As for the laws of trespass, well they are pretty ineffective, not sure how the guy in the OP's post would be able to bring a charge of that tbh.

I think I might try and bring a few cases against all the owners whose cats wander in my garden peeing and crapping everywhere :}

I'd agree that we will see restrictions. I woudn't mind betting in the non to distance future, all dogs will have to be on a lead in any public place. This does not bother me, as mine always are, as I like to know where they are and what they are doing but I do respect others wishes to have theirs off ( as long as they are well behaved and under recall control) but I do think the ultimate ban is coming. Every so often you will hear councils rumbling about it, then they leave it, then they rumble again. Shame as there is nothing nicer than a dog running and enjoying life but I feel its on the horizon.

> I think it is the height of irresponsibility to keep livestock in a heavy populated area ..

Why would it be irresponsible?  Until very recently there was a farm right in the middle of our village.  Houses, tow path and even shops all around it.  I don't think anyone thought it wrong that they had to keep their dogs under control as they passed on the tow path if there was animals in the stock yard. 
Apart from specific covenants on a property I don't think there are any restrictions on grazing animals in your garden either.  It think it just works the other way that you cannot encompass grazing land into a garden without planning permission.
My neighbours pony used to be often riden down by their children to spend an hour or two being groomed and keeping the lawn down.
You may be right about the efficacy of the trespassing laws but he should not have to bring any action, we should have respect for other peoples property and posessions, if nothing else because the more antisocial behaviour shown by dog owners means the more restrictions for everyone.

>I think I might try and bring a few cases against all the owners whose cats wander in my garden peeing and crapping everywhere

Unfortunately cats are classed differently to dogs, and don't have to legally be kept 'under control'; there's no law to encourage cat owners to make them be less antisocial creatures!

You may be right about the efficacy of the trespassing laws but he should not have to bring any action, we should have respect for other peoples property and posessions, if nothing else because the more antisocial behaviour shown by dog owners means the more restrictions for everyone.

Absolutely agree.  No responsible owner should allow their dog to be a nuisance to others but should ensure they take full responsibility for it.

Agree with Jeangenie - cats are a different kettle of fish entirely and there aren't any laws to inhibit where they roam.

It is irresponsible because putting your animals at risk when you know dogs etc may come onto to your land is imo irresponsible. I have chickens, if I don't lock them up and a fox or dog gets them  imo I have been irrsponsible in my care of them, regardless of whose fault it was and whether the dog should have been there.

I am not disagreeing that we have to control our dogs, however that imo does not absolve others from looking after their animals well being .

I am well aware that cats are seen differently, imo they should not be. Especially when you live in a built up are where people may own 2,3 or more , thats a lot of cats.

"My neighbours pony used to be often riden down by their children to spend an hour or two being groomed and keeping the lawn down."

But it didn't live there did it? We will have to disagree because it is a slightly different argument to the original one, but imo sheep and horses do not belong in these  back gardens, there isn't room for a start. Some places you can't even have a rooster.

On a slightly different note , I asked a question on here a few days ago, I think I have my answer lol

> But it didn't live there did it?

I can't see the length of time an animal is on the property makes any difference.

> but imo sheep and horses do not belong in these  back gardens, there isn't room for a start.

Ah, I think I see now, you seem to be crossing over into whether there is a welfare issue with some of these animals but that has nothing to do with people having a right to expect dog owners to restrain their dogs from entering where ever they may be billeted, temporary or otherwise, if that land is there own and private.

Becuase if it was being groomed etc I imagine it was being watched over in some way or did they leave it there and go out for the day ? It wasn't there all night was it.

Yes I have digressed, which I admitted to earlier, because the responsibiltiy word keeps getting bandied about and imo people with livestock should fence properly, time will tell if these horses get out..and when ..sorry if :) they do I'll let you all know!!.

I  think most of my posts have agreed with you about the dog owner having to take control etc.

On the subject of dogs having to stay on the lead....My sister got a visit from the RSPCA couple years ago because she had an aviary and someone thought she might have wild birds..she didn't and it was all sorted. She had whatever it is you have to have..rings etc. Anyway she has a Staffie and the officer fell into chit chat about it, there was no problem with it but because of the breed they fell into coversation about the bad press they get.

My sister said she never let if off lead outside her own home, the dogs recall is good but the local park/recreation ground is small and if another dog runs up to yours off lead it is hard to get it back without some interaction when its coming back after fetching a ball. This dog is friendly with other dogs ..very friendly, but if another dog acts aggressive with her she will respond in kind and well she usually has the last word. So my sister has stuck to on lead walking. The RSPCA woman was up in arms about it..went on about dogs having the right to interact and it was cruel not to let them run around etc..I think its part of the 5 freedoms?

