when did a dog last prey on a cow. no idea. ask the cows. they're big stupid animals hard wired to respond to what they see as a threat. as an example, today i knelt down to take some pictures of goats in a field. i was fairly close. when i stood up they ran hell for leather away. why? because i exihibited typical predator behaviour.
it's the hard wired behaviour to a perceived threat which is heightened when babies are involved that is important and nothing to do with whether or not it is an actual threat. nobody has told the cow otherwise. all animals behave in the same even humans.
you CHOOSE to walk through a field of cows with a dog. that's fine no problem with that at all. you do so with the knowledge and responsibility that cows may not like your dog. your actions demonstrate behaviour in light of a potential threat. just like a cow does.
the difference is your beaviour is reasoned, based upon experience and absorbtion of facts due to your much higher level of conciousness of the world. a cow doesn't have that benefit and responds only to its environment and its hard wired behaviour.
using a prow. well that's just fine too. is a dog legally allowed to walk a prow in law anywhere?. or does it go with you as your posssession. consequently you are totally and solely responsible for its behaviour and responses to it.
farmers shouldn't have cows in their fields? well how about the other way round. your dog attacks and injures a farmer's animals in a field. is it the farmer's fault for having the animals there or is it your fault?
It is NOT all about dogs. That's getting away from the whole dangerous cow problem and turning it into a dog debate.
I (and several other people I personally know) have been chased by cattle and had to desperately climb a wobbly wall to escape. None of us have dogs. This did not used to happen years ago as I had quite a lot of experience when a teenager about dealing with fields full of cows. Some of the cattle loose in fields nowadays are downright uppity. I always walk around them, give them a wide berth, etc etc. They still sometimes scrape feet and then charge.
The central beef (as it were) seems to be between:
the rights of dog owners to walk their dogs on a PROW with no other obligations than if they were taking any other kind of property with them and;
farmers to put whatever livestock they want, wherever they want, without consideration as to whether the aforesaid dog owners are inconvenienced.
If a conflict between these interests is precipitated (and that may well have happened with this judgement ) the dog owners are going to have a problem:
Can anyone cite a case where a walker, unaccompanied by a dog, was killed by farm livestock?
Can anyone cite a case where a child has been killed or seriously wounded by a domestic pet, other than a dog?
Which domestic pet causes the largest number of road accidents in the UK? Clue: in 1985, 1,221 incidents where a dog was on the highway (3 people killed and 1,458 injured - Hansard).
I've no personal interest but can't you see how easy it is to build a case against the unregulated ownership of dogs? People who choose to own them have to start taking some responsibility for the fact that they are dangerous animals (the dogs, not the owners).
I've been frowned on for saying it but I'll say it again. Walking with dogs through fields of animals (both cows and sheep - there hasn't been enough here about sheep) is a risky busniness. It's fine if you're totally in control of your dog - I grew up on mixed farms with both sheep and cattle, and there were always dogs: but they were totally reliable and obedient (and therefore immensely happy) border collies who worked their socks off working sheep, and were, even so, unpopular with cattle.
the number of dogs I meet in the country who are totally reliable and obedient around livestock is approaching nil per cent. Virtually all dog-owners are uttlerly incompetent and their dogs are thus generally unhappy, neurotic, unreliable, and potentially dangerous.
I'll ask you: if you're walking your dog and he/she finds something utterly fascinating, such as a rabbit or sheep to chase. He/she is fifty yards away and you order him/her to come immediately to heel. Are you quite sure he/she will immediately obey?
If not, don't take your dog for walks where you may encounter livestock.
It is somewhat surprising that this thread has been hijacked by the old arguments about dogs in fields when the judge has made an important decision (for the first time to my knowledge) of interest to all walkers, indeed one that may set a precedent, that straying from a RoW which is not clearly waymarked does not constitute trespass.
At the time of the attack she had veered away from the line of the footpath. However, in his ruling Judge Howarth states: “There are no signs of any sort to indicate the correct line of the footpath. Mr. Cameron must have been aware of this absence of signs. It is fairly argued on behalf of Miss McKaskie that Mr. Cameron plainly demonstrated a lack of concern which route was adopted by walkers when trying to use the footpath.” This, he said, granted an “implied licence” to members of the public to use the route which was taken by Miss McKaskie and prevented her from being classed as a “trespasser”.
According to a previous report on the case, the lady was following a worn path across the field having not checked that it was the designated RoW, the defence argued that “It is the responsibility of walkers to know where the footpath is”, the judge disagreed.
