Attacked by cows

W. D. Grey said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>There is a black and white, its very simple there is no "harmless
>play" with sheep.

Rounding them up doesn't harm them, Tim.

You never listen, do you.

Best wishes,

Just a thought, If a dog chases/plays with sheep they (the sheep) can
become distressed but presumably not if they are chased by the farmer's
dog. What about sheepdog trials where the sheep are rounded up/chased
by strange sheep dogs. ?

These are sheep dog trials you say!

A dog on the hill can be shot without a fair trial!

See my reply to Rooney, Bill, as I'm off to Wales now for the weekend.
It must be clear to you that I'm not having a go at you - remember how
I first became involved in the discussion?

Seeya on Sunday.

Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:47:25 +0100, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Rooney said:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:14:24 +0100, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:04:35 +0100, Rooney <[email hidden]> wrote:

>On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:30:05 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]
>(Tim Jones) wrote:
>
>>There is a black and white, its very simple there is no "harmless
>>play" with sheep.
>
>Rounding them up doesn't harm them, Tim.

You never listen, do you.

Best wishes,

Yes. Tim described a situation where sheep are harmed. This does not
support his claim that there is no harmless play. What do you think
sheep dog trials are, if not harmless play?

Ordinary common sense suggests to me that the difference between the
two situation is familiarity. The sheep is familiar with the farmer
and his dogs, and the things they do together. It's not familiar with
strange dogs brought onto the hillside by unknown human beings.

You're an intelligent bloke, Rooney. Can't you work out that
distinction for yourself? Do you think all the rational voices from
the farming/veterinary side of this debate are just inventing the
problem. Or do you just like to argue.

Yes, I thought so...

Best wishes,

I think they are exaggerating - nothing new there!
I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I said it wasn't black and white.
I don't believe familiarity comes into it. Do triallers use their own
sheep?
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:48:34 +0100, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey said:

Quoted message said:

>>There is a black and white, its very simple there is no "harmless
>>play" with sheep.
>
>Rounding them up doesn't harm them, Tim.

You never listen, do you.

Best wishes,

Just a thought, If a dog chases/plays with sheep they (the sheep) can
become distressed but presumably not if they are chased by the farmer's
dog. What about sheepdog trials where the sheep are rounded up/chased
by strange sheep dogs. ?

These are sheep dog trials you say!

A dog on the hill can be shot without a fair trial!

See my reply to Rooney, Bill, as I'm off to Wales now for the weekend.
It must be clear to you that I'm not having a go at you - remember how
I first became involved in the discussion?

Seeya on Sunday.

Best wishes,

Likewise. Now I'm off to the Dales!
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

In message <[email hidden]>

Peewiglet said:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:32:26 +0100, Rooney <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes. Tim described a situation where sheep are harmed. This does not
support his claim that there is no harmless play. What do you think
sheep dog trials are, if not harmless play?

Ordinary common sense suggests to me that the difference between the
two situation is familiarity. The sheep is familiar with the farmer
and his dogs, and the things they do together. It's not familiar with
strange dogs brought onto the hillside by unknown human beings.

You're an intelligent bloke, Rooney. Can't you work out that
distinction for yourself? Do you think all the rational voices from
the farming/veterinary side of this debate are just inventing the
problem. Or do you just like to argue.

Yes, I thought so...

Best wishes,

On a small matter of detail, sheep dog trials involve asking a farmer
and his dog to round up sheep with which they are not familiar.

Secondly farmers not infrequently shoot sheep dogs for sheep worrying,
and many sheep dogs are kept chained or penned when not out working.

Thirdly I'd be very surprised to learn that the sheep are not to some
extent afraid of, and thus 'worried' by, their own farmers sheep dogs.
Otherwise why would they allow themselves to be herded by the dogs?

--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

I noticed that Message-ID: <[email hidden]>
from Peewiglet contained the following:

Quoted message said:

Ordinary common sense suggests to me that the difference between the
two situation is familiarity. The sheep is familiar with the farmer
and his dogs, and the things they do together. It's not familiar with
strange dogs brought onto the hillside by unknown human beings.

If the sheep are familiar with the dogs, why do they run away from them?
If they weren't scared they'd stand their ground surely? (though I'm
obviously not advocating anything other than close control of your dog
when near livestock)

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

Rooney said:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:30:05 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]

(Tim Jones) said:

There is a black and white, its very simple there is no "harmless
play" with sheep.

Rounding them up doesn't harm them, Tim.

A young lamb being gathered for the first time will find it more
stressful than an older sheep who has done it before and pretty much
knows the rules and where to go. Aimless chasing will not be
understood and will cause more stress than gathering in the usual way
to the usual location.

