Walker killed by cattle....

[john87]

1 hour ago, Doug Tait said:

I understand you know a bit about sheep. I've had to deal with worried stock under my responsibility as well and it's not nice.

 

I just think something you maybe don't see is that dogs, sheep, cattle, horses etc aren't robots with only one reaction at their disposal. Just like us they make judgements in the moment that influence behaviour. In my opinion it isn't the presence of a dog that worries them, it's the dogs behaviour or attitude that they'll make the judgement on. If the dogs body language says it's no threat then they've no reason to be stressed.

 

Please consider learning some body language before you get a gun out again.

Doug, i know what you are saying, and i bet you have noticed this the same as me.. A dog that has ideas of having a go at the sheep, KNOWS it is not meant to be doing it.. You can tell, body language as you say.. If you see a dog that is just wandering about say, and you call it, it will generally come up to you, no harm done. But, if you see one about to have a go at the sheep, or one that has been, and you call it, it looks at you, and goes sprinting off, you will not get within 200 yards of the thing. The dog knows full well...

 

I am not about to shoot anymore either, it was nearly 40 years ago now.. I caught orf off the things once too, not going near sheep again!

 

john..

[spuddog0507]

48 minutes ago, john87 said:

Well, i have to be fair, i have read some total and complete crap on here.. [and i could not be arsed to wade through it all]

And you wrote most of it 😂 You are quoting stuff that i believe you know very little of ? there is some good lads on here who do know what they are talking about and for someone like you to keep mentioning kill, killing, kill, killing, tells us a lot about you with how you word what you write and to post that on a public forum is not a very tackful way of going about things, Now i do know that what i write below is more than likely to get your back up and your going to come back at me with something ? but we do have to face the truth now n then,

Dog training, i have breed and trained working labs for 35yrs + now and been involved with training working border collies (sheep dogs ) for 50+ yrs, and yes i am from a farming back ground that goes back to the mid 1800s on one side of my family and the late 1800s on the other side, so i might just know a little about what goes on in the countryside and training working dogs and beating the living day lights out of any dog will not help or cure any problem that the dog may have, but its very clear you have had great success with your methods and you must be the only man on earth who has!!, 

 

What you quote above and in your past posts about the killing of dogs in live stock and what would happen in a court of law is very different to what you quote as you have only quoted about the killing and shooting of a said animal in live stock, just have a dig in to the full legal situation with the shooting of a dog and it is not just as straight forward as you think or quote, land ownwer,s,? tennent farmers,? who owns the shooting rights,? who shot the animal ? was there a suitable back stop for the bullet if you missed ? have you evidence of trying to get the dog under control,? was the owner present,? was there a public right of way across the land,? did you have something to tether the dog with on your person,? the shooting of a dog is a very very grey area today as once up on a time it was quite straight forward, all these points above will come in to play in a court of law, the photo below is the only proof i have and i wont say to much about it or who was involved but it lead to a court case and some hefty fines for the land owner who farmed the land and hence he now no longer has his shotguns and firearms, the situation was 2 large dogs of a pointer style where having a bit of fun with some sheep, the dog owner was on his way across the field unseen by the landowner who shot the dog about 100yds in front of its owner, the said owners wife was some distance away but as some one said above nearly every one has a mobile phone today and she filmed the whole incident, so when it all came to court the video was played and there was several practices missing that should of been carried out but wern,t, and as the saying goes what cant speak cant lie, hence the landowner paid the price, 

Now i do agree with some of what you say, and given my back ground i am all for the shooting of a dog that is clearly worrying livestock i wont say if i have or havent done the deed but i have several family members who have but all on the QT, being tackful about things generally pays off but given the society we live in today as soon as a gun or shooting is mentioned to the local constabulary they will be there in swarms but mention you have just had your car stolen or you house emptied the reply will be we will have a officer with you as soon as we can and that could be from hours to days, 

Photo is of a prize winning pedigree Texel ewe carrying 3 lambs so what would the lost value be ? who knows and we will never  know as the said lambs could of gone on to be prize winning champion Rams that could of been worth tens of 1000s of pounds,

[Richard 1234]

13 hours ago, william127 said:

That's what they claimed in the final episode but anyone with a bit of common sense could see that is TV bullshit-  the way that figure was put across would mean he was buying a new tractor, cultivator etc every year! So he did make 50 grand or so- still bugger all for the millions of pounds worth of land and the hours worked but it is an entertainment programme,  not a company accounts report so its probably not 100percent accurate! 

 

Farmers seem to have had a positive reaction to it from what I've read/heard.

 

It's certainly a  better show of farming than the vegan friendly drivel that Countryfile has become, or the BBCs wheelchair and headscarf festival as Clarkson referred to it in his newspaper column 😅😅😅

Yes of course it was probably closer to £100k after buying all the kit and all the building works probably more.

but from 2000 acres it’s still not brilliant is it.

