Dog owners to face unlimited fines if their pets attack livestock under new law 4 hours ago Malcolm Prior ,Rural Affairs Producerand Amy Mackrill ,BBC Wales Dog owners face unlimited fines and could see their pets taken away under new laws designed to better protect farm animals from attacks in England and Wales.

The changes to existing "livestock worrying" laws, which date back more than 70 years, come into force on Wednesday, giving police powers to take DNA samples from dogs suspected of attacking, chasing or causing distress to farm animals.

It is estimated livestock worth nearly £2m was severely injured or killed by dogs in 2025, up 10% from the previous year, according to insurers NFU Mutual.

One farmer told the BBC that dog attacks on his sheep were a constant "nightmare" and countryside visitors needed to be better educated about the risks.

Joshua Gay, who has a mixed farm near Newton St Loe in Somerset, lost thousands of pounds worth of livestock in one incident last June that saw about 35 ewes and lambs attacked by a loose dog.

"Some were killed by the dog.

Others were just driven into deep brambles and bushes so they couldn't get out and, with it being 30 degrees and them in a wool fleece, they basically baked like an oven and died," he explained.

Gay says smaller incidents are commonplace during the summer when walkers "go where they aren't used to going".

"They don't know the etiquette or the countryside code and they tend to not be aware or not in control.

But their dog may never have seen sheep before. Their dogs just aren't used to it," he said.

"The owners think they know their dog but that instinct just takes over. "

Gay welcomed the changes introduced by the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, which will now see: the maximum penalty facing those whose dogs attack or chase livestock rise from £1,000 to an unlimited fine; police given new powers to seize dogs believed to pose an ongoing threat to livestock and to enter premises to secure evidence or animal DNA; new powers allowing a court to order an offender to pay expenses associated with seizing and detaining a dog; incidents prosecuted even if they occur on roads or public paths, rather than only on private farmland; the definition of livestock protected by the law expanded to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas.

Legal 'step forward' Alpaca owner Helen Edmunds, 57, of Garth Hall Farm, Rhondda Cynon Taf, said the change to include camelids was important as the number of owners had grown significantly since the original law was introduced in 1953.

She said attacks could have a lasting emotional impact, adding she still vividly remembered a dog attack on the sheep farm where she grew up and knew of fellow alpaca owners whose animals had suffered serious leg injuries after being bitten by dogs.

Dr Anna Muir, a dog behaviourist who runs a training centre near Mold, Flintshire, also welcomed the changes, saying: "For irresponsible dog owners who let their dogs run loose under no control, who let them off lead in sheep fields, who show no effort to reduce them chasing livestock - I am absolutely supportive of unlimited fines. "

But she warned that responsible dog walkers, who would normally put their dogs on leads while walking through agricultural fields, could get "caught out" if they came across stray animals on the roads, or if a farmer happened to be moving their livestock between fields.

Dr Muir said the safest option wherever livestock may be present was to keep dogs on a lead.

The National Sheep Association carried out a survey of farmers that found that 87% of sheep farmers who responded had experienced a dog attack on their flock in the past year.

Gavin Lane, president of the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), which represents rural landowners, said the law change was a "serious step forward" and that "farmers should not have to live in fear of dogs attacking their animals"

Highlighted sentences link to their corresponding claims. Click any highlighted sentence to jump to its detailed analysis.
Highlight Colors Indicate Claim Quality:
✓ Healthy Claim - No fallacies or contradictions detected
⚠️ Minor Issues - Has contradictions or minor fallacies
🚨 Serious Issues - Multiple contradictions or severe fallacies
Quality Criteria: Claims are evaluated for logical fallacies and contradictions with other news sources. Green highlights indicate healthy claims suitable for reference.
Source