Three Things

Of the many things salient to an improvement in sheep’s welfare, three stand out: sentience; live exports; rough handling. One of them is fundamental and paramount. It is sentience. With human recognition of sheep’s sentience, human behaviour must change accordingly. The totality of human’s treatment of sheep must show cognisance that sheep are sentient. As part of this, two things need to stop: live exports; rough handling. If sheep are accepted to be sentient - to have feelings and to experience emotions - live exports of sheep must be seen as unacceptable and obsolete, and rough handling of sheep must be regarded as uncaring, and not to be allowed.

In the UK, from the 25th May 2023 when the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act came into force, the sentience of sheep - among other animals - has been recognised in law. Legal recognition that sheep are sentient beings is required throughout the world. But this is not enough in itself. The knowledge that sheep are sentient needs to be manifested by humans in their activity and encounter with sheep, every day and everywhere.  

Until that sheep are sentient is not just shown as being known but the knowledge is also demonstrated as being accepted and is acted upon - and thus humans actually are treating sheep more kindly and considerately and commensurately with sheep’s sentience - sheep’s welfare and wellbeing will not improve.

Sheep likely suffer much, physically and emotionally, during being exported live. In the UK on the 20th May this year the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act received Royal Assent. This Act bans live exports from or through Great Britain of ‘relevant’ livestock for fattening and slaughter. Some other countries have moved, or are moving, to end live exports. But, and despite the existence of Ban Live Exports International Awareness Day (14th June), live exports are still happening around the world. Australia, for example, is a major exporter of live animals but it is not to end live exports of sheep by sea until 1st May 2028.

Rough handling of sheep seems very widespread and prevalent. For it to cease will require education and acceptance throughout the sheep farming world that sheep are sentient. Even more fundamentally, alterations of human perspective on sheep are demanded: to regard sheep more highly, and truly; to no longer see sheep as items for humans’ use. 

These three things: sentience, live exports, rough handling. One for cognisance and attention; two for stopping in response.

Dignity and Respect

Humans attach considerable importance to being treated with dignity. They expect, too, to be treated with respect.  But humans’ tendency is not to see sheep as being similarly deserving of having their dignity kept and of having respect. Sheep farmers, the sheep farming community, and those others whose activity involves sheep, display the attitude that sheep are for their, and other humans’, uses. They fail to demonstrate in what they do with sheep that they regard sheep as worthy to be treated with dignity and respect.

In how they treat sheep, farmers and others who use sheep are showing that they do not esteem sheep. This would appear to emanate from a narrow view being held. A blinkered attitude seems to be prevailing in which sheep are seen just as commodity, rather than there being cognisance that sheep are living beings and with all the aspects attendant. 

It is because of how they are seen that sheep are not being treated well enough and suitably. Sheep are being used for the purposes of those using them and without the sheep being regarded and without their nature and feelings being taken account of. In the absence of appreciation and understanding of sheep on the part of their handlers, sheep are not having the kind of treatment that keeps their dignity, and they are not having the respect that they should. Of bad handling of sheep, a proportion may stem from lack of adequate knowledge about sheep on the part of the handlers.

A particular activity in which sheep’s dignity has considerable potential to not be retained, and in which respect of sheep is rather likely to be missing, is that of entertainment. Sheep can be made to do things which do not keep their dignity and which do not respect them, and which are alien to their nature as sheep and that are not their normal behaviour. 

If sheep were valued fully and truly, rather than just viewed in business and financial terms, they would be treated better and with more honour and compassion.

If sheep were looked upon not as items but as living creatures, if their characteristics were noted, if their sensitivities were recognised, if they and their qualities were appreciated, keeping of their dignity and respect for them would be the expectation.  

All sheep should have from humans, protection of their dignity, and respect.  

Two Things

For a better life for the community of sheep overall, there are two key things which are necessary. What is common to each is altered outlook. One change of view demanded is from sheep farmers. The other change of view required is on the part of governments.

Sheep farmers see sheep as for use: one main use is to form a foodstuff. A mass of farmers see their role to be to provide food. This group divides between: those who for the purpose deploy animals; those who for the purpose grow crops. 

