UKC

Hi, 

I've drafted this in my head a few times, certainly the first few drafts were angry, but that is not what I want to bring to this, but rather an approach of trying to understand. 

My partner and I spent the past week in the Lake District, staying at a cottage outside Ambleside. It was the first time we had been up since 2019. Before which, we went up together or separately fairly frequently. 

This time, it felt like there were a lot more dogs. I witnessed one dog, walked by two people, coming off Helvellyn to Raise, chase sheep. The return calls of the two people were ineffective for a long while. I witnessed the aftermath of one dog attack and a dead sheep descending Scandale Fell, and saw from afar a further dog chase/attack close to StockGhyll Force. This was on three walks taking place over five days. 

As I said, the first draft of this was really angry and probably pointless. But what I am looking for is an in, a way to understand what is going through these dog owners' minds - a belief that their dog just won't attack, a total lack of education around the cost to the farmer/stress on the animal from attacks/being chased, just a total lack of education about walking in the country? 

What can be done about it? 

N.B I'm not a dog owner but did grow up around them. 

Cue a few responses along the lines of "My dog has 100% recall, it would never happen with me".

Yeah, I almost put something in about expecting that - but trying (really hard) to be generous, I suppose that understanding that this is the approach people are going into it with goes some way to explaining their thinking...

As I say, trying really hard to be generous!

Too many dogs and not enough responsible owners. It's a plague. The new middle class must have accessory 

I think if it's the first time it has happened then you could be generous. Dog chases sheep, if, and it's a big if, no real harm is done, learn from it. Then every time you are near, or there is a possibility of sheep, stick the dog on a lead. If the sheep is injured or it's during lambing then I don't think there is any excuse. March to May, all dogs on leads, no exceptions.

If however the dog has chased sheep before and the owner lets it chase again, shoot it. I mean the owner, not the dog. 

Difficult to police. 

I often think about moving away from the islands to somewhere with bigger towns and more people but every time I read something like this I'm not so sure. I complain if I see anyone on my local beach, and it's almost a mile long. God forbid if they have a dog!

A percentage of dog owners don't adequately train their dogs to be off the lead in the hills. Unfortunately said owners often don't  regularly visit the hills so don't know that the dogs recall isn't good enough until it chases sheep. Recall in the park is very different to recall when lifestock is around. Since COVID dog ownership has increased making the problem worse. 

I lost my dog a year ago and I will admit that when we first got him I made the same error but I learnt from this and spent months and months stock training him to a point where I could have  walked him through a field a sheep and he wouldn't react. I would never let him off the lead around sheep but I wanted the confidence that should we encounter a stray one when I wasn't expecting it he wouldn't chase it. 

My sister and brother in law are farmers, they have working dogs plus Labradors which are very well trained gundogs who totally ignore the livestock on their farm. Whenever we go walking with them away from their own land, the dogs are always on leads. This is as it should be

I've struggled to understand the owners as well.

I walk at a local Forestry Commission trail. There is a short section - about 400m near to some swans/nesting birds where there are huge clear signs saying Dogs on Lead. 

I've pointed this out politely many times and been met by abuse, ignoring and confused expressions. 

One woman was sat immediately adjacent to the sign when I said "dogs need to be on a lead here". She later chased me down in the car park to harangue me. 

I've come to the conclusion that if they personally can't see the need for the rule, they unilaterally ignore it.  

It's not just the lake district.

The local beach has dog bans in place in sections, the worst offenders for ignoring it are the locals, likewise the bag trees, (fences in our case). The locals are very quick to blame the tourists for bags/ignoring the bans, but the COVID lockdown showed they were very much the culprits.

Just to be clear, I'm a dog owner, and rarely does he come off the lead in public, despite his very laid back manner and fairly good recall.

It's the loose dogs that are the problem, and as already said, the owners always come out with the same bs of it's never done that before. 

Ignorant, f/wits, is being kind.

During Covid lockdowns, a huge number of people got dogs and a large proportion of them had never owned one before and haven't got the first idea how to train them or look after them properly. It's a big problem in all sorts of ways and not confined to the Lake District.

Ducking Fogs ( as Dr Spooner would say)! It’s not their fault, but their Oucking Fwners. 

Pre COVID you'd rarely see dog eggs, now it's everywhere

It's part of a broader picture of entitlement, if only it was just dogs! I am a dog owner, something I never want to change, but you are responsible for your dogs actions. 

I think that there is a lot in this SouthernSteve. 

I believe the accepted course of action when a dog misbehaves is for the owner to shout its name aggressively, and when that doesn't work, just shout it again more loudly. And when that, predictably, doesn't work, don't try anything else, just stick with that.

Young people aren't having kids anymore, they're having cockapoos. 

this goes far beyond the middle classes!

I live near Scout Scar, above Kendal. At every entrance there a polite signs that explain dogs should all be kept on leads between March and July to avoid disturbing ground nesting birds.

And every day, perfectly nice people walk past the signs and let their dogs off their leads. And now there are no ground nesting birds; birdsong is noticeable by its absence.

I don't get it.

There's your answer right there. 

I was going to say similar. I grew up on a farm and my dad still has sheep. Our dog will happily ignore the sheep when at home, however I'll always put her on the lead around someone else's stock. 

If it all goes wrong, it's one thing having your own stock being chased and something very different when it's someone else's.

Only time I have encountered sheep worrying happening* was at Honister.  I tried to see the dog off, but who knows what happened later. No sign of owner.   

*have encountered the aftermath at home however.

Round here it seems mostly related to the "professional" dog walkers "looking after" half a dozen or so dogs and hence being incapable of actually keeping an eye on the lot.

My dog would never chase a sheep. That's a bit irrelevant though as I would never want my dog off the lead anywhere near them. That's a totally selfish thing as I just wouldn't want anyone thinking that I was a total c*ck even more than they might think that anyway. 

Sheep around? Put dog on lead, its not complicated. 

This from Burnthwaite Farm, Wasdale. 19th July

'In the last 3 days, 2 of our Herdwick ewes have been attacked by dogs off lead.

We managed to save 1, who had sustained bite wounds to her leg, but the other had received such injuries to her neck, she died before Andrew could get to her. She’d been left for dead in the beck by 3 men and a German shepherd dog.

I’ve seen this sort of post a thousand times. It’s normally accompanied by gory photos of bloody sheep. So why is it still happening?!

Farmers have the right to shoot a dog that is seen worrying/attacking livestock. But it’s actually not the dog that is at fault! That’s their nature! It’s the owners that think they are exempt from the signs (EVERYWHERE!) asking them to keep their dogs on leads.

Not only is this our livelihood, but 2 sets of dog owners have left 2 animals for dead, without any attempt to save them. This disgusts me. Would they leave a dog for dead like that? I doubt it.

Please share this far and wide. I know it’s just another “sheep attack” post, but maybe some day people will listen.'

“Farmers have the right to shoot a dog that is seen worrying/attacking livestock. But it’s actually not the dog that is at fault!”

Agreed. If farmers had the right to shoot irresponsible owners I suspect worrying would happen much less.

Recently in Coniston at Coppermines we watched a dog chase 2 sheep for quite.while.  Owners nowhere to be seen.  They emerged walking down the path with 2 dogs both off the lead. One of my walking partners tackled them about it.  ‘How did that that conversation go?’  ‘Better than expected she said.  It looked as if they were about to argue and I just said ‘you do know that the farmer is entitled to shoot the dog if they do that’.   

Maybe people would take more notice if the signs read "Dog's not on a lead WILL BE SHOT", with some smaller writing underneath explaining the law and the reasons they need to be kept on a lead. 

I don't think any farmer would actually shoot a dog, or want to, but the signs would maybe make people think twice. 

Or they could go more extreme and leave the carcasses of sheep that have been mauled by dogs hanging at the entrance to fields as a warning. A bit like in medieval times when law breakers would be hung at the castle gates. 

Used to be a fairly common occurrence when i was growing up.

I think that wording is not legal, though. My understanding is that the dogs actually have to be worrying the livestock. It feels over-aggressive and could possibly just push people to other behaviours as a bit of an F-you.

I feel like there are almost two things being addressed in this thread.

One is almost unspoken but nodded at a couple of times, which is some people just not liking dogs. Fair enough, and more owners should be sensitive to the possibility, but the presence of dogs is not going to change much.

The second is the abrogation of responsibility by some (too many) dog owners. My dog is cracking off the lead (within certain limits) and is no concern at all around sheep. But I agree with others that I will often have him on even when I am sure there's no issue either because (a) I don't expect that any observers (especially but not limited to farmers) will necessarily see that he/I are doing the right things, and (b) The awareness that I only need to be wrong once. I keep it to quiet days, higher-up and keeping him in a relatively short range.

I think where issues happen, it's not a "dog-owners are shit" thing, more that people are. It's the same thing that leads to littering, rubbish driving, rubbish parking, whiny kids, voting conservative,* trees full of poo-bags, executive bonuses, etc.  Just people wrapped up in their own existence and not thinking of the consequences to other people or beyond the next five minutes.

As a teacher, this does seem to be a trait that runs in families - sadly for some children. Hard to say whether or not it's a social/environmental factor, many of the kids like this do less well than they should but I suspect that's from not giving a toss what other people think rather than from intelligence.

As with all the other issues, the answer is possibly some kind of early education around empathy, personal responsibility and the like. Heaven knows what that would look like, though. The Netherlands or Germany's approach to social control, probably.

(I just put that one there to be annoying, imagine there's a smiley or something)

No they are not 

I had an encounter a couple of months ago, as I was cycling out from Ben Lui. Plenty of sheep and lambs around, to be expected in that part of the country. As I was cycling, I could see a woman running towards me. She was wearing a Glentress Trail Half Marathon t-shirt, which is an event I've done a few times, so I immediately felt a degree of kinship - thoroughly misplaced as it turned out. 

After she rounded a bend, a couple of dogs came lolloping along behind her, not on leads. As they approached, the larger of the two dogs jumped up at me, forcing a quick stop. I swore.

Me: "That dog isn't under control"

Her: "I have just as much right to be here as you."

Me: "True, but that's not the point. That dog's not under control. If you can't control it, it should be on a lead."

Her: assorted shouts to try to get the dog to behave, failing miserably. "I live round here."

Me: "I don't f**king care. That dog should be on a lead."

Dog: I think chasing these sheep will be a bit of a lark. 

Dog chases sheep and lambs across the river. 

Me: "Is that under control?"

Her: "No, he shouldn't be doing that."

I left her to it. 

I'm starting to see signs saying exactly that.

I think the problem is partly the sense of entitlement which appears to be increasingly common, together with a total lack of awareness of how to behave in the countryside.

Our dog has been raised in the countryside and is very familiar with sheep, and has good recall. Nevertheless I always put her on lead when stock are around, not only to reassure our farming neighbours but because few dogs can be entirely trusted not to become overexcited and forget their training.

I think it’s a complicated set of factors. As someone who lives and walks with two dogs in the lakes a couple of my observations…

• you are in silly season in the Lakes and issues around all aspects of tourism in the park are going to escalate, road side parking, wild camping, littering, fires, general unpreparedness and dogs (to name but a few). In the summer months we see a large influx of visitors who are not always familiar with the terrain and expected behaviours. Dogs and more importantly their owners are not exempt from this pattern. That is not to say there are not issues outside of the  tourist season, there are, but the issue is compounded as the numbers increase. 

•The fells are a stimulating place for Dogs as much as their owners. (My older dog will happily walk all day on the fells whatever the weather, whatever the season. Take her to the park and once she has had her fill of sniffs she will take me back to the car). Scents and stimulus’s on the fells are often new and unusual and as a consequence a dog may behave very differently on the fells. I suspect a lot of people who’s dogs walk to heal quite happily in suburban context find hard to understand why said dog suddenly goes nuts on the fells - hence the he doesn’t normally do that / she’s never done that before.

•Dogs are all individuals. My garden backs onto a farm, both dogs are exposed to sheep and cattle throughout the year. Both dogs will bark at the livestock if it approaches the fence in the garden and ignore the same livestock when we walk past the metal gate to the field at the end of the lane - they are only concerned with protecting their territory and occasionally their people. On the Fells my older dog will not leave my heal the younger dog will follow its nose.  The older dog will walk right past a sheep, the younger one will want to play. Despite being the same breed, probably better trained, the younger dog cannot control the desire to chase. With people it’s the exact opposite, the older dog will happily introduce itself uninvited where as the younger dog shows no interest. Needless to say I spend a good chunk of any walk putting the dogs on and off the lead at different times and for different reasons.

