Dog or Cat And SHOULD A Farmer Shoot?

I have been called in over the years when sheep have been attacked or killed by a suspected puma or leopard.  The attack and kill methods are far different from those of canid attacks/kills.

The police had to deal with one case where a walker's dog went to sniff a dead sheep.  The farmer was not in sight when he fired his rifle and killed the dog as 'the killer' -I believe it cost the farmer several thousand in an out of court settlement.

The actual killer was a large cat- confirmed by a former African game hunter who examined the dead sheep and then called in a zoologist who had studied leopards in Africa.

I am aware of three farm dogs shot by farmers because they suspected their dogs had killed sheep. None of the farmers believed the "big cat nonsense" -in each case the farmers and/or members of their families SAW a large cat -in one case pulling a dead sheep into a hedgerow (but never seen killing a sheep). 

I have seen a few photographs of true dog attacks on sheep but that does not tell you which dog attacked -it might have been rustlers dogs not a local's dog.

So, when I was told a farmer intends shooting any walkers dog that is off the lead and near or in a field with his sheep I pointed out just how illegal this was.  I know a few farmers have asked me about this in the past.  My advice: don't shoot.  If you have insurance THAT covers you against livestock killed by a dog.  In the past, kills by large cats have been listed as "dog attack" by some insurers.

The National Sheep Association offer this advice http://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/dog-owners/advice-for-farmers/2486/destroying-dogs-that-attack/:

Destroying dogs that attack

NSA recommends that farmers only shoot dogs as a last resort, as the legality of a shooting depends on whether a farmer had a lawful excuse for shooting the dog in that individual circumstance. If it is necessary to shoot an attacking dog, please bear in mind the following points:-

• Dogs are counted as property so shooting a dog could trigger a criminal damage charge.
• In order for a shooting to be legal, you would have to show that you acted in the belief that your property (i.e. the sheep) was in immediate danger and that your actions were reasonable under the circumstances. What counts as ‘reasonable’ can differ in individual cases, depending on the situation. If, for example, you have had problems with a particular dog before and the owner has ignored requests to keep it under control, this would be a relevant factor. It is important to remember that you are not entitled to shoot the dog if it has already left the vicinity and is no longer a direct danger to your sheep, even if you fear it might come back and pose a threat in the future.
• There is also the possibility of the dog’s owner suing you for trespass to goods. The Animals Act 1971 offers you the defence that you were protecting livestock if you can show that you reasonably believed that either: the dog was worrying or about to worry the livestock and there were no other reasonable means of ending or preventing worrying; or the dog had been worrying livestock, had not left the vicinity and was not under the control of any person, and there were no practical means of finding out who owned it
• You must report the shooting to the police within 48 hours. If you do not, none of these defences will be valid in civil proceedings.
• Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to dogs (or other protected animals). The factors used to decide whether the suffering caused by shooting a dog is unnecessary include: whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced; whether the act which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, in this case protecting property or another animal; whether the suffering was proportionate the intention of the action; and whether the conduct was wholly that of a reasonably competent and humane person.
• Although the Act makes allowance for what it calls ‘the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner’, the law is based so heavily on circumstance that it is very difficult to know if your actions will count as this. You are at particular risk of falling foul of this Act if you fail to kill the dog cleanly with one shot. Offences can be punished with up to six months’ imprisonment and/or fines of up to £20,000. You could also be disqualified from keeping animals.
• Shooting a dog also puts you at risk of committing a firearms offence. You could be prosecuted for breaking certificate conditions if you use a rifle or other section 1 fire arm to shoot a dog, unless the certificate conditions allow such use. Chasing a dog in order to shoot it has been known to lead to prosecution for trespassing with a firearm. Firearms offences are usually punished with imprisonment unless they are minor technicalities. A police review of your right to possess firearms will almost certainly result from shooting a dog. Your certificates may be taken away with no guarantee of them being returned.

 The information here is correct to the best of NSA's ability and cannot be used to defend action taken by individuals when a case of sheep worrying by dogs occurs.

The 2009 Gympie "Big Cat" Tracks (Australia)

It was a rather odd event.  I was used to doing radio programmes in the UK as a guest talking about UK "big cat" 

sightings. 

In one year I did 40 of these guest spots.  I was also once interviewed by a radio station in Eire and one in Germany

 -in English, as well as on British Forces Radio.

At about 0200 hrs I was trying to rest and the phone rang.  Who rings at 0200 hrs?  A strong Australian accent said "hello"

 then asked if I was the "UK Police Service wildlife advisor?" I pointed out I was a UK Police Forces Consultant but not an 

actual police officer.  Didn't matter apparently.  I was asked to hold on and then another man spoke and asked whether I was 

"aware of Gympie?"  To be honest I had no idea what he was talking about and I suspected a hoax but asked for a few details.

An alleged "big cat" sighting in Australia. Right.  I was told a photograph of some plaster casts would be sent and asked to not 

be "over zealous" by going to the Press which hurt somewhat.  The scan arrived within a few  minutes and I looked the casts over 

and it was quite obvious what they were casts of.