Jake, I did post some details on another thread that I obtained via an FOI request to the HSE. It gave details fo the incidents of people being killed by cows. You can see them here: Moooooo
You'll need to scroll down to the posts with the details (which are in bold)
If Guy is still reading this there is an interesting link in that thread to the Countryside Alliance site who want the Animals Act changed as a result of the case involving horses he mentioned, but even they support the current law regarding cows with calves.
They support a change for non-dangerous animals like horses and cows to restrict liability to cases where the animal is known to be of a dangerous disposition either permanently because of its temperament, or temporarily because of particular circumstances, such as when it has young to protect.
But the Alliance believes it is fair that the keeper of an animal is liable for damage that could have been predicted or foreseen and welcomes the retention of proper protection for victims.
It is somewhat surprising that this thread has been hijacked by the old arguments about dogs in fields when the judge has made an important decision (for the first time to my knowledge) of interest to all walkers, indeed one that may set a precedent, that straying from a RoW which is not clearly waymarked does not constitute trespass.
At the time of the attack she had veered away from the line of the footpath. However, in his ruling Judge Howarth states: “There are no signs of any sort to indicate the correct line of the footpath. Mr. Cameron must have been aware of this absence of signs. It is fairly argued on behalf of Miss McKaskie that Mr. Cameron plainly demonstrated a lack of concern which route was adopted by walkers when trying to use the footpath.” This, he said, granted an “implied licence” to members of the public to use the route which was taken by Miss McKaskie and prevented her from being classed as a “trespasser”.
According to a previous report on the case, the lady was following a worn path across the field having not checked that it was the designated RoW, the defence argued that “It is the responsibility of walkers to know where the footpath is”, the judge disagreed.
Fair enough, DM. Let's address that point.
It strikes me as a most perverse decision on the part of the judge. RoWs across farmland are rarely well defined; at most you might have waymarkers on both sides of a field but it is pretty unusual. There is very rarely a clear track linking 2 waymarkers across a field because the land is being cultivated and changes constantly. Routes across farmland are also not used as heavily as those on mountain and moorland.
Has m'lud actually thought this one through? Can walkers now walk wherever they please across the country and, if challenged, say "well, there is not a clearly marked right of way, so tough titty, Farmer Giles"? What constitutes "clearly marked" anyway? Have the councils got to send out guys with line painting machines to delineate the RoWs?
Going further, the judge seems to be saying that the onus is on the landowner to ensure that RoWs are clearly marked. I always understood that the maintenance of RoWs was the responsibility of councils. Let's hope that we get a more sane decision on appeal.
It will be a travesty of natural justice if this farmer is held responsible for injuries sustained by a member of the public trespassing on his land, particularly when that individual had brought an animal known to provoke attacks by cattle. Check Michael S's link to cattle deaths; most of them are people who worked with cattle and were handling large numbers of animals in confined spaces when killed. Only 2 members of the public were killed by cattle and both were accompanied by dogs.
I disagree I think its a great decision by the judge.The law was always an ass previously as it assumed that you had to keep strictly within a metre or two of a line recorded of a map which could only be accurate to 10 or 20m.
There is very rarely a clear track linking 2 waymarkers across a field because the land is being cultivated and changes constantly
Yes but legally you had to ignore "changes" and follow the defined line exactly, If the farmer ploughed up a field you had to tramp across it to the exact line, not follow the boundary.
Can walkers now walk wherever they please across the country and, if challenged, say "well, there is not a clearly marked right of way, so tough titty, Farmer Giles"?
Possibly not, the lady was walking on a worn path, which had obviously become the de facto route on the ground rather than the line on the map.
Going further, the judge seems to be saying that the onus is on the landowner to ensure that RoWs are clearly marked. I always understood that the maintenance of RoWs was the responsibility of councils.
Not necessarily so the judge is saying that the farmer was unconcerned that people were using the new path, hence the "implied licence". If he was concerned it was up to him to do something about it before this happened.
It will be a travesty of natural justice if this farmer is held responsible for injuries sustained by a member of the public trespassing on his land, particularly when that individual had brought an animal known to provoke attacks by cattle
I'd agree with the trespass part IF the lady were very deliberatelycommiting an act of trespass, but she wasn't. I disagree strongly with the dog point, there wasn't even any evidence presented that the dog wasn't under close control. Michael S's statistics are interesting, but its the HSE's remit to investigate accidents at work, not to collate statistics on injuries to the public crossing footpaths.Its not true to say only 2 members of the public were killed by cattle in that period.
