You See a Dog Chasing Sheep — Would You Report It?

I have read repeatedly, about a recent incident where a South Devon livestock farmer was reported to the RSPCA when a member of the public saw the farmer's dogs moving his own sheep and assumed that they were being 'worried' by the dogs.

The rural comments below the reports, blame 'ignorant townies' who are 'stupid' and need to 'mind their own business' etc; offering a window into the urban:rural division that in any other form would constitute offences relating to targeted discrimination and hate, based purely upon perceived membership of a particular social group.

That's the first thing I noticed.

The second thing is that, rather than being 'stupid' or 'ignorant', the member of the public — albeit unnecessarily — naively acted EXACTLY as the farming and political sector has repeatedly, very publicly, actively encouraged them to act, by reporting what they perceived to be a threat to the lives of the animals and the livelihood of the farmer.

Remember, WITHOUT public reporting, the already abysmally underreported number of livestock worrying incidents by dogs would sink to next to nothing. In essence, livestock farmers are absolutely dependent on public reporting of livestock worrying incidents as a means of acting to protect their animals and their businesses. The Dogs Protection of Livestock (Amendment) 2025 — which was welcomed by the livestock farming sector — significantly increased the penalty for owners of dogs that worry sheep, giving courts the power to impose unlimited fines. I can tell you from first-hand, personal experiences, that this amendment has directly resulted in people failing to confess to their dogs attacking sheep, whereas previously (with a maximum fine of £1,000) they would have come forward and owned up. This means that the legislative sledgehammer might reduce 'reporting' of incidents, but it doesn't reduce their 'occurrence'. Having retrained livestock worrying dogs and talked with their owners for over 15 years, I warned about this blindingly obvious consequence of relying upon heavier penalties several years back, but the political system and a frustrated farming sector chose to place more emphasis on punishment than prevention.

As a police officer of 19 years, I can tell you that effective laws require effective enforcement. But when was the last time you saw police officers patrolling sheep fields and rural woodlands or bridleways? If owners are discouraged from reporting, and nobody with any legal power is present at the time to enforce it, what is the actual real-world value in the amendments? Nothing.

Encouraging dog owners to undertake 'sheep safety training' — where dogs are quickly, effectively and harmlessly taught that sheep are unpleasant and should never be approached — was not even given a mention; "They won't bother training their dogs, so why bother recommending it?" That is the general consensus.

What the 2025 Amendment Actually Changed

The Dogs Protection of Livestock (Amendment) 2025 also tightened the definitions of what constitutes 'worrying' livestock.

It also extends the scope of the act 'beyond the hedge' of any field or enclosure containing sheep. This means that the person in charge of any dog found to be 'worrying' sheep on a road or lane where those animals are being moved and haven't simply 'escaped', would still commit an offence — it isn't just sheep in fields that count.

The much-praised amendment to the Act also states that sheep do not need to be actively chased or attacked, but — as in this instance — only need to appear to be 'in fear' of the presence of the dog for an offence to have been committed. And since sheep dogs (as predators) work by causing sheep (prey animals) to run or move away from a perceived threat (the dog), then the nuts and bolts of the offence are effectively complete:

"But it's the farmer's own sheep?!"

Correct! And working sheep dogs are exempt from the Act — PROVIDED THAT THEY WERE WORKING AT THE TIME.

This means that if a farmer is out walking her/his sheep dogs on a highway or in a field which does not belong to them, and their dogs then 'worry' (cause sheep to act out of fear) sheep that do not belong to them, then whether their dogs are working sheep dogs or not, the farmer has committed the offence of 'livestock worrying'.

Back to the Incident in Question

A vigilant member of the public sees what they believe to be dogs worrying sheep. The 2 dogs are not on a lead and they do not believe that they are 'otherwise under control'. Are they justified in believing that? Well, according to the farmer himself who was responsible for the dogs at the time, one of his dogs was "in hot pursuit of sheep", which had got onto a road whilst the sheep were being moved into fields. The farmer goes on to say that at the time of the incident, he was there, "reprimanding the dog for being a twat".

[The post doesn't mention what the reprimand consisted of, or clarify what is meant by the dog "being a twat". However both statements might suggest that the dog wasn't acting as required or expected.]

Now I'd ask you to think about that from the observer's perspective. A man is seen reprimanding a dog that has been seen "in hot pursuit" of sheep on a public highway.

There is nothing to highlight the man as being the farmer who owns the sheep, and it is only the fact that the dogs are "black and white" that is supposed to inform the concerned member of the public that they are working sheep dogs, working sheep.

So to My Point

"Keep dogs on leads around livestock" is the staple messaging from the farming sector and government for over 70 years. It has literally been drummed into people via media and social media messaging, year after year.

So when a person sees 1 or 2 dogs chasing sheep on a public highway, with a man seemingly not having close control and "reprimanding" one of the two dogs, they report it. They do EXACTLY what they have been encouraged to do.

Yet when they do, they get ridiculed and criticised across MULTIPLE social media channels, agricultural and regional, online media news outlets.

In one post alone, over 1,700 comments appeared, mostly ridiculing the actions of the person who believed that they were doing the right thing for both the farmer and his animals. Comments like:

My point is this. People need to step back from a situation and actually consider the context and facts surrounding it, before jumping to social media to complain. Try to see it from the other side. Maybe, just maybe, that person being ridiculed is exactly the sort of person you actually want to thank and encourage. Because whilst farmers might laugh and poke fun at that person, every member of the public or dog owner reading the potential, publicly humiliating consequences of reporting a livestock worrying incident in the future will think twice about the benefits of bothering to do so.