She gave my sister a right lecture and had her questioning herself but she is far to worried about the reaction she gets when out walking and feels that if anything happened she would be to blame, regardless of whether her dog started anything or not.

I realise off-topic and this was just one officer's reaction, but I wonder if they will speak up as a body if it does get to the stage when we all have to leash our dogs?

> Actually I wouldn't be surprised if there are rules against having horses or sheep in a built up area in your backgarden.

As a friend who has a half Acre garden, right on the High Street,  kept two Ewes and their offspring (previously orphan Lambs reared) to keep the grass down, I don't think there are any rules precluding it, though they may have to comply with movement rules.

I have also seen horses kept in converted garages and back garden, also here in the city.

Interesting, Brainless - I wonder if they've got a Holding Number for their livestock!

They sold the excess gardebn a few years ago and the sheep were slaughtered.

> So my sister has stuck to on lead walking. The RSPCA woman was up in arms about it..went on about dogs having the right to interact and it was cruel not to let them run around etc..I think its part of the 5 freedoms?

No, dogs do not have a legal right to run freely, dogs must always be under control in a public place. I think the RSPCA woman was speaking out of her toot hole! She'd of had a bit of an ear bashing from me.
Not many people apreciate loose, strange dogs runing up to thier dogs, nomatter how friendly they are - especially dogs with a certain look or reputaion, it is extremely ignorant of the RSPCA woman to not take this into consideration. Also, a dog (again, no matter it's intentions) can be in breach of the DDA by running up to a stranger or running loose and causing a person to feel at risk by the loose dog. This is exactly why my dog is kept on a long-line - he is friednly, but other people can not be expected to know that.

A couple of times I've had a 'staffy' run up to Buster, on seeing the owner shocked at the sight of what thier dog has just ran towards (a 90kg Mastiff), despite them saying thier dog is friednly and they don't like the bad rep they get - they still judge my dog on what it LOOKS like (huge & powerfull) rather than on it's behaviour (freidnly & under control) and scramble to get thier dog on lead.
I don't mean to offence to those that do have friednly staffie (we have met some that have been allowed to interact with Buster), but it's a bit of "pot & kettle" isn't it! I wonder if those that allow thier staffies to run up to other dogs usually feel secure in knowing that if it came to it, thier dog could handle itself, but when they see it's not the safest bet (meeting my dog) they suddenly feel as vulnerable as the non-staffy owners do when thier dogs are approached by a staffy?

Yep it gets to be too much hassle to allow your dogs off lead, hence for the last 5 years mine are sadly on lead when not at home.

I do miss seeing them run at full speed and play with each other and other dogs, but it's not worth the raised blood pressure.

The dogs themselves don't seem to be affected, and keep reasonably fit with road work, and tussling in the garden at home.

In some ways it would be nice to have dog parks, safe fully enclosed doggy play areas, but judging by my American contacts these can be pretty scary places as they become over populated and of course the risk of disease is an issue.

>No, dogs do not have a legal right to run freely, dogs must always be under control in a public place.

The two aren't mutually exclusive! Dogs can be running freely and yet still be under control ... well-trained ones, anyway!

> The two aren't mutually exclusive! Dogs can be running freely and yet still be under control ... well-trained ones, anyway!

Yes, JG you are right. I should have made that clear. What I meant by dogs are not permitted to run 'freely' is, they have no legal right to do/go as they 'freely' please (like a cat), of course, being under control does not mean on lead.
What I was reffering to was this:

>The RSPCA woman was up in arms about it..went on about dogs having the right to interact and it was cruel not to let them run around

Dogs do not have a legal 'right' to interact with other dogs, nor no legal right to run freely, but as you rightly point out dogs can run off-lead (where legaly permited to do so) if they are under control (but it still does not give them a legal 'right' to interact with other dogs).

>Dogs do not have a legal 'right' to interact with other dogs, nor no legal right to run freely

I think that's a debatable point; since the 2006 Animal Walfare Act it's now enshrined in law that pet owners have the legal duty to provide their animals with "somewhere suitable to live; a proper diet, including fresh water; the ability to express normal behaviour; for any need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and protection from, and treatment of, illness and injury." Normal behaviour, for a social species, is to interact with its own kind.

Trespass is a civil matter so the police would have absolutely no interest in a dog casually straying onto someone's land or garden - they'd tell him to put a fence up if he wanted all dogs excluded..

at the end of the day unless dogs are on a lead they may well chase rabbits where they shouldn't, just as children may run in excitement where they shouldn't and people actually walk where they shouldn't... it's not the big deal it's being made out to be imo...

the op is right to be upset at the attitude, but it appears that this guy enjoys the confrontation... he's in the wrong for being abusive and attacking the dogs... the dogs have no 'right' to enter his land, but hey he's not fenced it so if they do, so what?  the owner wasn't encouraging his dog to do so and called it immediately.... the op doesn't deserve more verbal backlash on here... enough of that already.

