Five sheep killed in attack by two dogs at Sussex farm

Five sheep died after a flock was attacked by two dogs.

Farmer Tim Armour said the incident happened on Telscombe Tye at the weekend.

It is the second attack on Mr Armour’s flock of 300 in the last month.

Mr Armour, who runs Stud Farm in Telscombe, said: “I am absolutely furious. People need to keep better control over their dogs.”

The alarm was raised at about 11.30pm on Sunday, June 17 when Mr Armour got a call telling him two dogs were attacking his sheep.

When he arrived he discovered the huskies had killed two lambs outright. Three ewes also died of shock after being chased by the animals.

Mr Armour managed to trace the owner of the dogs and has reported the incident to Sussex Police.

Criminal offence

He said: “The owner was really apologetic but the damage was done.

“The vast majority of people who use Telscombe Tye are responsible when their dogs are around sheep. It is only the minority who fail to keep them under control.

“As well as the stress caused to the rest of the flock and actually losing the animals, there is also the financial impact as well.

The lambs would be worth around £100 each and the ewes £150.

“I would remind people that it is a criminal offence to kill farm animals by dogs and owners are liable for compensation and prosecution.”

In May, Mr Armour’s daughter, Camilla, discovered the remains of a sheep with its head severed in a suspected dog attack.

Mr Armour told the Argus last month he would be prepared to shoot any dogs attacking his sheep if he had to.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:56am Thu 21 Jun 12

Isaac Rinkfern says...

If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs.
That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses?
As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place?
If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs. That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses? As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place? Isaac Rinkfern

1:49pm Thu 21 Jun 12

Woteva_29 says...

Isaac Rinkfern wrote:
If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs.
That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses?
As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place?
If it is on his land then it is private property. And if I was him and saw a dog attacking my animals I would shoot it as well.
[quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs. That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses? As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place?[/p][/quote]If it is on his land then it is private property. And if I was him and saw a dog attacking my animals I would shoot it as well. Woteva_29

2:00pm Thu 21 Jun 12

plantwoman says...

Woteva_29 wrote:
Isaac Rinkfern wrote: If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs. That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses? As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place?
If it is on his land then it is private property. And if I was him and saw a dog attacking my animals I would shoot it as well.
Quite right - dog walkers should take more care when around livestock.
On a slightly different note, what is it about husky-types, they're starting to get a bad reputation. Not ideal pets, they need more exercise than the normal person is able to give them.
[quote][p][bold]Woteva_29[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs. That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses? As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place?[/p][/quote]If it is on his land then it is private property. And if I was him and saw a dog attacking my animals I would shoot it as well.[/p][/quote]Quite right - dog walkers should take more care when around livestock. On a slightly different note, what is it about husky-types, they're starting to get a bad reputation. Not ideal pets, they need more exercise than the normal person is able to give them. plantwoman

2:15pm Thu 21 Jun 12

Isaac Rinkfern says...

plantwoman wrote:
Woteva_29 wrote:
Isaac Rinkfern wrote: If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs. That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses? As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place?
If it is on his land then it is private property. And if I was him and saw a dog attacking my animals I would shoot it as well.
Quite right - dog walkers should take more care when around livestock.
On a slightly different note, what is it about husky-types, they're starting to get a bad reputation. Not ideal pets, they need more exercise than the normal person is able to give them.
You seem to miss the point, it is not his land, it's common land owned by Telscombe town council for everyone to have equal access to. I agree that dog owners have a responsibility to control their animals, however accidents do happen and to support the killing of an animal to protect another would equally morally allow anyone who's dog was in danger to shoot one of the race horses exercised on the tye as well.
[quote][p][bold]plantwoman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woteva_29[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs. That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses? As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place?[/p][/quote]If it is on his land then it is private property. And if I was him and saw a dog attacking my animals I would shoot it as well.[/p][/quote]Quite right - dog walkers should take more care when around livestock. On a slightly different note, what is it about husky-types, they're starting to get a bad reputation. Not ideal pets, they need more exercise than the normal person is able to give them.[/p][/quote]You seem to miss the point, it is not his land, it's common land owned by Telscombe town council for everyone to have equal access to. I agree that dog owners have a responsibility to control their animals, however accidents do happen and to support the killing of an animal to protect another would equally morally allow anyone who's dog was in danger to shoot one of the race horses exercised on the tye as well. Isaac Rinkfern