• a lot of dog owners are blissfully unaware of a few basic facts…

Not everyone finds your muddy dog quite as charming as you do

Not all dogs find your free range dog a delight to play with - some are terrified by the sudden unwanted attention. 

Standing on a dog log that isn’t on a foot path doesn’t diminish the disgust in the same way it does the owners conscience.

Leaving dog logs on a footpath should be a criminal offence everywhere, as should depositing bags of crap anywhere but in a bin.

Farmers have the right to shoot your dog in the event it is worrying their livestock. Note, your definition of worrying may differ from the farmers.

There is a lot more signage now than I think there used to be. I'm not a dog owner but do like dogs and had a family border collie growing up ( he was good at rounding up our chickens! ) but am dismayed by how many dogs I see off the lead in the hills and surrounding farm land.

Signs showing the damage a dog could do to live stock is quite common now in the Lakes.

Maybe people would take more notice if the signs read "Dog's not on a lead WILL BE SHOT", with some smaller writing underneath explaining the law and the reasons they need to be kept on a lead. 

Quite common in Scotland.

I think this is basically it, along with perhaps seeing the hills as a playground rather than shared with those that may have worked it for most of their lives. 

Our dog is great locally but as soon as the urge to chase is there (rabbit, crow whatever ) he might be great or he could be a total bam so in the hills he stays on the lead...

Believe it or not I've had people ask "why is your dog on a lead" on more than hill walk (deer or livestock around)- why would you even question an owner keeping a dog on a lead? 

Was near the summit of Ben Starav earlier in the year - with a big drop off to my right when someone's (large) dog came barrelling at me from my left. The dog was doing so in a friendly manner but it still was a sphincter clench thinking it might bounce up at me.

Regretted biting my tongue and not giving the owner a bollocking. Far too many folks with their badly controlled "fur babies".

Certainly see a huge amount more wildlife if you're off the Munro Red Routes, that's partly about the people, but the off lead dogs patrolling 50m either side of the path is probably the biggest reason.

It is all of these things plus a general sense of entitlement that people can just do what they want and others will sort the mess out - see litter, dog poo bags in trees, fly parking etc. 

This is a huge issue in certain parts of Scotland. A number of things to consider:

• The advice in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code re dogs in the countryside is confusing. They can be in fields under close control or on a lead, not allowed in fields at all with young livestock or can be let go off in fields with cattle if they start to get agressive. We need a single clear message. 
• Reporting of attacks is patchy but data shows many livestock attacks are from 'latchkey' dogs - i.e. got out from a house or garden and these can include farn dogs. Not every dog attacking livestock has an owner to hand. 
• We need to get away from the emphasis on lambing time and therefore that other months are not as important. For upland sheep, you've got tupping in October to November and then pregnant ewes from November to April/ May. Livestock attacks creates distress that can lead to miscarriages or still births and new born lambs then need additional husbandry for a couple of months at least. That leaves only a couple of months of the year when sheep are at their least vulnerable. Add in ground nesting birds/ other wildlife concerns and a dogs on leads at all times seems to be the only way to go. 
• Legislation exists to deal with livestock attacks but it is impossible to resource. Even when cases seem watertight i.e. dead livestock, owner and dog identified cases either don't make it to court or fines are way smaller than published and promoted maximums. There's no point in having maximum sentences of 6 months in prison for owners and fines of £40K (in Scotland) if no court is going to impose them. A high profile case with these kind of sentences/ fines imposed would go a long way to changing dog owners behaviour. 
• There is evidence that using 'shock tactic' signs of dead and bloody sheep/ animals just reinforces the 'my dog would never do that' mentality among some dog owners.

Summary - no simple solution but dogs on leads at all times in the countryside would be a start. As would enclosed areas that let dogs run around before going off on a wider walk. Or dog leads available at key access points to be taken and put back...

Davie

It makes me very angry.  I've come across a chain of 8 or 9 sheep and lambs one spring with their throats freshly ripped out (for pleasure I assume) coming down from Arthur's Pike towards Heughscar Hill.  It was Easter and the campsites on the side of Ullswater were full.

It was shocking.  Plus I've been bitten twice by dogs while on the fells, once by a dog coming behind me in bad weather whose presence I hadn't even known of.  What a shock!

Plus on these Eastern Fells we have curlews and larks nesting but the bastard dog owners who let their dogs run loose obviously only have eyes for their darling.

And yes, the number of dogs, dog prammies, doggy baby carriers have gone through the atmosphere into orbit, as have dogs on buses, dogs bums on bus seats, dogs bums on cafe seats and dogs sniffing around you unwantedly.

It makes me angry too, don't get me wrong. Fair few nasty encounters while out running myself.

Interesting observation on the increase in dog targeted "outdoor gear"; it might be my perception but there seemed an increase in that for sale in Ambleside - not knocking it if course, Outdoor shops need to make their money. 

Feck me! Is it really this bad there now?

I’m so glad that I don’t go in the summer months( other than a trip in bad weather at the end of June)

Ive only been spooked by a dog once on the hills, and this is when I was a lot younger and this massive, lost Foxhound loomed out of the mist. A corned beef butty seemed to bring it onside.

The only other harrowing encounter was when a dog was bouncing on the edge of the Helvellyn cornice in February, off its lead with two blokes.

I don’t see an answer to this other than video footage and massive fines appropriate to income.

I can’t see a gun toting farmer doing well in court , trying to shoot a dog with an owner trying to catch it personally.

Roll on the ,bers!

Dave

And we're back to ignorant entitlement; they think all 'furbabies' should be free to do what they want, and sod the consequences.

Here's Dorset Police attempt at signage.

Well put. I am surprised you got so many 'dislikes' but I suppose you ruffled a few feathers.

Dave

just had an interesting clip pop up on FB, a runner in Northumberland having just been attacked and left with bloody wounds. The difference is that he was attacked from above by a bird he can't identify but from the calls in the background it's obviously a buzzard.

I developed quite the owl paranoia early morning running in the woods after coming across this... 

https://indyweek.com/culture/owl-theory-staircase-peterson-durham/

Thinking about source of "attacks" while running for me.....

Seagulls 3 (i live 40 feet from high tide line....the right side of it)

Horses/ponies 2, both on coast path,

Cyclists 4 (all ridiculously close passes from "racers" while on a shared path.  2 actually hit me)

Cows 1 (country boy, so know how to deal with them and when to avoid them...but still got chased)

...and Dogs 1 (bloke utterly unconcerned,  dog off lead and out of control, thank goodness no livestock around).

If you're keen on the outdoors there's not much point in having a dog, assuming well behaved, if it's not allowed to be let off the lead in the countryside/hills.  

Eh ok. 

I really don't find keeping the dug on a lead in the hills any trouble? Why would it be? 

I had a clip round the ear from an eagle owl while watching a falconry display in the Vendee and it's not something you forget quickly.

So you must have been doing something naughty? Big on discipline your Eagle Owl....

Seems like an obvious hindrance to me. If I had a dog I would hope I could walk/run with it as Richard Askwith in his book Running Free.  If a dog cannot be let off the lead, even high on the hill, because it is a total liability, it becomes more of an accoutrement.    

Think more 'lifestyle accessory'...

We are primarily an arable and milk farm. Our right-of-way extends over three fields along a hedge. In the summer, a sheep farmer rents the field and grazes his sheep in one field. There are three gates along the route. Each has a polite notice to keep your dog on a lead. Most people don't bother to put their dogs on a lead. The sheep are only grazed on the third field for a few months a year. There are huge notices on the field with the sheep asking walkers to keep their leads. The sheep are surrounded by an electric fence, leaving a good margin along the hedge in the field containing the sheep. People still let their dogs off the lead.

If the sheep's owner saw their sheep being chased by their dog, they would definitely shoot the dogs.
 

Thanks.

Presumably the dislikes are because many on UKC are cats pretending to be humans, or something.

Probably because of the implication (in point 1) that complaints about the behaviour of dog owners is because of a dislike of dogs.

As opposed to a dislike of entitled bellends.

Perhaps British sheep farmers could copy the French and have a couple of 'patou' in with their flocks. The patou are big dogs (mastifs, Beauceron and the like) raised from puppies with the flock. When mature, they will face off against any threat to the flock: wolves; other dogs. Little Fido would think twice about worrying sheep if a 60kg patou is standing guard. 

UKCers have probably seen the sign posts in the Alps and Pyrenees saying: Don't mess with the patou.

Just a thought.

I would say my dog had pretty decent recall (97%of the time) and I know is stock safe. He is tested every year and is regularly exposed to sheep/cattle/horses, we did come across alpacas and running ducks the other days too. 

I'm quite confident about him working around sheep, but would still put him on a lead walking (not working) through a field of sheep as respect for the farmer. Threads and most social media posts like this will always have a comment in them about "all dogs on lead, all the time, no exceptions"

talk about entitlement  so Joe blogs with his whatever breed who wouldn’t hurt a fly looks around and sees a chap with his dog off lead and thinks “well that’s fine then”  don’t any of the entitled people on this thread ever lead by example?  I guess not  

put your damn dogs on lead ffs  

I'm one of those people who grew up not really liking dogs, because I had a frightening experience with one as a very young child (when I was closer to dog sized). When I was younger I hated having to avoid entering a field because people *never* recalled their dog before it ran up to me. It was always an apology after.

Trying to put myself into the mindset: 

- Avoiding effort - because a reasonably large or energetic dog that's pulling at the lead is actually physically quite hard to hold if you're a smaller frame and/or not very strong. So people don't bother unless they really have to.

- Ignorance, definitely of groundnesting birds. Tbh I don't really remember knowing about them when I was younger. They aren't as common in all landscapes as on moorland and a lot of people will be travelling some distance.

- I suspect a sort of muddled perception that generally, signs telling you not to do things are an infringement on your liberties and, more importantly, normally overkill (and sometimes they are). No wild camping? Plenty of us would reinterpret that. No swimming? Water board just covering its arse. No dogs off lead and no wildfires? No - *we'll* be fine... A ban without a reason doesn't get much sympathy, and unfortunately I don't think enough people understand the reason.

- Overestimating their recall, as said above. 

I have a feeling there are also no dogs allowed (aside from the ones you mention) in parts of the Pyrenees- It's a few years since I was there mind...

I've been approached by patou in the Alps a couple of times - scary but I did what the signage told me - stayed still until he realised I was human - and all was well.

Wouldn't like to have had a dog with me though.

Even the more well behaved and controlled dog can be triggered by something - livestock moving together or in a particular way.

A few years ago I read an account from a woman who breeds Deerhounds. She wrote that she would happily walk any of her dogs off the lead through a field of sheep, provided she had only one of her dogs with her. With two or more she said the risk of something happening was too great and they were always on leads.

This is clearly one dog potentially reacting to another but some trigger could easily happen with one dog, especially when, I suspect, many dogs excercised in the countryside rarely, or never, see a sheep most of the time.

Dave

ffs not sure where the heck you got that from

I may have mentioned  previously the sign at the Cabane D'Ansabere above Lescun which roughly translated as "If your dog harms our sheep, our dog will eat yours".

I think you need to re-read JoshOvki's post again (and apologise?).

They are scary aren't they? We met a flock with two giant Anatolian sheep dogs coming off Mt Korab in North Macedonia. I froze in terror. One dog took the flock up the hill and the other did a face off with us until the elderly shepherd came running round the hill to call him off. 

They're trained to protect the flock from bears and are very well trained. Humans or other dogs wouldn't stand a chance. Might work in the Lakes? Until the first court case

plenty of patous in the valley & surrounding hills where I live, often worrying and I've a rucksac torn by one which jumped an electric fence & took a bite, luckily of the sac & not me. The local paper must have a story about them most weeks during the spring & summer, either describing an incident with visitors or advice on how to avoid confrontations. Its a difficult issue in an area where sheep are subject to attacks by wolves but tourism is maybe the most important industry with most visitors walking or cycling at least for partof their visit, often with young children.

Some Dorset farms have one or two alpaca in with the sheep. I understand these act in a similar role.

[edit] may be llamas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_llama 

Seems like a possible solution; and they're cute too. 

Better still, the carcass of a dog shot by the farmer.  If I had the time on my hands I'd get a shotgun and rent myself out to farmers for free to sit on their land and wait for a dog to come in and worry the sheep.  A couple of videos online of someone cradling their fur-baby dying in their arms would focus a lot of minds.