I can only confirm that the police wouldn't be interested and I doubt the owner would get much sympathy in a civil court.

> Normal behaviour, for a social species, is to interact with its own kind.

Debatable again - what about dog agressive dogs - they have no right to express the behaviour that comes naturally to them, nor do dogs that don't like strange people .The onus for ensuring a dogs welfare needs are met is on the OWNER of the dog in question, not other dog owners.

For example, if I allowed my friendly dog to run up to sombody elses dog and cited the above in my dogs defence when they complained the look of my dog had them in fear of thier & thier dogs safety*, it wouldn't carry much weight, it's not thier responsibility to ensure my dog gets to socialise with thier dogs.

We simply can't allow our dogs to wander around and do what comes naturally to them despite the problems they pose to others. The Laws in place to protect dog welfare is to stop abuse and unnecesary suffering, it is not thier to enable any dog the right to do as it pleases.

*the dda does not cover dogs posing a risk to other dogs but there is a law in place for that, if I can remeber which it is, I'll add a link.

>We simply can't allow our dogs to wander around and do what comes naturally to them despite the problems they pose to others.

The onus is on owners to allow their dogs to behave naturally without being a nuisance to others. It's not always easy to reconcile the two, but the RSPCA woman was right - to never allow a dog to run freely, even in a secure place, could be considered a breach of the AWA.

In fact this aspect of the AWA has been used as a defence against over-zealous Dog Control Orders.:-)

My son rents the fields adjacent to my house one of  which has apublic footpath running  through it
We use the fields for summer beef cattle it is upto my son/landowner to ensure the fencing is adequate to keep the cattle contained in the confines of the field.
It is dog owners responsibilty to ensure their dogs do not  worry / chase  the cattle  There is  no legislation for land owners/tennants to fence off public foot paths  we have used electric fencing at times  well signed  with warning signs  and guess what people still  touch it to see "If was swithched on as they didnt see a battery" I have great joy telling them there is no battery  as it is mains electric which maintains 6,000 volts

Didn't know about that holding number thing, that is interesting.

What about unused council land which has horses tethered on it? usually gypsies horses? and no I am not advocating letting your dogs bother them just because you can. I am just interested in how the law would stand or if the horses should even be there?

Didn't know about that holding number thing, that is interesting.

Not sure when it was introduced but all livestock has to be numbered, usually with ear tags, and the corresponding number and details of the animal wearing the tag is lodged with DEFRA.

This is to track movement of all livestock whether they are to be used as part of the food chain or not.

We used to keep horses and bought a handful of sheep to run on the paddocks alongside the horses to keep the grazing good and fields weed-free.  Even though these were 'pet' sheep they still had to be tagged though they are now 8 years old and never left our property.  As far as I know this system applies to all livestock and possibly followed foot and mouth outbreaks.  Maybe someone else can correct me if I'm wrong.

As others have said it is the owners responsibility to keep the dog under control. If i was the man i too would have been annoyed. He shouldnt have to pay out (quite a large expense) to fence his garden off to prevent other peoples dogs entering his garden. Your dog was in the wrong to trespass his land (whatever the reason) and if its happened to him before i can understand why he would be so annoyed. We all have the right to enjoy our gardens, not feel they are at risk of being intruded by others dogs.

I just came across this tread and find it interesting that just about everyone who commented seems to think that it is entirely the dog owners responsibility to keep the dog out of the garden. Legally that might be so but surely the garden owner should take some care to prevent the intrusion if he really values a dog free garden?

I  had my satnav stolen this week. I managed to leave the car unlocked and even though it was hidden in the glove compartment when I returned to the car it was gone. Now it is illegal for someone else to take my belongings, even if I am daft enough to leave them unattended. Everyone I have spoken to says it is entirely my fault for leaving it in an unlocked car. It is up to me to safeguard  my possessions if I don't want them stolen or damaged and if I don't take good care then society has little sympathy. 

So coming back to this thread about the mans garden, why does everyone on here seem to think he should not take some responsibility for keeping dogs out of his garden? If we can't trust humans not to break the law then why do we expect dogs to obey some invisible arbitrary boundary? I do think that if the house owner feels so strongly about not having dogs in his garden then he should fence it better even if it does cost him money.

>why do we expect dogs to obey some invisible arbitrary boundary?