On the part of sheep farmers, the change of view necessitated is to not see sheep as food any more. The change of view needed of governments is to see sheep farmers as conservers of environment. 

The two things are radical. Sheep would be conservation grazers. Farmers would be stewards of the landscape, they would be deploying sheep as conservation grazers, and they would be paid by government for the role. Less sheep would be needed than hitherto. 

Of course, the foundation for the alteration needs to be societal support for it and so recognition of the benefits. The obvious and direct benefit of sheep ceasing to be a food source is for sheep. They do not get killed, before their time, to be food. Those brought into life, stay alive for their natural span. Sheep farmers still have benefit of income, but simply from a different source. A reduced number of sheep means a reduction of sheep-produced methane and so of help towards the reduction of global warming. With fewer sheep, and those existing being conservation grazers, land-use for growing crops to form supplementary feed for sheep would be unnecessary or much less great. So, land can be released for other purposes. 

If society displays that it realises the benefits of sheep being used as conservation grazers and demonstrates that it does not wish for sheep to be food, governments will follow people’s will and will act in implementation.

Sheep farming, as other kinds of farming, can be mega-scale or small-scale. Detriments of various sort tend to most-majorly attach to, and ensue from, factory farms/farming. And objectives of corporate owners of farms (usually farms big in size) are likely to be financial, primarily. Family farmers, however, because of direct, intimate, and ongoing connection with their farm, lean to a wider and deeper ‘investment’, displaying great care and concern about their environment and community. 

With their particular characteristics and long link with place and activity, farmers of family farms can be ‘set in their ways’. They are strongly committed to what they do and to the way that they do it. It is for all their features that they are the audience which governments need to speak to and to convince about new approaches. Family farmers need to be ‘on side’ if change is to come. They will be the catalysts.   

In the context of family farms being pivotally relevant if changes in farming are to be introduced, it has been sad to observe how in the UK the new Labour Government has ‘put the backs up’ of family farmers with its plan to start charging inheritance tax on farms of more than a certain financial value. The size of the protest rally this week against the proposal told the story. 

For sheep’s existence to fundamentally be better, these two things need to occur: sheep farmers being convinced to deploy sheep as conservation grazers; governments paying sheep farmers to act as countryside stewards. Foundation for both is society to wish for the changes. 

Bravery and Fortitude

Has it ever been considered what bravery and fortitude sheep display?

Sheep are small creatures and not fearsome. They are prey animals. If faced with an attacker, or a creature or person whom they have reason to fear, they have few options for ‘fighting them off’. If there are quite a few sheep, they can stand together and try to ‘face out’ who/what is representing a threat. If they have the space to do it, they can run away, hoping they will be able to move faster, or longer, than who/what they see as a threat. The basic and frequent, but unlikely-to-have much-effect, thing that sheep do in the face of a perceived threat is to stamp a foot. If the sheep is confined in a small space, such as a pen, all it can do in reaction to threat is stamp a foot, or back away as far as it is able.

A lot of what is done with sheep by humans must be hugely disliked by sheep. Sheep farming is a practice that carries activity - handling, droving, transportation, being in alien and crowded places such as sales, shows, etc - that cannot be to sheep’s natural preference. Sheep display great stoicism towards all this.

Sheep are sentient. But as vulnerable creatures they must see it as sensible not to parade their vulnerability. In pain, they rarely give any hint that they are. Sheep’s tendency is not to display that they are ill until they are very ill. 

There is a fundamental bravery that sheep show. Most of the time, sheep are outdoors. Day and night. So, they are in an innately vulnerable situation. Moreover, they may not be near any human habitation. During hours of darkness, sheep’s vulnerability to predators, or to any others with malicious intent towards them, is heightened. What bravery is being shown on the part of sheep, to be spaced out on an open, lonely, moor, at night-time.

From circumstances and due to humans’ wants, sheep are required to endure much. Sheep’s bravery and fortitude in their situation should have great salute. 

Difference and Variation

If humans not only saw sheep as sheep, but troubled more to look carefully at them and register differences and variations among them, they ought to be led to treat sheep better and more sensitively.