Rooney said:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:47:25 +0100, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Rooney said:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:14:24 +0100, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:04:35 +0100, Rooney <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:30:05 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]
>>(Tim Jones) wrote:
>>
>>>There is a black and white, its very simple there is no "harmless
>>>play" with sheep.
>>
>>Rounding them up doesn't harm them, Tim.
>
>You never listen, do you.
>
>
>Best wishes,

Yes. Tim described a situation where sheep are harmed. This does not
support his claim that there is no harmless play. What do you think
sheep dog trials are, if not harmless play?

Ordinary common sense suggests to me that the difference between the
two situation is familiarity. The sheep is familiar with the farmer
and his dogs, and the things they do together. It's not familiar with
strange dogs brought onto the hillside by unknown human beings.

You're an intelligent bloke, Rooney. Can't you work out that
distinction for yourself? Do you think all the rational voices from
the farming/veterinary side of this debate are just inventing the
problem. Or do you just like to argue.

Yes, I thought so...

Best wishes,

I think they are exaggerating - nothing new there!
I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I said it wasn't black and white.
I don't believe familiarity comes into it. Do triallers use their own
sheep?

No but both sheep and dogs are taking oart with the consent of their
owners. It's a bit like me deciding to use your car without your
consent as opposed to you lending it to me and being aware of the wear
and tear and accepting the risk that I might crash it.

Geoff Berrow said:

I noticed that Message-ID: <[email hidden]>
from Peewiglet contained the following:

Quoted message said:

Ordinary common sense suggests to me that the difference between the
two situation is familiarity. The sheep is familiar with the farmer
and his dogs, and the things they do together. It's not familiar with
strange dogs brought onto the hillside by unknown human beings.

If the sheep are familiar with the dogs, why do they run away from them?
If they weren't scared they'd stand their ground surely? (though I'm
obviously not advocating anything other than close control of your dog
when near livestock)

Because they have met the dog beforeknow where "the limits" lie and
indeed have a pretty good idea where they are expected to go in
response to each of the dogs moves. There will always be an "escape
route" which is where the dog is trying to drive the sheep and where
the handler wants the sheep to end up. A dog that is merely playing
will not have a firm aim or be controlled with a firm aim in mind and
is likely to corner a sheep and play with/worry/stress it with no
clear aim and no way for the sheep to escape the situation.

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

| So what does the word "play" mean in your opinion?

Well according to Bill's posts "play" and "kill" are synonyms
Which says a lot about Bill if nothing else.

I can't see anywhere where Bill's said anything of the sort, Dave. And
Bill himself is one of the gentlest men I've ever had the pleasure to
meet. What is becoming clear however is your own intolerance, which I'm
sorry for because my children especially greatly enjoyed your company
and that of your wife in the Lake District recently.
--
/
Fran O(<|={
\

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

| >Well according to Bill's posts "play" and "kill" are synonyms
| >Which says a lot about Bill if nothing else.
|
| No, Dave.

That is *exactly* what his post says.
If dogs chase sheep you end up all too often with dead sheep. He described
that as "playing".

IIRC the word 'play' was in inverted commas, indicating to me at least
that the *dog* thinks it is playing. I don't believe for one moment
that Bill defines play in the same way as his dog defines it - and to be
honest I find it hard to credit that you do either. You struck me as a
fairly intelligent man, Dave; it saddens me to think that you can't read
behind the words to see the meaning of an otherwise perfectly innocent
post - a post, moreover, in which Bill stated that his dog is *never*
allowed out on the hills for the very things of which you seek to accuse
him.
--
/
Fran O(<|={
\

Rooney <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Rob Overfield said:

Hear, hear, Tim. The countryside is NOT a leisure park,

Actually, much of it is precisely that.

And a heavily subsidised one.
--
Gordon Harris

Rooney <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I think they are exaggerating - nothing new there!
I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I said it wasn't black and white.
I don't believe familiarity comes into it. Do triallers use their own
sheep?

And does anyone ask the sheep if they enjoy it? Some of them seem
really [censored] by it all.
--
Gordon Harris

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:29:49 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]

(Tim Jones) said:

Rooney said:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:47:25 +0100, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:32:26 +0100, Rooney <[email hidden]> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:14:24 +0100, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:04:35 +0100, Rooney <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:30:05 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]
>>>(Tim Jones) wrote:
>>>
>>>>There is a black and white, its very simple there is no "harmless
>>>>play" with sheep.
>>>
>>>Rounding them up doesn't harm them, Tim.
>>
>>You never listen, do you.
>>
>>
>>Best wishes,
>
>Yes. Tim described a situation where sheep are harmed. This does not
>support his claim that there is no harmless play. What do you think
>sheep dog trials are, if not harmless play?

Ordinary common sense suggests to me that the difference between the
two situation is familiarity. The sheep is familiar with the farmer
and his dogs, and the things they do together. It's not familiar with
strange dogs brought onto the hillside by unknown human beings.

You're an intelligent bloke, Rooney. Can't you work out that
distinction for yourself? Do you think all the rational voices from
the farming/veterinary side of this debate are just inventing the
problem. Or do you just like to argue.

Yes, I thought so...