Society expects humans to obey its rules, so it's expected of dog owners, not dogs, to understand that. Would you think it's acceptable for a random person, adult or child, to wander into your garden? No? Then why should a dog be any different? After all, the boundary is clearly marked.

Ok, so it is the owner not the dog who has to ensure the boundary is adhered to.
However my main point was that if the onus is on me to take care of my possessions to ensure they are not stolen or damaged why should the garden owner in this case not take some responsibility for keeping his garden dog free if he feels so stongly about it?

He has. He has a boundary hedge, so it's clear that's the edge of private land. He shouldn't have to turn his property into Fort Knox and be deprived of his light and view!

but those precautions clearly aren't enough or dogs wouldn't get in the garden, in the same way as hiding my satnav and sutting the car door weren't enough to stop my sat nav getting nicked. it may not be legally right but it is up to each of us to take what precautions are needed to protect our property or suffer the consequences.

And retaliate. :-) If you'd been in your car and someone had leaned in and taken your satnav, would you not have objected? Or would you have thought "Silly me, I should have locked the car more securely"?

Of course the behaviour of a dog is the responsibility of the owner of the dog how can a stranger be expected to control someone else's dog.

Should the general public not walk in the park in case someone else's dog deposits mud or hair on their clothes or worse injures them, of course not, you should be entitled to walk unmolested where you choose if it is yours or a public place and your private garden is yours and you choose if you want it fenced or not and other people, their children and their dogs should respect what is obviously private property and or space.

Must admit I do sympathisee with this view, even if it isn't the law, surely if your living adjacent to ground that is used for walking dogs off lead, or has kids playing, stock grazing etc, then it would be commmon sense to have fencing sufficient to deter casual ingress???

Can't get page one to come up so not sure what the first post said. Does the garden face into a park or beach or somewhere like that?  Most are beside a road and in that case the dogs should be on a lead anyway.

>Can't get page one to come up so not sure what the first post said.

This is page 1! There isn't a page 2; the first post is the one at the top of the page!

I think you can set page length in yoru settings so the number of pages may not be the smae for everyoen.

but yes the garden is adjacent to ground used for dog walking.

>I think you can set page length in yoru settings

You're right - I never realised that. Mine's set at 100 which must be the default setting. :-)

And yes, the garden backs onto some rough ground which is used for dog walking - it's not clear who owns this land, and if allowing dogs offlead there is officially sanctioned or just something people 'have always done' and not been stopped.

I think I might try and bring a few cases against all the owners whose cats wander in my garden peeing and crapping everywhere :}

Ohhh I so wish,,, More so wish i could catch all the unneuted toms and get them all done, they spay their stinky smell up my wall of my house,, boy the scent takes over my hole house and is so disgusting,, real pain,, should be illegal to let cats out if they not been done!,

I think you can set page length in yoru settings so the number of pages may not be the smae for everyoen.


Wonderful set it to 200 so it will in most cases solve the problem.

Now how many years have I been on this site!!!!!!!!

the garden backs onto some rough ground which is used for dog walking

Well can see that does change things a bit but I still think if the garden is obviously cultivated then the dogs owners should make sure that the dogs do not go on to it, there are bound to be the odd occasion when one does but the dog walking fraternity should do there best to respect the property of others.

Re.  cats, makes me cross as well they cost me loads in flea treatment as that is where my dogs get them from and they leave their droppings everywhere. I think I am right in saying all cases of damage to a human by animal worms they have been the cat variety not dogs but it is the dogs and their owners who get the blame, cat owners seem happy in some cases to have the litter tray in the kitchen or sun lounge where their children play and should, heaven forbid, the toddler get a cyst you can bet the neighbourhood dog would be blamed.

I think I am right in saying all cases of damage to a human by animal worms they have been the cat variety not dogs but it is the dogs and their owners who get the blame, cat owners seem happy in some cases to have the litter tray in the kitchen or sun lounge where their children play and should, heaven forbid, the toddler get a cyst you can bet the neighbourhood dog would be blamed.

How would you, or indeed anyone else, know what animal it was? What about foxes? Might as well be them!

I understand that the cat roundworm is slightly different to the dog roundworm.

Indeed JG they are a different species, I am going back many years but at that time the only cases of cysts being formed in the human body (particularly eyes) were the cat worm Toxocara cati not the dog version Toxocara canis there is also another that can infect both dogs and cats Toxascaris leonina but this type does not migrate through the tissues of the body but once ingested remain in the intestines throughout development so although unpleasant they do not cause the problems possible with the other two, usually blindness as cysts elsewhere do not cause the same amount of damage.

Although it would be much more sensible of the man to fence his property, I think it is common courtesy/respect that dog owners should not allow their animals to go on it, thereby avoiding any possible confrontations imo.