The Crow act and dogs on leads

Thought I would post here after a great exchange of information and with great thanks to Lorraine for getting the point of view from the LDNP.

I have also taken the other sde of the advice and looked at the NP findings and as far as I can understand, and after asking the questions to local authorites the following is the broad understanding.

The NP want you to have your dog on a short lead for five months of the year on the crow land.

BUT the legality is somewhat less well defined. This is becouse while on a public right of way the CROW act has no effect. This means that on any lakeland path you need your dog under control but not on a lead if you can control without one. Of course the rigts of way can be somewhat hard to define and if you wandered off it then your dog would need to be on a lead according to the NP.

However, if you look at the laws governing rights of way, you find that as long as the right of way is not governed by a wall, fence or hedge ( ie very clear) then you have access as long as you are following the linear route to the best course as is practibley visible and clear. So in the lakes as long as you are making an effort to roughly stick to the right of way, without moving over exisiting boundaries which clearly are not the path , then you are considered in law to be on the right of way. ( for example walk up Brown tongue 200 yards to the right , upthe middle or to the left then you are fine )

This means that even without taking course to the fact that CROW land governed by bylaws comes under the bylaws and not the CROW act, You can in effect walk the fells of the lakes with out need to have you dog on a lead as long as you are attempting to follow rights of way and your dog is under control, even if you stray off the exact route shown on a map but not marked on the ground.

In summary , the CROW act has limited teeth, unless you are on signed, specific crow land, not pre governed by local bylaws and you are on it during a lambing peroid where the land owner ( the owner not the tennant ) has put signs up in accordance with the act, you need only have your dog under control and not on a lead.

This may not be in the spirit of the CROW act , but it is the legal situation.

Your dog is wandering about.
Some farmer comes along.
He shoots it.


Are you gonna care about the fine details of the legalities at that point?

I'm still not completely convinced that your second to last paragraph is correct Guy.

I will email the LDNPA again and ask him to clarify the situation with regards to your statement. Is it OK with you if I cut and paste what you have written above into an email?

In the end it all boils down to common sense, law or no law. If someone is passing close to young lambs, whether it's on the high fells, or through a field, then, as a Voluntary Ranger, I would expect the dog to be on a lead. Not because a law states that you must have, but more for the benefit of the sheep.

Likewise if someone is out on the high fells, and there are no sheep around to worry, then I wouldn't tell someone to put their dog on a lead whether they were following a right of way or not.

Does it help if you have a dog to be able to really make use of this information?

Drew

I'll get me coat then !!!!!!

Colin, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think the point being made was that there's a difference between allowing your well trained dog to walk at heel off the lead, and allowing it to 'wander about' in a livestock field. Obviously a dog doesn't need to be deliberately chasing sheep to make them nervous, but if it's walking at heel alongside its owner, what difference does having it on a lead or not really make?

what does the law define as dog under control. that's the answer.
if on a lead then you also set a good example to others whose dogs may not be quite as obedient as your own.

That's a good point that Parky makes. Although your dog may be super-obedient, a visitor with a less obedient dog may see you and think "oh, he's a local, and he doesn't keep his dog on a lead" - so they take their dog off the lead, and it promptly savages 7 sheep and then takes a dump on the farmer's doorstep.

I know the behaviour of others is not Guy's responsibility, but I still think it's a good point.

Hi, I live on the fringe of the Forest of Bowland and dogs have always been a contentious issue.
Under the CROW act a dog has to be on a fixed lead of two meters on CROW land that stipulates a Dogs on lead policy the latter is up to the land owner to restrict a certain times of the year, Grouse,land managment,nesting birds etc.
The NT have had a dogs on leads policy for donkeys years over on Kinder Scout, but who takes any notice ? I remember getting congratulated last year for being the first person the countryside ranger had seen all day with a dog on a lead.
The down side of the NP authority and landowners is dogs could be banned from CROW access land apart from rights of way, just as Bowland, vast areas of the Yorkshire dales, Pen-y-ghent being one in particular.PROW are accessable year round but I have to admit liking to wander about.
In argument to all this the Aran ridge had a NO dog policy for decades but since the CROW bill this has been lifted.. and in June we, including doglet enjoyed a fine ridge walk.I've just booked a cottage in my fave area of Mallerstag Dale and I'm keeping an eye on what access is currently allowed in that area.

www.openaccess.gov.uk www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk

colin if my dog is worrying sheep the farmers have my permission to shoot it

Pete - I'm checkng up Bowland all the time since CROW but they (ie . the Duke of Westminster) are still getting away with murder. At least people are tolerated now.

