate him. It never happened again.

A solution like that may have been a good one in this instance.

Rod Brown;252779 wrote: I did see most of that program.

About 40 years ago my border collie dog killed 3-4 of my neighbours chooks, he was a good cattle dog and my neighbour respected that and fortunately for me we resolved it by me paying for replacement chooks and "sort of" agreeing that should it happen again I would relocate him. It never happened again.

A solution like that may have been a good one in this instance.

Yeah, why can't people talk. Biting a human is a totally different story to killing a chook - once. We've had it happen and the dog lived and we are still on good terms with these neighbours. It's not that I don't value a chook's life but if chooks are free ranging they take risks. We've lost far more to harriers, ferrets and feral cats than to dogs. And if the dog has a responsible owner they will make sure that it doesn't happen again.

I also thought it was over the top, especially of the neighbours. THEN, on talkback last night an ex dairy farmer rang in and said, well, that's what Huntaways do. Pardon me???? Anyway, in my opinion, I think the council should be sued over this and the neighbours need to get a life and move on. Surely it could have all been handled differently. Did he say he would have paid for the chooks? I can't remember but someone will enlighten me.

ronnie;252763 wrote: ...Had to feel sorry for the farmer - loosing one of his best working dogs. ...

Simkin;252787 wrote: ...Biting a human is a totally different story to killing a chook - once. ... It's not that I don't value a chook's life but if chooks are free ranging they take risks. ...And if the dog has a responsible owner they will make sure that it doesn't happen again.

All dogs must be under the direct control of someone at ALL times, unless they are appropriately restrained within their own property, i.e. can't get out.

You don't have to feel sorry for the farmer: he did not have his dog tied up, or it wouldn't have been at the neighbour's place.

The dog didn't kill one chook, it killed several (just a point of clarification). Those hens were under the control of their owner, restrained within their own property.

If the dog owner was responsible, he'd never have let the dog wander about on its own getting into trouble!

If you don't want your dog bringing trouble to your door, make sure it can't leave your property. This is hot topic stuff for me, still having a neighbour whining about my having picked up their dog wandering around the neighbourhood - the damned thing was nearly hit by a car before it came down my driveway! I am entirely fed up with dog owners blaming everyone else for the things which happen when their dogs are wandering about.

Isla, theres no proof this dog did it, only the ladies word against his.

I agree with Isla entirely. Dog roaming = trouble, usually for someone else.

Main issue seems to be that chook owner did not actually see dog killing chooks which severely weakens her position. However, that aside, if the chook owners pet dog had been caught by farmer mauling one of his sheep, odds on the farmer would have shot it (most farmers round here would) & felt completely justified in doing so. The cost of one sheep in current market is about equivalent to 5 or 6 laying hens, so same rules have to apply. If the farmer did not have his dog under control & allowed it to range onto another property & kill stock, then he has to accept the consequences. He gave the impression that as far as he was concerned he was a 'real' farmer & the neighbours merely lifestylers so their stock immediately worth less & dog control laws should not apply to him.

Toni - Northland;252802 wrote: Isla, theres no proof this dog did it, only the ladies word against his.

I understood from what she said in the interview that she saw the dog with a chicken in its mouth and could positively identify it as "Jack" or whatever the dog's name was. There was no doubt about which dog it was.

The farmer could not say it wasn't his dog because he didn't actually know where his dog was at the time. (I have inferred that part from the stated fact that the woman says she saw the dog and that the farmer has not said "he was right here with me at the time" or "he was tied up".)

clover;252817 wrote: Main issue seems to be that chook owner did not actually see dog killing chooks which severely weakens her position. However, that aside, if the chook owners pet dog had been caught by farmer mauling one of his sheep, odds on the farmer would have shot it (most farmers round here would) & felt completely justified in doing so. The cost of one sheep in current market is about equivalent to 5 or 6 laying hens, so same rules have to apply. If the farmer did not have his dog under control & allowed it to range onto another property & kill stock, then he has to accept the consequences. He gave the impression that as far as he was concerned he was a 'real' farmer & the neighbours merely lifestylers so their stock immediately worth less & dog control laws should not apply to him.

Geeze, come on, it's funny what people read into things, I never got that impression at all. The impression I got was he wanted this to go to court at the beginning of the whole saga. I think you are reading something into this that's not there.

Sorry Toni - but I read exactly the same into the programme as Isla did and I watched it all. The woman definitely identified the dog as the farmer's dog and both she and her husband saw the dog with a hen in it's mouth. They also showed a shot fo the carnage with feathers everywhere.

What I was making the point about in opening this thread was that no effort was made to question the farmer on the whereabouts of his dog - unless I blinked!

If I was to read anything into the programme I would suggest that the fourth generation farmer has no time or empathy for the older Auckland couple who had bought a LSB "pretend" farm near his "important" farm and were raising hens as part of their LSB dream. But I am only guessing as farmers saluting LSB farmers with their middle fingers doesn't happen does it, so I must be wrong. []

DiDi;252882 wrote: Sorry Toni - but I read exactly the same into the programme as Isla did and I watched it all. The woman definitely identified the dog as the farmer's dog and both she and her husband saw the dog with a hen in it's mouth. They also showed a shot fo the carnage with feathers everywhere.

What I was making the point about in opening this thread was that no effort was made to question the farmer on the whereabouts of his dog - unless I blinked!

If I was to read anything into the programme I would suggest that the fourth generation farmer has no time or empathy for the older Auckland couple who had bought a LSB "pretend" farm near his "important" farm and were raising hens as part of their LSB dream. But I am only guessing as farmers saluting LSB farmers with their middle fingers doesn't happen does it, so I must be wrong. []

I reckon those farmers that you have seen waving with one finger can't help it as they have probably had a horrible accident that has taken off the rest of their fingers, so really he is only being friendly.

Wonder why the lsb farmer up the road from here threw a fence batten at the real farmer neighbours as they drove past one day.[:0] mmmmmmm. He didn't do it twice though.

Didi, the comment I made about reading stuff into this programme was on clovers comments.

I will only comment that when living in Maungatoroto I got the VERY strong impression that the chook owners were very definitely the sort of LSB owners that give the rest of us a bad name[]