Of course, sheep are sheep. They all share certain characteristics. But pause and thought for just a mere moment bring to mind basic differences, male and female for instance. Rams/tups behave in certain ways - they ‘strut their stuff’ for example. Ewes/yows give birth and care for infants, and may neglect themselves in the process. And lambs have behavioural stages. Different breeds of sheep, from their heritage and traditional experience and environment, can have varying qualities and tendencies. Sheep out on open upland pasture will likely be quite self-reliant and resilient, whereas ‘commercial sheep’ in a lowland field will probably be more docile. Then, with a flock of sheep, not everyone acts the same way. Some may be ‘pushy’, others not.

But differences and variations can go much further, to individual level. As Lori Marino and Debra Merskin say in their Abstract to their paper ‘Intelligence, complexity, and individuality in sheep’ (Animal Sentience, 2019), ‘sheep are … complex, individualistic, and social.’ Marc Bekoff wrote ‘Why Sheep Matter: They’re Intelligent, Emotional, and Unique’ (12th May 2019) on his interview with Marino and Merskin about their paper. He asked them ‘Why did you write “Intelligence, complexity, and individuality in sheep”? This was the reply:
‘We wrote about sheep intelligence, complexity and individuality because - like all farmed animals - sheep are deliberately misrepresented in ways that make it easier for our species to prey upon them. For example, one of the more prominent stereotypes is that they are docile, obedient, and possessing little individuality. Hence, we use terms like “lambs to the slaughter” and “follow like sheep”. Our paper is meant to separate fact from fiction and to understand who sheep are - not what we want them to be. In the process we found out that our characterizations of them as dull-minded and lacking uniqueness and independence in their personality and desires is completely wrong. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.’

If a flock of sheep is small, for the human it is not difficult to notice differences between sheep, to know each sheep as an individual, to be aware what is the sheep’s norm and so to be able to observe if the sheep is behaving uncharacteristically and thus may be ill or distressed in some other way. But if a flock is large, it is all too easy for the person to see the sheep as one entity rather than as a group composed of distinct individuals.

Humans need to put in the effort to know and understand sheep better. Then, with the improvement in awareness, they will be equipped to treat sheep better.

EU Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare

Last month it was announced that there is to be a Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare at the European Commission. 

Nominated for the role is Hungarian Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi.  Animal welfare campaigners are pleased about the role. There have been some concerns expressed about whom has been selected for it. 

Seb Starcevic and Paula Andrés report the remarks of a spokesperson for the director of the Four Paws Brussels office ‘We are ready no matter who the candidate is’, continuing ‘The movement is expecting that animal welfare will be literally at the top of the European agenda.’ Starcevic and Andrés report also the Eurogroup for Animals political affairs manager, Stephanie Ghislain, saying this, ‘We are very happy about the title, we reserve our views on the person’. They describe that Ghislain said that the ideal commissioner should have ‘some kind of experience’ in animal welfare issues and ‘a heart for animals’. Communicating the reservations of the coordinator of the EU for Animals campaign for an animal welfare commissioner, Stacevic and Andrés give his comment on the creation of a dedicated portfolio that it represented ‘a historic turning point’ (‘Err ... him?! EU’s new animal welfare chief yet to win hearts and minds’, politico.eu, 17th September 2024).

An important comment came from Animal Equality United Kingdom. It said ‘While farming animals is never acceptable, this new role is a pivotal change. By placing animal welfare under the Commissioner for Health rather than Agriculture, the EU is recognising it as a critical issue in and of itself, moving away from the narrow focus of industry concerns.’ (EU to appoint its first commissioner for animal welfare in historic move’, News, Animal Equality United Kingdom,19th September 2024).   

In regards the nominee Olivér Várhelyi, that his nomination may not be approved by the European Parliament is suggested by Max Griera, Barbara Moens and Elisa Braun - depicting Váhelyi as ‘The black sheep’, (The 5 commissioners most likely to get the chop’, politico.eu, 18th September 2024).

The main and positive thing is that there now is the dedicated role, ‘EU Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare’.  

Normal Behaviour

We know what constitutes sheep’s normal behaviour. Essentially, it is to be: at outdoor pasture; in circumstances that are quiet and relaxed; with appropriate lengths of time to eat, ruminate, rest and sleep; with opportunity and surroundings for mating, breeding, and infant-nurturing, in tune with natural cycle. A sheep needs to be with other sheep.