Why ask a naturalist in the UK?  But they were happy with what I told them.  Who the caller was I cannot say -that would be 

a real breach of confidentiality but let's say a Government official.

Then out of the blue a Dr Scott Burnett sends me the same photograph and account.  He was interested in what I made 

of them?  

I cannot release the actual email exchange but I sent Dr. Burnett the same report I'd emailed the earlier Government official. 

 I also pointed out that, since Dr. Burnett said he was unaware of Big Cat sightings in Australia, that he look at specific cases for

 which there were very good and clear plaster casts of paw prints.

That was it.

I'd had similar before with Dublin but it was all private.  But now, a chance to see what I made of the infamous Gympiue Tracks and I have deleted the name of the organisation Dr. Burnett worked for.

Notes On Gympie [Australia] Plaster Casts Of Alleged Large Cat Spoor

Terry Hooper

Exotic Animals Register [EAR] UK

Based on scans of photographs of casts forwarded by:

Dr Scott Burnett

Lecturer - Wildlife Ecology

Notes

Having seen a recording of the ABC News item on the Gympie, Queensland, alleged big cat sighting I approached several Australian groups who had reported on the incident to see whether they could furnish me with photographs of the casts shown.  The only two who responded were quite negative.

I then read a number of online stories stating that Dr Scott Burnett of the University of the Sunshine Coast had been provided with casts from the area.  I contacted Dr Burnett by email and he speedily sent along a photograph of the casts alongside a 6 cm long plastic case.

Initially, the casts look messy and are obviously taken from a dirt/stone covered location.  As cats can, in certain circumstances, leave behind a trace of claw my first move was to enlarge the scanned image as much as possible without losing detail.  This was not of great benefit as in several places there were deep indentations where the animals pads had stepped on stones.

The very important rear paw lobe was unclear to a degree that no three back lobes were visible.

I then drew around the enlarged scan images so that any prominent features could be seen.  The drawings were then negatised to make them solid black.  The features then became easily recognised.

The following is based on these drawings and constantly cross-checking with the scanned images.

Cast A had one very prominent ID Marker [001] which is consistent with a claw on a dogs pad.  Nothing else of this nature could be seen on Cast A and this looks as though stones prevented them making an imprint at that spot of ground.

Cast B has four very clear ID Markers -002,003,004 and 005.

Cast C had two very clear ID Markers [006 and 008] while 007 is quite clearly giving the pad a smooth pointed look.

ID Markers 009 and 010 are noted as “possible” because the detail was not perfect.  That said, the shape that can be seen is consistent with a canid pad.

Looking then at the entire spoor the spread of pads [toes] and rear pad placement are very canid.  The measurement can be assessed as between 6-8 cms and, although Cast B looks a little larger this is consistent with the poor quality of casting and the terrain conditions at the time are unknown.

Conclusion

The press photographs and TV images of Mr. Colin Rossow all show the cast he has being held away from himself and close to the camera which gives a false impression of great size.  That said, the cast is very clearly showing ID Marker claws and the spoor is without doubt that of a dog.

The Gympie casts I have looked at are clearly canid and I would say a medium sized dog created the spoor.

I have been involved in cases in the UK where casts were taken at the point a clearly identified leopard was sighted walking.  The persons involved in the close proximity sightings were what we would classify as High Quality witnesses including safari park keepers and a zoologist.  The spoor casts, however, were from a single or several canids: the cats had left no real tracks as they had all been close to hard, dry ground near hedgerows and a later search revealed only one partial large felid spoor.  It could well be the case with these casts but to remain neutral I have asked for no case history, etc., just spoor images.

Although I have seen some very compelling spoor photographs/casts from Australia in the past that were without doubt from large non-native felids, there is no evidence of any such animal based on these spoor.

For comparison I have included Mr.Colin Rossow in a photograph with his cast, the image I used for my analysis herein and the ID Marker sheet, as well as Leopard, Puma and Dog track guides.

I would be very interested to hear/see any future evidence forwarded and claiming to belong to large non-native cats.

Above: Mr. Colin Rossow of Gympie and his spoor cast showing it to clearly be from a canid.

Casts of the Gympie spoor forwarded for analysis.

Above: Gympie spoor track ID Markers.

Above:Leopard tracks

Above: Puma tracks –note the three rear lobes on this and the leopard tracks.

Above: Dog tracks –note the similarities to the Gympie tracks.

    

A hard copy of this document can be forwarded if required.

Terry Hooper

EAR Co-ordinator

16^th March, 2009

So, HOW Bright Is "Eye Shine"?

People get confused when they hear someone on a TV programme say something like "I see eye-shine!" and don't understand just how bright it can be.  So, two basic examples: a fox and a cat.

No flash was used on the camera (I'd never do that to a nocturnal animal) just a torch shone toward them.

Impressive!