Championing Proven Solutions That Save Lives
Addressing the critical issue of dogs worrying livestock, and advocating for evidence-based solutions that protect animals, dogs and farming communities.
An Ongoing Crisis
Dogs attacking farm animals represents an ongoing crisis across the United Kingdom. Current protective measures are inadequate, with yearly incidents continuing unabated. This concern extends beyond rural areas, affecting animal welfare, farming communities’ financial security and the dogs themselves — which may face destruction as a result.
Reward-based training alone cannot prevent determined dogs from following natural predatory instincts towards livestock. Neither physical restraint nor positive reinforcement alone can sufficiently prevent livestock attacks in all circumstances.
What Is Livestock Worrying?
Under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, as amended by the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, a person commits an offence if a dog attacks or worries livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path.
For the purposes of the Act, “worrying livestock” means:
“…chasing livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering to the livestock, or, in the case of females, abortion or loss of or reduction in their produce; or being ‘at large’ — that is to say, not on a lead or otherwise under close control — in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep.”
The separate offence of attacking livestock is now expressly distinguished from “worrying”, although both remain offences under the Act.
The 2025 Amendment also extends the law beyond agricultural land so that a dog attacking or qualifyingly chasing livestock on a road or path can constitute an offence. This includes public highways, country lanes, footpaths and bridleways where livestock are being moved. However, the mere fact that a dog is off lead on a road or path does not, by itself, engage the separate “at large” provision. That provision remains limited to a field or enclosure containing sheep.
There is also a specific exemption where livestock are on a road or path because they have strayed from the place where they are ordinarily kept. In those circumstances, a person is not guilty by reason of something done by their dog on the road or path unless that person causes the dog to attack the livestock.
The owner — and, where applicable, the person in charge of the dog at the time — may be guilty of an offence.
“Under close control” is not expressly defined within the Act. Whether a dog was otherwise under close control will therefore depend upon the evidence and circumstances of the particular case, including the dog’s proximity and responsiveness to the person in charge. It should not be presented as automatically meaning that the dog must be at heel, since that is not a statutory definition.
England and Wales
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, as amended by the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, now provides for an unlimited fine following summary conviction. This replaces the previous maximum fine of £1,000.
A court may also order a convicted person to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in seizing and detaining the dog where it was detained because the police considered that it presented a continuing risk of attacking or worrying livestock.
The legislation applies to England and Wales. It now protects cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, domestic poultry and camelids, including alpacas and llamas.
An offence under the Act is dealt with through criminal proceedings following police investigation. A livestock keeper may also pursue a separate civil claim for loss or damage, including where liability arises under the Animals Act 1971.
Scotland
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021 allows for a maximum fine of up to £40,000 and six months’ imprisonment. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025 applies only to England and Wales and does not alter the Scottish legislation.
Can a Farmer Shoot My Dog?
If a dog is worrying livestock, or is about to worry livestock, and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying, the person who kills or injures the dog may have a statutory defence under section 9 of the Animals Act 1971. This is a legal defence subject to conditions, rather than an unrestricted legal right to shoot dogs.
The person relying upon the defence must be able to show that the action was reasonably necessary for the protection of the livestock. Where applicable, they must also have made reasonable efforts to establish whether somebody entitled to possession of the dog was nearby and able to bring it under control.
Where a dog is killed or injured in reliance upon this provision, the incident must be reported to a police constable within 48 hours.
In shooting a dog, a farmer must remain aware of their legal obligations under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 regarding the causing of unnecessary suffering to a protected animal, together with the law governing the possession and discharge of firearms.
A farmer cannot lawfully threaten to discharge a firearm merely because a dog is present near livestock where the statutory conditions are not met. Equally, the defence will not ordinarily apply after the immediate need to protect livestock has ended and the dog has been brought securely under control.
This said, in Scotland a court found a farmer not guilty after he had shot and killed a dog that was on a lead held by its owner. The dog had previously been worrying sheep and the farmer maintained that he believed it would do so again. That decision arose under the particular facts and Scottish law applicable to that case and should not be treated as creating a general right to shoot a dog once it has been secured.
Read the caseIt is also important to understand that the fact that a dog has worried, chased, attacked or even killed livestock does not automatically mean that the dog must be destroyed.
A farmer, livestock owner, police officer or other person at the scene has no authority simply to order or require the owner to have the dog euthanised. Farmers may sometimes tell owners that their dog “will have to be put down”, and an owner who does not understand the law may comply in the mistaken belief that destruction is a mandatory legal consequence of livestock worrying. It is not.