Through humans’ endeavour to educate each other about sheep, and through their use of sheep entertainingly in that educating process, or by humans’ use of sheep to entertain as reason in itself, can come disruption, distortion and alteration to what is sheep’s normal behaviour.

Sheep having a right to express normal behaviour has quite a long heritage, its roots being in the 1965 Brambell Report which led to the Five Freedoms which the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Council articulated in 1979. One of the Freedoms was ‘Freedom to express normal behaviour’. Then came in 1994 the Five Domains Model for animal welfare of David J Mellor and Dr Cam Reid. (The Five Domains Model was last updated in 2020). Domain 4 is ‘Behaviour’. Mellor, in his comment on Figure 1 in his 2017 paper ‘Operational Details of the Five Domains Model and Its Key Applications to the Assessment and Management of Animal Welfare’ in Animals, gives this useful information, ‘Note that an animal exercises “agency” (Domain 4: “Behaviour”) when it engages in voluntary, self-generated and goal-directed behaviours [44.45].’ So, from this, an interpretation of what represents the normal behaviour of a sheep can be: the behaviour which a sheep, on its own initiative, decides to do, for its own objective.  

At the National Trust’s Wimpole Home Farm that the sheep and lambs are able to behave in their normal way is seen as the supremely important thing. Visitors are not allowed to feed sheep and lambs. At lambing time, only mother’s milk is given to lambs (unless for some reason the mother cannot feed a lamb, in which instance the lamb will be bottle fed by a member of the staff). Visitors are kept a distance away, so that ewes and lambs can behave normally without disturbance. When the lambs are strong enough, they and their mothers are transferred to the pasture of the Wimpole Estate. 

The approach at Wimpole Home Farm contrasts markedly with some other places which have visitors. At certain of these latter, visitors can feed lambs. And this could mean that the lambs remain indoors for quite long, rather than them experiencing the outdoors quite soon after being born as would be usual. (And they, together with some sheep to whom visitors can feed purchased-food indoors, may be kept inside at a time when normally sheep would be outside consuming luxuriant and nutritious pasture.) There is a natural season for lambing. The Big Sheep Farm & Theme Park boasts ‘we lamb throughout the year’. 

There can be other and worse ‘departures from norm’. Sheep ‘dancing’, racing, doing anything on a stage or in an auditorium, is not sheep expressing their normal behaviour. They are being trained to be performers; they are being treated in a commensurate way to circus animals and dancing bears. The scene is that from an age of less enlightenment. Not only are the sheep not displaying normal behaviour, they are being used in a way which denigrates them and which insults, and is against, their true nature.

A threat to the ability of sheep to express normal behaviour can come from the type of environment into which they are put. Land which sheep are made to occupy, or their accommodation of other kind, may not be appropriate or large enough to permit the sheep to behave in usual manner. City farms whose territory may be small - due to inability to obtain enough urban space etc - are a category which may be not be giving sheep as much or as good pasture or accommodation as sheep need for their well-being or to act normally. 

So, the overall concerning matter is this. Some of what humans require sheep to do is not sheep’s normal behaviour; and some does not allow sheep to live in a normal way. 

Entertainment

Providing entertainment using sheep can be done for varying reasons and in various ways. 

To produce a money-making entity, a provider may see entertainment as their means. A provider may perceive that having their ‘offer’ contain some entertaining elements will increase its appeal, and maybe widen the market for it. A provider may recognise that their core product lacks the dimension of being entertaining and so knows that this element needs to be inserted. A provider may be wishing to convey an educational message and will opt to do so in an as entertaining a manner as possible to endow that message with maximum appeal. A provider may be well-versed in the ways of good communication, and so will instinctively wish to use entertaining styles for connecting with their audience.

Sheep are appealing in themselves, lambs particularly. So, they are intrinsically a draw. How tempting it must be to any provider whose prime concern is not sheep’s well-being, welfare, or dignity, to not merely have sheep on view to a visitor but to heighten attraction by getting the already appealing creatures to do things that will entertain.

