This Bill has been introduced in response to many requests over the past number of years to successive Ministers for Agriculture to provide greater protection to livestock owners against marauding dogs. Complaints of serious damage to livestock, especially to sheep and lambs, have been numerous and various suggestions have been made for coping with the problem. The existing statute law is not good enough to deal with it and the present Bill is an attempt to give protection to stock-owners and at the same time to be be fair to dog owners who keep their dogs under control.
The chief present statute to deal with dogs is the Dogs Act, 1906. This Act gives local authorities power to make regulations requiring that dogs be kept under control between sunset and sunrise, and most local authorities have made such regulations. The Act also provides that where a dog is proved to have attacked cattle or sheep it can be dealt with as a dangerous dog under the Dogs Act, 1871, that is, an Order can be made by the District Court directing the owner to have the dog kept under proper control or destroyed. Neither of these provisions is of much use in dealing with ownerless or stray dogs which are the types of dog which mainly cause damage to livestock.
Under the Dogs Act, 1906, the owner of a dog is liable in damages for injury done to livestock but of course 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 of interest to note that the law as set out in the Dogs Act, 1906, as regards the liability of owners for damage done by their dogs to livestock is different from the usual law as regards damage by dogs in that it is not necessary for the person claiming the damages to show that the dog had a vicious propensity.
The present Bill has three main provisions. First, 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, the Bill provides 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 Bill contains a number of safeguards so as to prevent dogs being shot recklessly or spitefully. It does not deprive the stock owner of his right to sue the dog owner for damages for loss to his stock.
The Bill has been prepared in response to many demands from the farming community and I recommend it to the House.