The next time someone's dog jumps up at me I'm going to jump up at them and see how they like it.  Apparently I can be quite scary.

Seen this in the peak with so called professional dog walkers. 

Yes. 
Noticeable by its abundance in recent years is the sound of people shouting at the dogs that they have let off their leads. Folk who have no control, and little understanding. I walk a lot, and see it everywhere.

I’m afraid it’s human nature, how many people exceed the 70mph speed limit when is proven that excess speed leads to more serious outcomes in the event of an accident for both themselves and other motorists? It’s late, the roads are quiet. My dog doesn’t chase sheep… The patterns of behaviour are the same, some folk are risk averse, others less so. Some are simply ignorant. 

I do not see the problem to be exclusive to the middle class as someone suggested, nor do I believe it’s entitlement. It is much more likely (in my opinion) that owners are not identifying the risk their dogs pose to livestock, livelihoods and in some cases people. This pattern of behaviour extends well beyond the fells as many articles in the press testify. As in many areas of life, education is key. I know my local dog trainer talks at length about the behaviour of dogs around livestock but I suspect this is due to the rural location. How this is conveyed to the public (dog owning) at large I have no idea I’m afraid.

What I do know is, in terms of convincing people to change behaviour, referring to dogs as fur babies is not engaging with dog owners in a way that is likely to receive a positive response, certainly not the dog owners on this forum or those you are likely to meet on the fells. But then it seems that this also is human nature, group everyone or everything we dislike into a box and give it a derogatory label. 

For my part, as a dog owner I will continue to walk my dogs in the lakes Both dogs on a lead when in fields and farm land, on paths in the presence of people and other dogs. On the high fells I will assess the risk posed and behave accordingly which as I alluded to in a previous post will result in me spending a lot of time putting them on and off the lead… and you know what… during the nesting season I will be a little more mindful of the ground nesting birds - I do love to see the lapwings!

The situation on the continent with patou to protect the sheep alongside wolves and bears seems wonderful to me.

If it also means annoying pet dogs become less of a nuisance, that's a massive bonus IMO.

Let's get wolves and bears reintroduced ASAP. 

I used that term because many dog owners use that term themselves. And those dog owners are the ones who cosset and spoil their dogs the most, and most likely not to control their darling fur baby.

Livestock Guardian Dogs in the UK

https://www.mastinmatters.org/livestock-guardian-dogs-uk

Reading to the end it doesn't seem practical as the dog has to be contained by a high fence. That will exempt the sheep and dogs being in a field with a ROW/Path.

With the number of Patou attacks on walkers etc increasing across the Alps, I hope it's not something we decide to import!

“Many” may (or may not) be true across the population as a whole but I’m not sure there is overlap in demographics. I can only go from experience. None of my friends, family, colleagues or neighbours refer to their dogs as fur babies. I don’t recall having met anyone on the coast or fells of Cumbria who does so. In fact in all the time I have had dogs, I  can only think of one person who referred to a dog as her fur baby and it was a breeder from Doncaster (and I can’t think of a person your less likely to meet on the fells - the colour of mud clashes with this season must have accessory)
 

My original point being, if you wish to influence the way individuals behave in the countryside it’s is better to engage rather than alienate. It’s clear from this thread that there is a range of thought on the subject even within the relatively small climbing community. 
 

I personally find the phrase triggering (it makes my skin crawl) and I’m sure I’m not alone. In using the phrase you risk turning off an individual who may have been open to reason. Of course if you are happy with the status quo knock your self out… 

Like this bloke?  youtube.com/watch?v=3GRSbr0EYYU& (surprised nobody's mentioned it, it's a classic)

It's interesting - there are some life choices that create entitlement when it comes to other peoples' environment.

Smoking was a big one - feeling entitled to pollute other peoples' air is happily becoming a receding habit.

Dog ownership is another - feeling entitled to allow your animal/furbaby to run around and disturb wildlife, approach strangers and make a racket is a leap - imagine doing that with a drone. The entitlement to make a racket yourself is another - my limited lockdown space was punctuated by roaring buffoons attempting to control badly trained charges.  FARQUAL NO!! FARQUAL NO!! COME HERE!!!.....anyone without a dog doing that would probably get tailed home by the Polis. With a dog it's just something that's done.

It has certainly shifted my previously neutral view of dog ownership to a far more negative place.

You might not like the term, or know people who use it. But it is widely used. Search Facebook, for instance. Animal rescue centres use it. Owners use it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=furbaby

Some people might remember my name.  I love dogs, I have a dog, and I often defend having dogs in wild spaces, sometimes on leash, sometimes off.  These threads have merit--I acknowledge that there are real problems with dogs in urban and rural areas, but there is also a great deal of rabid, anti-dog, frothing-at-the mouth sentiment. 

I have a question about the Lake District in particular, and lands in general in the UK. 

Are the fields where sheeps graze private or public?  My understanding (and I'm definitely not knowlegable about this) is that, even with private land, the public is entitled to a public right of way.  

So, is it correct to assume that some of these lands are private (with a public right of way) and some are public (where people have more freedoms)?

I ask because I think the private/public question is revelant. 

On one hand, if the land is private, I would guess that apart from providing the right of away, the owner would have the right to impose any laws they deemed appropriate (within reason) including leash laws.  

On the other hand, if the land is public, it seems a more open democratic process would be necessary to decide how the land should be used, and what laws apply, if any. 

What are the leash laws on public lands where sheep may or may not be?

Then there's the whole concept of taxes and what right that gives the public. 

For example, where I live, in Switzerland, farmers in remote regions often receive a large portion (up to 65% and maybe more) of their income as federal subsidies, and are thus subject to certain rules and conditions.  Good arguments can be made that, because people in urban or more developed regions are subsidizing rural people's way of life, alternative views regardingb land use should be taken into account.  This relates to things like approving and protecting wolves, bears, and lynx in rural areas, but it could also apply to leash laws.  For example, local famers might not want dogs owned by people visiting from distant areas chasing their animals, but if those people are supporting the famers economically, and they want their dogs to roam free, who gets to decide?

Finally, all the talk of farmers shooting dogs is macho posturing, and I highly doubt that those who expressed those views here would take the step to violence unless personally attacked.  In places like the US, the UK, and Switzerland, if a dog chased a flock of sheep or cows, that would absolutely not be grounds to shoot the animal in the eyes of the law, and if somebody did shoot an animal under those circumstances, they would be charged with animal cruetly.  They would also (obviously) expose themselves to possibly violent reactions from the dog owners.  There are a lot of keyboard warriors, but who's really willing to take that risk?

Now, if a dog is attacking and killing farm animals, or attacking humans, that a different story, but that represents a tiny, tiny percentage of cases, upon which one can simply not build an argument. 

The one post here about somebody who saw several sheep, "With their throats ripped out" (or whatever the exact words were) has to be an extreme case, and as others have suggested, it was probably the work a local, rural, semi-wild dog, and not a dog accompany a hill walker on a round in the Lake District. 

In terms of the UK this is inaccurate - a landowner is absolutely empowered to protect their livestock, including shooting furbabies/dogs.

I acknowledge human perversity so it's possible that in the US you could have a situation where you could shoot a human being for being on your property/ringing your doorbell, but not shoot their dog...but I doubt it.

Dogs have  been shot locally to me. If the dog is chasing and biting that is legally enough.  The dogs shot have not been semi feral, rural animals and that to be blunt seems a rather fanciful nation

Sadly, it seems that you are ignorant of both access laws in the UK, and the legal right a farmer has to protect his stock from animals 'worrying' them.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/22/section/9

You may walk your dog on any public right of way, under 'close control'. If the dog strays from the path, it is trespass.

You may walk your dog on some Access Land, but it must be on a lead during ground nesting periods (March-July inclusive), or where there are farm animals. Dogs can be prohibited from Access Land.

A reasonable summary may be found here:

http://www.walksaroundbritain.co.uk/gowithdogs.html

ps. yes; I do remember your 'love' of dogs, and associated views on why everyone else should accommodate them.

Worth noting that that to be guilty of " worrying",  a dog does not need to be physically biting its victim. Simply chasing a pregnant ewe, for instance, could have disastrous results all round.

That would be a big jump, and is not what brunoschull said.

I think we're all pretty familiar with draconian landowners who would quite like to see no person on their land, ever, if they could get away with it. The reality is that farmers *are* subsidized to a high degree by tax payers, so if dog walkers occasionally demonstrate a bit of entitled behaviour - maybe it's not all that unreasonable.

Pull the other one. That is very obviously *not* the reason you used that term.

I know of two instances where local farmers have shot a dog.  I think it’s fair to say they weren’t happy about it.  They don’t want to kill a dog either; and until it’s settled with the police it puts their gun licence at risk which is consequential for them.  So is watching their livestock be mauled to death.

If it’s a clean kill from a well trained gun owner, how is it animal cruelty?

I was in the countryside walking down the banks of the river walking past this family with a boxer on a long lead when it bit my hand drawing serious blood etc. I must have been in shock as carried on the blood got much worse so went back to see the owner,he did not give a stuff,his wife "what am I supposed to do"

To say I was cross was the understatement, you have ruined my nice walk etc.had To go to hospital for a tetanus jab and major dressing 

Going back to car park apparently someone had been bitten by a boxer dog the week before,completely beggars belief that this can happen. They had a young child and it will bite them next should have rung police immediately reported it later but bit late,  never really liked dogs but so disillusioned 

I'm still not clear on this. 

Where are these sheep grazing, on public or private land?

If they are grazing on public land, then why is the right of farmers to graze sheep valued more highly than the right of people to walk dogs on their own land (public land)?

If it's public land, it opens a whole broad debate about how public land "should" be used.  I put the word "should" in quotes because there is no right answer, just differeing views. 

Being a vegetarian who enjoys neither goat cheese nor goat milk, I don't see any reason to devote such large areas to grazing animals, especially considering the enormous impacts it has on water use, environmnetal pollution, carbon dioxide emissions, biodiversity, and so on.  Instead of sheep, I would prefer a wild field of grasses and flowers.  

So maybe dogs aren't the problem, nor entitled dog owners, but entitled sheep farmers, and the tourists who like to take pictures of quaint nature scenes with flocks of sheep?  Or the people who believe that sheeps and sheep farmers are such a vital part of the UK landscape and national identity that one should not dare to question their existence?

It's absolutely valid to ask how public land should be used, and to question why the public should pay to support the chosen way of life and adapt to the needs of sheep farmers.

As to shooting dogs, well, that's a shame.  To my mind, a dog chasing a sheep in the great, great majority of cases is a momentary annoyance, and absolutely does not justify killing a social, intelligent, emotional animal, like a dog. 

And the line about the farmers who, "Wish they didn't have to shoot a dog but are simply forced to," is rich.  Just a few posts above you have people volunteering to sit out in fields and shoot dogs. I'm very sure there are many farmers, and many people posting on this thread, who would love nothing more than to shoot a dog that was chasing sheep, but most of them wouldn't have the courage to do so. 

Anyway, we've been over this ground many times.  Beneath all the rational arguments, there is seething anti-dog bias. 

Fortunately, that's limited to forums like this, where people love to complain with others who share their views. 

Out in the real world, people just get on with integrating dogs into everyday life, as they have for thousands and thousands of years.  

Actually it was almost certainly a dog from the full campsites immediately below the fells where the attack happened, not a "local" dog.

I think perhaps you should come here and see the way some people visiting the area behave.  They are not few in number.

perhaps you should also come and count the sheer numbers of the dog population explosion.  I can tell you I've never been troubled by dogs in Switzerland, ever - they are few in number compared with what you see here.

It's certainly possible, I just find it unlikely.  I'm suspicious about the assumption that it was a domestic dog, because it just seems to so neatly-fit the sterotype that dogs are viscous, salivating killing machines, when that's just not the case. 

I have followed with fascination (and horror) the tales of the exploding numbers of people visiting natural areas in the UK, especially during and after the covid epidemic, and all the impacts such as trash, noise, dogs, and so on.  

I absolutely acknowledge that it's a problem, and that if dog owners were in general more educated, picked up their dog's waste with more consistency (!) and kept their dogs on leashes more often, at least some of these problems could be solved. 

I also think that dog ownwership should be far more tightly regulated.  For example, I think there that before people obtain a dog, there should be review about the types of jobs people have, the time they have to devote to training and interaction, the environments they live, and what sort of lives they can provide for their dogs, as well as more developed education programs for dog owners about important issues.  I also think that dog owners should be legally required to carry insurance for their dog, both for damage or injury their dog might cause, and health insurance for the dog, which is really an animal rights issue.  