Of entities displaying sheep to the public there is a range, from those not much or obviously, representing entertainment, through to those which do represent entertainment. 

At the National Trust’s Wimpole Home Farm, the only entertainment is to observe what is naturally occurring. At the Farm the welfare of its sheep is put first and foremost. Visitors can watch mothers and young lambs in early days after lambing, but are not allowed to feed them or get close to them. An air of calm prevails.

It would appear that a provider deems that visitors will be more keen to attend at his provision of sheep if the opportunity is given not just to view sheep but to engage with them; and that offered engagement is feeding - and the petting associated. Feed is made available to the visitor for purchase, and/or the visitor is given chance to bottle feed lambs. The visitor is entertained.  

At Adam Henson’s Cotswold Farm Park visitors can feed sheep with purchased food and for a period the opportunity is available to visitors - twice a day - to bottle feed lambs.

Self-described as ‘edu-tainment’ is The Sheep Show. This stage show tours the UK, giving three performances in a day, at 120 events per year, to ‘an estimated 2.5 million people’. In essence, on the stage on a lorry-trailer, with accompanying commentary and explanation, one sheep is sheared; and then several different breed sheep are put on platforms, chained so that they do not escape, kept fed, and the highlight of the show being that sheep ‘dance’. 

At The Big Sheep Farm & Theme Park is a similar performance, except solely with rams, and no shearing, and no ‘dancing’. It takes place in the show arena as does ‘Bottle Feeding Lambs’, for which latter event very few lambs are used. Both these shows happen twice daily in high season. Food is on sale for feeding to adult sheep - but not of course to the lambs - in the Animal Barn.

Probably geared to be the very most entertaining of the sheep events of The Big Sheep Farm & Theme Park is the Sheep Racing in which sheep rush round a race course, with soft-toy-sheep riders placed on their backs. They go over jumps. 

In the USA at rodeos ‘mutton busting’ happens, in which children ride sheep until they fall off. In its ‘Mutton busting’ item Wikipedia says ‘Organizations such as the ASPCA discourage the practice on the grounds that it does not promote kindness to, or respect of, animals.’ Wikipedia references what the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) says, which is this: ‘… the ASPCA is opposed to children’s rodeo events such as goat tying, calf riding and sheep riding “mutton busting” which do not promote humane care and respect for animals.’ (‘Animals in Entertainment: 5.4 Rodeo’). 

It is clear that entities offered to visitors and the general public which use sheep range from those overtly and seriously educational, through those bearing a slight component of entertainment, onward through those them, ending with items whose sole role is to entertain.

If a provider’s objective is their own benefit, what they choose to do with a sheep towards that objective can be not to the sheep’s benefit. An item may be judged as needing to be - to a lesser or greater degree - entertaining, to attract people enough and in sufficient number for achievement of the provider’s purpose. 

Little of what sheep are required to do as entertainers is likely to coincide with what it is sheep’s nature and custom to do. Racing, ‘dancing’, and suchlike are not what sheep do normally. Sheep are not for riding.  Can it perhaps be that, to an extent, the very attraction of sheep attractions to some visitors is that these display sheep doing things that are not expected of sheep?

Sheep are being asked to do, and trained to do, what they do not do naturally. They are not performing animals. And those sheep appearing in The Sheep Show will have to endure much travelling: they will be ‘on the road’ rather than on home pasture. 

When being required to give entertainment, sheep are being used and exploited, they are very likely being demeaned, and sometimes they are treated cruelly. 

Education

For education about sheep to be well given, the reality needs to be told, the communication done effectively, and with the manner and style suitable to an audience.

Of course, much can be learned by people about sheep through simply watching them, doing what they normally do, and where they normally are. But, it can be required that information about sheep be consciously conveyed and in a formal and formatted way and at a more customised and suited location. Cause of this can simply be that a usual place of sheep is not accessible to the public and/or is not appropriate for hosting the public - in any number. A major reason is that a provider wants an entity of information about sheep to meet requirements they hold. These can be: to have a managed public facility not amid farming activity; to present a decided and controlled ‘message’; to place a sheep information resource where ‘add-on’ income-earning facilities are able to be put.

