UKH

Access to Llanymynech has always been sensitive - it's a Site of Special Scientific Interest; it's a Wildlife Trust Nature Reserve; being a significantly loose old quarry site, directly above a major footpath, there are understandable landowners liability and safety concerns; it's a Scheduled Ancient Monument; and there are also nesting Peregrines. Despite this, the Wildlife Trusts who own and manage the site are happy to allow climbing here, subject to climbers adhering to an access agreement that has been negotiated and agreed over many years.

However in the last few weeks the Wildlife Trust have had repeated instances of climbers taking dogs with them and the dogs not being on a lead or under close control, then chasing the sheep that are used for conservation grazing here. When approached by the volunteer warden, the climbers involved were abusive and rude.
As well as being illegal - allowing your dog to disturb stock is a criminal offence, this behaviour is also putting access for climbing at the whole site at risk.
Please, if climbing here and you have a dog - keep it under control, on a short lead and do not allow it to chase stock.

Access info on the BMC RAD https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/RAD/View.aspx?id=877

Elfyn Jones BMC Access & Conservation Officer (Wales)

In reply to Elfyn Jones:

What *do* people teach their kids these days? My dad always told me if I didn't the dog under control, the farmer would be perfectly wihin his rights to shoot her.

In reply to Elfyn Jones:

We were climbing there (Red Wall) on Sunday, and heard a walker screaming at their dog, which was chasing sheep and taking no notice of its owner. Clearly, anyone who takes their dog there without a lead is being irresponsible given the sheep grazing- this applies to climbers as well as the general public.
However, it is obvious from my near-weekly visits to llanymynech that dogs being taken for a walk by the general public outnumber dogs belonging to climbers by a ratio of at least 100:1. If a group of climbers have given abuse to the warden- who always seems pleasant and helpful when I've met him- this isn't acceptable, but I do hope that climbers aren't being made to carry the can for everyone else who walks their dog there, the majority of which are off the lead.

In reply to Sayon:
Farmer should shoot a couple of them running around. That would encourage responsible ownership.

Shame for the dogs though. Not their fault.

Edit: actually just shooting and missing would probably freak the owners out and the word would get round.

In reply to Elfyn Jones:

I see the same on Bamford Edge and High Neb. Dogs off leads, and they do belong to climbers! When challenged about a dog running after sheep I was told "it's only wanting to play!" No one has told the sheep that. This is another area where access could become difficult as a result of the actions of a few.
I love dogs and would hate to see one shot, but if owners can't behave responsibly this is what will happen.
If you have a dog and it is essential that you take it to the crag, keep it on a lead and under control at all times.
I believe that even on CROW lands the rules states that dogs must be on a lead of not more than 2 metres and under control. I need to check this 'fact' but it does make sense!

In reply to johncook:


Yes, that's pretty much the case. It's slightly more complicated but it's still pretty straightforward and detailed in Schedule 2 paras 4-6:

4. During the period beginning with 1st March and ending with 31st July in each year, section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if he takes, or allows to enter or remain, any dog which is not on a short lead.

5. Whatever the time of year, section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if he takes, or allows to enter or remain, any dog which is not on a short lead and which is in the vicinity of livestock.

6. In paragraphs 4 and 5, “short lead” means a lead of fixed length and of not more than two metres.

In reply to Elfyn Jones:

The abuse of yet another nature reserve warden... like at Ban y Gor eh? ... and the non misuse by dog walking climbers as opposed to walkers with dogs. Is this misguided and the climbing community being lambasted. Are the nature reserve officers as acutely sensitive as the rare flora and fauna they protect. Natures a tough old world...

In reply to Sayon:

If the footpath is a public footpath then the landowner has no right to ban walkers with dogs, no matter how badly the dog is controlled. On the other hand, the landowner can stop allowing climbing as there is no absolute right to climb. So even if climbers are only a small part of the problem then it is absolutely appropriate to ask climbers to keep their dogs under proper control. And it does climbers as a community no harm at all in self policing bad behaviour, and being seen to be self policing.

In reply to Sam Beaton:
>the landowner has no right to ban walkers with dogs, no matter how badly the dog is controlled.

^This is not true.
It is a criminal offence for the keeper or owner of a dog to allow it to worry livestock, with the legal definition including the dog "being at large" (I.e. not on a lead or under close control) in any sheep field or enclosure.
There is no exception for this just because a footpath is present.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/1-2/28

The landowner has every right to ban walkers with dogs that are not under control where sheep are being grazed, as they are committing a criminal offence, whether or not the dog actually contacts a sheep.

