There is a phrase that crops up again and again in legislation, countryside guidance and police advice, and yet most dog owners have never been given a clear explanation of what it actually requires: “under close control.” It appears in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act, it appears in public messaging every lambing season, and it appeared throughout the debates leading up to the 2025 amendment. But despite its importance, it remains one of the most misunderstood expectations placed upon dog owners in rural environments.
People tend to assume it means their dog is friendly, or that it “usually” comes back, or that because their dog has never chased livestock in the past, it won’t do so in the future. None of those assumptions come close to meeting the standard required by law or the standard required to protect livestock. And none of them reflect the reality of how instinct overrides good intentions the moment an opportunity presents itself.
It’s also worth acknowledging that many of the dogs involved in livestock incidents today are imported rescue dogs or former street and hunting dogs from Europe. Most people who take these dogs on are completely well-meaning; they only know what the charities have told them, and in many cases they feel they have no alternative because they cannot meet the increasingly strict and often unrealistic criteria imposed by UK rescue centres. They believe they are giving the dog a fresh start and a better life. They think it will be nice for the dog to stretch its legs, or that a nervous or shut-down dog won’t have the confidence to chase anything, and with a long line attached they feel they still have control. What they don’t realise is that nervousness is contextual. Once a dog begins to relax and explore, instinct often floods to the surface for the very first time. That is when so many owners see these dogs suddenly bolt—long line, nerves and good intentions all forgotten—and they discover in a single moment that they have no control over what the dog chooses to pursue.
Close control, in real-world terms and from a behavioural standpoint, means knowing exactly where your dog is at all times, being in a position to intervene immediately, being watched by you, and being able to stop or recall your dog instantly, regardless of distraction, distance or temptation. Anything less is wishful thinking dressed up as confidence. A dog can be affectionate, responsive, gentle and well-intentioned and still break into a chase state if it has not been trained properly and thoroughly. That isn’t a moral failing; it is a behavioural certainty.
What’s important to understand is that Parliament itself recognised how vague and poorly understood this concept is. During the passage of the recent amendment, there was an attempt to define “close control” more clearly by suggesting that a dog should not be considered at large if it was within sight, being actively monitored by the handler, and able to return promptly when called. On the face of it, this sounded sensible. But it was ultimately rejected because those criteria were inherently subjective. Confidence in recall, awareness of what the dog is doing, and a handler’s belief that control exists are all matters of opinion rather than fact. In the end, the proposal was dismissed, and the law was left unchanged. That means there is still no definitive statutory test for close control. It remains something that is judged after the event, often by a court, and even police officers responding to incidents have no clear, universal benchmark to rely on in the moment.
The popular message of “keep your dog on a lead where livestock are present” is well-intentioned, and I support it—but only as one part of the solution. That advice alone is nowhere near enough and hasn’t been enough for decades. Leads and long lines fail. Dogs slip collars and harnesses. Handles break. And when instinct hits—particularly in a dog with no avoidance training—no physical restraint is foolproof. After more than fifteen years specialising in livestock worrying cases, working with well over 2,000 owners of dogs that have chased, attacked or killed livestock, I can say without hesitation that reliance on a lead in place of training is one of the biggest misconceptions held by dog owners. But more importantly, in the majority of real-world livestock attacks, the owner is not even there.
The 2017 National Police Chiefs’ Council five-force report revealed that in some areas up to 89% of livestock-worrying incidents involved dogs whose owners were absent at the time. These were not cases of somebody letting a dog off the lead carelessly near a flock; these were dogs that had escaped a garden, a gate, a property or a vehicle, and had travelled some distance before encountering livestock. By the time the owner became aware, the damage was done. In those circumstances, “put your dog on a lead around livestock” is not just insufficient—it’s irrelevant. A lead only works when the dog is physically with you.
This is why I advocate for something far more robust, far more reliable and far more honest: avoidance training combined with highly proofed obedience. Livestock avoidance training is not about teaching tricks or encouraging polite behaviour; it is about establishing a conditioned response that replaces the innate desire to approach with a learned instinct to avoid. When done responsibly—including the structured use of electronic collars where appropriate—it gives the dog a clear, fair and unmistakable reason to disengage from livestock entirely. It removes livestock from the dog’s behavioural “menu,” so to speak. The dog learns not just how to behave, but how not to behave.
Alongside avoidance conditioning, a dog must be trained to heel cleanly, to stop instantly under instruction, and to recall immediately from any distance. These are not flashy skills; they are essential safety mechanisms. They protect livestock, they protect dogs, and they protect owners from the legal and emotional consequences of an avoidable incident. And they are skills that can be developed in any dog, regardless of breed or background, when the training is done properly and with clarity.
Even with this level of training, courtesy still matters. If I am walking near livestock—even when I have complete confidence in the training of my dogs—I will still put a lead on as a sign of respect to others nearby. It sends a message about responsible behaviour. It models best practice. And it acknowledges that livestock owners have every right to expect dog walkers to show consideration when moving through working countryside.
It is also important for dog owners to understand that the 2025 amendment to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act has expanded the scope of where an offence can occur. It is no longer limited to dogs being physically inside an enclosure containing livestock. If you are on a footpath, lane or bridleway running alongside or through land where livestock are present, or where livestock are being moved, and your dog is able to reach them, the law applies. Dogs do not need to start inside a field for harm to occur; once a dog breaks into pursuit, distance and boundaries mean very little, and ground can be covered in seconds.
For those who want to see what I mean when I talk about real avoidance training, and why leads and food-based approaches are insufficient on their own, I’ve included a short demonstration here. It shows how responsible e-collar conditioning replaces approach with avoidance, and how reliable control is established not through equipment, but through clarity and training:
Close control is not something that happens by accident. It is achieved through deliberate training, clear communication and consistent reinforcement of boundaries. It is something that must be taught, practised, tested and committed to. A lead is an aid, not an answer. Food is a reward, not a deterrent. And instinct is not something to negotiate with—it is something to prepare for.
If we genuinely want to reduce livestock worrying, we need to stop offering slogans and start offering solutions. Avoidance training and reliable obedience are not optional extras; they are the foundation of responsible dog ownership in rural environments. They are what keep livestock safe, what keep dogs safe, and what prevent tragedies—legal, emotional or otherwise—before they ever occur.
