Careful what you read.

I have a confession. Some mornings, although I know it’s a really bad habit, the first thing I do is scroll through social media. Despite knowing it’s not a great way to kick-start the day, sometimes a little mindless content is all too tempting.

This morning, as I once again fell foul of that temptation, I was drawn to a Facebook post that overnight appears to have spread itself across multiple pages and groups. The article, headed:

‘NEW LAWS ABOUT DOGS WORRYING LIVESTOCK’

It claims to inform dog owners and walkers about important legal changes. It states that “The law on dogs and livestock worrying has recently been updated in Britain. These changes matter and they apply even on public footpaths and rights of way.”

As a dog trainer and someone who practises as an Expert Witness, staying up to date with legal changes and amendments is something we take very seriously. As I read through the post, a number of potentially misleading and questionable statements quickly became apparent.

Within Scotland, when it comes to dogs worrying livestock, the relevant legislation is the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021, which amends the original 1953 Act. This law applies to Scotland only. England and Wales have their own legislation, which is currently being amended and is progressing through Parliament. Confusion between these jurisdictions is one of the main ways misinformation spreads.

So why does this matter? Quite simply, because not everything you read online is correct or accurate.

While the article is engaging and well written, it is also inaccurate and misleading, and appears to be affected by the author’s own interpretation rather than the actual statute.

Two of the most significant examples include the following:

“Under Proper Control”

Within the article, “Under Proper Control” is presented as a defined legal test (it is not).

The article presents:

A very strict, absolute definition is given, including:

• Must stop the dog before any approach

• Must prevent any chase

• Any hesitation means no control

  
  

Unfortunately, the statute does not define ‘under proper control’ in this absolute way. This form of misrepresentation risks readers believing this to be a verbatim legal threshold and could unfairly criminalise lawful behaviour in the court of public opinion.

The “Unlimited Fines” Claim

Within the article, the claim of “unlimited fines” is factually wrong.

The article presents:

“Unlimited fines — The old £1,000 cap has gone. Courts can now impose unlimited fines reflecting the real harm caused.”

Unfortunately, this is legally incorrect under the 2021 Scottish Act. The Act does not introduce unlimited fines. It replaces the £1,000 cap with a specific maximum of:

• Up to £40,000, and/or

• Up to 12 months’ imprisonment

  
  

The phrase “unlimited fine” appears in separate UK-level proposals, not in this Scottish legislation. Misrepresenting information of this nature risks public panic and serious misunderstanding of actual sentencing powers.

As yet, I have not been able to establish who the original author is—not that it really matters. The purpose of this article is simply to highlight how easily misinformation can spread, particularly on social media.

As a dog owner, the responsibility for understanding the law as it applies to dog ownership rests solely with you, and “but I read something somewhere” is not a defence in court. When seeking information—especially where the law and legal responsibility are concerned—it is essential to rely on properly qualified professionals, not well-meaning but misinformed individuals.