Dog owners and walkers: livestock worrying law important update

More News

The law on dogs and livestock worrying has recently been updated in England and Wales after the House of Lords passed an amendment to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. The new law will apply to roads, paths and public rights of way, in addition to fields and enclosures.

 

Police officers will also gain new powers to seize dogs which pose a risk of repeated attacks, as well as allowing police to use contemporary forensic tools, including DNA sampling and taking mouth impressions from dogs suspected of worrying livestock. The legislation also extends protection to alpacas and llamas.

 

What has changed in the law?

 

The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) legislation has been modernised. Key points:

 

Unlimited fines

• The old £1,000 cap has gone. Courts can now impose unlimited fines reflecting the real harm caused.

 

More animals protected

• 'Livestock' now clearly includes alpacas and llamas, as well as sheep, cattle, goats, pigs and others.

 

More places covered

•  The law applies:

– in fields and enclosures

– on public footpaths

– on roads

– while livestock are being moved

Stronger police powers

• Police can now:

– seize and detain dogs

– enter premises with a warrant

– collect forensic evidence

Worrying vs attacking livestock. This is crucial.

 

• 'Worrying livestock' includes:

• chasing

• running at

• harassing

• causing fear or panic

• being loose among livestock and not under proper control

 

No injury or physical contact is needed. Stress alone is legally recognised harm. It can cause:

• miscarriages

• mis-mothering

• exhaustion

• broken limbs from fleeing

• long-term fear responses

 

Attacking livestock involves:
• biting

• grabbing

• injuring

• killing

 

Livestock worrying often happens out of sight. The law now reflects that.

Both worrying and attacking are criminal offences. What counts as evidence now:

 

Evidence may include:

• Injuries to livestock (including stress-related harm)

• Bite marks, wounds, post-mortems

• Blood, tissue, or DNA

• Evidence from the dog (blood, saliva, bite patterns)

• Collars, leads, towels or other items

• Disturbed ground, damaged fencing

• Witness statements

• Livestock behaviour (panic, scattering, distress)

• The dog itself, which may be seized for examination

 

A case does not need someone to witness the moment of chasing if evidence supports what happened.

 

What ‘under proper control’ means.

This is the most misunderstood part of the law.

A dog is under proper control only if the handler can prevent it from worrying livestock at all times.

 

That means the handler must be able to:

• stop the dog before it approaches livestock

• prevent any chasing or rushing

• act instantly not “afterwards”

• maintain control even if animals move or run

 

If the dog is stopped after it has approached or chased livestock, control was already lost.

 

On a lead - A dog on a lead is usually under control only if:

• the lead is short enough

• the handler can physically restrain the dog

• the handler is paying attention

 

Flexi leads, long lines, or dragging leads in livestock areas are often not considered proper control.

 

Off-lead - A dog can be under proper control off-lead, but the bar is very high.

 

If a dog:

• runs towards livestock

• hesitates before recall

• ‘only chases for a bit’

• comes back after animals flee

........it is not under proper control.

 

Presence alone can be an offence

 

A loose dog among livestock, fence-running, or stalking can already count as worrying, even without a chase. The law is about risk and stress, not intent.

 

A practical rule used in policing: If a reasonable livestock keeper would feel at risk with that dog there, it is not under proper control.

 

Dogs may be seized:

• to prevent repeat incidents

• to gather evidence

• during investigation

 

Seized dogs are not automatically destroyed under livestock worrying law. Courts usually focus on owner responsibility, not punishing the dog. Destruction orders are rare and would only arise under other legislation if a dog posed an unmanaged, serious risk.

 

In short:

• Livestock do not need to be bitten for an offence

• Stress and chasing are recognised harm

• Evidence can be physical and forensic

• “Proper control” means preventing risk, not recalling afterwards

• Responsibility rests with the handler

 

This law exists to protect animals who cannot escape or speak for themselves, and to make expectations clear for everyone who shares the countryside.

 

Please feel free to share as clarity prevents heartbreak.

 

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

The National Gamekeepers’ Organisation: The National Gamekeepers’ Organisation (NGO) represents the gamekeepers of England and Wales. The NGO defends and promotes gamekeeping and gamekeepers and works to ensure high standards throughout the profession. The National Gamekeepers’ Organisation was founded in 1997 by a group of gamekeepers who felt that keepering was threatened by public misunderstanding and poor representation. Today, there are 13,000 members of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation.  www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk