Animal trespass laws - Victoria

[bladeracer]

animal trespass is a biosecurity issue, its inalienable, in any case the bloke who owns the joint and has sheep he doesnt want on the place is kidding himself if he thinks that its not his responsibility to secure his property from pests he does not want entering.

likewise instead of pussy footing around with the prick next door, go over and be direct (as being direct shows the most respect and maturity anyway) and maybe take a 6 pack or whatever to lube the gears a bit and have the frank discussion about the sheep.

whole thing sounds like two people as bad as each other and neither one wanting to grow up over it.

The discussions have been had, over several years, by various neighbours. That's why we're where we are now

[Oldbloke]

G'day bladeracer,
This is a Local Council matter, the landowner should contact his local Ranger and inform them there is stock at large. Rangers are authorized under the Impounding of Livestock Act 1994 to deal with these animals. If the owner of the sheep is aware of the issue, and is willing to put it in writing, then rounding up and selling of the sheep and splitting the money after deducting costs would be the best bet, as ZaineB pointed out there could be a few quid in this, Cheers.

Just reread some of the posts.
I tend to think No1Mk3 has given best advice or ph the NP. (National department of Park neglect) But I'm guessing they will run you in circles.

Or ph PETA they will help.

[Bugman]

Contact PETA.

[bladeracer]

G'day bladeracer,
This is a Local Council matter, the landowner should contact his local Ranger and inform them there is stock at large. Rangers are authorized under the Impounding of Livestock Act 1994 to deal with these animals. If the owner of the sheep is aware of the issue, and is willing to put it in writing, then rounding up and selling of the sheep and splitting the money after deducting costs would be the best bet, as ZaineB pointed out there could be a few quid in this, Cheers.

Just reread some of the posts.
I tend to think No1Mk3 has given best advice or ph the NP. (National department of Park neglect) But I'm guessing they will run you in circles.

Or ph PETA they will help.

They will certainly fix the problem, but will they do so without bring down fines and damages on the owner?
That's the part we're trying to avoid.

[Oldbloke]

Stop planting till these fix it.

National department of Parks neglect. But I'm guessing they will run you in circles.

[bladeracer]

Problem is, seedlings have already been bought and are ready for planting very soon.

Stop planting till these fix it.

National department of Parks neglect. But I'm guessing they will run you in circles.

[Fionn]

If somebody else's animal is on your property, you can indeed shoot it without their permission, provided it is doing damage or threatening your own animals.
You can't shoot it merely because it is on your property.

That's not correct, happy for you to post a law which allows this!

You can shoot them if defending yourself or any other person against the sheep or against any threat of attack by the sheep..

Pretty hard to prove you shot a some sheep because you were defending yourself against them.

Yes, we have no intention of breaking any laws,

Shooting them without expressed consent from the owner is breaking the law.

but also there is no intention of bringing the law down on the owner of the animals, if it can be avoided. The owner doesn't want, and frankly probably can't afford, the expense of re-fencing and trying to regain control over the animals, animals that are essentially wild ferals now.

If that is the intent,them let them be.

This situation is a little tricky I think because there are decades of prior "tolerance" of these animals roaming freely, without them causing any trouble to neighbouring properties, until now when the situation has changed. While the intervening property was pine plantation, the animals roamed freely without damaging anything (this part of the plantation is so difficult it was never planted). Now that revegetation is occurring, very expensive seedlings are at great risk, but the property is now National Park and prohibited for shooting, before, the lessee could bring in professionals to deal with pest animals - they did not allow recreational shooters under any circumstances, even at the request of the National Park.

Sounds like its a ParksVic issue, it up to them to handle it on their property, when they come on the famers property the Impounding of Livestock Act 1994 is the legal way to deal with them.

Shooting them is illegal.

