07/12/2025
Dog owners & walkers: livestock worrying law important update
The law on dogs and livestock worrying has recently been updated in Britain. These changes matter and they apply even on public footpaths and rights of way.
This post explains:
• what has changed
• what counts as evidence
• what “under proper control” actually means
• whether seized dogs are killed
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
Both worrying and attacking are criminal offences.
What counts as evidence now
Livestock worrying often happens out of sight. The law now reflects that.
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” REALLY 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.
“Friendly”, “well trained”, or “never done it before” makes no difference in law.
NB 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.
Are seized dogs killed?
No not usually, dogs are not automatically destroyed under livestock worrying law.
Dogs may be seized:
• to prevent repeat incidents
• to gather evidence
• during investigation
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