2:54pm Thu 21 Jun 12

anonandonandon says...

plantwoman wrote:
Woteva_29 wrote:
Isaac Rinkfern wrote: If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs. That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses? As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place?
If it is on his land then it is private property. And if I was him and saw a dog attacking my animals I would shoot it as well.
Quite right - dog walkers should take more care when around livestock.
On a slightly different note, what is it about husky-types, they're starting to get a bad reputation. Not ideal pets, they need more exercise than the normal person is able to give them.
I don't think it's that they need more exercise than most dogs, but it is advised that they're kept on leads, so exercising them is more difficult.

Presumably they're advised to be kept on leads because it is difficult if not impossible to teach them reliable recall, and this sad event is an example of this.

Poor sheep, what a terrible way to go.
[quote][p][bold]plantwoman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woteva_29[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs. That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses? As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place?[/p][/quote]If it is on his land then it is private property. And if I was him and saw a dog attacking my animals I would shoot it as well.[/p][/quote]Quite right - dog walkers should take more care when around livestock. On a slightly different note, what is it about husky-types, they're starting to get a bad reputation. Not ideal pets, they need more exercise than the normal person is able to give them.[/p][/quote]I don't think it's that they need more exercise than most dogs, but it is advised that they're kept on leads, so exercising them is more difficult. Presumably they're advised to be kept on leads because it is difficult if not impossible to teach them reliable recall, and this sad event is an example of this. Poor sheep, what a terrible way to go. anonandonandon

8:40am Fri 22 Jun 12

plantwoman says...

Isaac Rinkfern wrote:
plantwoman wrote:
Woteva_29 wrote:
Isaac Rinkfern wrote: If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs. That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses? As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place?
If it is on his land then it is private property. And if I was him and saw a dog attacking my animals I would shoot it as well.
Quite right - dog walkers should take more care when around livestock.
On a slightly different note, what is it about husky-types, they're starting to get a bad reputation. Not ideal pets, they need more exercise than the normal person is able to give them.
You seem to miss the point, it is not his land, it's common land owned by Telscombe town council for everyone to have equal access to. I agree that dog owners have a responsibility to control their animals, however accidents do happen and to support the killing of an animal to protect another would equally morally allow anyone who's dog was in danger to shoot one of the race horses exercised on the tye as well.
Whether it's private land or not, if you see livestock in the area, surely you would put your dogs on a lead, wouldn't you? It's as much for the safety of the dogs as anything else.
[quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]plantwoman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woteva_29[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs. That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses? As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place?[/p][/quote]If it is on his land then it is private property. And if I was him and saw a dog attacking my animals I would shoot it as well.[/p][/quote]Quite right - dog walkers should take more care when around livestock. On a slightly different note, what is it about husky-types, they're starting to get a bad reputation. Not ideal pets, they need more exercise than the normal person is able to give them.[/p][/quote]You seem to miss the point, it is not his land, it's common land owned by Telscombe town council for everyone to have equal access to. I agree that dog owners have a responsibility to control their animals, however accidents do happen and to support the killing of an animal to protect another would equally morally allow anyone who's dog was in danger to shoot one of the race horses exercised on the tye as well.[/p][/quote]Whether it's private land or not, if you see livestock in the area, surely you would put your dogs on a lead, wouldn't you? It's as much for the safety of the dogs as anything else. plantwoman

10:25am Fri 22 Jun 12

Isaac Rinkfern says...

plantwoman wrote:
Isaac Rinkfern wrote:
plantwoman wrote:
Woteva_29 wrote:
Isaac Rinkfern wrote: If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs. That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses? As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place?
If it is on his land then it is private property. And if I was him and saw a dog attacking my animals I would shoot it as well.
Quite right - dog walkers should take more care when around livestock.
On a slightly different note, what is it about husky-types, they're starting to get a bad reputation. Not ideal pets, they need more exercise than the normal person is able to give them.
You seem to miss the point, it is not his land, it's common land owned by Telscombe town council for everyone to have equal access to. I agree that dog owners have a responsibility to control their animals, however accidents do happen and to support the killing of an animal to protect another would equally morally allow anyone who's dog was in danger to shoot one of the race horses exercised on the tye as well.
Whether it's private land or not, if you see livestock in the area, surely you would put your dogs on a lead, wouldn't you? It's as much for the safety of the dogs as anything else.
Yes, I agree, but the point I'm trying to make is that this works at all levels. If livestock is on open ground then loose dogs is not the best idea and equally if people and dogs are on open ground then racing horses on it is just as irresponsible.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw black kettles and all that.
[quote][p][bold]plantwoman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]plantwoman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woteva_29[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: If I recall correctly, Councillor Armour was the fella that said that people needed to "compromise" when there was an issue with danger to the public and dogs from his family's horses, in the same way that he does when his sheep are threatened by dogs. That compromise seems to have gone out of the window, would he view it the same way if a dog was killed by his horses? As for the threat to "shoot" dogs, isn't there a law against discharging firearms in a public place?[/p][/quote]If it is on his land then it is private property. And if I was him and saw a dog attacking my animals I would shoot it as well.[/p][/quote]Quite right - dog walkers should take more care when around livestock. On a slightly different note, what is it about husky-types, they're starting to get a bad reputation. Not ideal pets, they need more exercise than the normal person is able to give them.[/p][/quote]You seem to miss the point, it is not his land, it's common land owned by Telscombe town council for everyone to have equal access to. I agree that dog owners have a responsibility to control their animals, however accidents do happen and to support the killing of an animal to protect another would equally morally allow anyone who's dog was in danger to shoot one of the race horses exercised on the tye as well.[/p][/quote]Whether it's private land or not, if you see livestock in the area, surely you would put your dogs on a lead, wouldn't you? It's as much for the safety of the dogs as anything else.[/p][/quote]Yes, I agree, but the point I'm trying to make is that this works at all levels. If livestock is on open ground then loose dogs is not the best idea and equally if people and dogs are on open ground then racing horses on it is just as irresponsible. People in glass houses shouldn't throw black kettles and all that. Isaac Rinkfern

12:31pm Fri 22 Jun 12

PortsladeBySea says...

Firstly, i know these dogs and their owners very very well, i was also there on the day they escaped their garden, which has 8ft fencing and netting all around.

The time of 11.30pm??? think The Argus has got that wrong! It was 11.30am!

For all you people who have commented, and will comment no doubt.... I just thought i would give you the true events of the day, so people dont think the dogs were being walked by their owners without leads.

On the day, one of the dogs had ripped a hole in the wooden fence panels and ran off, the other dog followed.

The owner walked into the garden to discover the hole and proceeded to go looking for them, the owner knew they were heading for the Telscombe Tye, as this is were they are walked, they were found at the farm by their owner, who appologised that they had escaped, and then they brought back home.

I was there when they arrived home, they both had NO BLOOD on them, so how did they attack/kill the sheep?

I hear there is video evidence of the so called "Attack" i would love to see this, as then there would be proof it was them! They are beautiful dogs, if they were aggressive, how would the farmer of been able to trap them?? I do really feel for the farmer and his sheep, i am an animal lover and would never never stand there and video an animal attacking another? who would do such a thing and not try to stop it??