A police officer may investigate the incident, seize and detain the dog where the statutory conditions are met, or place the evidence before the prosecuting authorities. A farmer or another complainant may also seek an order through the courts. However, neither the police nor the livestock owner can themselves make a binding destruction order.
The compulsory destruction of a claimed dog requires an order made by a court exercising an applicable statutory power. This may arise following criminal proceedings or through civil proceedings under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, under which a magistrates’ court may order a dog to be kept under proper control or, where the evidence justifies it, destroyed. A civil application under the 1871 Act does not depend upon the owner first being convicted of a criminal offence.
This distinction does not affect the separate defence available to a person who kills or injures a dog where that action is reasonably necessary at the time to protect livestock under section 9 of the Animals Act 1971. Nor does it prevent the police from dealing with a seized dog that remains legally unclaimed in accordance with the statutory procedure. But once the immediate incident has ended and a dog has been secured and claimed by its owner, no farmer, police officer or other individual can unilaterally insist upon its destruction.
An owner may, of course, voluntarily agree to euthanasia, but they should not be pressured into making that irreversible decision under the false impression that the law automatically requires it. Unless and until a court makes a lawful destruction order, the decision remains the owner’s.
Should I Be Concerned?
In a nutshell, YES.
Too many owners believe that their dog would “never chase or hurt livestock” and therefore take far too many risks, risking far too many lives without adequate control and prevention measures. Dogs are opportunistic predators — all of them — and we would urge fellow dog owners to fully understand the moral, legal and welfare-based implications of this fact.
A predator is an animal that naturally preys on other animals. This is why your dog might chase balls and other toys, your cat, squirrels, leaves, joggers, bicycles or cars. When dogs do this, they aren’t simply “playing for the sake of playing”. They are rehearsing their natural instinct as predators to hunt, chase and catch.
Have you ever seen your dog shred bedding, or strip, chew and even swallow bark from branches? It is the same basic behavioural process: rehearsing elements of the predatory sequence.
“Opportunistic” simply means taking advantage of a situation as and when it arises, without necessarily planning to do so, and often acting spontaneously and without warning.
Add to this the fact that many dogs have been intentionally bred for working requirements. Dogs originally bred to locate, indicate, chase, catch, kill or retrieve other animals are now living in millions of pet homes with owners who may be completely unaware of their true purpose and potential.
“A restrained dog is not a trained dog.”
Practical Points to Know
Anyone who takes their dog into the countryside for exercise or holidays must be fully aware of what their dog is capable of and of their responsibilities as the person in charge of it.
To help owners understand more, based on the first-hand experiences of hundreds of dog owners whose dogs have worried, chased or attacked livestock or other wildlife, we have compiled the following list.
Any dog can suddenly and unexpectedly chase and attack livestock or other forms of wildlife.[1]
Dogs don’t chase prey animals merely in play; they chase to practise and improve the behavioural skills used in hunting.
The fact that a dog is friendly is irrelevant. Predatory behaviour is about instinct and opportunity, not friendliness.
A predatory dog is not necessarily acting out of aggression. Predation and aggression are not the same thing. If a dog attacks livestock, it does not follow by default that it will attack other dogs, children or adults.
Whilst recommended, early exposure to livestock as a puppy is no guarantee that the adult dog will not later chase or attack them.[2]
Dogs can and do wriggle free from harnesses and slip out of loose-fitting collars, including head collars, very quickly when motivated to chase.
Dogs can and do yank leads from hands in an instant when suddenly presented with an opportunity to chase prey — especially extending or retractable leads.
Regardless of size, the impact of a dog suddenly hitting the end of a long or retractable lead at full speed when motivated to chase generates an incredibly powerful force, which can and will pull many owners off their feet.
A restrained dog is not a trained dog.
Dogs can and do escape gardens by any means possible, including digging beneath or climbing and jumping fencing over six feet high when motivated to hunt or chase.
Dogs can and do escape vehicles and insecure houses when motivated to hunt or chase.
A dog can be aware of the presence of livestock or other wildlife from very long distances and can set off in pursuit of animals that the owner cannot see. A poorly controlled dog can never be considered safe.
Dogs don’t need to begin on agricultural land or in the presence of livestock to end up in that situation. Many can and do chase other animals into fields containing livestock before going on to worry or attack those animals.