[bladeracer]

You can shoot any animal on your property that is threatening your stock or damaging your property, at least in Victoria. You certainly do not have to be defending human life.
Section 30 of the Domestic Animals Act, 1994.
https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-04/94-81aa081%20authorised.pdf

Shooting animals on your own property that are causing a nuisance does not require permission from the owner, if the owner can be found.

You seem confused. The "intent" I mentioned is to avoid having the owner charged over his animals wandering.
The reason they can't "let them be" is because they will destroy thousands of dollars worth of native seedlings...

Shooting them is not illegal...

If somebody else's animal is on your property, you can indeed shoot it without their permission, provided it is doing damage or threatening your own animals.
You can't shoot it merely because it is on your property.

That's not correct, happy for you to post a law which allows this!

You can shoot them if defending yourself or any other person against the sheep or against any threat of attack by the sheep..

Pretty hard to prove you shot a some sheep because you were defending yourself against them.

Yes, we have no intention of breaking any laws,

Shooting them without expressed consent from the owner is breaking the law.

but also there is no intention of bringing the law down on the owner of the animals, if it can be avoided. The owner doesn't want, and frankly probably can't afford, the expense of re-fencing and trying to regain control over the animals, animals that are essentially wild ferals now.

If that is the intent,them let them be.

This situation is a little tricky I think because there are decades of prior "tolerance" of these animals roaming freely, without them causing any trouble to neighbouring properties, until now when the situation has changed. While the intervening property was pine plantation, the animals roamed freely without damaging anything (this part of the plantation is so difficult it was never planted). Now that revegetation is occurring, very expensive seedlings are at great risk, but the property is now National Park and prohibited for shooting, before, the lessee could bring in professionals to deal with pest animals - they did not allow recreational shooters under any circumstances, even at the request of the National Park.

Sounds like its a ParksVic issue, it up to them to handle it on their property, when they come on the famers property the Impounding of Livestock Act 1994 is the legal way to deal with them.

Shooting them is illegal.

[Fionn]

You can shoot any animal on your property that is threatening your stock or damaging your property, at least in Victoria. You certainly do not have to be defending human life.
Section 30 of the Domestic Animals Act, 1994.
https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-04/94-81aa081%20authorised.pdf

do you understand you are posting the domestic animals act and sheep are livestock not domestic animals.

Also the section you posted is about (and states) dog and cats maybe destroyed. It's doesn't include sheep or any other animal in fact.

I have no idea why you think it applies to sheep, did you even read it.

Shooting animals on your own property that are causing a nuisance does not require permission from the owner, if the owner can be found.

Shooting someone's livestock certainly does. As I have posted there are laws on what you are to do in these circumstances.

You seem confused. The "intent" I mentioned is to avoid having the owner charged over his animals wandering.
The reason they can't "let them be" is because they will destroy thousands of dollars worth of native seedlings...

Not confused, if you don't want the owner to be charged or face action for not meeting there legal responsibility then as I said, there is nothing much you can do.

The impoundment of livestock deals the legal way to handle this.

Shooting them is not illegal...

As I said it most certainly is.

Given the owner won't give his consent to shooting them, if you do without it. All it takes is a report to the police and your licence and firearms will be taken off you and you will be facing charges.

Pretty dumb thing to be getting involved with.

[Oldbloke]

I believe its ok to shoot them on your land. If the owner does not collect them after being notified.

I believe its ok to shoot them on SF. If not leased.

But not in a NP. At that's where they are.

[on_one_wheel]

do you understand you are posting the domestic animals act and sheep are livestock not domestic animals.

Sheep are considered domestic, as are goats horses, cattle, pigs, chickens and many other animals.

[Fionn]

I believe its ok to shoot them on your land. If the owner does not collect them after being notified.

I believe its ok to shoot them on SF. If not leased.

But not in a NP. At that's where they are.

Nope it's against the law to shoot sheep in any of the above circumstances.

It's against the law to shoot sheep full stop unless you have the owners permission.

[Fionn]

do you understand you are posting the domestic animals act and sheep are livestock not domestic animals.

Sheep are considered domestic, as are goats horses, cattle, pigs, chickens and many other animals.

The domestic animals act only deals with dogs and cats.

Hence why I question if bladeracer had even read it before posting.

The normally used definition of domestic animal is an animal that it kept as a pet.

[Oldbloke]

"The normally used definition of domestic animal is an animal that it kept as a pet."
Fionn

That's what I figure so sheep must be livestock.

People are rounding up goats in SF and selling them. I see sheep as no different. I imagine in this case they would now be considered feral or "run wild".

In any case they are in NP. So its NPs job to fix it.

[Fionn]

That's what I figure so sheep must be livestock.

People are rounding up goats in SF and selling them. I see sheep as no different. I imagine in this case they would now be considered feral or "run wild".

In any case they are in NP. So its NPs job to fix it.

The difference with goats in Victoria is they are declared an established pest animal.

Sheep or cattle etc are not a declared pest animal.

Goats can be considered livestock in Victoria as well, depends on the situation. Which is why, if you are shooting them in Victoria make sure you have the land owners permission.

What bladerunner is wanting to do is shoot the neighbours livestock for wandering (trespass) on the farm he shoots on. A farm who doesn't have fencing that will keep them out.

The fact the owner of the sheep doesn't look after them or hasn't got good enough facing to keep them in etc doesn't matter as that a separate issue.

His just making a world of trouble for himself and the property owner.

[on_one_wheel]

Livestock are domestic animals, dont just assume, go ahead and do some internet searches.

domesticated
/dəˈmɛstɪkeɪtɪd/
adjective
(of an animal) tame and kept as a pet or on a farm.

[Fionn]

Livestock are domestic animals, dont just assume, go ahead and do some internet searches.

domesticated
/dəˈmɛstɪkeɪtɪd/
adjective
(of an animal) tame and kept as a pet or on a farm.

I haven't assumed anything, the domestic animal act refers and applies only to dogs and cats.

Look it up

Sheep are not considered domestic animals under any law in Victoria.

Definitions of domesticated you search for on the internet have no relevance to the discussion.

You don't even understand that domestic animals and domesticated animals have 2 different meanings.

[Oldbloke]

No point arguing.
They are in a N.P. Let them deal with it.

[duncan61]

Are guinea pigs domestic?Or are only cats and dogs domestic?I have taken wild sheep which were referred to as mossy backs.Merino sheep were introduced for their wool and it grows to the point that the sheep can not stand up on their own and die if they get out in the bush and where these were the backs were green with some sort of moss.I encountered them with a buddy who knew the area and we were on private property that we had permission to cull roos on.After skinning there was not a lot of animal left and it was not like store bought lamb.When I lived at the dairy farm in Roelands we leased some 400 Ha off the Coalfields Hwy to put our springers on.An adjioning property was 1500Ha and the owner decided to bring down a herd of wild cattle from the N/west.That was fine however some of the cows started birthing little bulls who grew fast so my man asked me if I was up the hill culling roos could I keep an eye out for bulls getting in our herd.sure as I go up there one day and all our pedigree teenage freisans come over to the car like they do as they think you are dropping of hay and a big red bull is with them.Quick phone call to the farmer and the order is given to drop it.I had the 7mm rem Mag and put a 175 Winny failsafe in the chest from 50 metres straight on.It fell straight over and did not move.When I opened it up all its organs were mush.The bulls in the herd problem started to get out of control to the point I started running foot walking safaris for mates.I already had a custom car trailer set up to do cattle anyway.Happy days.One time "not at band camp"There were 2 little micky bulls going through the motions but not getting anywhere.Got them both and they made good meat.If the sheep are being a nusiance and you are on private property you have permission for preferably in writing get them bad boys.

[ZaineB]

my only criticism Fionn is that if the "owner" is not currently in possession or shows adequately that he is possession of the livestock (as in they're on his property and the property is maintained as such to keep them on the property), then he cant really claim they are His livestock, this also if that said owner does not have a brand, and has not marked the sheep accordingly then they are also not his property if not on his property, for all intents and purposes. further more he could claim that he just got them and hasn't marked them yet, but where did he get them, where is his invoice/receipt of sale/purchase and where is his weigh bill as is required Australia wide to prove such a thing? I am being a bit of the devils advocate here, but really if the neighbor hasn't any proof that he owns them, beyond his say so, then he does not own them.

[Fionn]

my only criticism Fionn is that if the "owner" is not currently in possession or shows adequately that he is possession of the livestock.

Still can't shoot them, trespassing livestock must be dealt with how it's outlined in the Impoundment of livestock Act.

Questions of ownership only matter when notifying the owner of impoundment or seeking costs etc or being fined or charged.

If ownership can't be established or if an owner can't be found they are sold or disposed by the council/government and any money made from such can be claimed for costs.

Now if the property owner where the sheep are trespassing wants to lie and claim them as their own, then yes bladerunner can shoot them.

But given the owner of them is known by the locals and bladerunner knows who the real owner is, plus the biosecurity/agriculture regulations they would be taking ownership off.

and the actual owner seems OK with them wandering and won't give permission for them to be shot.

It's a very risky thing to do.

As I said before, a report to police and the landowner and bladerunner will be in all sorts of problems.

[DaveZ]

This is another are where our laws stink. These animals may as well be feral pests, and morally, should be able to be shot on sight. But there seems to be so many hurdles put in the laws to cater for all the whingers that nobody can do anything for fear of reprisal from the legal system. Morally, nobody should have to fence their property to keep someone else's animals out. That's just irresponsible animal ownership. To keep ferals out, maybe, but ferals can be controlled once on the property surely.

The older I get the more I dislike the way the laws in this country are stacked against common sense and decency. But it is what it is, and we have to work with it. If the owner won't deal with the animals, then somebody else has to, there is no other way. Whatever government department is in charge of the area where the trees are planted should be dealing with it. That avoids neighbourly conflict, gets the animals dealt with, and increases resistance against our vermin government leaders

[Fionn]

This is another are where our laws stink. These animals may as well be feral pests, and morally, should be able to be shot on sight.

I don't understand why people find it so hard to understand.

You can't shoot other people's livestock.

It's that simple.

Sheep are not feral pest, do people not even understand that an animal has to be declared in the government gazette a pest animal to be legally classed as a pest animal.

I question people's morals if they believe it's ok to kill, butcher, steal the meat and eat another person livestock.

People use to get hanged for doing such...

The older I get the more I dislike the way the laws in this country are stacked against common sense and decency. But it is what it is, and we have to work with it. If the owner won't deal with the animals, then somebody else has to, there is no other way. Whatever government department is in charge of the area where the trees are planted should be dealing with it. That avoids neighbourly conflict, gets the animals dealt with, and increases resistance against our vermin government leaders

The laws here make complete sense, if the sheep are trespassing, call the local ranger and have deal with it.

Can't be anymore simple and coming sense then that.

[ZaineB]

yeah but fionn

if the "owner" cant prove he actually owns them, then he technically doesnt, and its pretty common sense if you let animals stray, regardless if livestock, and they go walkabout, its your own stupid fault. no one around here would put up with someone else's livestock eating their pasture or crops here, my uncles goats were all shot after a tree took out a fence and there was no way to deal with it as he failed to secure them, they were all marked and tagged with his brand, but makes 0 difference if you are costing the neighbor money,

in this case it would likely cost the old fart next door more money to prove they are his sheep in court than it would cost him to build a fence and keep his s**ty sheep to himself.


I will reiterate tho I also believe 100% that blades mate should have just put up a proper fence instead of being a tightarse, whining about animals in ya property is kinda a moot point if you havent put up a fence to keep out all such annoyances/liabilities.

personally both land owners are coming off as asshats to me. both are immature neither are taking what is the simple route to solving the issue, and for that I have no sympathy for either.

