PROPOSALS TO toughen penalties on livestock attacks have been broadly welcomed by industry leaders – but education and prevention of attacks must be seen as a priority.

The first evidence session for Emma Harper MSP’s ‘Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill’ was held by Holyrood's rural economy and connectivity committee this week, allowing for initial scrutiny of its proposals.

There was agreement across the board with proposals to toughen terminology to use the word ‘attack’ rather than 'worrying', and all were in favour of extending the definition of livestock to include animals such as camelids. However, some participants argued that by focussing on penalties, the Bill had missed an opportunity to address the underlying causes of livestock attacks.

Inspector Alan Dron of the Scottish Partnership Against Rural Crime stressed that there was a real need for an update to current legislation: “The 1953 act is very old, we are now in the 21st century and farming has undergone many changes. The proposal to extend the definition of livestock to include the likes of ostriches and camelids is very important, as is introducing the word ‘attack’ to drive home the gravity of the situation rather than just ‘worrying’.”

When asked whether community payback orders would be an appropriate course of action for offenders, Inspector Drone said there had been instances where convicted persons were not able to pay compensation, but by increasing penalties, he said it would add ‘weight and strength to the most serious incidents’ and serve as a deterrent.

He also revealed that 50% of all incidents of dog attacks were not in the presence of a dog owner and named Huskies and Alsatians as the most prevalent breeds involved.

But Kennel Club advisor, Steve Jenkinson, objected to specific breeds being blamed: “This is a people problem not a dog problem and looking at specific breeds is a red herring.”

Addressing the grounds by which a dog should be destroyed, Mr Jenkinson replied: “A life sentence for a dog is excessive. If you were to instead remove a dog from its home and move it to another environment it could become a different dog.”

Mr Jenkinson criticised the new bill for being too focused on penalties: “This is a missed opportunity to make a real difference by addressing underlying causes. Penalties need to be there but relying on a penalty is a tad naive – it has to be part of a suite of measures.”

Scottish SPCA chief superintendent, Mike Flynn, disagreed: “We have been educating individuals on this for over 30 years, we have got to have some kind of sustainable penalties. The only time I have seen attacks going down in a region is when the farmer has taken action into their own hands and has killed a dog, which they are perfectly entitled to do if attacking livestock. To see someone getting a £50 fine and their dog back means nothing to anyone.”

Responding to the question of destroying dogs involved in livestock attacks, he said that this should be on an individual basis as he pointed out that 90% of attacks are preventable if dogs are kept under control, instead stating that repeat offenders who do not show any regard for the situation should be banned from owning a dog.

Director of Flock Health Limited and sheep vet, Fiona Lovatt, was involved with a survey commissioned by the Scottish Government last year, looking at the impact of sheep worrying.

She received 1900 responses from sheep farmers with over 51% reported to having suffered a dog attack on their sheep at some point: “The top thing that sheep farmers have called for is better public awareness followed by greater penalties and thirdly, the requirement to enforce dogs on leads on agricultural land.”

Ms Lovatt added that the current cost of dog attacks is £5.5 million a year and the average cost of incidents to farmers is £700 per dog attack and that only 9% who responded to the survey have received any financial compensation. She also pointed out that most farmers don’t insure their sheep as they are worried about premiums going up.

Director of the Dogs Trust, Paula Boyden, agreed that the bill in its current form would help to reduce incidence of livestock worrying, but called for more standardised reported to capture the situation: “Currently the focus is on numbers but we also need to look at the level of suffering encountered by farms. We need new legislation in terms of penalties and species covered, but this is only one part of it. The challenge with this is that it primarily impacts after an event has happened and we need to look more broadly at how to stop incidents happening in the first place.

Ms Boyden stressed that action on dog owners must be proportionate to the nature of the situation: “There is scope for banning a dog owner from keeping a dog, a repeat offender who doesn’t see the gravity of the situation perhaps, but as a first time owner this would be disproportionate.”

Animal Welfare Officer, Kirsteen MacKenzie, who works for Perth and Kinross Council, pointed out that there are currently only two animals welfare officers and one dog control officer to cover the entire area.

“Local authorities are stretched financially, and it is difficult to cover vast rural areas with limited resources. I have issued a couple of dog control notices on dog owners; however, the problem is monitoring the compliance of them.”

Commenting on dog owners awareness of sheep worrying, she added: “It is quite alarming how many of them are under the impression that their dog wouldn’t chase sheep and I don’t think the general public are aware of the financial implications to farmers. Education and awareness are very important, but we would need financial support if we were to be involved in a large education programme.”

Ms Mackenzie agreed that more severe penalties as proposed in the new bill would be welcome, as well as going as far as imposing a ban on dog ownership in the worst-case scenarios.

NatureScot projects manager, Bridget Jones, added that non legislative approaches should also be explored: “I can’t over emphasise the importance of good information. We need to be encouraging use of current and relevant signage to ensure public are aware of what is in the area. We need to look at management measures such as good fencing arrangements and gates."

She also pointed out that there are opportunities where farmers can apply for funding to look at new path arrangements which would direct walkers away from their livestock.