Dogs which are usually calm and disinterested on their own can behave very differently in the presence of other dogs around livestock and wildlife — what is commonly referred to as “pack mentality”.
Unless very well trained and regularly tested, the majority of dogs will completely ignore their owner’s desperate commands when motivated to chase. Once the chase has begun, there may be no conventional food reward powerful enough to compete with the reward of fulfilling instinctive predatory behaviour.[3]
Dogs have no concept of right or wrong, malice or guilt; nor do they understand the knock-on effects of their behaviour upon themselves, their owners, livelihoods or society. Dogs act upon what they have learned to expect in response to their behaviour, based upon their past experience of consequences.
Dogs do not understand or care about signs, fines, causing financial loss or being shot. This is why relying upon these approaches will not prevent dogs from wanting to chase, worry, harm or kill.
Notes
When the following recommendations are followed, the probability of a dog worrying livestock or chasing other animals is greatly reduced.
A puppy is particularly receptive to livestock-avoidance learning, where a negative, startling experience associated with approaching livestock can be swift, meaningful and capable of lasting for a lifetime. Unless the puppy will later be required to work amongst livestock, there is no reason or benefit in attempting to create a “happy” association with the presence of livestock. Avoidance can literally be lifesaving.
We strongly support the controlled training and periodic testing of dogs under controlled, replicated, live distractions. Our support is based upon thousands of experiences, together with the fact that no evidence exists to support the claim that reliable, safe avoidance can be achieved without the dog experiencing an unpleasant, deterrent correction.
What More Can Owners Do?
Education
First and foremost, dog owners need to be fully aware of what their dogs are capable of, and why.
Whilst any dog may worry livestock or wildlife, some dogs have a far stronger hunting or herding heritage and a much higher “prey drive”. It would be wrong to list particular breeds, since that risks creating a breed stereotype that is neither helpful nor guaranteed. However, the first step in responsible ownership is to understand the species, the breed, its history and its requirements.
Attach a Short, Strong Lead to a Well-Fitting Buckle Collar
ARDO supports the message that dogs should be kept on a lead when in a field or enclosure containing livestock, or otherwise in close proximity to livestock. However, we know — as supported by the increasing numbers of attacks and multiple first-hand accounts — that this approach alone is insufficient.
When choosing a collar, we would advise owners to avoid those with a plastic snap connector, which may break under strain or sudden impact. Instead, we encourage owners to use a snug-fitting, strong, traditional buckle on a quality leather collar, either in place of or in addition to a harness. Harnesses afford the owner very little physical control in the presence of high distraction.
Regardless of the type of restraint, we would strongly encourage owners to heed our message that a restrained dog is not a trained dog.
“There is an irresponsible belief that a high-value treat beats chasing sheep for determined dogs. It does not. This is not a Disney cartoon. This is life, death and misery.”
Effective, Realistic Training
We cannot stress enough how important it is to train our dogs right from the start to become responsive and reliable under temptation and distraction.
From the moment we take ownership of a puppy or adult dog, we take responsibility for it. We also take on the social expectations and legal liabilities associated with it. What society expects and the law demands is now our responsibility.
We cannot blame the dog for our training failings, yet all too often dogs and other innocent animals pay the ultimate price for them. We cannot train for the unpredictability of life if we do not include the unpredictability of life in our training, and we must fully appreciate the need to control our dogs for the safety of other animals.
Training with rewards can be both enjoyable and productive, but there is an irresponsible belief that a high-value treat beats chasing sheep for determined dogs. It does not. This is not a Disney cartoon. This is life, death and misery. The same applies to dogs chasing deer, birds or other prey animals.
Responsible dog training requires us to recognise the limitations of rewards, but not to allow those limitations to dictate the limits of our training.
There is nothing wrong with teaching a dog the concept of “Wrong!”, certainly not where lives and livelihoods are concerned. Remember, dogs act upon what they have learned to expect in response to their behaviour, based upon their past experience of consequences — and it is incumbent upon us, their owners, to provide those expectations.
“We cannot blame the dog for our training failings, yet all too often they and other innocents pay the ultimate price for them.”
Supervised Livestock Proofing with Quality Electronic Training Collars
What Is Livestock Proofing?
Livestock proofing is the process of teaching a dog to completely and permanently avoid livestock as a result of experiencing a negative consequence for approaching them.
This is an area where ARDO is absolutely prepared to put its head above the political parapet and state an absolute truth: when used in accordance with qualified instruction, quality electronic training collars are unique and unsurpassed — not to mention repeatedly scientifically proven — in establishing fast, effective, harmless and lasting avoidance between dogs and livestock.
Put bluntly, electronic collars save lives, fast.
There are various examples of livestock proofing, such as the traditional process of “putting the pup with the tup” — meaning placing a young dog in an enclosed pen with a ram so that the ram can “teach the pup a lesson”, without giving the puppy any means of escape.
Whilst we support instilling avoidance in the dog, animal welfare is our guiding compass, and we support only the most sophisticated means of doing so.
We cannot condone the wholly unnecessary risks of physical injury to the young dog, or indeed the sheep, where technological advancement affords us the means of instilling a far more precise and longer-lasting impression upon the mind of the dog without risk of physical harm to either animal.
Some trainers suggest throwing startling objects, such as chains or bottles containing stones, towards the dog when it is near sheep. This might be effective for some young or particularly sensitive dogs, but it seldom works for most and has no scientific backing.
Furthermore, the dog knows that the person is delivering the correction and may therefore avoid sheep only when that person is present — not if the dog escapes from the home or the owner’s control.
Research That Supports Our Position
Andelt Research
Demonstrated collar effectiveness by averting all 13 attempted attacks on lambs during the study. Electronic training provided reliable, lasting avoidance behaviour.
Tortora Research
Showed complete elimination of aggression in all 36 dogs tested. The results demonstrated that electronic training aids can resolve serious behavioural issues safely and permanently.
Professor Doug Elliffe
Critically examined the University of Lincoln’s anti-collar research, identifying it as “very seriously flawed” in methodology and conclusions.
Wales experienced a doubling of sheep attacks following the prohibition of electronic training collars.
Zero prosecutions for electronic collar misuse across two decades of legal use in the UK.
Agriculture committee member Tom Buchanan warned that a proposed ban in Northern Ireland would pose a “fatal risk to both sheep and dogs.”
The Flaws with Laws
“We must reiterate our undeniable experience that the strongest answer lies in proactive prevention, not reactive prosecution.”
In June 2020, the political focus on addressing dogs worrying and attacking livestock had begun to shift from the singular message of “keep them on leads” towards wider concepts of responsible dog ownership, stronger enforcement powers and increased penalties.
Those proposals have now resulted in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, which came into force in England and Wales on 18 March 2026.
The amended legislation:
- distinguishes expressly between attacking livestock and worrying livestock;
- extends the offence to attacks and qualifying chasing occurring on roads and paths;
- adds camelids, including alpacas and llamas, to the definition of livestock;
- replaces the previous maximum £1,000 penalty with an unlimited fine;
- gives police greater powers to seize and detain dogs considered to present a continuing risk;
- permits the collection of samples and impressions from dogs and livestock where these may provide evidence;
- enables a justice of the peace to issue a warrant authorising entry and search of premises in order to identify or seize a dog, obtain samples or secure other evidence; and
- allows a court to order a convicted person to pay reasonable expenses associated with the seizure and detention of the dog.
The amended Act also provides an owner with a defence where the dog was in another person’s charge without the owner’s consent, such as where the dog had been stolen or taken without permission. An owner may also avoid liability where they reasonably believed the person placed in charge of the dog to be a fit and proper person.
Whilst we do not object to stronger investigatory powers or penalties, we must reiterate our undeniable experience that the strongest answer lies in proactive prevention, not reactive prosecution. Scotland significantly increased its penalties in 2021, yet the existence of more severe punishment cannot, by itself, prevent a dog from engaging in instinctive predatory behaviour.
What remains conspicuously absent from much of the official advice is the need for owners to ensure that they effectively train and proof their dogs, as well as physically restraining them where necessary.
To reiterate: dogs have no concept of right or wrong, malice or guilt; nor do they understand the knock-on effects of their behaviour upon themselves, their owners, livelihoods or society. Increasing penalties, widening the geographical scope of the offence and strengthening police powers may increase the consequences for owners after an incident, but they mean absolutely nothing to an opportunistic predator that has never experienced a meaningful consequence for a completely natural behaviour.
Dogs care nothing for consequences they do not understand
ARDO in the Media
Evidence That Speaks for Itself
Our survey of over 2,500 dog owners provides the most comprehensive real-world data on electronic training aid use ever assembled in the UK.
Free to join • No spam • GDPR compliant