Is the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Amendment Bill in England Learning the Right Lessons from Scotland?
As the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill continues its progress through Parliament, many rural stakeholders—including farmers, land managers, and working dog owners—are closely watching its trajectory. The Bill seeks to update the original 1953 Act to reflect modern farming realities and rising public access to the countryside. But key questions remain: Will it work? Has Scotland shown that tougher legislation actually leads to fewer dog attacks on livestock? And are the right people being listened to?
What Scotland Changed
Scotland enacted a sweeping reform in 2021 via the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act. This introduced fines of up to £40,000, custodial sentences of up to 12 months, powers to seize and destroy dogs, and disqualification orders preventing irresponsible dog owners from keeping animals. The Act also broadened the definition of “livestock” to include farmed deer, camelids such as alpacas and llamas, and enclosed game birds [1][2].
It also addressed the geographical limitations of the 1953 Act, making clear that livestock worrying offences could occur not only in enclosed fields but across open and unenclosed land as well [3].
Has It Worked?
Headline figures suggest it might have. Reported livestock worrying incidents in Scotland dropped from around 350 in the year to March 2024 to 216 in the year to March 2025, a decline of approximately 38% [4]. However, it is crucial to interrogate these figures more carefully.
There is no data to indicate whether this reduction reflects a true fall in the number of dog attacks, or simply a fall in the number of reports. In fact, the UK Government’s own modelling for its comparable legislation in England and Wales predicts that actual livestock worrying incidents will remain broadly stable over the next decade, even as reporting rates increase modestly [5]. The implication is that recorded declines may not be the same as real declines.
Enforcement Challenges and Farmer Frustration
The Scottish Act created the potential for more severe consequences, but enforcement has proven weak. Of the 57 charges brought under the Act in the year after it came into force, only two led to convictions—less than 4% [6]. In some cases, fines imposed were just £400 [7].Rural and farming organisations have expressed frustration. Scottish Land & Estates welcomed the reduction in reported incidents but called for better enforcement resources. Farmers Guardian and others reported that many farmers feel the legislation, while well-intentioned, has not materially improved the situation on the ground [8].
A separate but critical concern is whether the scale of potential penalties is discouraging owners from coming forward when their dog has attacked livestock. Ultimately, the sector needs to be looking at ways to better increase self-reporting by dog owners following incidents. Not only would this provide greater scope for compensating the relevant people for damages and losses, but access to far greater detail and understanding into the factors genuinely impacting upon worrying incidents and attacks, upon which we can develop more pragmatic, preventative methods of offence reduction. If harsher laws increase fear of reprisal, it is highly likely that they may unintentionally reduce reporting—particularly where the owner is absent at the time of the incident and faces the risk of a criminal record or dog destruction.
The Role of Stakeholders—and the Risks of Oversight
The development of legislation in this area has involved consultation with rural police teams, farming unions, animal welfare charities, and other rural stakeholders. However, many working dog owners, field sports participants, land practitioners and crucially – responsible dog owners, feel their input is either overlooked entirely, or often acknowledged in form but not reflected in substance.
There is a growing concern that policy development is drifting toward an increasingly punitive model that prioritises the appearance of action over practical prevention. Rather than focusing on endorsing proactive, preventative dog training schemes, real world education and support for responsible dog ownership, the existing and proposed amended approach still relies heavily on post-incident punishment—once the damage is already done.
To be effective, any legislation must meaningfully integrate frontline experience. Otherwise, the law risks becoming performative: a mechanism for deterring owners from reporting offences, rather than preventing the offences in the first place.
What England and Wales Are Proposing
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill currently before Parliament in Westminster mirrors elements of the Scottish approach. It expands police powers to seize dogs and enter land, extends the definition of livestock to include camelids (but not game birds), and enables greater data sharing between agencies [9].
But it does not replicate the full scope of the Scottish model. It does not increase maximum penalties. It does not allow for dog destruction or disqualification orders. And as it stands, it does not provide for routine inclusion of responsible dog owner communities in the development or dissemination of relevant changes.
ARDO’s Role in Proactive Reform
The Association of Responsible Dog Owners (ARDO), through its public education and policy engagement work at www.joinardo.com, have proven our commitment and capability to advocate for evidence-led, constructive legislative reform.
Rather than focusing solely on post-incident enforcement, ARDO promotes preventive solutions that empower dog owners to avoid incidents of livestock worrying altogether. These include accessible training advice, honest and direct social media and online awareness campaigns, and direct engagement with policymakers. As a trusted and respected association, ARDO has direct access to thousands of dog owners who in turn can work to influence thousands of others. It cannot be over emphasised just how valuable and important it is for policymakers to secure and assist the influence of those people responsible for the dog who commit the offence. If you wish to truly understand an issue, there is no better group to consult than the group responsible.
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill represents an opportunity not only to modernise outdated legislation, but also to demonstrate how proactive, responsible ownership can be placed at the heart of national policy. ARDO remains committed to offering a unique and valuable contribution to this conversation, remaining focused on a preparedness to work collaboratively to reduce conflict, promote education, and ensure that future legislation supports both animal welfare and crucially, practical offence prevention.
Conclusion
Scotland’s experience offers a mixed picture. Reported incidents are down, but conviction rates are low, and concerns remain about underreporting and enforcement inconsistency. For England and Wales to follow Scotland’s lead effectively, policymakers must ask the harder questions: Are we reducing real-world harm? Are we approaching the issue from the most effective angle, or that which gives the illusion of affect? How are any proposed changes expected to increase reporting and enforcement? Are we listening to the right people?
Without addressing those issues, England’s amendment bill may simply replicate the form of the Scottish legislation—without achieving its intended function.
References
1. Shepherd and Wedderburn, “Livestock worrying: The new law explained.” https://shepwedd.com/knowledge/sheep-worrying
2. Anderson Strathern, “A timely reminder on livestock worrying laws.” https://www.andersonstrathern.co.uk/insights/a-timely-reminder-of-what-farmers-and-landowners-should-know-about-the-new-laws-around-livestock-worrying
3. Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021, legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/6/contents
4. Scottish Land & Estates (2025). https://www.scottishlandandestates.co.uk/news/reduction-livestock-worrying-vigilance-remains-message
5. UK Parliament Impact Assessment (2024). https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0062/ImpactAssessmentLivestockWorrying.pdf
6. The Scotsman (2024). “Livestock worrying convictions in Scotland appallingly low.” https://www.scotsman.com/news/livestock-worrying-convictions-in-scotland-appallingly-low-5026706
7. Farmers Weekly. “Livestock worrying largely unpunished despite tough legislation.” https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/farm-policy/livestock-worrying-unpunished-despite-tough-legislation
8. Farmers Guardian. “Farmers feel helpless despite legal changes.” https://www.farmersguardian.com/news/4412275/study-reveals-farmers-feel-helpless-frustrated-livestock-worrying
9. Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill, Parliament.uk https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3821