As for the comment above about "if livestock is seen whilst walking your dogs, then they must be kept on a lead" You cannot see the livestock from the field!!! And even if you could, my friends dogs are ALWAYS on their leads when they are taken out, it just so happens that they escaped their home, so of course were not on their leads!

The owner of the dogs is so upset by all of this, and reading these comments!
Firstly, i know these dogs and their owners very very well, i was also there on the day they escaped their garden, which has 8ft fencing and netting all around. The time of 11.30pm??? think The Argus has got that wrong! It was 11.30am! For all you people who have commented, and will comment no doubt.... I just thought i would give you the true events of the day, so people dont think the dogs were being walked by their owners without leads. On the day, one of the dogs had ripped a hole in the wooden fence panels and ran off, the other dog followed. The owner walked into the garden to discover the hole and proceeded to go looking for them, the owner knew they were heading for the Telscombe Tye, as this is were they are walked, they were found at the farm by their owner, who appologised that they had escaped, and then they brought back home. I was there when they arrived home, they both had NO BLOOD on them, so how did they attack/kill the sheep? I hear there is video evidence of the so called "Attack" i would love to see this, as then there would be proof it was them! They are beautiful dogs, if they were aggressive, how would the farmer of been able to trap them?? I do really feel for the farmer and his sheep, i am an animal lover and would never never stand there and video an animal attacking another? who would do such a thing and not try to stop it?? As for the comment above about "if livestock is seen whilst walking your dogs, then they must be kept on a lead" You cannot see the livestock from the field!!! And even if you could, my friends dogs are ALWAYS on their leads when they are taken out, it just so happens that they escaped their home, so of course were not on their leads! The owner of the dogs is so upset by all of this, and reading these comments! PortsladeBySea

4:51pm Fri 22 Jun 12

actionmanuk says...

accidents happen ! BUT when a dog kills another animal they do tend to have blood on them . this looks like two dogs were spotted and "BLAMED" . if m dog escaped off a lead and a farmer shot my dog all i could say is sleep with eyes wide open. accidents happen and i can not see no facts saying these dogs killed all 5 sheep as knowing dogs and accidents seen in the past the dogs tend to get very blood stained . this was an accident (if it was these dogs) looks like guilty until proven innocent.
accidents happen ! BUT when a dog kills another animal they do tend to have blood on them . this looks like two dogs were spotted and "BLAMED" . if m dog escaped off a lead and a farmer shot my dog all i could say is sleep with eyes wide open. accidents happen and i can not see no facts saying these dogs killed all 5 sheep as knowing dogs and accidents seen in the past the dogs tend to get very blood stained . this was an accident (if it was these dogs) looks like guilty until proven innocent. actionmanuk

5:11pm Fri 22 Jun 12

carolykee says...

i find all this " blame the dog..blame the breed digusting".. there is nothing wrong with huskies.. they're no more likely to attack than a greyhound or a mongrel... dogs worry sheep.. full stop done deal.. if farmers so choose to graze live stock on common ground then maybe they should look at better fencing/husbandry..i
nstead of waving guns & accusations around..i have walked my dogs on the south downs for many years & sometimes out of the blue sheep are grazing so now i choose never to walk my dogs on the downs or off a lead..ty the great british farmer for taking our country walks.. now did they ever stop to think of that!!!..
i find all this " blame the dog..blame the breed digusting".. there is nothing wrong with huskies.. they're no more likely to attack than a greyhound or a mongrel... dogs worry sheep.. full stop done deal.. if farmers so choose to graze live stock on common ground then maybe they should look at better fencing/husbandry..i nstead of waving guns & accusations around..i have walked my dogs on the south downs for many years & sometimes out of the blue sheep are grazing so now i choose never to walk my dogs on the downs or off a lead..ty the great british farmer for taking our country walks.. now did they ever stop to think of that!!!.. carolykee

5:24pm Fri 22 Jun 12

actionmanuk says...

actionmanuk wrote:
accidents happen ! BUT when a dog kills another animal they do tend to have blood on them . this looks like two dogs were spotted and "BLAMED" . if m dog escaped off a lead and a farmer shot my dog all i could say is sleep with eyes wide open. accidents happen and i can not see no facts saying these dogs killed all 5 sheep as knowing dogs and accidents seen in the past the dogs tend to get very blood stained . this was an accident (if it was these dogs) looks like guilty until proven innocent.
Having read in a number of posts that farmers have the right to shoot dogs that worry stock I think some clarification is required.
Farmers do not have a legal right to shoot dogs that sheep worry what they do have is a legal defense for their actions and this
is far from an absolute defense. The charge being criminal damage the dog owner then may subsequently take out a civil action
against the defendant,The defendant (farmer or agent to the stock owner) would need to prove to a court that their actions where
lawful and that all other possible means to stop the worrying had been tried before the animal is shot.
A person who shoots a dog on the premise of stock worrying would also run into firearms law the use of a rifle to shoot the dog
would no doubt breach the conditions imposed on their firearms certificate.I am not sure but I doubt any firearms licencing dept
would issue a rifle for such a purpose.The dog owner does however commit an offence of stock worrying and upon conviction the
stock owner would be entitled to damages ( if proven fact material shown that dog killed live stock).
I am no lawyer but as any one can see to state that a farmer has the right to shot dogs is an
over simplication of the law.I welcome others comments and or corrections.
It is a popular misconception that common land is land owned by the general public and to which everyone has unrestricted right of access.
All common land is private property, whether the owner is an individual or a corporation. The owner of the common is normally the lord
of the manor or his successor in title. Many commons are, in fact, owned by local authorities, the National Trust and other bodies for the
public benefit, but not all commons offer total access to all comers. Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
(Popularly known as 'CRoW'), there is a new right of public access to open country and registered common land, subject to certain defined restrictions.
so put ur guns in ur pockets now farmers whaaaa !
[quote][p][bold]actionmanuk[/bold] wrote: accidents happen ! BUT when a dog kills another animal they do tend to have blood on them . this looks like two dogs were spotted and "BLAMED" . if m dog escaped off a lead and a farmer shot my dog all i could say is sleep with eyes wide open. accidents happen and i can not see no facts saying these dogs killed all 5 sheep as knowing dogs and accidents seen in the past the dogs tend to get very blood stained . this was an accident (if it was these dogs) looks like guilty until proven innocent.[/p][/quote]Having read in a number of posts that farmers have the right to shoot dogs that worry stock I think some clarification is required. Farmers do not have a legal right to shoot dogs that sheep worry what they do have is a legal defense for their actions and this is far from an absolute defense. The charge being criminal damage the dog owner then may subsequently take out a civil action against the defendant,The defendant (farmer or agent to the stock owner) would need to prove to a court that their actions where lawful and that all other possible means to stop the worrying had been tried before the animal is shot. A person who shoots a dog on the premise of stock worrying would also run into firearms law the use of a rifle to shoot the dog would no doubt breach the conditions imposed on their firearms certificate.I am not sure but I doubt any firearms licencing dept would issue a rifle for such a purpose.The dog owner does however commit an offence of stock worrying and upon conviction the stock owner would be entitled to damages ( if proven fact material shown that dog killed live stock). I am no lawyer but as any one can see to state that a farmer has the right to shot dogs is an over simplication of the law.I welcome others comments and or corrections. It is a popular misconception that common land is land owned by the general public and to which everyone has unrestricted right of access. All common land is private property, whether the owner is an individual or a corporation. The owner of the common is normally the lord of the manor or his successor in title. Many commons are, in fact, owned by local authorities, the National Trust and other bodies for the public benefit, but not all commons offer total access to all comers. Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Popularly known as 'CRoW'), there is a new right of public access to open country and registered common land, subject to certain defined restrictions. so put ur guns in ur pockets now farmers whaaaa ! actionmanuk

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree