Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Apr 1960

Vol. 181 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Bill, 1960—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

For many years past numerous and widespread complaints have been made to the Department of Agriculture about the damage done to livestock by marauding dogs, and successive Ministers for Agriculture have been pressed to introduce additional legislation. Among the remedies suggested have been an increased tax on all dogs, a tax on female dogs many times greater than that on male dogs, a provision that all dogs should have to wear a collar with the owner's name and address inscribed on it, the setting up of a State-sponsored insurance fund whereby stock owners could be compensated for loss and damage caused by marauding dogs and an extension of the Malicious Injuries Act enabling stock owners to claim from the local authorities for loss or damage caused by dogs. These remedies have for one reason or another been considered to be impracticable.

The chief existing statute in regard to the protection of livestock from dogs is the Dogs Act, 1906. Under this Act the owner of a dog is liable in damages for injury done to cattle but there is the difficulty here that the owner of the dog must be identified before an action for damages can be brought and, even if he is identified, he may not have the means to pay damages. It is well known that much of the damage done to livestock by dogs is the work of ownerless or stray dogs, particularly on the outskirts of towns and villages.

The Dogs Act, 1906, also provides that where a dog is proved to have injured cattle or chased sheep it can be dealt with as a dangerous dog under the Dogs Act, 1871, i.e., an Order can be made by the District Court directing the owner to have the dog kept under proper control or destroyed. Again, this provision is not of much use for dealing with a stray or ownerless dog which is attacking stock.

The Dogs Act, 1906, also contains two other not very effective remedies against damage to livestock by dogs. The Orders made under the Act enabled local authorities to make regulations requiring that a dog while in public places must wear a collar with the owner's name and address. Similar Orders empowered local authorities to make regulations to prevent dogs being allowed out between sunset and sunrise, unless they are under control. No regulations were made as regards collars and the reluctance of local authorities to make such regulations is understandable. Most local authorities have made Orders as regards the straying of dogs between sunset and sunrise but there are obvious difficulties in enforcing these regulations in regard to the type of dog which usually causes damage to livestock.

The present Bill seeks to remedy the deficiencies in the existing law. Firstly, it makes it an offence punishable by a fine of £20 for a first offence and a fine of £50 for a second offence in respect of the same dog for the owner or person in charge of a dog if the dog worries livestock. The section provides that it shall be a good defence to prove that reasonable care was taken to prevent the worrying of the livestock.

Secondly, the Bill enables dogs found worrying livestock on agricultural land to be seized, detained and subsequently destroyed if not claimed.

Thirdly, there is what I regard as the most effective section of the Bill and that is the provision that it will be a good defence in an action for damages for the shooting of a dog if it is proved that the dog was shot when worrying livestock lawfully on the land. The section contains a number of safeguards so as to prevent dogs being shot recklessly or spitefully.

The Bill does not interfere with the stock owners existing right to sue the dog owner for damages for the loss caused by the marauding dog. In the past, however, stock owners were prevented from shooting a marauding dog by the fear that if they claimed for damages they would be met by a counter claim for damages for the loss of the dog.

In framing this legislation the aim has been to afford the maximum protection to the stock owner and at the same time to be fair to the dog owner who looks after his dog. The proposals have been discussed with representatives of the farming associations and they have been very favourably received, I have no doubt that they will be welcomed generally throughout the country.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I welcome this Bill and on behalf of this Party I want to express our general approval of its provisions. The Minister has rightly indicated that for many years past numerous complaints have been reaching his Department, the Garda and owners of dogs with regard to the most unsatisfactory state of affairs at present prevailing. Worrying of livestock, particularly sheep and young horses, by dogs is something which has been responsible for grave financial loss especially where there is intensive sheep rearing. This Bill, therefore, comes as a step in the right direction.

This matter has received much thought from various county committees of agriculture and farming organisations for many years. It is correct to say that many proposals and suggestions have been made by angry livestock-owners who have had just grounds for serious complaint in this regard. As we have heard from the Minister, it has been suggested that it might be a wise step to have a substantial increase in dog licence fees; I do not believe that would in any way ease the situation. I think the Minister is quite right in rejecting that proposal and I am glad no such suggestion enters into the Bill.

The damage to livestock has been caused mainly by dogs not kept under proper supervision. It is very difficult to point out the owner of the dog responsible for the damage because usually when owners hear that their dogs have caused the death of livestock they immediately deny ownership. It has been very difficult for farmers to prove anything in that respect. I hope that this Bill will at least focus public attention on the seriousness of the situation which causes grave financial loss to farmers and that it will particularly focus the attention of all dog-owners on the necessity to maintain proper supervision of their dogs, particularly in areas where livestock is grazing and in sheep-rearing districts.

As a result of the Bill and the publicity I trust it will receive, I hope dog-owners will realise the position, of livestock owners. A farmer who has livestock grazing on his lands is entitled to graze that livestock without interference from dogs or other animals. I am glad, therefore, that this Bill takes a serious view of the culpability of owners whose dogs can be identified and that on the first offence the owners are liable to a £20 fine and liable to a £50 fine for a second offence. In view of the seriousness of the matter for livestock owners I wonder are those fines sufficiently severe? We have had many cases in which valuable horses owned by farmers have been chased by dogs not under proper supervision with the result that the farmers lost valuable animals. I am sure the Minister has details of many such cases. I recall one case where a valuable horse was chased by dogs into barbed wire and received serious injuries. That animal had to be destroyed afterwards and the dogs concerned were not identified.