[william127]

1 hour ago, Richard 1234 said:

Yes of course it was probably closer to £100k after buying all the kit and all the building works probably more.

but from 2000 acres it’s still not brilliant is it.

No not at all as that still doesn't take the cost of the land into account.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

18 hours ago, Richard 1234 said:

the subsidies would be paid regardless so that’s a poor argument. Should they be there? I’d say probably not. My dad hasn’t bothered filling the forms in for the last few years. Too much hassle as he doesn’t produce anything anymore.

he bought the farm years ago to hide some money I’m guessing? In 2008 I think he said

I didn't have chance to come back to you on these points yet Richard.

 

I was trying to find a previous thread where the farm subsidy thing was discussed in detail.  It might have been this one - but I'm not sure that is the one I was thinking of.  Either way, some great names we don't see so often anymore in there.

 

I have always felt that, if a subsidy should be paid, then it should be paid to the 'hands on' farmer rather than the absentee land owner.

 

I also have some skin in the game since the c*nts at HMRC define a business as that which is capable of making a profit.  

 

Therefore, any farm that relies upon subsidy and would otherwise not be a viable business - cannot, by definition (of HMRC) be a business.  

 

It should naturally follow therefore, if you can't be a (ag) business then you also can't claim the unbelievably and often overlooked plethora of additional 'business' benefits afforded to the ag sector - reduced planning constraints, reduced council tax, rebated diesel, reduced driver age, relaxed inheritance tax etc etc etc...  The list is truly staggeringly advantageous when compared to just about every other industrial sector.

 

I know it's been done before. but couldn't resist the opportunity...

 

 

 

Final question...

 

"....he bought the farm years ago to hide some money I’m guessing? In 2008 I think he said..."

 

Did you mean your dad or Clarkson??  😂

 

[difflock]

Well, go on then, buy yersel a farm.

Since it is such a fooking unbelieveable easy way to make a small fortune.

p.s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you gotta start with a large one, fortune that is.

[Conor Wright]

4 minutes ago, difflock said:

Well, go on then, buy yersel a farm.

Since it is such a fooking unbelieveable easy way to make a small fortune.

p.s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you gotta start with a large one, fortune that is.

Asking the question one night down the pub, "what would you do if you won the lottery?"

An old man pipes up, "I'd keep farmin' til it was all gone!"

 

[Richard 1234]

4 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I didn't have chance to come back to you on these points yet Richard.

 

I was trying to find a previous thread where the farm subsidy thing was discussed in detail.  It might have been this one - but I'm not sure that is the one I was thinking of.  Either way, some great names we don't see so often anymore in there.

 

I have always felt that, if a subsidy should be paid, then it should be paid to the 'hands on' farmer rather than the absentee land owner.

 

I also have some skin in the game since the c*nts at HMRC define a business as that which is capable of making a profit.  

 

Therefore, any farm that relies upon subsidy and would otherwise not be a viable business - cannot, by definition (of HMRC) be a business.  

 

It should naturally follow therefore, if you can't be a (ag) business then you also can't claim the unbelievably and often overlooked plethora of additional 'business' benefits afforded to the ag sector - reduced planning constraints, reduced council tax, rebated diesel, reduced driver age, relaxed inheritance tax etc etc etc...  The list is truly staggeringly advantageous when compared to just about every other industrial sector.

 

I know it's been done before. but couldn't resist the opportunity...

 

 

 

Final question...

 

"....he bought the farm years ago to hide some money I’m guessing? In 2008 I think he said..."

 

Did you mean your dad or Clarkson??  😂

 

Yes loads of small and surprisingly big farms would go bankrupt without the subsidies.

I know of a 2300 acre farm that was sold a couple of years back as the owners (who owned the land outright) were sick and tired of all the work the hassle the red tape. The list goes on. To only make money when the subsidy was taken into account. Big kit massive bills. One of the quad tracks went into forth year service. £14k. Dyson bought it to add to his collection.
as for the hiding money yes to both I guess. Clarkson will have done for sure.

my dad bought neighbouring fields when they came up for sale. But the reason was to put money in the ground where it won’t ever lose value over the longer term

Edited February 15, 2022 by Richard 1234

[Richard 1234]

7 hours ago, william127 said:

No not at all as that still doesn't take the cost of the land into account.

That’s true as well though probably not for clarkson in the fact that it’s probably paid for outright. You couldn’t rent or buy and make any money. Well like others have said you need a hell of a big pile of cash to start. Which begs the question why would you bother!

[difflock]

I ame currently pissed off that I did not get the chance to buy another 13 acres night next door, bloody well sold to the folk who bought the house, who had origonally declined to buy the ground.

Got my hopes up that did.

Bastards!