It's a particular bugbear with me as my folks moved to Bleasdale 12 years ago and my mum still lives there.

I can't understand how one grouse moor can have no dogs rules and another not.

You have to remember that the Crow Act gives access to otherwise private land. If you are on a PROW you DO NOT have to keep dogs on a lead as long as they are under control.

When passing livestock my dogs are at heal and under strictest control, not "wandering" among livestock.

I have had absolutely no problems with local farmers, but then it is perhaps due to the fact that they are sheepdogs, and they can see how well behaved they are. They might no be so accommodating if I were passing with three GSDs for example.

Common sense, as Lorraine rightly points out does indeed prevail, and I am certainly not complacent, and I would quite rightly place my dogs on lead near traffic and busy roads for example, and as I stated on a previous thread I do put them on lead if I am crossing private enclosed land on a PROW, not because I have to, but out of respect for the owner.

I work very hard at training mine and quite frankly, I don't care what other dog owners think, but it does annoy me greatly when I see loose dogs with owners who cannot control them!

I tend to stick to open moorland anyway, but if I do see people (especially with children) coming the other way, then I will call them to heal, (the dogs - not the children)take them off path and down them until they have gone past, usually much to the disappointment of admiring passers by. I do this on the assumption that not all people like dogs and some can be quite nervous of them, even the best behaved!

In general, under the dangerous dogs act, dogs ONLY have to be "under control," and not on lead, although there are exceptions in certain places under local bye laws (a bowling green is one example) and Road Traffic law also gives some exceptions. These are of course public places.

Obviously, not keeping a dog "under control" under the DDA carries penalties under Criminal law and can lead to the destruction of the dog, and the bye laws can also carry summary penalties, I believe however that disobeying the Crow act's requirements for having dogs off lead in "breeding areas," is a civil offence and can only lead to expulsion from the land???

(Not certain on that last point!)

Marcus,It's all about boundaries ie the Mallowdale estate and ajoining land owned by united utilities.Bowland has always been a problem for walkers and access nothing's really changed up here just as silly as ever.Bloody grouse!!

I have now heard back from the Access and Recreation Manager, responsible for Rights of Way and the CROW Act within the Lake District National Park.

With reference to WW's first posting in this thread, he has stated that the assumption about the usuable width of public rights of way on open land is not correct.

He agreed that the statement in the second second to last paragraph is correct - if you stay on the definitive line of rights of way across CROW land you can simply keep your dog under close control. With the provision that as soon as a person or their dog strays from the right of way the CROW access law applies.

He has also stated that the last paragraph - is wrong in two places, one to do with CROW land having to be signed as such as ignorance to status is not necessarily a defence and who is responsible for putting up signs - legal interest and ownership have entitlement.

He stressed that what he has told me is the situation regarding the law, laid down by Acts of Parliament.

In the Mountain Safety Man thread I have posted the Access and Recreation Managers' earlier reply to my questions regarding the CROW Act and dogs. Which details the legal requirements of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW)concerning dogs.

CROW act a real can of worms.

seems fairly simple to me.
on crow land - put dog on lead.

or am i missing the point as usual.

Simple to me too, especially having had it verified by the person responsible for implementing and managing the CROW ACT in the Lake District National Park.

As it states in the Countryside Code:

"By law, you must control your dog so that it does not disturb or scare farm animals or wildlife. You must keep your dog on a short lead on most areas of open country and common land between 1 March and 31 July, and at all times near farm animals."

To add fuel to the fire

What about Search Dogs, Police GP dogs and dogs of that ilk available to the statutory and voluntary rescue services when:

1. On searches etc. (operational)

2. Training

Oh and hearing dogs for the deaf are allowed on access land where all other dogs are barred!! crazy.
The whole dogs on leads thing is fine in practice but like the NT land @ Kinder Scout that has had a dogs on lead policy for years and during nesting time there are no dogs allowed on the access land, who takes any notice? apart from me !!

pete, people who like to ignore "rules" because they are mildly inconvenienced by them or don't agree with them? the same ones who berate about litter, wrong kit, leaving gates open etc?

sure there's some logic there somewhere.

wayne, they would be "working" dogs wouldn't they?