Anyway, I'm probably more sympathetic to many of these problems than it appears, but I'm also digusted by the anti-dog sentiment that just boils over on this site so often.  

My dogs 100% would never chase a sheep.

Only because if there is any chance of livestock they don't come off the lead.

I hate keeping the dogs on the lead but there is a time and a place to let them run and areas with sheep or nesting birds or anywhere else it's not suitable they stay on short leads .

Mind reading is a great trick; you should go on stage.

Presumably, you have trained your dog well.

Not every dog owner does.

Tell that to the people maimed by dog attacks. You know, all the "he's never done that before" attacks. On members of 'their family'. Or on strangers (see reports above).

Sorry, but your love of dogs is once again blinkering you to reality.

I don't love dogs, but neither do I hate them. I tolerate well-behaved dogs, and am happy to spend time with them, though I don't seek it out. I was having a coffee recently, and a dog nearby had been tied up outside Sainsbury's, while its owner went shopping. It barked continuously. I was about to finish my coffee and go and pet the dog to reassure it, when another dog owner did the same. Having finished my coffee, I went over and complimented him on caring for the dog.

Quick note about the "Patou" dogs. 

I've encountered these dogs numerous times in the French Alps, and they are definitely frightening!  

Of course, these dogs are to protect flocks from wolves and bears, and until conservation efforts in the UK advance to the point at which wolves and bears are re-introduced, I would say that these dogs are unecessary. 

I think a good compromise would simply be electric fencing. 

It seems fair: on public lands, dogs on leads, and sheep in fences. 

Would that work? 

Just for reference:

The BBC have a category for 'dog attacks'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c9q9301541xt

More than 20000 dog attacks in the last year, resulting in 11000 hospital treatments:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/xl-bully-ban-dog-attacks-b27225...

Sheep are very rarely grazed on public land (there is very little 'public' land in Britain, following the Enclosure Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_land ). They are also usually grazed on land that is not suitable for arable crops, so usually steep ground. And lots of it. And often with stone walls that are hundreds of years old.

I honestly think you have no idea. A local farmer lost 20 lambs to dog attacks last year. If they're not ripping their throats they're chasing them over cliffs. "They've never done that before". That's just one farmer in my small area of the country. 

I think it's safe to say Bruno has no idea. From his posting history it's clear that he worships dogs, believes they are a superior species to humans and can do no wrong. Just dislike his post and move on.

What sort of non-domestic dog do you imagine? Around here there are no packs of feral dogs, but reports of attacks on sheep are distressingly frequent. .

Farm dogs can be aggressive in defending their territory but are very well trained and habituated to stock from an early age. Any dog which showed any signs of aggression towards stock would be got rid of. It is unthinkable that they might be responsible, and certainly not for the numbers of attacks which take place. That only leaves domestic dogs whose owners are unable or unwilling to control them

Most dogs aren't, most of the time, but some are. Some breeds, including popular breeds such as terriers, were specifically bred to be killing machines, so it is hardly surprising when they revert to type. Of course, that's not the dog's fault.

The BBC category on dog attacks makes for very sobering reading. 

Particularly the increase in these attacks 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2553157exo

You should try living in south Wales, they are stealthy little buggers. Can be walking across common land not a creature in sight and then suddenly a sheep wanders out of the ferns. I also quite enjoy the daily "sheep watch" on the facebook community group, where there are sheep just wandering the streets. Oddly enough never had a report of one being attacked by a dog, 3 have been run over in the last 9 years I have been here.

Photo is the latest sheep watch photo

Did you read your own link?

"Due to enclosure, the extent of common land is now much reduced from the hundreds of square kilometres that existed until the 17th century, but a considerable amount of common land still exists, particularly in upland areas. There are over 8,000 registered commons in England alone."

Very easy to portray me like that "Hooo" but harder to actually engage with the ideas...might make you question some of your closely held assumptions.  

The suggestion that many of these attacks are not from "tourist dogs" is not mine--it was made in a very informed and reasonable post above:

"Reporting of attacks is patchy but data shows many livestock attacks are from 'latchkey' dogs - i.e. got out from a house or garden and these can include farn dogs. Not every dog attacking livestock has an owner to hand."

LOL. I did try and engage with you on this subject a while ago. You promptly made it very clear that it was a complete waste of time. You displayed a level of disconnection from reality that I'd expect from a member of a religious cult. 

Common land is not publicly owned land. It is generally privately owned, but over which groups of local farmers have grazing rights. 

I don't really see what difference ownership of the land makes. Farmers should not have to worry about losing stock to dog attacks.

This.

Totally agree, what on earth has it got to do with land ownership.  Dogs to be on leads where stock are. Very simple. 

OK, thanks for the clarification. So, help me understand this if you will. 

In the UK you have:

-Privately owned land

-Privately owned land with rights for some farmers to graze

-Are there any public lands, as they would be defined in the US, for example?  What do you call these lands?  If there are such la nds, can sheep graze there, too?

Regarding this question, I explained this above, but to summarize, I would simply invert your statement:

If the land is public (big if, still not clear on this) why should walkers, bikers, or anybody else make special accomodations for farmers?  Why is is not incumbent on farmers to use reasonable measures to contain their flocks, such as electric fencing?

Gosh, you are serious aren't you?

There is very little public land in the UK, almost everything is privately owned but rights of way, public footpaths and public bridleways go everywhere - through all those private fields, woods, even gardens in the odd case. Generally you have stiles as footpaths cross fences or hedges, gates on bridleways. Where people and dogs meet livestock it is almost always on private land. 

The picture below shows a bunch of public rights of way crisscrossing farmers fields near where I live. You can just see some bridleways too, and a RoW called a byway, maybe a restricted byway - can't remember how byways differ from bridleways but I can ride them on my mountain bike, which I have no right to do on public footpaths. 

Basically dog walkers are generally on farmer's land, but with a right to be there on the RoW when incidents happen. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyvejlmyvzno this story was from near me this spring. If you read down a number of dogs were shot by a farmer in Edale, so I presume this happens from time to time elsewhere too, but it's not much of the story. We all grow up knowing farmers have that right, even if it is rarely used. And farmers are almost the only people in the UK who generally do commonly have a firearm.

Good points.  Personally I know I have become conditioned to react against dogs simply because I feel overwhelmed by the numbers around now, pretty well everywhere, even the dining rooms and communal areas of youth hostels I've visited in the last year or two.  Cycling into Keswick along an old railway they are the main hazard - most people hear my bell well in advance but many dog owners, and there are many, either have the dogs runing free or on very long extending eads and there have been many times I've had to make an emergency stop because either on or off a leash the animal crosses my path despite my having sounded a bell repeatedly to warn of my approach.

In town, going round the market has become an experience of tripping over dogs (some owners seem to have 2 or three).   Small tearooms in rural areas, overworked and understaffed, are being demanded what types of dog ice-cream they sell! Almost every item of street furniture in Keswick has at least one issue of dog piss on it (not particularly nice if you want to sit their and have a snack or a drink).  My conditioning has come about in the last 5 to 10 years simply by having a sense of being overwhelmed by dog presence whether I want it or not.

Well one answer to your musings has arrived - dog owners who believe that owner/occupiers of land should be rearranging their livelihoods and businesses to accommodate the visitors needs' as the main priority.

Personally I think ignorant entitlement will be more common than staggeringly arrogant entitlement...but it's one strand I suppose.

A lot of dog walkers don’t seem to realise that the rights conferred by a PRoW don’t extend to the land besides it.  We have a meadow nearby, the owner can no longer find a farmer that will cut it for free hay as there’s too much dog muck in it.

A neighbouring farmer asked the Big Man in the village not to let his dog off the lead in a specific field adjacent to a PROW and the owner punched him. 

I have a short section of a PRoW across our land,  I’ve gone out of my way to improve it and most years there’s a big problem with dog muck.  One of the other neighbours owns working dogs and gets livid at this, and has been known to return it through peoples letter boxes.

Other than the odd bit of (caught) infidelity and issues over planning permission, I’d say the majority of agro going on around is in the village in our decade there has come down to varying attitudes of dog owners…

It is a surprising answer to my musings; not a point of view I was expecting but it does say an awful lot about the scale of the situation and what farmers and non dog aficionados are up against. 

Thanks for the clarification TobyA--I appreciate that. 

Since this land is private, it's really a whole different story.  The land is owned by somebody else, a dog walker has the right to cross that land, but they must abide by the owner's terms, and the owner is under no obligation to take any measures to protect their property/animals.  Dogs should stay on leashes, the rules are clear, case closed. 

Of course, this is very different from the great majority of public lands where people climb, hike, mountian bike, camp and so on in the US.  In the great majority of cases, the land is public, and the rules which govern it's use are subject to community/democratic decisions.  Of course, there are huge points of contention and corruption, with private leases given to mining concessions, big agriculture, ski areas, private operators and so on, who are then able to dictate rules (to say nothing of Trump and his supporters trying to sell public lands to private interests).  

Interesting juxtaposition:

I've always thought of the UK public right of way as a very meaningful and unique construct--and so it is.  But perhaps it's also structural?

In the UK, most natural land is private, so that's why the public right of way becomes necessary. 

In the US, most natural land is public, so the idea of a public right of way becomes less important. And on public land, all the users must find ways to compromise with others, all of whom have equal right to be there. 

This helps explain my suggestion that sheep farmers use electric fencing.  Naturally, if it's private land, they are under no obligation to do so, but if it was private land, it would be a different argument. 

Anyway, I find it interesting that so much land in the UK is private. 

Does that apply to places where people climb? 

If I come to the UK in the summer to climb granite cliffs by the sea, or if I come in the winter to go mixed climbing, am I climbing on private land?

One of the local pubs here, close to the beach and therefore prime tourist spot, has "dog beer" for sale... yet to see a dog buy a round though. 

Interestingly (alarmingly?) you can buy bottles of "dog beer" as in actual bottles

https://www.petsathome.com/product/woof-and-brew-bottom-sniffer-beer-330ml/...

Yes, I'm quite serious.  The issue of whether or not land is public or private has huge implications for this discussion.

As I have made abundantly clear, if the farmers own the land,  they should be able to set the rules, and everybody should abide by their rules, case closed. 

However, if the farmers are leasing the land, or have some other historical claim that could be debated, then questions can and should be asked about how land is used and why, and it would be reasonable to expect farmers to make accomodations and compromises, just like all other users. 

But the second point is really moot, because as TobyA explained, the land in the UK is almost entirely private, so it just reverts to the first point.  

Sorry but it absolutely doesn't.  Your odd reference to farmers using electric fences demonstrates how bonkers your position is? Would such a fence stop a dog attack, absolutely not. Put the dog on a lead.

Your view is firmly embedded so no point me attempting to change it, however all it does is feed those on here who have a problem with dogs in general, which is unhelpful to say the least.

Sea cliffs are probably part of the land that is above them? Not sure, there is some old law about the monarch owning some amount of land above the high tide line I believe, not much though. Lots of the Scottish Highlands is still owned by big estates for shooting but Scots have a legal right to access the outdoors much closer to the Nordic every person's right, so public footpaths aren't a thing so much in the hills. They are still in the lowlands from memory. Lots of land owned in trust by the National Trust in England's hills and moors, with pretty good access. Can't remember the situation in North Wales, some locals can fill us in I'm sure. 

Its dawned on me as this thread plays out that you perhaps can’t live in England and aren’t so familiar with it.

Except maybe for the bottom of a few karst landscape potholes and the tops of the less popular fells, there are no “wild spaces” in England.

There’s an ever increasing number of people, a currently increasing number of dogs and an ever decreasing area of rural and semi-rural space as well as dramatically increased pressure on honeypot areas since Covid.  
 

You’ve talked about wild areas in the US, there is just no comparison in my view to England.  Anecdotal but I’ve always found dogs to be consistently very well trained and controlled in the US when hiking there in a way I’d be surprised by here.

Access laws are pretty much the same for England and Wales, it's just Scotland with a completely different set of rules

Virtually none of any significance. The vast majority, if not the totality, of dog attacks on sheep occur on privately owned land. 

Wherever the sheep are, they are already often contained in fields with walls, hedges and fences. In these cases, there may also be paths and rights of way through these fields. And, be aware that access rights in Scotland are different to those in England and Wales, with much more liberal access to open countryside in Scotland than elsewhere. 