Decisions on these matters influence to what extent, if any, compromises are made in ‘telling it like it is’ and in ensuring sheep’s maximum welfare and best way of living.

At the National Trust’s Wimpole Home Farm, lambing is a visitor feature. It is clear that sheep’s and lambs’ welfare is regarded as paramount. The objective is to give sight of these animals to visitors and to be very informative to visitors about the animals. The prime vehicle of information, giving considerable detail about sheep and their life year round, is a booklet, Lambing at Wimpole. It is indicated clearly that lambs go to slaughter, apart from those females which ‘show signs of good quality breeding potential’. 

At Adam Henson’s Cotswold Farm Park, as at Wimpole Home Farm, are rare breed sheep and other animals (Adam’s father, Joe, was a leader in saving and promoting rare breed animals). There is excellence to the provision for the animals. Information aplenty on sheep is supplied; around the Rare Breeds Through History Trail, though, the information pathway could be made more clear, plus the linkage between information on a panel and what animal is before the visitor could sometimes be rendered more directly obvious. Elsewhere on site is displayed information on the farming year. In the Park’s shop are Adam’s books, and other books, but, seemingly, no guidebook/souvenir publication on the Park. Visitors can buy food to feed to the animals. And in the Animal Barn, during a period of the year, there are twice-daily sessions for visitors to bottle feed lambs. 

City farms tend to constitute small, worthy of idea, admission free, endeavours, which are seeking to serve a local community, and whom have limited resources across the board. So, paucity is often displayed. In regards data, this likely lends to information about sheep and how they should be treated being insufficient in content or amount. Mudchute Park and Farm in east London sells food for visitors to feed animals.

A directly educational resource is the farm of Woodchurch high school, highlighted in a double-page photo spread in The Guardian earlier this year (9th January 2024). Pupils even show sheep.

It can be seen that educating about sheep requires that the information about sheep be true and accurate, and not at risk to accommodation due to provider need to attract an audience. It can be seen also that methods of conveying information do need to be as good as possible for engaging an audience’s interest. This is where the genie of entertainment can be let in. The judgement is what is acceptable in light of the aim to inform and educate, and what goes too far. 

 Rare breeds can be noted as featuring considerably in settings aiming to be educational, and at enterprises major and small. It can be questioned whether rare breed sheep are entirely chosen to be present due to their rarity and interest, or might it be that coming into play too is that rare breeds tend to be more visually-interesting and appealing than routine and ‘commercial’ sheep types?

Certain compromises may need to be made, towards the objective to reach an audience to inform it about sheep. But the existence of a ‘slippery slope’ should be recognised. Going too far to appeal, and sheep may be put at risk of some suffering, and truth and integrity may be starting to evaporate.

Education and Entertainment

There is education about sheep. There is education about sheep done using entertaining means. There is entertainment provided through using sheep. So, a continuum exists. The greatest potential threat to sheep’s well-being is at the entertainment end of things. If the objective is entertainment, a sheep’s welfare and dignity can be under threat. 

To want to educate about sheep is a worthy objective. It is in sheep’s interests that humans should know about them. The hope will be that, with the obtained knowledge, humans will be treating sheep well. 

To provide entertainment with sheep may not be inherently bad. The use of an entertaining way to inform about sheep might be regarded as acceptable, provided what is done is not harmful or disrespectful to sheep, or out-of-tune with sheep’s nature. 

The problem and unacceptability appear when sheep are the chosen items for giving entertainment. Benefit is not for the sheep, it is for the providers. Towards a provider achieving an entity of appeal and income, there can be distortion by the provider of sheep’s habits and ways. Providers are gaining livelihood from what they make sheep do, and in what circumstance and environment. Meanwhile, onlookers are not having helpful benefit, because they are getting a false impression of sheep. 

It can even be wondered whether some providers - entertainers, income-earners, and business-people - do not have very much knowledge of sheep for straying from. The people may simply have ‘stumbled upon’ sheep as being - docile - items that can be used.

The difference between education and entertainment in relation to sheep is this. Educating about sheep has at its heart the wish to communicate information to humans about sheep, and so is fundamentally in sheep’s interests: though it should of course be said that the sheep industry uses the information. Entertaining deploying sheep essentially represents sheep being used as items for humans’ objectives and priorities. 