I am glad steps have been taken to fix the fines. The primary concern of the Bill is to protect livestock but at the same time it is a very fair and reasonable Bill because it also provides against dogs being recklessly destroyed through spite or otherwise. Under the Bill, a dog which might be trespassing on a farmer's land may not be shot unless it is actually seen engaged in chasing or worrying livestock. I do not believe there are many farmers in the country who would go out to shoot another person's dog. There are no greater lovers of dogs than the farmers. There is an old saying that a man's best friend is his dog, and there is no more faithful friend than a dog. Farmers appreciate the value of their dogs and they are slow to take any serious action against a dog. They are particularly slow to take the drastic step of shooting a neighbour's dog without very just cause. As a rule, people know the dogs in their locality and know the owners of them. Dogs are wanderers. They roam from farm to farm. It is not unusual for a dog to pay frequent visits to a neighbour's holding. If a farmer sees a dog worrying his animals, his first reaction is to make a complaint to the owner and issue a warning.

Last year, or the year before, as I am sure the Minister is aware, there were some very typical examples of the manner in which dogs can be responsible for serious damage to livestock. I think the events I have in mind occurred in County Wicklow. Dogs should, of course, be kept under proper supervision and control. I do not see how local authorities or the Garda can do very much more than they are doing at present. It would be an unreasonable provision that every local authority should pass a by-law compelling owners to inscribe their names on the collars of dogs. The local authority can in fact insist on that being done, but I do not think it should be necessary to implement such a provision because, so soon as this Bill becomes law, I take it that the worrying of livestock will considerably decrease.

The Garda have many duties to perform. One of their duties is to ensure that dogs are licensed. Indeed, I must pay tribute here to the Garda for the very efficient manner in which they discharge their duties, so far as wandering animals and unlicensed dogs are concerned. They have always responded instantly to complaints about dogs not being under proper supervision and damaging livestock. I am sure they will continue to do their duty in that regard in the future. Abandoned dogs are taken up by the Garda and are put away.

Farmers have many problems, and the farmers deserve primary consideration in a matter of this kind. I hope we shall see an end to the worrying of livestock by dogs in the not too distant future as a result of the passing of this Bill. We wholeheartedly support this measure. It is a cardinal principle that one should respect property; I suppose the most important property in that regard is one's neightbour's. I do not think the number of stray dogs is as great today as it was ten years ago.

I hope that, as a result of the passing of this Bill, dogs will in future be kept under proper supervision. The farmer is entitled to all the protection we can give him. This Bill is designed to give him a measure of protection in a certain direction. It gives notice to owners of dogs that they must ensure that their animals will not worry livestock. The Bill asks them to do no more than take care of their dogs and keep them under proper supervision. I hope that in future there will be no more complaints of losses of livestock because of worrying by dogs.

Mr. W. Murphy

Whilst I thoroughly approve of the Bill and with much of what Deputy O. J. Flanagan has said, I have certain qualifications. The owner of livestock will still be tied by certain restrictions, restrictions which will prevent him doing what I believe he should do, namely, shoot every dog he finds inside his boundaries during the lambing season. Whilst a dog may be a very faithful friend to his owner, he has no great loyalty where neighbours' property and their sheep and lambs are concerned. For years in my constituency we have been faced with the problem of the worrying of sheep and lambs. Very often, when the farmer goes out to investigate, he finds not one dog but two or three dogs. The marauder calls two or three of his kind to follow him. They go into a farmer's holding and they proceed to worry the sheep. The farmer may frighten them away but he never is able to trace their owners. That is the important point.

I welcome this Bill, but I do not think it is severe enough. I believe that when a farmer goes out at night and finds dogs worrying his sheep, he should be entitled to shoot them. If I found a dog inside my lands during the lambing season I would undoubtedly shoot him, and I think I would be within my rights in doing so. In my own area I see dogs— whether they are licensed or not I do not know—which undoubtedly are not fed. They go out at night, move through the country and God help the lambs and sheep they meet. Over the years it has been proved that following them is no good. The dog doing this kind of thing will even clean himself and will be found in his owner's rick of hay on the morning after the night of his escapades.

There is a case pending in my own area at present. It was nothing strange to see lambs owned by the man concerned being brought up the street of a certain village in Clare by the dogs. On the 1st of January this year he put up a poison notice on his walls and he also put up a notice that any dog he would catch inside his holding would be shot. It seems he shot two. Now he is brought before the courts for shooting them, even though he caught one of them worrying his sheep. He followed one of the ewes when he shot the dog. She lay down and threw two dead lambs, and that means something to a farmer in the month of August. It will be interesting to see what happens. My only criticism of the Bill is that it is not strict enough. If these people are lovers of dogs, as they say they are, surely they should keep their dogs inside at night and not let them roam the country at will. I thoroughly agree with the Bill.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I spoke in this House in favour of the itinerant class some years ago and urged that no punitive measures should be taken against them. I have not changed my mind on that, but I think that an amount of damage is done to livestock by bands of dogs taken around by these itinerants. It is a rather difficult matter because it puts extra strain on the Guards. I would urge that any measures that could be taken to combat this difficulty would be kept in mind by the Minister.

