What's the point (putting down a bull)

Soldato
Joined
7 Apr 2004
Posts
4,212
do they follow this regualtion?

Yer true, they arn't dairy bulls. Still big ******** though, would not want to get in their way.

"Bulls of all other breeds are also banned from such fields unless accompanied by cows or heifers" still makes for a very dangerous field to walk though :p
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,377
It does seem daft having a public footpath through a field with a bull in it.

No, it would seem to be (on the face of it) daft putting a bull in a field with a public footpath in it.

I don't know much about bulls but this is either a very irresponsible farmer who ought to be charged or, if this is out of character for bulls and they can normally be kept in fields with public footpaths, then quite frankly the bull should be put down and the OP is a bit silly for questioning it.
 
Associate
Joined
23 Feb 2006
Posts
289
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-11751079

Basically, two walkers decided it was a good idea to walk in a field with a bull as the sun's going down. One gets killed, the other gets seriously injured. The bull is now due to be put down as a token gesture.

Now this begs the question, what's the point? It's tragic that somebody died, but putting the animal down is over the top. Bulls are highly territorial and aggressive animals, and you are considered incredibly lucky if you can enter a field with one and not expect any overt gestures of aggression.

It's completely different to putting down, say dogs for example, because they have to be maintained and cared for by people around the clock, who could be exposed to further vicious attacks. Bulls on the other hand are left to their own devices in fields all day long with minimal human interaction, and are dealt with in a professional and coordinated way that has plenty of contingencies in place to deal with aggressive livestock.

Why not just place the bull back where it was and just leave it in the agricultural process it was involved in? It was completely unnecessary to put it down in my opinion.

I couln't agree more with you. utterly pointless, cruel and unnessary to put it down. but that's what this nonsense "PC" pathetic country has come to
 
Associate
Joined
12 Sep 2009
Posts
845
Location
Edinburgh
How exactly would following that code have helped?

1st rule - Plan ahead and follow any signs

IIRC, if there is a bull in the field there should have been a sign, if one chooses to ignore that sign the liability does not belong with the farmer (or the bull!!)
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2009
Posts
1,192
Location
Local to someone
Hasn't it been destroyed as they are already considered a dangerous animal? Wouldn't like to be the farmer when the ambulance chasers return to work tomorrow morning.

From my youth I can remember travelling through public footpaths and bridleways which contained livestock but they would always be separated by those DIY electric livestock fences. I wonder what went wrong here as you presume an experienced farmer would use a similar setup.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Apr 2009
Posts
3,147
Location
Warrington
I think it's perfectly sensible to put the bull down - it has proved itself to be an aggressive and dangerous animal, and I don't see what justifies risking other peoples lives. OK, so you might say well bulls are naturally territorial and violent, in which case WHY was it in field with a footpath through it!? Sometimes it is not even clear to walkers what is in a field - I have walked through fields, only to turn back at the other end to find out there are loads of cows + calfs in the field - you can't always see what's in the field due to the shape or contours, and even if you could see a bull and were uncomfortable, there is often no other way to go - there are fences and walls on all other sides, and the nearest turning may have been miles back and take you in completely the wrong direction.

I don't think farmers should be allowed to put bulls in fields with footpaths (luckily whenever I have come across one, there has been a way round the field on a road or other path) without placing clear signs telling people of an alternate route, a GOOD DISTANCE AWAY, so that people can actually plan their walk properly, or turn around, but don't end up having to walk back for more than a mile or two, as e.g. if it's getting dark, this will not be an attractive prospect, and people may end up taking the risk.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,188
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Bulls are colour blind.

Anyway, it has tasted blood and will already be planning it's next attack.

Bulls are always ready to attack. Killing someone won't change the bull's nature at all. It was a highly aggressive territorial animal before and it's a highly aggressive territorial animal now.

The only point to killing the bull is that vengeance might make a few people feel better.
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,774
Location
England
IIRC, if there is a bull in the field there should have been a sign, if one chooses to ignore that sign the liability does not belong with the farmer (or the bull!!)

Of course it does, you can't do what you like regardless of the law and then blame it on the victim saying they took an acknowledgement of risk. Just as I can't put a minefield in my garden and put up a sign saying "beware of the mines", and that isn't even a public right of way!
 
Associate
Joined
23 Dec 2008
Posts
887
The only point to killing the bull is that vengeance might make a few people feel better.


this really.

I'd rather put the woman down, stupid damn people. Whenever I go walking anywhere near livestock in a field I always make sure what's in there, keep distance away from them especially with young ones around, keep an eye out and know where to get the hell out if needs be.
 
Don
Joined
15 Jan 2006
Posts
31,472
Location
Tosche Station
iirc Good bull seamen* goes for thousands of pounds.

No i don't don't know how you know if it's good or bad bull seamen.

seamen4sailorspic2.jpg
 
Top Bottom