High Summer

At the height of summer, there are reasonable expectations of warm weather. The time is when the usual students are not at schools and educational establishments. Many workers are taking holidays in the period. A general desire in people to go away from their routine location is present and much acted upon. Those unable to, or not wanting to, journey much distance from their home, take day trips, or visit places near their domicile about which they have been curious but which without the circumstances presented by high summer they have not had motivation or opportunity to visit. So, at the height of summer there are a lot of people having leisure time in the countryside and a lot of other people having leisure time in the city.

Sheep, meanwhile, will be unlikely to be ‘on holiday’ in high summer. In rural areas they will be trying to get on with their normal lives despite a visitor influx and the attendant effects upon them and potential threats to their well-being. Sheep in rural farm parks and suchlike will be undergoing much attention from humans, due to a great quantity of visitors. In cities, sheep at city farms - intrinsically not a natural sheep habitat - will too be enduring much human attention because of large visitor numbers - and, moreover, in a general context of constraint of space. At high season too, sheep may be especially being deployed as features of attractions, shows etc. 

High summer may not be a highly nice time for sheep - if the context is masses of people around them and in their vicinity.

Recognising and Owning

For dog worrying of sheep to be made to cease, the happening needs to be utterly recognised, to be addressed, and where responsibility for it lies to be owned. 

A 2024 police survey by the National Sheep Association (NSA) found that ‘78% of forces who took part reported an increase in sheep worrying by dog incidents’. It also found that ‘Dogs off lead and not under control was the main cause of attacks, followed by lack of responsibility, education and disrespect for livestock/farming’ (Sheep Worrying, Survey Results, National Sheep Association).  

Governments need to give sufficient attention to the matter of dog worrying of sheep and bring in legislation to address the matter. Dog owners need to own that their dogs have a natural inclination to worry sheep, and own, and accept, their responsibility to see that their dogs do not worry sheep. Of course, there is too the onus on sheep owners and carers to see that the sheep for which are responsible are in an as-secure-from-threat-of-dogs situation as possible. Sheep outdoors on land will at least have some room to run from dogs. Sheep indoors will be trapped. A dreadful example of the latter was in 2023 where, of sheep in a farmer’s barn, 22 pregnant sheep were killed and 48 injured from attacks by two XL bully dogs (Andy Wells, ‘Farmer forced to shoot dead two XL bully dogs after they kill 22 sheep’, yahoo! news, 16th May 2024).

At a conference in the UK in 2023 ‘Dog owners received a stern warning from the Farming Minister Mark Spencer to keep their canines on a lead when near livestock after a sharp rise in attacks’. He ‘blamed the owners themselves, rather than the dogs, for making “bad choices” after an increase in the number of sheep worrying incidents and attacks on cattle over the past few months.’ And he said ‘There is no such thing as a bad dog. It is just bad owners.’ (Chris Brayford, ‘Farming Minister calls on dog owners to keep dogs on a lead’, Farmers Guardian, 16th June 2023). 

Mark Spencer was Farming Minister in the Conservative Government. That Government supported a Private Members’ Presentation Bill ‘which would give police greater powers to crack down on irresponsible dog owners whose pets attack livestock’ introduced early in 2024 by Dr Thérèse Coffey. This was the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill. Its aim was ‘to amend the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953’ (‘Government backs proposals to tackle livestock worrying’, NFUonline, 17th May 2024). On 24th April 2024 the Bill was unamended (Commons Library Research Briefing, 15th May 2024). In a General Election on 4th July 2024 a Labour Government was elected. 

It is clear that dog worrying of sheep is continuing and increasing. Dog worrying occurs because dog owners are not - for whatever reason - stopping their dogs from worrying sheep. Whether from choice or through ignorance, dog owners are opting not to accept and display responsibility for their dogs, not to control their dogs, when the dogs are indicating their natural inclination to see sheep as prey. The NSA survey, quoted above, conveys the message(s). To impose firmly recognition in dog owners that they must own responsibility for their dogs and for controlling them against worrying sheep, adequate legislation and much education are needed. And demanded to be generated in dog owners are respect for, and care about, sheep.