Another general matter concerns the law of the scienter of the dog's disposition. That may not be strictly relevant to this measure. Perhaps we shall not be talking about dogs again for some time. I believe the doctrine of the scienter of the dog's disposition should be changed. I believe it is a privilege that the dog is not entitled to enjoy. If he does damage, it should not be necessary to prove his disposition by proving that he had already done damage on another occasion. I would ask the Minister to look into that and, possibly, he might find a way of bringing it into this measure at a later stage.

I have great sympathy with the stock owners more particularly because, unlike other people who sustain trading losses, they have no form of compensation. The owners of property normally have insurance policies against disaster of one kind or another. It is not possible for farmers to have an insurance policy. I note that the suggestion to have an extension of Malicious Injuries Act to enable stockowners to claim against local authorities for losses has been turned down, and very rightly so because it would be quite impracticable in operation. The fact is, then, that the damage done usually has to be borne completely by the farmer himself. Up to now the great difficulty of tracing the owner of a marauding dog has meant that many owners of stock, even though they have had a very shrewd idea of the ownership of the dog involved, have never been able to prove it sufficiently in court to sustain a claim. There is nothing that the law can do in that respect. Nothing that we can do here will change that. We cannot have a detective force to deal with the number of stray dogs in the country. All we can do is to proceed as far as this measure is going.

I would urge the Minister, first, to consider if any measure should be taken with regard to the number of dogs taken around by itinerants and, secondly, whether or not the time has come to review the old doctrine of the scienter of the disposition of a dog.

Mr. Larkin

As a city Deputy I support this Bill to provide protection for the owners of stock. In the course of his remarks the Minister mentioned the possibility of increasing the licence fees for all dogs and also the question of having the names and addresses of the owners. It is true that in the city areas livestock are not affected by dogs but I would ask the Minister to consider the question of the damage done from time to time to children by dogs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that would not arise on this Bill which is a Protection of Livestock Bill?

Mr. Larkin

I want to make this point in general terms. The particular type of dog involved is one reared mainly by members of the farming community, the greyhound. If we could ensure that they would not be allowed in public parks unless on a leash, it would save children, in the urban areas from suffering and hardship.

Mr. Smith

This is not a very exciting measure but it provides machinery for dealing with what is, as has been said, a very aggravating problem and a very costly one as far as stockowners are concerned. I have some sympathy with the point of view expressed by Deputy Murphy that the provisions of the measure are not as sufficiently sweeping as many people would like. There is one provision in Section 4 about which I have myself some doubts but I suppose we can leave it over to a later stage. In fact, I would ask for the other Stages now if it were not that I should like to have some time to consider this provision and also to hear the views of Deputies upon it.

Section 4 is designed to protect the owner of livestock, whether it be cattle or sheep, which are being worried, and it gives him the right to protection in the event of his shooting the dogs responsible. It sets out what is a good defence to any claim for damages because of his having shot a dog. In paragraph (d) of Section 4 there is the provision that it may be pleaded as a defence that the owner of the dog, when it was shot, was not known to the defendant or that the owner had at any time previously been warned, by or on behalf of the defendant, that his dog had been found worrying stock. Personally I would prefer to leave that out. While I admit that people who own dogs have rights as well as livestock owners, and that we should do all we can to ensure that dogs will not be needlessly destroyed, at the same time my prejudices are strongly in favour of the stockowners. While protecting the interests of dog owners to some extent, I want to prevent rascality and blackguardism and to see that when a farmer or stock-owner uses his gun to get some satisfaction and to ensure that a dog will not do further destruction, he will have a good defence.

I am glad that, as one would expect, Deputies who understand this problem throughout the country are in general agreement with what is attempted here. As I said in my opening statement, we have discussed this matter with many interested organisations, including county committees of agriculture and all sorts of bodies who have been agitating for an amendment of the law. I hope and I think that this Bill, when enacted, will give the maximum freedom, to people whose property might be affected, to deal with the dogs responsible.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister, however, will agree that paragraph (d) of Section 4 does not seriously affect the terms of the Bill?

Mr. Smith

I suppose it does not, though I thought it did when I was coming in.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I think it is a fair provision in the Bill which goes a long way to meeting the owners of livestock, and it is certainly fair to the owners of dogs.

Mr. Smith

I do not want to be too fair to the owners of dogs.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister is right but the Bill, as framed, is reasonable.

Mr. Smith

I am satisfied if the Deputy thinks it is fair. I should like to get all Stages now if I could.

Mr. W. Murphy

One thing the owner of a dog will do to avoid the expense involved in damage done by it is to deny ownership of the animal, What protection has the owner of sheep then?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister can have all Stages, as far as I am concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 28th April, 1960.