Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society (DLPS)
Summary of Recommendations
1. Confirmation that the definition of “agricultural land” in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 includes grazed common land.
2. Encouragement to the Dartmoor National Park Authority to use and enforce the provision in the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 to apply the 1953 Act to the Dartmoor commons.
3. Change in the law to enable all access authorities to apply the 1953 Act to grazed commons in their areas.
4. Clarification of “dangerously out of control” in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
5. Courts to have the power to impose dog destruction orders under the 1953 Act.
6. On-the-spot fines for dog transgressions.
7. Compulsory micro-chipping of dogs.
Submission
We are deeply concerned about the apparently rising number of sheep-worrying cases, particularly on common land(2) which is used by the public for recreation and exercising dogs.
Sheep-worrying is a serious problem on Dartmoor. During 2011, 76 sheep-worrying cases were reported to our Dartmoor Livestock Protection Officer and officially logged, that is more than one a week. Additional cases were known about later but not logged. These cases cause distress to the livestock and to its owners—not only for animal welfare reasons but also because the stock are important to their livelihoods.
We therefore submit the following:
1. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 (the 1953 Act) makes it an offence for a dog to worry (ie attack or chase) livestock on any agricultural land, which includes grazed land. We assume this therefore includes common land but if it does not, the definition of “agricultural land” should be amended to include grazed common land.
2. The 1953 Act does not adequately address the cause of the problem, namely that it is dogs off leads or out of control which worry livestock. The 1953 Act, section 1(2)(c) makes it an offence for a dog to be at large in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep. It does not make this an offence on land to which the public has freedom to roam, ie registered common land.
3. On Dartmoor we are fortunate that the common land is governed by the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 (the 1985 Act), which is a private Act. This makes provision in section 10(6) for the Dartmoor National Park Authority to post notices stating that section 1(2)(c) of the 1953 Act shall apply to dogs on the common as though the common was a field or enclosure. Therefore, where the 1953 Act is applied on the Dartmoor commons, it is a criminal offence for a dog to be at large. On most other commons it is merely treated as trespass, a civil offence.(3)
4. However, the Dartmoor National Park Authority rarely uses this provision, and we submit that it should be much more ready to do so, in order to protect the Dartmoor livestock from dog worrying. In addition, it should be swift to enforce transgressions of this provision. If the 1953 Act were to be invoked and enforced, it would be a clear statement to dog owners that they must not allow their dogs to worry livestock, and with suitable publicity it could be an effective deterrent.
5. The law should be changed to introduce a similar power for access authorities (county or unitary council) on commons with public access under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. This would enable livestock to be protected in areas where there is heavy public use.
6. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 3 makes it an offence to have a dog dangerously out of control in a public place. The definition of public place includes land to which the public has access, and therefore it includes registered common land (where the public has a right of access, whether under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 or other legislation). However, it appears that “dangerously out of control” is not defined and it would assist if this could be clarified.
7. The courts should have the power to impose dog destruction orders in cases brought under both the 1953 Acts (not only under The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as at present).
8. There should be provision for charging on-the-spot fines for dogs (i) chasing/injuring livestock, (ii)running out of control, (iii)being off a lead in an on-lead area.
9. It would become possible to impose on-the-spot fines if micro-chipping of dogs was compulsory, because owners of offending dogs could be positively identified by means of a chip reader. There should therefore be compulsory micro-chipping of dogs.
Notes
1. The Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society (DLPS) was founded in 1963. DLPS helps sick and injured ponies, sheep and cattle on Dartmoor and the animal casualties of moorland road accidents. DLPS is actively involved with the problem of out-of-control dogs and sheep-worrying on the common land. The Dartmoor Commoners’ Council and the DLPS together employ a Dartmoor Livestock Protection Officer whose role is to be on call at all times for incidents of dog attacks and sheep-worrying. The Dartmoor Livestock Protection Officer liaises between the public and farmers, and with the police where information is logged and further steps taken in the more serious cases.
2. Common land is land which has an owner and is subject to the rights of commoners, to graze animals, collect wood, dig peat etc. In the uplands especially, common grazings are vital to the livelihood of the graziers. Most common land is recorded on registers held by the county or unitary councils. The public has the right to walk on all commons and to ride on many of them.
3. On most commons the public right of access is under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. On these commons, dogs must be kept on short leads from 1 March to 31 July and at all times when in the vicinity of livestock (Schedule 2 para 5). However, if a member of the public disobeys this rule, he becomes a trespasser. It is not a criminal offence.
June 2012