Sheep will also graze on upland areas which are ultimately bounded by walls, hedges and fences, so there is an element of containment even over larger areas. These areas will be shared with other users, such as walkers and climbers. The difference is that farmers are trying to make a living from their sheep, whereas recreational users have no direct financial interest in the land. 

Not remotely relevant. Land ownership and access laws in the US do not apply to England, Wales and Scotland. 

Mostly, yes. But you have a right to rock climb on CROW Access Land in England and Wales even if is in private ownership.

No thanks, allowing landowners carte blanche to set the rules is no more attractive than making ludicrous demands of land occupiers/leasers.

Access legislation, rights and responsibilities are set within the relevant legislative framework. In Scotland that means a broad right to reasonable, responsible access in such a way that land owners/occupiers/managers can pursue their business without undue burden, while facilitating responsible access.

It means that land is not the personal fiefdom of the owner/occupier nor is it a responsibility free playground for those who access it...or their pets/furbabies/emotional support creatures.

That might be your opinion but it's not the legal position anywhere in the UK, and particularly not in Scotland. Land ownership isn't absolute but comes with limits, some of which allow the public access. This is totally different to the US.

IIRC, Bruno lives in Switzerland, but is from the US.

It's worth comparing land area and population of the US and UK

US: 9.8m sq km, population 340m

UK: 0.25m sq km, population 68m

So, one quarter of the population, but one fortieth the area. Ten times the population density.

If you look at England, it gets even worse: 0.13m sq km, population 57m: 23 times the population density of the US.

That's why we have no 'wild spaces', in addition to the geology/geomorphology.

Source: Wikipedia.

Sure, I just couldn't remember if, for example, the NT owns much land in Eryri? I was climbing in Ogwen yesterday, and used the loos at the Ogwen Cottage national park centre, but I don't know who owns the land around there. Interestingly I didn't see many people with dogs yesterday. 

Just returned from a walk around a nice area of woodland and scrub. There seemed to be signs on every entrance and car park saying dogs on leads please 1st May to 31st August, ground nesting birds.

It also seemed that not one of the dog owners knew what month it was or could read, out of about 20 we came across there was not a single one on a lead.

I did think about saying something but decided against it.

It is very clear that you have no understanding of the countryside in the UK or of the relevant law. What may or may not happen in the US or Switzerland has no bearing.

All land in the UK is effectively private. Even where it is owned by public bodies this does not imply a right of access by the general public.  The public may have access over public rights of way, and over some land designated by statute, or by permission of the owner, but this is not unfettered and they are required to act responsibly, which includes keeping dogs under control.

Under UK law a farmer can lawfully shoot a dog which is worrying livestock, although only in circumstances where the dog is an immediate danger to livestock and there is no other reasonable option.  It is a statutory defence to killing a dog that the person was acting to prevent harm to livestock.  However this should be a last resort, nevertheless the Countryside Alliance reports that 92 dogs were shot as a result of sheep worrying between 2013 and 2017.  In 79% of cases of livestock worrying, the owner of the dog was not present. "Worrying" animals includes chasing them as well as physically attacking them, as even this can cause them considerable harm, and allowing your dog to do so is a criminal offence.

Unfortunately these sorts of attacks are not isolated incidents. The British countryside is not overrun by feral dogs hunting for food, and all these attacks are the result of someone failing to control their dog.  Whether or not they are local is irrelevant.  The Lake District and our other national parks are easily accessible from the larger urban centres, and many visitors are not serious walkers and have little understanding of the countryside or the harm their dog could do.

Another aspect of British life which you may not be aware of is the fashion among some sections of society for keeping highly aggressive dogs as status symbols. These can present a significant risk to people, other dogs, and of course livestock should they venture into the countryside.

You're absolutely right about the first part.  I was definitely surprised to learn that so much UK land is private.  

As to whether US, Swiss, or any other law is relevant, we disagree.  I definitely think that discussion of the ways diverse countries manage land is relevant to discussion of how land is used.  For example, I find the UK idea of land ownership with certain specific public allowances very interesting.  It's different than systems with either "completely private" land or "completely public" land. 

Here's something I'm still not clear on:

Several people have used the word "occupants."  What's the difference between being an owner or an occupant?  Do farmers generally own the land where they graze sheep, or are they merely occupants?

How does one become an occupant?  Do you pay for the right?  Is occupancy historical, or passed down from family to family?  I presume it varies from place to place and plot to plot, but I would be surprised if farmers owned that much land--it seems as if it would make them a rather affluent and powerful group.  

Land can be owned outright, or it can be held under a lease or licence. The term "occupant" doesn't distinguish between these. For the purposes of taking action against dogs worrying livestock, it is the person who has control over the land (or someone on their behalf) who has the right to take action - whether that control derives from a freehold or leasehold tenure doesn't matter.

I am not familiar with the land tenure system in Switzerland, in particular I don't knoe how community land is held, but I very much doubt that a Swiss farmer would stand by while their stock was being worried by a dog.  American law is to a large extent based on English law, and public use of federal lands in the US is subject to strict rules and regulations.  American farmers may also lawfully shoot dogs which are worrying livestock.

Farmers who own their land may appear wealthy on paper, but many farms (particularly in upland areas) make very little income. In 2022/23 average income from grazing livestock farms in Less Favoured Areas was £23,500.   There are farm subsidies in the UK that specifically encourage public access to farmland, but the problem we are discussing is not access per se but how the public then behaves.

From four days ago: 35 sheep killed, another 14 injured

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwxq6yz3qo

Hi Howard, thanks for the clarification.  Here are some thoughts/questions. 

So if a farmer leases of licences land...who does the farmer lease or licence from?  Private individuals, or a public trust of some kind?

This was basically why I was asking about who owns this land--I can't immagine that all sheep farmers are essentially wealthy land owners--far from it.  

Well, here we disagree.  I think one of the problems we are discussing is how land is used.  Why is so much land leased or licenced to sheep farmers?  Does this make sense in terms of recreational use by a broad public, or land conservation, or all sorts of other public goods?

We're a tiny country with a large population. So we need to make maximum use of the available land for agriculture, to produce food.

Who would get to decide who farmed 'public land'?

You might want to research Celtic and mediaeval land use, serfdom, Crown land, the Enclosure Acts, etc, if you want to understand British land use and ownership.

[edit] it seems you probably also want to read up on CRoW and Access Land.

Of course, all this is really just a cover for your dog freedom obsession.

As a country, Britain is not self sufficient in food and the uplands are naff all use for anything agricultural apart from grazing certain animals.  Much harder to justify sheep grazing on high quality lowland fields IMO.

The land is often available through public rights of ways to a broad range of recreational uses.  Lots of other landowners permit responsible public access in various ways including government managed forestry and charity owned nature reserves and historic estates.

Dangerously out of control dogs are a hindrance to that amenity value regardless of if they’re attacking sheep, adults, children or other dogs.  All of these kind of attacks happen when some dogs are not appropriately controlled.    Dog on dog attacks are also a problem here including for assistance dogs.

If a dog that has poor recall and a tendency to attack sheep is mitigated against by removing sheep and not controlling the dog, what happens when it goes for a child, a smaller dog or wildlife?  Fix the underlying cause not the symptom and all that.

Sheep in the uplands are often a key part of land management, without them and without a massive investment to restore a more “pre-agriculture” landscape, there are many different ways the landscape can degenerate rapidly.  You may have seen some spirited threads on here about bracken in the Lake District for example.  Our local wildlife trust uses managed grazing on its “public access permitted” land as a key part of managing the land for high biodiversity.  Removing their animals to accommodate entitled owners of dangerous dogs would lower the amenity value of the land.

The land access situation in the UK seems quite unique internationally, and is very complex given how long the country has had a high population density for and age of the legal system.  It all hinges on people not being nobbers when using their (sometimes hard fought for) access rights.

I’m very fond of the England’s land access system - wherever I travel on work or holiday there are endless countryside or green walks right on my doorstep, even in cities.  Travelling in the US for example there can be nothing at all if you happen to be somewhere without state parks or beyond.  There’s scope for improvement in England for sure but - as much as it appears to surprise you - there’s a lot of thought gone in to it all.

Jesus, that's horrific. Two dogs killed 35 sheep in one incident. That's got to mean prison for the owner, surely?

It's rather laughable to claim that sheep farming somehow supports the UK food industry.  Perhaps you should do some research about how much mutton is consumed domestically. 

I also found a wonderful morsel that a sizeable portion of UK lamb meat goes into dog food!  

Ahh...the irony is delicious. 

I don't think it's so much a matter of a lot of thought going into it but rather a lot of history, intertia, assumptions, and politics, like so much of governace everywhere.  

Do you really feel that grazing sheep on such a large portion of the land is the best use of that resource?  

Surely not, but you will likely make your best argument that this is indeed the case. 

I imagine we eat very little mutton 

Lamb, on the other hand...

Since no-one here wants dogs to be starved, I assume you agree that sheep farming makes good use of poor upland pasture...?

Would a giant dog park suit you better?

Though, without the sheep grazing, it would be mostly inaccessible.

Sheep grazing allows recreation, too. Just not a free range dog park.

Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this barking obsessive.

I'm  a great fan of mutton, it's extraordinary difficult to source. In the last 10 years three local butchers who stocked it have closed. A local butcher when asked said "no we like our customers to come back" WTF!

I now buy it online from Swaledale online meats, it arrives chilled and can be frozen or used fresh. Recipes on request 😋 

Three posts in a row?  You're on a good run...don't stop now!

Personally, I don't think it is possible to rationalise UK sheep farming as it has been for the past >50years. Nevertheless as a nation we seem hell bent on persisting with it.

Basically sheep are stocked at densities far higher than eg "conservation grazing" levels. Consequently they destroy the environment.

At those stocking densities, they require so much supplementary feed, they aren't in any way producing food from poor land. Rather the hills are full of sheep and lowlands are full of fields growing sheep feed. 

The sheep regularly get rounded up and transported from farm to farm such that litre_diesel/kg_meat is shocking.

Many of the farmers do have low incomes but that is simply because the costs of current sheep farming methods are so extortionate, the huge subsidies get swallowed up by those losses.

Sheep farmers pay far higher rents for their land than would be imaginable were it not for the huge subsidies. That distorts the economics, skewing towards relatively small farms with high stocking densities. The land owners who collect those rents in many cases are aristocrats with undue political influence.

Sheep meat is full of saturated fat. It is also expensive. It has nothing to do with food security. 

But lamb's liver tastes better than pig's liver. 

I was chatting with a local (Dunblane) farmer at lambing time a couple of years ago and he said a large proportion of UK farmed lamb goes into the halal industry. Good luck to anyone trying to argue for a reduction of sheep numbers in that context!

Here's Rupert and Baxter .  "Just Playing"

According to government figures, over half of farms (54%) were solely owned, accounting for 37% of the area on agricultural holdings.                                
A further 14% of farms were wholly tenanted, accounting for 14% of area on agricultural holdings.                           
Almost a third (31%) of farms were mixed tenure, accounting for 48% of area on agricultural holdings.                                
       

If you are really interested the full data can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/agricultural-land-owner...

Investors in farmland include the historic estates, corporations, private individuals (there are tax advantages from owning farmland) and public bodies.  Large parts of the Lake District are owned by the National Trust, a charity, and by water utility companies.   

I don't know what alternative use you think this land could be put to.  Most of it is only suitable for grazing sheep, and then only the hardiest breeds.  Sheep are undeniably bad for biodiversity, and there is a movement to rewild the land, but that raises the question of who would then pay to manage what would be mostly economically unproductive land. Whilst the economics of upland sheep farming don't make much sense, it supports entire local communities.

The UK is self-sufficient in lamb and exports some. Most of the meat which goes for pet food is from cuts which people don't want to eat.

The fact is that almost all farmland in the UK including the apparently wild upland areas is part of a working landscape, not parks for visitors, with or without dogs.  But even in parks dog owners are responsible for their pet's behaviour, and there are incidents of dogs attacking people (including children), other dogs and wildlife. In your fantasy world where all livestock has been removed there would still be a risk from (some, not all) dogs.

Despite what you appear to think, dogs are basically well-behaved wolves whose instinct is to chase and hunt, and sometimes this instinct overcomes their training (assuming they have been properly trained in the first place). I don't blame the dogs for doing what is in their nature, it is the owners who are legally and morally responsible.

Our local Indian takeaway is now offering mutton as a lower priced alternative to lamb.  I haven’t told them but I’d happily pay extra for it.

One of our local farm shops has a good supply of their own mutton.  I look forwards to the winter’s days I can WFH and put a one-put mutton casserole on the stove for 12 hours.  It also makes my second favourite chilli after venison.

i can’t see why there couldn’t be plenty of room for both - my diddums wouldn’t hurt a fly   
that was dry humour, BTW

Not a hope  they will be told they are very naughty and here are your dogs don’t do it again  they may get a bill for dog food but I doubt it  

Walking alone in a remote part of the Highlands, you will see birds every hundred meters or so.  If you are lucky, you will spot Ptarmigan, Snow Bunting or a Mountain Hare.  Not so in the more popular spots where the absence of sheep results in dogs being let of the leash in the belief that no harm will be done to the environment.

I've lived in the Lake District, the Yorkshire Dales and now in the Highlands.  In my 30 years in the mountains, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Middle Classes believe they can do no harm to the mountain environment.  It seems that no summit can go unconquered without the aid of a transit/camper van and labrador/cockapoo.  And, because the Middle Classes dominate all forms of mountain media (magazines, sporting bodies, web pages etc), cautionary voices such as mine and OneBeardedWalker's are shouted down even when we present the evidence.

Really? (Checks top of thread)… that’s OneBeardedWalker currently on 76 likes and no dislikes.

Come on , be fair now, whatever One Bearded Walker has had to contend with, you yourself have hardly suffered at the hands of the downshouters since this post appears to be your first foray into the arena. 

Of course, appearances can be deceptive.

She has, this year, had a demand from someone who sat in the cafe lingering over a hot drink, that the someone had let her drink get cold and perhaps didn't feel like it any more and that a refund would be appropriate, no?, by the someone.

Btw this is no oadside cafe but a somewhat struggling cafe run by an also struggling family run hotel (EU nationals no longer willing to come and spend the summer working there living in and those conditions not being what local people want to do (basic wage being made more economic by not having to travel and having accommodation provided - suits the young people who used to come from the EU).  Basic wages because that is what the overdeveloped Cumbrian serf tourist economy allows.

People are morons no denying that. I have worked in the service industry and have seen how ridiculous some requests can be (some that have then become demanding).

I do hope that they can keep their business going, no one needs that level of stress in their lives.

Fair point Tom and Stichtplate.  Noted with thanks.

I'm just assuming the downvote button is broken...

Nope: seems to be working...

I’m hoping people are just becoming a bit more reasonable on here.

…. second thoughts, nah, you’re right, button must be broken.

Fireworks 

Where does class come into it regarding entitled, poorly behaved dog owners? I don't think that really works. 

Modern van culture however....you're probably on to something 😋

I've never seen a transit at the top of Nevis, although I know someone did carry a piano up there. I suppose their social class could have been discerned from the choice of music.

Not a Transit, but a Ford Model T was driven through snow to the summit in 1911.

But it's so nice to see your dog having a good time.

I had a terrier for 18 years. The one thing I learned (too late!) was: keep your dog on a short lead. Training a dog properly requires almost infinite patience and dedication. Hardly any dog owners have that and most seem to have no idea that a dog even needs training. 

It’s incredibly rude to assume everyone wants your dog running up to them. Some people have allergies, others have a fear of dogs, and some simply don't like them. An unleashed dog running towards a stranger, no matter how friendly you know them to be, is not a fun situation. I’ve lost count of how many times dogs have run at/across me on paths while their owners make weak attempts to call them back before offering a casual ‘he’s friendly!’ They might be but I still don't want them jumping up on me.

If a trail, path or open ground doesn't explicitly state that it is for off-lead dogs, keep your dog on a lead. And your dog is not "under control" unless it's on a short lead - not at the end of a 20ft one.

Extendable leads are the devil's work! There seems to be a growing trend for very long rope-type leads - not even extendable, but fixed lengths. I'm sure the owners think this give the appearance of control, but at the end of a 20ft rope, the dog has a full 40ft range, which on a narrow path gives full cope for entanglement with the rope. 

yeah, that’s not happening.
 

Spent an awful lot of time and effort making sure my dog Never jumps up at people in public. Would never, ever let her off lead around livestock, even though her recall is generally good, but if you’re so intolerant/terrified of a dog showing an interest in you, well, sounds like a you problem and maybe you should seek help. Maybe CBT would sort it ?

Don’t get me wrong, I also don’t like dogs jumping up at me and since my typical non work day involves an 8 or 10 mile dog walk, this is not an infrequent occurrence, but it’s a minor inconvenience, like getting rained on or a noisy group of people landing next to you in a pub beer garden (my current experience right now). 
 

Have a little perspective. We live in a small and crowded island and as such, minor inconvenience is just part and parcel of our daily lives.

Totally agree. Either your dog needs to be under close control or not. Adding a 20ft trip hazard into the mix benefits no one.

Not often I disagree with a comment as much as I do with yours. I am certainly intolerant of a dog taking an "interest" in me when that interest involves leaping up at me with wet muddy claws, barking madly and on two occasions actually biting. Once minor, once quite nasty.

I don't think I should need help for a "me" problem

Re read my post: l wrote “a dog taking an interest in you”. Not biting you. Not putting muddy paws on you. Dogs that do that should be on leads. Dogs that have been trained to behave and are off lead away from livestock simply aren’t a problem.

Dogs chasing sheep in such areas doesn't surprise me one bit.

Whilst the dog owners are responsible, I can see it from their side also.

I grew up with dogs, and sheep, but own neither. Regardless managing a dog where there could be sheep seems completely obvious to me.

But if you are from the city, you put your dog on a lead back home so they don't run into the road, get to some woods, let them off, they come back when you call. Everything is relaxed and fine. Any issues from other dogs, you put them on a lead. Great.

Then you go on a family holiday to the lakes. Get out of the car park, dog off the leads. It's just another walk. Then your dog sees the giant marshmallow on legs for the first time.

Dog full of excitement now doesn't listen to the owner, owner thinking crap, I completely forgot you get sheep in these places, or didn't know at all, and hadn't thought for a second their dog would react that way.

It's not obvious to everyone, so it doesn't come from stupidity, or not caring. And yes, as a dog owner you should look things up and do your research but you don't know what you don't know and of the thousands of dog owners that visit these places someone is going to miss the memo and mess up.

Better signage, rules and public information announcements is the only solution really.

But you are denying there is a problem with some dogs, saying it is 'a you problem' that needs treating with CBT. Rather than the dog owners needing to control their dogs.

How do I know a dog 'taking an interest in me' isn't going to jump up at me with muddy paws, or bite me? I'm not psychic.

Don't let your dog 'take an interest in me' unless I make it clear I want that. Just like I wouldn't take an interest in a dog unless I am invited to.

There's plenty of signage already. It is ignored. So I can only put that down to 'not caring'; it's not ignorance (unless that ignorance includes complete illiteracy in English).

If they didn't see the sign why can't it be ignorance?

I have to say I haven't noticed these signs (but then I don't have a dog, so possibly just instantly forgot about them)

If the owner says “don’t mind him, he’s just really friendly” you’re getting muddy paws on your work clothes, if the owner is shouting its name loudly you’re getting bitten…

Not what I wrote: I was replying to someone who states all dogs in public should be on a lead, all the time, unless a sign states otherwise (anyone seen such a sign, anywhere, ever?). That sounds like them problem if they're so paranoid about dogs that they feel unsafe unless said dog is on a lead.

Well you'd know because a dog jumped up at you. As I wrote up thread, this is not okay. Similarly it'd be unreasonable to insist all men are handcuffed in public in case one randomly punches you. This stuff happens but automatic blanket restrictions are not a proportionate response.

"taking an interest" means maybe trotting up to you and looking at you. If this causes you alarm I fail to see how it's the dog's problem and not your's.

The signs I regularly see are on gates and stiles accessing fields. I can't see how they could be missed, unless the dog owner is closing or deliberately averting their eyes.

If they have owned a dog for some time, but have never seen a sign, or know anything about the behaviour of dogs, then maybe it could be ignorance. But they maybe ought to educate themselves. I've never owned a dog, but I know about it.

I remember taking my boyfriends dogs into The Peak, as you describe they were city dogs and only used to parks, wasteland and pavements. I was impressed at how disinterested they were at sheep, then the (very thick) springer tried to launch itself off Stanage. No idea if he saw a sheep in the distance, maybe a bird, or was just in bonkers spaniel thing - whatever it was I felt very relieved he was on a lead!

Dogs are unpredictable, yes they can be well trained off lead, but generally this requires close attention and regular reminders from the handler (take the alsatian yesterday who sat to heal whilst I walked past - on command). If you are anything but attentive to your dog or remotely uncertain of how it will react a suitable length lead is the way forward. Flexi leads have their place but not around other people, we used a 1.5m rope lead that could be quickly shortened but gave 'sniffing space'.

Having to fend off all sorts of wild dogs trying to bite our ankles in the Balkans and elsewhere, I prefer a sturdy wooden walking stick. There is a reason most Balkan shepherds carry one, after all...

(and I presume a pepper spray would be illegal under the UK laws, even if much more effective?)

Throwing stones works too, if you can score at least a near‑direct hit. I guess that won't score me any points among the dog lovers here, though!

On the other hand, I remember plenty of Balkan semi‑stray dogs that had been easily persuaded to accompany us for a whole week or more with just a few treats, guarding our camp from all the other dogs for just a rub and some delicacies.

I still fondly remember the totally mangy stray in Georgia who just decided to accompany us quite nearly to the summit (although dog crampons don't really work!) and guarded our camp at night. As for the patous and other sheep flock dogs, you just really, really back down and take a different route. But still, a sturdy stick can really help at times. Not really saying that one should attack the dog with it, just having it ready can help there, depending on the local customs and circumstances.

As for city dogs being left off the leash and nipping on your ankles, well, a hefty stick can indeed come in handy, as much as I love all animals.

An exceptionally arrogant and entitled response.

Keep your pet dog (or cat, or rat, or gerbil, or tarantula, or cockroach, or slug, or ...) to yourself: don't allow it to bother other people.

Why are you unable to see this from other people's point of view? Why is it 'their fault'?

Mrs J has had years of CBT, that has been beneficial, but hear fear of dogs that aren't lead or respond instantly to commands still has a significant effect on her life. She was always wary/scared of dogs, but it was having a fair chunk of her calf removed by one of the local farm dogs that made matters far worse. It was a dog I had walked/ran/cycled past dozens (possible hundreds) of times without incident. For some reason, when I was on crutches recovering from an op. it decided to sneak up silently on Mrs J and take a chunk out her calf. The CBT has helped, mainly around dogs she has been able to build confidence around, so we can now visit my brothers who have dogs etc. but the situation that many on this thread have described, where a dog seems to ignore instructions is still absolutely petrifying to her. To some degree I take Stichtplate's point that is our problem, but I would like a little help, perhaps more areas/paths requiring dogs on leads. A walk up Binsey was suggested on another thread, that is one that doesn't fill Mrs J with dread, because within 50 yards of leaving the car there are three signs (two for sheep, one for  ground nesting birds) demanding dogs are in a lead. We can go for a walk down by the river, but only when the farmer has sheep in the field?

Why, thank you.

You bother reading what I meant by a dog "taking an interest in you" ? I'll refresh your memory:

" trotting up to you and looking at you "

If someone is alarmed by a dog looking at them, then that's definitely their problem.

It's not looking that is the problem; it is the trotting up. No-one knows whether the trotting will result in just looking. Or dirty claws in our clothes. Or a chunk taken out of our hand, or calf (see above). As I said earlier, we can't predict what will happen, including you.

Train your dog not to approach people unless invited.

I honestly empathise with anyone unfortunate enough to have been attacked by a dog and fully understand how difficult it is to temper visceral fear with rational risk assessment. On top of which we're all informed by personal experience. In my 55 years as both a dog cohabitee and inveterate dog botherer, I've never been bitten. Maybe I've been lucky. Maybe I'm entirely typical. And maybe my personal experience has made me blasé. 

As an aside to The Thread; a brief look at UK stats indicates that between 2020 and 2021 the UK experienced an average of 5 cow related deaths PA as opposed to 3 dog related fatalities.

We all know how much hilarity a cow related death provokes on UKC as opposed to the fear surrounding dog attacks. Phobia Vs reality maybe?

To be fair, dog attack fatalities have shot through the roof over the last couple of years; 10 deaths in 2022 and 16 in 2023. This is deeply concerning. Probably a mix of the stampede of dog buying during lock down, dogs being poorly socialised during lock down and the explosion in Knobheads buying XL bully and cane corso type breeds. Why anyone would willingly buy a breed that despite tiny numbers manages to account for 50% of fatalities is utterly beyond me. But those breeds aside, the core problem is owners and not dogs.

I can only reiterate, for what, the fourth time? dogs jumping up or biting is not acceptable. If you're walking towards me on a path or trail my dog will certainly be approaching you, that's how physics and proximity works, but unless you're proffering a lump of cheese, the only contact you'll get is eye contact. 

That's not the impression you gave with your 'trotting up to'. That suggests moving away from heel, independently, approaching me.

I'm happy with your dog remaining at heel. It's dogs 'trotting' up to me that I object to.

And, for the umpteenth time, I don't know the intentions of a dog 'trotting up to me', off lead, away from heel.

20000 dog attacks in the last year. 11000 hospital treatments required:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/hill_talk/dogs_in_the_lake_district_-_obs...

And that's just the reported attacks.

Nah, my dogs pretty much free range when off lead, called to heel if there's a potential hazard like a road or another dog on a lead. I do call her over if someone looks concerned at her presence.

Do you also worry about the intentions of approaching cows? People? In a typical year, you're far more likely to be killed by either. Maybe you're alarmed by both. Captain Paranoia indeed.

Cows very rarely show me any interest.

But they are big, and I am aware of them. I am entering their space, so I give them respect, and don't approach them.

Rather like I'd prefer dogs to behave around me.

In 62 years, I've not experienced problems with other humans. I have had plenty of unwanted attention from dogs.

Well aware thanks, I've even taken some of them to hospital.

2022 saw 1800 RTC fatalities as opposed to 10 dog attack fatalities (triple the 20 year average)

You must be absolutely terrified of car journeys.

If your fear of dogs is fact based rather than phobia based, that is.

On the Bruno scale of dog apologists you've reached 11. 

Do you think that was a good use of your time?

You must be absolutely ignorant of statistical analysis.

Always happy to learn something new if you can enlighten me?

Think about the person hours involved in the two activities; transport in vehicles vs fleeting contact with dogs.

If you can point to anywhere I've written anything defending poorly controlled dogs? 

If not, why "dog apologist"?

Like MrsJ I have a fear of dogs, never been bitten but an incident as a child (random dog in the park bounded up uninvited and put paws on my shoulders) I've really struggled. Like her walking routes need to be adapted to avoid potential confrontations and much backtracking has been done to avoid what I perceive as a scary encounter.

We do need to accept that a certain level of interaction with dogs is inevitable and 'our problem' but my view is that owners should use a lead (or training) to avoid physical contact between strangers and their pet unless invited, kind of the same idea of respecting personal space that you would expect between people (I wouldn't run up and hug you if we meet, but stand a few feet apart and say hello, or possibly shake your hand at arms length). Far too many dog owners are totally ignorant of the damage that an overly friendly dog can do to the confidence of someone who is struggling to control their fear of dogs, easily undoing years of work trying to control their instinctive behaviour.

So in other words dog owners need to learn respect and to read the situation as to when a lead is needed, be that to restrain their pet, or simply reassure others  around them - a well trained dog is easy to recall and keep to heal, and doing so for a few minutes whilst passing other walkers won't spoil it's day. A poorly trained dog that can't be recalled and kept to heal needs to be on a lead.

(I notice that police sniffer and army search dogs are always worked on a lead, highly trained but still under direct physical control of the handler)

70% of dog attacks are in a domestic setting and involve the people they live with, not "fleeting contact". Most people spend orders of magnitude more time in their homes than in their cars

https://firstaidforpets.net/dog-bites-children/

Hope I've reassured you.

Edit: apologies for destroying your self assessed mastery of statistical analysis.

Helping injured people??? Errrr, yeah.

It's literally part of my job description 😂

I don't really care if you get bitten by your dog; that's your problem. That 30% is what concerns me, and is the fleeting contact. That's still 7000 attacks per year.

Wow. I'd care if you were injured driving your car...

You didn't read the link did you. A sizeable chunk of the remaining 30% will also be the dogs family.

So now you're aware of the actual stats, how terrified are you of car journeys?

If the answer's "not much", maybe think about working on your dog phobia?

(I really am trying to be helpful here).

As a long time dog associate you’ll be better at reading their signals and reacting appropriately than a dog-naive person.  That no doubt helps.  

Other official UK stats show around 30,000 reported dog attacks a year compared to around 4,000 cow incidents.  I expect there’s a *lot* more nuisance level dog problems than cow problems that go unreported.

The big issue I draw with your cow comparison isn’t the selective stats though.  Anyone can avoid cows by not going in a cow field.  It’s an exposure and risk they can trivially manage.

The only way to manage exposure to dogs is basically to not go out.  Big difference.

At the end of the day it takes two to tango.  If a dog isn’t well trained and is in hands that don’t control it well in public the real problem is the one with consequences not the “core problem”.  Everyone knows that the core problem is the human, but the same can be said about handgun ownership for example and in the UK that indisputable fact carries almost no relevance to our attitude or legislation.

In fairness I suspect that would have been far harder than walking up.

Maybe, but I also spend a lot of time meeting dogs as a stranger on their home turf, even worse, they're often in high defence mode cos their human is scared and in pain. My last encounter with a pitbull was in a crack den with no doors, four heavily intoxicated residents and apparently no lead or collar to hand. Type two fun ensued.

And most of those incidents will be with farmers. You've met farmers, they're the people that drive themselves and their detached limbs to A&E following close encounters with farm equipment. How likely do you reckon they are to self report "cow incidents"?

This is an entirely fair point.

This is also the only way to manage exposure to RTCs, lightning strikes, homicidal strangers or any number of rare dangers. 

The point of the RTC and cow stats wasn't to draw some sort of equivalence, it was to engender a sense of perspective. 1 in 4 people will be bitten by a dog over their lifetimes. Of those one in four, only 1% will require hospital admission (stat features in the article below).

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2023/08/15/dog-attacks-on-adults-are-rising-bu...

Nobody wants to be told their phobia is a little irrational (just check out the downvotes on purely objective posts up thread) and I can well understand that this will be especially irksome to the unfortunate 25% that get bitten but there we are.

Back to this afternoon's pint in the beer garden and the annoyingly loud people that sat at the table next to me (see up thread), at one point a wasp flew over and low key chaos ensued as two of the party shot out of their seats and scuttled 10 yards away with much squealing and flapping of hands. I regard the dog phobic with much the same level of bemusement as I regarded that pair.

But hey, as I've said, maybe I'm just being blasé, maybe next week a terrier will run off with my nose. No doubt Captain Paranoia will be greatly amused.

This is also a fair point, but you're missing something. A handgun is a cold, unfeeling piece of metal largely designed to do one thing and one thing only. Kill people. A dog is a living, breathing sentient being, complete with likes, dislikes and an intense emotional life. They bring an enormous amount of joy into people's lives. The exact amount of joy, not to mention physical and mental wellbeing isn't going to feature in any stats as it's largely immeasurable.

While we're on the subject of stats and perspective.... those 10 fatalities in 2022 were incurred by a UK dog population of 13,000,000. If humans were as peaceable the UK would have seen 50 homicides that year rather than 698.  Statistically speaking (and even disregarding the fact that 70% of dog bites happen at home) you're far safer encountering a dog in the street than you are a human. 

The dogs behaviour will be pretty much dictated by yours.
If you ignore the dog, then the dog will probably ignore you.
If you make it obvious that you want to engage with the dog, then they generally act accordingly.

Fifty years ago you could have encountered me with a Jersey cow on a string. Under close control due to the fear of garden invasions. 

So far zero problems with cattle including "at home" but bitten several times outside  by dogs.  

This is a big part of the problem. Dogs are pack animals and if you act like you're the boss they'll usually be submissive. But if you act even the tiniest bit like you're nervous or scared they'll try to assert themselves as higher up the pecking order in the pack to you. It's not cruel to put a dog on a lead from time to time when around strangers in a public place, some of whom are likely to be nervous around dogs, and I consider it selfish of dog owners if they don't do this and prioritise their pet's freedom to do what it wants. BTW I'm a dog lover and a former dog owner.

I don't think many people would deny that dogs bring a huge amount of joy to their owners and help a lot of people keep physically and mentally well. But I consider it selfish of dog owners when they think their wish to let their dogs do what they want in busy public places trumps some people's dislike or fear of dogs. I consider it polite and the right thing to do to put a dog on a lead briefly when passing other people who look like they might not like your dog as much as you do

So do I, as documented up thread.

Dogs can be strange and unpredictable. A friend had a lovely Jack Russell cross, with a great temperament and really well socialised around people. I am not good with dogs but had no issues with it, well trained and friendly but not overly friendly.

His adult son often looked after the dog at weekends and had a great relationship with it, but one evening arrived at his dad's after dark and walked in without knocking. The dog had him 'pinned' by the door, no physical contact but he was scared to move and had to get his dad to call the dog off.

A week later, a diabetic hypo, and paramedics walked in to find an unconscious adult and an unfamiliar dog who calmly allowed them to enter the property and take my friend away to hospital. No idea what was going through the dogs mind, but unpredictability can go both ways.

Rather embarrassing piece of statistical nonsense.

Do you think many people on this thread fear being killed by a dog? The circumstances leading to fatalities involving dogs are relatively uncommon - powerful enough dog breed, more likely small children, tending to be enclosed and unsupervised with the animal.

The likelihood of being mauled to death on a hill by a terrier that has its owner nearby is near zero. 

So yes - I suspect it's statistically more likely that you might be murdered by a human than killed by a dog, and much more likely that you would be negligently killed by a driver.....but I haven't been bitten by a human while I have been bitten by a dog.

So to say I'm safer encountering badly trained dogs than badly trained humans is probably not true.

Are you very easily embarrassed of just when you feel your phobia is being challenged?

I think many on this thread are dog phobic.

The anecdotal sits right down there at the bottom of the hierarchy of evidence. Some might find it embarrassing that you didn't know that.

The easily accessible stats indicate otherwise.

I think that just doubles down on my point - you’re clearly very experienced through your experiences in your job at managing dogs in *their* home environments where they can be more defensive.  If you have the experience of and skills from that, you’re in a very different place indeed to many people.  Keep with me as I reply to another poster below…

This.  Which is a problem because it means someone a bit timid of dogs is more likely to have a negative experience, reinforcing their fears and priming them to react in a way that worsens the scope for problems.  Which should not be their problem, at all.

Stichtplate above clearly has a lot of experience with troubled dogs which will manifest as instinctively knowing how to project to dogs the right air to de escalate.  An extreme example would be knowing when not to run from a dog to avoid triggering worse instincts but it goes all the way down to body posture and tone of voice.

Lots of people don’t have that experience.

Which is part of why I don’t consider those with a phobia of dogs to have an irrational phobia.  In terms of evolutionary biology we have every reason to be afraid of dog-like creatures baked in to our DNA, it’s only in the blink of an evolutionary eyelid (*) that they’ve moved from being aggressive animals in competition with humans to somewhat subjugated, somewhat enslaved wolf-like creatures that have a veneer of diversion over their instincts.

(before the “you hate dogs” pile on, I have a very similar view of cats and have happily had a cat in the past, spent a year walking my landlord’s dog and often stop to fuss next door’s dog.  It shouldn’t be obligatory to point this out but I know how these threads go… )

(*) dogs were domesticated maybe 20,000 years ago.  Humans still have an evolutionary diving reflex from aquatic mammals over 40,000,000 years ago.  These things hang around…

Sad for the dog but its not my problem, and don't make it so.  I live in an area with cons, sheep , too many deer and a lot of dogs being walked and it's the dogs that are the problem.

I see we've had the usual cliche about it being a middle class problem, van lifestyle blah blah blah. Its not. Badly trained dogs span all social classes

Looks like you're dismissing people who don't hold your views as irrational - that very rarely associates with convincing arguments.

Misrepresenting safety as continued life rather than freedom from intimidation, aggression and physical assault is certainly not persuasive.

..as for "no you're embarassed!"....deary, deary me.

Not at all, but if someone is fearful due to a dog looking at them while trotting past, what would you call them?

Misrepresenting you say? What, like putting something in quotation marks indicating it’s a direct quote when it’s no such thing? Like insinuating I’ve defended canine behaviour that presents as “intimidation, aggression and physical assault “. That the sort of misrepresentation you’re thinking of?

dearly, deary me indeed….

"No - that's you that is" - nah, no point in continuing a discussion of this quality.

(and that's a paraphrase in inverted commas for the hard of thinking)

Hard of thinking now? Glancing up thread you dog phobics really are quite shrill.

The correct use of quotation marks is very simple to understand and it’s not when paraphrasing.

Easy enough to google if you’re still confused 

Actually, I was bitten by a stranger's dog when I was a child. I agree though, in the general scheme of things, being bitten isn't much of a risk.

The risk of being bitten isn't why I'm in "team dog-phobic" or whatever you want to call it. It's the imposition, hassle and general unpleasantness of untrained dogs that I find disagreeable. It's the crotch-sniffing, barking, stealing food, shaking water and treading mud over climbing stuff, pissing on bouldering mats etc etc. Even staring fixedly from 1m away as I'm eating my lunch. No one would be expected to tolerate a person doing that, so why a dog?

Yep, and I fully agree with all that. Even more infuriating when the owners compound the offence with a grin and a shrug and no hint of an apology 

So where do you draw the boundary between the behaviour above which you agree is wrong and your dog showing an interest in which you think is ok?

is it OK for your dog to run up to a stranger in a public place and have a sniff at their legs?

in your scenario in the area where I found dead sheep the farmers put up sometimes graphic signs (and have done since the early 90s ) showing what dog attacks look like and requesting dogs to be on leads on the fellside.  So your possible town dwellers who walk past those signs are not innocent at all.

Having said that I'm sure the same or greater sense of entitlement could be found with visitors from the Cotswolds as well!

the answer is for you to visit the same behaviour by your good self on the dogowners themselves, and their children or girlfriends, after all you're only being friendly

personally I am generally not at all afraid of dogs having grown up with animals from rabbits, cats, a donkey, and a number of dogs.

BUT I value my personal space, I find dogs unpleasantly smelly and not very hygienic though breeds differ (labradors are very dirty minded sometimes and smell very very strong, as can bloodhounds and pekinese) - I quite like whippets because of their temperament and behaviour because my experience of them is to have my personal space respected.  I love cats but wouldn't have one as it would be very bad for our garden birds of which I am extremely fond.

But the only time I'd admit to a phobia is the phobia of having something unwanted and smelly and salivating getting too close  for my quiet enjoyment of the day or if it was something huge powerful menacing and taking an interest in me.

Then you go on holiday to France, drive off the ferry and trundle merrily down the road on the left because that's what you do at home.

F**k me they drive on the wrong side of the road here!

It really does.

Do we need to go over the definition provided for “show an interest” for a third time? Sigh, here we go: trotting towards you and looking at you. And yeah, I don’t think it’s an outrageous imposition on your person if my dog looks at you.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being very little and 10 being very much, how upset are you with a dog looking at you?

No, not acceptable 

but it’s happened on occasions rare enough that I can’t remember when the last time was. Dog gets called back, sniffee gets an apology.

So 1 to 10, how upset are you with a dog sniffing you?

the sound of people shouting at the dogs that they have let off their leads.

Especially around NT9733

If it was a dog she didn't know, that would be, even after therapy, terrifying for Mrs J. Even more so if the dog ignored an instruction not to. As I said upthread, I accept this is an issue we have to manage, but dog owners appreciating this is an issue would help. How usual is Mrs J,  I'm not sure. It seems 25% of people are wary of dogs, not sure if this is correlated to those who have been bitten. 5% are very wary?? I'd probably place Mrs J in the 1%. Not sure how reliable those stats. are. I was tempted to reply, tongue in cheek, to the cow stats.  94% of the fatalities, as a result of attacks from cows, in the last 20 years have also involved dogs. Anyone know how many of the deaths from dog attacks have involved cows??

Me less than 1, but I don't think that is the point, off a lead and without consent Mrs J would be hysterical, consequently be taking matters into my own hands, hopefully being assertive, but it's often interpreted by the dog owner as being aggressive.

It's much more likely a rational result of being bitten/slobbered over/jumped on etc by many many dogs in the past. 

If the dog runs away from it's owner and gets close enough to push its nose against my legs then about 8/10

If it wants to look and sniff while walking alongside it's owner then 0/10

Reality: Dog circling around snapping and growling. Owner shouting "Rover, Rover don't do that" totally ineffectually.

I was pretty clear that this was a one to ten scale of how upset you can get. For me a ten would be something like watching my house burn down with my entire family trapped inside….

For context, I was at about a 6 after getting my cancer diagnosis 

and you’re at an 8 after contact with a dog’s nose?

…. and back down to zero after the 8? Really?

Nah, I’m being entirely factual.

That your froth fantasy gets 5 thumbs up reinforces how deranged the UKC doggophobes are

edit: and straight up to 8 after mentioning the like/ dislike buttons. This is why I will never, ever turn off that function…too funny😂

Possibly in your particular case, although I am sceptical. My description is very common however and why people don't want dogs "taking an interest" in them univited 

I'm surprised at the lack of empathy you are showing here. FWIW I grew up with large rambunctious dogs and am beatifically comfortable around huge strange dogs, including big barky white things in the Pyrenees running at me. I find gigantic dogs profoundly endearing, the bigger the better, but even I get that some people are uncomfortable with what are large unhygienic predators with big teeth, slobbery bumhole tainted tongues and zero sense of personal space.

I'm assuming that you also get that phobias are often irrational? I knew someone who would have a complete meltdown about balloons, even if she saw them the telly. At least a dog phobia has some reason to it.

Jesus man, I thought better of you.

It doesn't mean that UKC isn't rife with pearl clutchers who need things to hate or disapprove of, be it dogs, cyclists or anyone with a van, but surely you can get that some people are freaked out by dogs and some dog owners are selfish dicks.

The only person that’s coughed to being dog phobic on here is RobAjobes on behalf of his wife (entirely understandable after her being seriously injured by a dog). Everyone else in the dog phobic camp is busy rationalizing their irrational fears of all dogs based on the behaviour of a few dogs and their terrible owners.

Most of us have suffered phobias to one degree or another and most people will recognise that they are impossible to deal with unless you first accept them for what they are, irrational fears that unnecessarily suck joy from ordinary everyday life.

I absolutely get that and it’s valid, but it’s a minority of dogs, a minority of cyclists and a minority of van owners that are the problem. Tarring everyone with the same brush is simply another form of bigotry.

This thread has gone mental. The OP made a fair point about adequate control of dogs where they present a danger.

90% of everything else is diatribe.

I think all parties need to calm down and think about the real problem here: other people with wrong thoughts.

These wrong-thoughted people are awful. Like, really awful.

Luckily I'm always right, so that's okay.

Thanks for defending the great majority of dogs and dog owners, Stitchplate.  

I'm with you 100 % and I appreciate the perspective and maturity in your coments.  

Unfortunately, there are a few shrill voices that chime in again and again with the same arguments, and they'll never be satisfied. 

One get's the feeling that they believe that dogs, like children, should be "seen but not heard." Or preferably, not seen at all. 

As I've said repeatedley, the good news is that in the real world (not internet echo chambers) people just get on with integrating and dogs into daily life, as they have for thousands of years. 

Just wanted to sent you some support. 

Carry on. 

yes, zero after the 8/10. I have had dogs for about half my life, my children and grandchildren have dogs now. I enjoy going for walks with them.

But it does annoy me deeply when some dog owners belittle the worries of other people with their sense of entitlement. Not all dog owners, a minority, perhaps a small minority think it is fine to have their dog run up to people, leave poo bags tied to trees and ignore signs saying dogs on leads.

I think there's a considerable difference between "trotting" past someone  and "trotting" up to someone. There certainly would be if it was a human.

I find your approach utterly selfish.

As the owner of a dog it's up to me to be in control of it when in public spaces. An 80kg St Bernard attracts attention, but I also see people who are wary of him.

He loves to play with other dogs and is extremely laid back, however I regularly get off lead dogs running up to him and then challenge him, because of his size, the selfish owners get upset because their little fur baby has "never done that before". Had two staffies do it yesterday, dogs out of sight of the owners, one was.keeping it's distance the other challenged my dog, owners appear and just laugh. It did get a good drool bath though.

As the owner I have ultimate responsibility.

Which bit exactly? The bits where I recognise it’s utterly unacceptable for my dog to make unwanted contact with anyone, mess with their stuff, steal their food, foul their crash mat? The bit where I say if someone seemed discomforted by their proximity, then I’d call her to heel? No?

Must be the bit where I indicated it’s surely okay if my dog looks at you in passing. You’re right, utterly selfish.

Next time my dog looks at someone what do you suggest a responsible owner, such as yourself, should do?

When we are enjoying the countryside, we should all endeavour to do so in a way that allows others to do so too -in their way, whenever possible.

For some people, that means being with their companion dogs. For other people, that means being left in peace by other people's dogs. 

I've seen plenty of examples of exemplary dog owners where dogs quietly wait by their owners whilst the owners climb. The owners regularly break off from their climbing to take their dogs for little walks to avoid dog boredom.

Sadly that is very far from being universal or even standard dog owning behaviour. I think it is perfectly reasonable to wish that it were.

Likewise with ramblers, some people walk past with their quiet dogs under control. Other people are preceded by a dog fight and general havoc and hassle, then turn up five minutes later to do some ineffectual shouting. 

Your lack of empathy for other peoples phobias. Although understandable in your job, I guess there has to be certain degree detachment.

I wasn’t belittling your worries, I was slightly incredulous at your score of  8/10 in ranked levels of upset. I’ve already given you my personal 6/10 and 10/10, let me fill in the rest, insert your 8/10 and you tell me if it looks a little incongruous 

1 The bins don’t get collected

2 someone sets fire to the bins

3 car gets broken into

4 house gets broken into

5 kid ibreaks both legs

6 me getting diagnosed with cancer

7 my elderly mum gets mugged, beaten up, is in ICU

8 dog sniffs my leg

9 wife killed in RTC

10 watch house burn down with my entire family trapped inside.

Damn, on reading back you’re right and I’m an insensitive oaf

You seem to be changing tack slightly. On Friday you were defending a dog's actions if it showed interest by approaching you  but now you're limiting it to looking at you "in passing". As I said, two different things.

See my list above and perhaps reflect on whether I’m being insensitive or 8/10 for dog sniffs leg is a little ridiculous 

Ah yes, dog looks at you while approaching Vs dog looks at you while passing. I’m grateful you’ve identified the crux of the matter.

Exquisite pivotry. 11/10.

I don't have a fear of heights or being underwater in the dark, but I know many who do.

At work I have consider people's fear of heights or confined spaces, rational or not. I can't just put a  harness on them and hang them off the roof or shove them in a pipe.

I've also helped people overcome their fear of dogs, to the point they are now dog owners.

My favourite is the dog owning vegan

I think I'm fairly typical in being indifferent to dogs that leave me alone and somewhat annoyed by dogs that don't. The level of annoyance IMO being a perfectly reasonable scaling to the level of imposition.

Stealing my lunch or pissing on my bouldering mat= considerable annoyance. Staring fixedly at me from 1m away as I eat my lunch or barking incessantly = mild annoyance. 

I'm sure, if I had overpowering gushings of love for all dogs, that would make my interactions with dogs more enjoyable for me and them. No doubt I should try and summon such feelings, not just for dogs but for all things. Meanwhile, IMO it would be nice for dog owners to understand that many people don't have such feelings and act accordingly.

For most people it isn't fear or phobia, it is just indifference, and so consequently imposition=annoyance.

So you don’t know what pivot means either? I’ll help you out; volte face, complete change of tack. What you’ve highlighted is clarification or extension of a coherent argument.

We’d already established you don’t understand quotation marks and now you give us 11/10 too?

110% effort there chap, well done (-:

Totally reasonable 

I’m well aware of how others may feel indifferent towards dogs and again, that attitude is entirely reasonable 

Yeah, have you read the 8/10 level of upset at leg sniffing posts? That’s not annoyance, that’s an extraordinary level of phobia.

Edit: you’ll notice I’ve answered your posts in some detail. I’ve noticed you’ve not really engaged with my answers and certainly not responded to direct questions, so how about it, where have I demonstrated that I’m “utterly selfish”? Is an 8/10 level of upset entirely reasonable in the context outlined?

I know all that, it was part of the point of my post.