[Fionn]

yeah but fionn

if the "owner" cant prove he actually owns them, then he technically doesnt,

As I said before, ownership doesn't matter for trespassing stock.

There are laws that deal with how they are meant to be handled.

my uncles goats were all shot after a tree took out a fence and there was no way to deal with it as he failed to secure them, they were all marked and tagged with his brand, but makes 0 difference if you are costing the neighbor money,

A key difference here from legal point of view is they were goats. Which while they can be livestock they are also a declared pest animal. Which allows them to be shot.

I don't disagree that a lot of trespassing livestock are shot, not legal but common.

in this case it would likely cost the old fart next door more money to prove they are his sheep in court than it would cost him to build a fence and keep his s**ty sheep to himself.

Your point works both ways though. The landowner who shot them would also need to prove ownership. Which seeing they don't have fences, most likely don't have a PIC code and aren't meeting biosecurity and tagging requirements, it's not a smart thing to claim ownership as they would be admitting to a lot of offences.

I will reiterate tho I also believe 100% that blades mate should have just put up a proper fence instead of being a tightarse, whining about animals in ya property is kinda a moot point if you havent put up a fence to keep out all such annoyances/liabilities.

personally both land owners are coming off as asshats to me. both are immature neither are taking what is the simple route to solving the issue, and for that I have no sympathy for either.

Completely agree.

[on_one_wheel]

I'll im reading is hearsay fionn, care to provide some links to your bountiful knowledge of the law?

Or is this a game of fionn sais? because I'm pretty sure your wrong.

[cz515]

According to the link above from bladeracer by law in Victoria domestic animals are cats, dogs and for identification (chip) purpose horses

[DaveZ]

I don't understand why people find it so hard to understand.

You can't shoot other people's livestock.

I didn't say they are feral pests, I said they may as well be. They are uncared for, unrestrained and doing damage. If the actual owner won't restrain them then other property owners should be allowed to destroy them. The law probably doesn't agree with that, I don't know the letter of the law, but wasn't really my point. Hanging a livestock tag off an animal doesn't make it morally any different to your neighbours dog coming on to your property killing your stock, none whatsoever. The bloke who owns the sheep has no respect for his animals or the people who live around him.

[NTSOG]

Fionn: "There are laws that deal with how they are meant to be handled."

The simplest and legally safe way to deal with straying animals is to call the local Ranger who can then impound them and remove them. That's what Rangers do; it's a primary part of their job. Determining ownership is part of that job, but Rangers are covered legally by the terms of their employment, individual property owners/shooters are not. Except for shooting stray dogs in the act of harassing my livestock and the odd feral/stray cat, there is no way I would shoot livestock [as defined by Law as distinct from domestic pets] that has strayed onto my property - and there have been a number of cases when horses, cattle and the odd sheep have entered the property, usually through the open front gate, but also on occasions when a large tree has come down on a fence in a storm. When that happens I contact the owner of said stock. It's called being a good neighbour.

The legal consequences to the shooter and/or property owner are potentially very serious if livestock, regardless of who might or might not own them, are shot out-of-hand. What might have passed as acceptable practice a couple of decades ago will not do in a Society which is now increasingly litigious and, more importantly, gun shy.

Jim

[Fionn]

I'll im reading is hearsay fionn,

It's very clear have absolutely no understanding of what hearsay even means. But don't let that stop you throwing out random legal words

Reading hearsay

care to provide some links to your bountiful knowledge of the law?

I have already provided the names of the Act's, learn how to google.

Or is this a game of fionn sais?

What do you even mean here?

because I'm pretty sure your wrong.

Yet I post evidence and you post nothing. As I have said, post a law which allows a person to shoot trespassing livestock, I have already posted the law that deals with how they are to be handled.