Best wishes,

I think they are exaggerating - nothing new there!
I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I said it wasn't black and white.
I don't believe familiarity comes into it. Do triallers use their own
sheep?

No but both sheep and dogs are taking oart with the consent of their
owners. It's a bit like me deciding to use your car without your
consent as opposed to you lending it to me and being aware of the wear
and tear and accepting the risk that I might crash it.

The issue was whether they are harmed. You are raising a completely
different issue.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

In article <[email hidden]>, Peewiglet
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

See my reply to Rooney, Bill, as I'm off to Wales now for the weekend.
It must be clear to you that I'm not having a go at you - remember how
I first became involved in the discussion?

Indeed I do and my reply was in gratitude IIRC

Quoted message said:

Seeya on Sunday.

Where are you going - what part of this gorgeous bit of the UK.?
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, Fran
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

IRC the word 'play' was in inverted commas, indicating to me at least
that the *dog* thinks it is playing. I don't believe for one moment
that Bill defines play in the same way as his dog defines it - and to be
honest I find it hard to credit that you do either. You struck me as a
fairly intelligent man, Dave; it saddens me to think that you can't read
behind the words to see the meaning of an otherwise perfectly innocent
post - a post, moreover, in which Bill stated that his dog is *never*
allowed out on the hills for the very things of which you seek to accuse
him.

Let's forget sheep for a minute!

When you (Fran) next meet my dog he will more than likely want to
"play" (and make a fuss) with/of you - he certainly will have no desire
to attack you with evil intent.

Now Dave does that get through to you

You are desperately SAD.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

Rooney said:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:29:49 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]
(Tim Jones) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No but both sheep and dogs are taking oart with the consent of their
owners. It's a bit like me deciding to use your car without your
consent as opposed to you lending it to me and being aware of the wear
and tear and accepting the risk that I might crash it.

The issue was whether they are harmed. You are raising a completely
different issue.

Rubish as a sheep farmer I wouldn't supply sheep for a trial anymore
than I would expect a rogue dog to "play" with them. You diverted the
subject onto trials as some sort of justification for dogs playing
with sheep.

Gordon Harris said:

Rooney <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I think they are exaggerating - nothing new there!
I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I said it wasn't black and white.
I don't believe familiarity comes into it. Do triallers use their own
sheep?

And does anyone ask the sheep if they enjoy it? Some of them seem
really [censored] by it all.

But we know from the foxhunting debate that animals love being chased!
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

Rooney said:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 22:18:58 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]

(Tim Jones) said:

Rooney said:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:29:49 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]
(Tim Jones) wrote:

Quoted message said:

>No but both sheep and dogs are taking oart with the consent of their
>owners. It's a bit like me deciding to use your car without your
>consent as opposed to you lending it to me and being aware of the wear
>and tear and accepting the risk that I might crash it.

The issue was whether they are harmed. You are raising a completely
different issue.

Rubish as a sheep farmer I wouldn't supply sheep for a trial anymore
than I would expect a rogue dog to "play" with them. You diverted the
subject onto trials as some sort of justification for dogs playing
with sheep.

As an example of their not being harmed, in fact.

Has it ever occured to you that they may be less at risk because the
sheepdogs are trained to herd sheep and controlled by experienced
handlers? They are not aimlessly chasing the sheep or cornering and
continually harrassing them as a "playing" dog is likely to do. We
had a dog "playing" with sheep with young lambs at foot last month it
cornered them and continually harassed them for a longer period of
time than it would take a trained doig to move the entire flock from
one end of the farm to the other, because they had no escape route to
move away from the dog the stress caused was considerable there were
no physical injuries but over the next 48 hours 3 previously healthy
lambs died.. Before you ask the dog was caught and returned to its
owner alive but severely cowed after being carried by its scruff for
half a mile.

This is a black and white issue. There is no need for a pet dog to
play with sheep. It is unacceptable. There is no harmless play, a
trained dog with a defined aim in a controlled situation causes
minimal stress compared to an out of control pet. You may think you're
being smart, but all you're doing is demonstrating the kind of woeful
ignorance that leads to problems between farmers and leisure users of
the countryside.

Quoted message said:

Has it ever occured to you that they may be less at risk because the
sheepdogs are trained to herd sheep and controlled by experienced
handlers?

The point was that sheep are not harmed just by being "played with" let
alone the mere sight of unfamiliar dogs, which is what happens at a
trials event. Of course sheep *can* be harmed by dogs but I don't
think anyone is arguing this happens at trials any more than a
well-behaved walkers' dog will harm sheep.

--
Boo

Fran said:

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

This is a black and white issue. There is no need for a pet dog to
play with sheep. It is unacceptable.

Erm, hello? No one, repeat *no one* has disputed that. It really is
about time you learned to interpret what you read. You seem to have
totally failed to notice that we are all in agreement on this, even
Paul, who is winding you up beautifully.

(-:

--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone