[deepinthewoods]

6)A person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction—
(a)except in a case falling within the succeeding paragraph, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds;
(b)in a case where the person in question has previously been convicted of an offence under this Act in respect of the same dog, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.


not much of a fine.

[woollyval]

....Tell the RSPCA.... Its a laughable fine, £50 in 1953 is not £50 in 2012!

[SallyintNorth]

Thanks very much for that woollyval, I shall be quoting it! 

I suspect that anyone could argue that much if not most of the land we farm "consists wholly or mainly of mountain, hill, moor, heath or down land", where the close control restriction does not apply     However, I shall certainly feel more confident knowing that I can quote the Protection of Livestock Act 1953 in my conversations with tourists on the Wall this summer 

[Richard Underwood]

Thanks for posting the details of the act Woolyval. It is good to know exactly where you stand.

Deepinthewoods, the fines will have increased - since the 1982 Criminal Justice Act fines are increased to allow for inflation using the 'standard scale'. The original £10 and £50 fines are I think both 'level 1' which is now £200. Not a lot, but a bit more of a deterrent than a tenner.

SallyintNorth, if I read it correctly the law applies everywhere unless the Minister (now presumably the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) has specifically decided that should not apply in an area. It is not a general clause meaning there is no offence in "wholly or mainly of mountain, hill, moor, heath or down land". You could ask your local DEFRA office is any such ruling has been made in your region. I am sure they will love to find that out for you .

It is also worth quoting the law regarding livestock owners shooting dogs from the Animals Act 1971. It is legal to kill or injure a dog if, and only if, either— .
(a)the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or .
(b)the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.

[lachlanandmarcus]

if owner is there but unable or unwilling to control the dog which is attacking then hopefuly the first clause would cover it

[plumseverywhere]

Police have just phoned me to follow up on the dog attack we had about a fortnight ago.

They said 'unfortunately' dog attacks on other dogs, animals, livestock etc are a grey area and unless its a dog attack on a human, the law isn't too helpful. However she did reinforce the need to get the dog warden involved and that we are within our rights to shoot an animal that is out of control and worrying/potentially harming our stock.
I've asked if someone with a decent gun is allowed to come onto my land if I rang them in an emergency (we only have an air rifle here) and she is looking into that for me. She suggested firing the air rifle over the dogs to attempt to put them off in the meantime. I asked if I shot with an air rifle knowing that it would most likely cause injury rather than death would I be held accountable for cruelty, she's not sure.

[plumseverywhere]

Yes...a licenced gun owner can (if they are willing) come to your land and shoot a dog that is actively worrying your livestock (just got to get them there quickly enough!). Very helpful Police lady 

[Sbom]

We have an air rifle and often wondered if we could use it if a similar situation arose so will be interested to hear the outcome of that. I would have thought that an air rifle pellet in the backside would stop them long enough to detain?