Yes, it's an important clarification - that's just the information that the HSE hold (and as an aside, their response to my FOI request was pretty poor on a number of points (I couldn't be bothered to challenge it at the time), so I wouldn't be surprised if they hold information about other incidents). There will be other cattle-related eaths during the period in question - in fact, I know there are, from news reports during the time period of incidents that are not included in the HSE stats. But I thought it was an interesting set of information anyway. For a definitive list of cattle-related deaths, I'm not sure who to contact. It's not DEFRA (I asked them first, and they said they don't have anything, and suggested I try the HSE). Perhaps the police forces throughout the country? I don't know. I think it would be interesting to see a definitive list, with details of who was killed, where they were, what they were doing - and whether they had dogs with them (I know this story isn't all about dogs, but it would be interesting to see how many members of the public who were killed had dogs with them - i.e. not farm workers who died during the course of their work).
"It is NOT all about dogs. That's getting away from the whole dangerous cow problem and turning it into a dog debate." quite right. i am NOT trying to turn this debate into any such thing.
the simple correlation of serious cow attacks on members of the public walking (and not the hse workplace accidents/attacks where exposure to the risk of an attack by a cow is innumerably higher) when a dog is present and when it isn't surely points to the dog being the causal factor of the attack.
i want to walk wherever i want to, whenever i want, how i want and with what i want to is just fine by me. just because you WANT to do it you CHOOSE all the risks associated with it just like you do when you weigh up falling down/off something.
if cows get uppity in the presence of a dog it is not the cows fault. they're just being cows. that by itself does not make them dangerous. all animals respond to a what they see as a potential threat when they have babies around. humans do it too. the danger comes from a cause.
i have no time for i WANT to walk my dog i.e. i WANT to have one of my possessions with me, wherever and whenever i WANT to and anything that stops me doing this should be banned.
The judgement was partly in response to the defence that the injured person was trespassing by not keeping to the line of the PROW. If anything is perverse in this case it is that stated defence.
You say yourself, "RoWs across farmland are rarely well defined; at most you might have waymarkers on both sides of a field but it is pretty unusual. There is very rarely a clear track linking 2 waymarkers across a field because the land is being cultivated and changes constantly. Routes across farmland are also not used as heavily as those on mountain and moorland.", so if the PROW is not clearly marked then, no matter who is responsible for its upkeep, the defence of trespass is unreasonable. In addition there is enough flexibility in access law to enable farmers to reasonably and temporarily vary PROWs so that, for instance, if there is a suckling herd in a field with a PROW, then that PROW can be routed by the farmer through or around the border of, say, an adjacent field. In such a case, it would be the responsibility of the farmer to erect clear signage marking the diversion.
In a former guise of IR and H&S rep I read widely on health and safety issues and I have tried below to state as clearly and briefly as I can what I believe to be the legal basis of most H&S litigation.
Under the Health and Safety at Work Act, a clear duty of care exists to any member of the public who may be affected by the activities of commercial, industrial or agricultural undertakings such duty lying with the person or organisation/s responsible for and carrying out the activities of those undertakings whether the said member of the public may be exercising reasonable and legal access to the premises of such undertakings or if affected by those activities outwith those premises.
In addition, can I say that I grew up in a mining community surrounded by farms. From early primary school days I played with a farmer's children on their farm and from the age of 12 until I left school I worked early mornings, evenings, weekends and school holidays as a farm boy. I quickly learned the dangers of working with livestock and they were many. It must be said that if a farmer places a suckling herd in a field with a PROW he does so knowing that he will be putting any member of the public using that PROW at risk. Working with livestock equips you with the ability to recognise individual body language and herd behavioural signs, the general public will not have that skill and will not as a result be forewarned of imminent danger. So please don't speak of perversity of judgement without having and weighing all the facts. Remember, the judge has to apply the law and where it is open to interpretation he has to make reference to precedent and to consider the spirit or intention of the law which in the case of the H&SWA is protection of the individual from the adverse effects of anothers' actions or undertakings.
The glaringly obvious point here is that in such a case as we are discussing, if a PROW was to be temporarily diverted so that there was no contact with livestock, the point about dogs being present would become null and void.
Here, farmers do carry out such diversions where PROWs exist (and there are many) so such problems never arise. Actually, they are so enlightened that they also do it where there are physically established paths but no definitive PROW, so if they can do it here why can't all farmers do it?
Here, farmers do carry out such diversions where PROWs exist (and there are many) so such problems never arise. Actually, they are so enlightened that they also do it where there are physically established paths but no definitive PROW, so if they can do it here why can't all farmers do it?
Because it is actually illegal.....and what may seem like common sense to someone like you is an infringement of others legal rights....
the simple correlation of serious cow attacks on members of the public walking when a dog is present and when it isn't surely points to the dog being the causal factor of the attack.
What evidence is that assertion based on, Parky? Where are you getting the numbers to make that case?
Various posts above seem to suggest that comprehensive figures for cow attacks on the public don't exist, certainly not in one easily accessible place, and nobody has managed to produce them so far. Do you have access to them anywhere?
Yes Simon, you are right and I was mistaken, such diversions are illegal without a legal order by the appropriate authority. However, a farmer or landowner can point out potential risk and offer another route.
Unfortunately that entails the possibility of an application for the diversion being recognised as a pubic path while the original PROW remains a legal route. A second pitfall is that by publicly announcing an introduced potential risk which may affect you by your exercising your right of way the farmer may in essence be admitting beforehand liability for any harm from that introduced risk.
Still, it's what happens around here and it works. Having said that I can see the need for clear legal lines being drawn.
Still, it's what happens around here and it works. Having said that I can see the need for clear legal lines being drawn.
Indeed. Couldnt agree more. Sad that such sensible actions cannot be the norm!
Incidently...and kind of off topic..but not really...in my previous professional life where negotiating footpath diversions (temporary and permenant) was quite common, if we found out that The Ramblers were involved, we almost didnt bother going to the meeting..as no matter what the justification, they opposed it...
I can't say that the details I posted 'confirm' that dogs are a cause of attack! Most of the details I got were that people working on farms get killed by them (cows, not dogs! ), not members of the public walking dogs!
I'm a dog-owner (and I like to think a responsible one), but I don't have the "I WANT to walk my dog there" attitude - it's more of a "It's going to be a bloody inconvenience if I CAN'T walk my dog there" attitude. But regardless, PROWs are PROWs - if you do want to take your dog there, you can. If cows get uppity in the presence of a dog it's not the cow's fault, I agree. But neither is it really the dog's fault either; a dog walking passively and obediently by the side of its owner, on a lead, under control, cannot be blamed if a herd of cows 40 or more yards away suddenly start going bonkers. Can the dog owner be blamed? No, I don't think so either. The dog owner should certainly weigh up the risks before entering the field, but if the dog is a passive dog, and will be on a short lead the whole time, 40 or more yards from cows, any reasonable ownder would assume it isn't going to cause a problem.
And it's not just when there are 'babies' around - I've seen a herd of fully grown cows going mental at people (without dogs) who are legally crossing 'their' field, stampeding a good few hundred yards to get to the person(s). "They're just being inquisitive" is usually the excuse - not much comfort when they've surrounded you and they start getting agitated, shoving each other closer and closer, snorting and stamping the ground...
alas matt i have no idea. it's the impression that i get from reports when someone, i.e. a member of the public, has had the misfortune, sadly, to be killed or seriously injured by cows. the reports seem to support a dog was involved. other than that i have no basis for the assertion. equally that cows are "dangerous" must therefore also have the same basis of assertion in the absence of hard data.
the hse cases reflect that working with big animals can be dangerous (what annoys a cow?) but also to put these workplace cases into perspective of what proportion of total deaths/injuries are there on a farm are the direct result of animal contact. idle curiosity would prompt me to enquire as to what breed of cow were involved in the hse accidents as i believe, rightly or wrongly, that farmers are forbidden to put into a public access field breeds that are deemed to excessively uppity or in other words thought of as being dangerous. do cows wake up with a headache or in a particularly grumpy mood like we do? i don't know. if a farmer puts an unsuitable breed into a field then they deserve the book and more throwing at them.
i don't like cows that much because they are big buggers that are stupid, seem to have no idea how big they are and what spooks them (why is a cow perturbed about a small dog? why is a human perturbed about a mouse or a spider?). is some what we call aggressive behaviour actually aggressive? (i know horses will bite each other which can be friendly or a sod off but i guess you'd have to a horse to know what's what) in all these things i don't know.
as in all these cases we don't know preceeding events. have the cows been upset by something before you come along for example which may make them a bit more temperamental.
the judgement in this case i find most interesting and i'm sure it would make good reading.
).
Well said that man