Whilst there are public footpaths through the quarries, Llanymynech is NOT access land, so there is no right to climb, and the owners could withdraw access for climbing at any time.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

You're right that it's a criminal offence to allow dogs to worry sheep, but it is not possible to stop walkers with dogs from using a public right of way

In reply to Sam Beaton:


I agree.

On the other hand, if the dog is not well controlled, it is almost certainly not on the public right of way. In my understanding this still does not give the landowner the right to bar the walker from the public right of way, but if the walker goes off the right of way to retrieve the animal, they will then be trespassing. Which except under very narrow and inapplicable circumstances is not a criminal offence in England or Wales. So all the landowner can do is request the walker return to the right of way with their dog, shout at them or shoot the dog.

Around our village one farmer has put up signs on each gate post with a footpath. They have a picture of a cute dog holding a lead and the caption “Please don’t let me get shot”.

In reply to wintertree:


Correct

In reply to Sam Beaton:
Or call the police - in North Wales dog/livestock issues are taken extremely seriously by the NWPolice rural crime team - it's one of their main focus issues.
(They've investigated 5 cases in the last 24 hours!)

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

Sure, people can be prosecuted for letting their dogs worry sheep, and I'm pleased to hear that the North Wales police take such problems so seriously. But the police can't stop those people from walking public rights of way again with their dogs even if convicted of such offences.

In reply to Elfyn Jones:

There was a feature on the problem of dogs and livestock on Countryfile on sunday, which included proposals being put forward to allow temporary diversions of rights of way footpaths to protect livestock from dog attacks, looks like there's a similar discussion on here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b095ptkz .

In reply to Sam Beaton:
Agreed, if they return without their dog, or with it under control they can't be prevented from using the PROW, but there ISN'T any public right of way for a person with an out of control dog, which is what you were originally implying.

When using the PROW you can take a 'Natural Accompaniment' which is taken to include "a dog under close control". If you take a dog NOT under close control you no longer have the right to use the PROW in the same way that you wouldn't if you took a horse or a motorbike. Close control doesn't necessarily mean the dog has to be on the lead, but if it strays off the footpath and 'trespasses' onto private land it could no longer be considered under 'close control' (whether or not the livestock worrying issues arise).
The landowner would then have the right to refuse access both because there is no PROW if you have an out of control dog AND (if sheep are present) because to allow access to an out of control dog would be to allow a criminal offence to take place.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

But trespass isn't a criminal offence, and if your dog is trespassing by being off the PROW, or you are trespassing because your dog is not under close control, all the landowner can do is as Wintertree says above - insist you get back on the PROW with your dog, or shoot the dog if it is worrying livestock. They cannot insist you leave the PROW if you have your dog back under close control. The police cannot take an interest in ordinary trespass because it is not a criminal offence, just a civil wrong.

In reply to Sam Beaton:

Why can't people just learn to keep their dog under close control, or leave it at home if they can't, and then this issue will not be a problem.
I am tired of friends who think they have a right to allow an animal, that they keep for their own comfort, to do what it likes where it likes! This is especially true at the crag where dogs are either allowed to run free, often near livestock, or it is tied up while they climb and spends it's day in the countryside whining and wimpering. I have heard climbers (ex friends!) who, when challenged about their dog running around sheep and lambs, responded with "He's only playing!" The poor bloody sheep don't know that. To them he is an alpha killer!
There are times and places for dogs, and if people accepted that, all these questions and counter questions would be irrelevant.
Knowing many people with dogs, I personally think they are cruel. Keep the dog in the house for most of the week and then let it loose in the countryside for a couple of hours, and they wonder why it runs around like a maniac.
Rant over!

In reply to johncook:

At New Mills Torrs ,one climbers dog,off lead,bit a woman's leg, whose dog it was attacking.

In reply to Elfyn Jones:

You forgot to link the relevant BMC TV educational film in your post Elfyn

http://tv.thebmc.co.uk/videos/one-dog-and-his-man/

In reply to johncook and my dislikers:

I am merely stating the law around this. I completely agree that allowing dogs to chase sheep is a terrible idea and I'm glad it's illegal and I'm glad some police forces take it seriously, and I completely agree that there are a lot of irresponsible dog owners around who need to be educated

In reply to Sam Beaton:

>They cannot insist you leave the PROW if you have your dog back under close control.

Exactly, but they CAN if your dog is NOT under close control, because then you have no right of way, in the same way they could refuse access to motorbikes and horses.

Hence my objection to your original statement:

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

Ok, poor choice of words on my part initially. I hope I was clearer with subsequent posts. Truce?

In reply to Elfyn Jones:

All part of a wider problem, dog owners increasingly unwilling to control their cute little furry fwend