Cows with calves on a bridleway

[spotty_pony2]

Could you show the law for the cows with calves rule please.I was unaware of this rule, except for those animals previously proven to be dangerous to walkers, tourists,riders etc which had displayed previous problematic behaviours.

 

[Exasperated]

The statutory legislation, Wildlife & Countryside Act ‘81, is clear that no offence is committed if a non dairy bull is in a field with public access when he is accompanied by cows / heifers / sucklers - the ‘family’.

Under HSE legislation, farmers / landowners must undertake risk assessments to ensure the public are not exposed to unnecessary risks (the perceived risk to horse and rider passing grazing cattle is very low, there’s considerably greater danger from loose or aggressive dogs, or merely riding in traffic).

As stated earlier, increasingly the NFU, CLA, insurers, etc, advise separating RoW from livestock where feasible, and where it is not, mitigating contact and risk as much as possible.

What you refer to is part of HSE advice to this same end.

The Ramblers Association advises that farmers are only liable for injury caused by animals if they have been made aware that the animal could be dangerous (Ramblers.org.uk)

Do read Country Landowners Association (cla.org.uk) “In Focus: grazing cows and bulls in fields with public footpaths”, Claire Wright, revised 25/02/25, with much more detailed advice on this issue, including link to the relevant HSE section.

 

[Blurr]

Public Rights of Way are exactly that. A Right. There's no entitlement in wanting to use what you have a right to.

The landowner has put livestock in a field which has a Bridleway across it. Recognising the potential risk to users of the PROW they have offered a temporary diversion. In my opinion, the temporary diversion should accommodate all classes of users entitled to use the the PROW because the landowner has, by the temporary diversion of a BRIDLEWAY, recognised the risk but mitigated it only for one class of user.

Of course we, as horse owners, should recognise and support farming. It should also be acknowledged that many an equestrian has kept a struggling farm afloat when they've been hit by epidemic disease, poor weather, new legislation etc. Every year I hand thousands of pounds to my local farmer. Hobby riders are not a 'nuisance', they're a financially important part of the infrastructure of rural England and deserve to be seen as such. We have enough trouble with an uneducated public thinking we're entitled without flinging that insult at each other.

 

[ycbm]

Public Rights of Way are exactly that. A Right. There's no entitlement in wanting to use what you have a right to.

The landowner has put livestock in a field which has a Bridleway across it. Recognising the potential risk to users of the PROW they have offered a temporary diversion. In my opinion, the temporary diversion should accommodate all classes of users entitled to use the the PROW because the landowner has, by the temporary diversion of a BRIDLEWAY, recognised the risk but mitigated it only for one class of user.

Of course we, as horse owners, should recognise and support farming. It should also be acknowledged that many an equestrian has kept a struggling farm afloat when they've been hit by epidemic disease, poor weather, new legislation etc. Every year I hand thousands of pounds to my local farmer. Hobby riders are not a 'nuisance', they're a financially important part of the infrastructure of rural England and deserve to be seen as such. We have enough trouble with an uneducated public thinking we're entitled without flinging that insult at each other.

The cows are not a danger to a horse and rider any more than traffic is on a road. Horses need to be desensitised to traffic, and some to cows, and some to crisp packets, but there is absolutely no reason to provide a route around a field of cows with calves for horse riders.

And it's also illegal to divert the path!
.

 

[Fred66]

Public Rights of Way are exactly that. A Right. There's no entitlement in wanting to use what you have a right to.

The landowner has put livestock in a field which has a Bridleway across it. Recognising the potential risk to users of the PROW they have offered a temporary diversion. In my opinion, the temporary diversion should accommodate all classes of users entitled to use the the PROW because the landowner has, by the temporary diversion of a BRIDLEWAY, recognised the risk but mitigated it only for one class of user.

Of course we, as horse owners, should recognise and support farming. It should also be acknowledged that many an equestrian has kept a struggling farm afloat when they've been hit by epidemic disease, poor weather, new legislation etc. Every year I hand thousands of pounds to my local farmer. Hobby riders are not a 'nuisance', they're a financially important part of the infrastructure of rural England and deserve to be seen as such. We have enough trouble with an uneducated public thinking we're entitled without flinging that insult at each other.

But no one is stopping OP from using the PROW, the entitlement is regarding the desire to use an alternate temporary permissive footpath.

The landowner is entitled to put stock on his land. His risk assessment was such that he identified a higher risk to pedestrians with dogs and he has negotiated an alternate permissive temporary route with the neighbour to mitigate. The neighbour is not willing to give permission to horses for that route, the risk to horse riders is however not as high.

Entitled horse riders give considerate ones a bad name, and should be called out on it.

 

[Errin Paddywack]

The landowner has put livestock in a field which has a Bridleway across it. Recognising the potential risk to users of the PROW they have offered a temporary diversion. In my opinion, the temporary diversion should accommodate all classes of users entitled to use the the PROW because the landowner has, by the temporary diversion of a BRIDLEWAY, recognised the risk but mitigated it only for one class of user.

As I read it the adjacent field which walkers are being directed to belongs to a different landowner who has agreed to walkers but presumably not to horse riders. Only serious risk is to dog walkers. I never enjoyed riding through cattle but coped as there was no alternative. We had cattle of our own so my ponies were pretty used to them. My sister cured her pony of being scared of cows by turning him round and driving them away. He enjoyed that being a bossy little horror.

 

[ycbm]

I wonder how many people contributing to this thread know anything much about farming?

It's all very well talking about "rights" if you want all farms to end up as part of one the mega- farming companies owning millions of acres of farmland with the flexibilty that brings. A normal beef farmer in this country won't have a mass of grazing to choose between, and a demand that a field is not grazed so that people whose horses haven't been desensitised to cows can ride across it might make or break that herd financially especially if it extends the time the herd needs to be kept indoors.

It isn't just cows with calves that people will demand to be kept off paths, either, I've found the worst for upsetting horses are yearlings and 2 year olds who love a race. And the closest I've ever come to being hurt by them was when my horse at the time jumped 4ft up of the road onto a strip of bank only a foot or so wide to get away from a bunch of curious (and stunningly beautiful) 2 year old Aberdeen Angus who were inside their own field.

spotty_pony I really do understand how annoying this is for you, especially if it's part of a circular route, your best ride, or your only chance in the area to have a canter.
.

 

[Exasperated]

Public Rights of Way are exactly that. A Right. There's no entitlement in wanting to use what you have a right to.

The landowner has put livestock in a field which has a Bridleway across it. Recognising the potential risk to users of the PROW they have offered a temporary diversion. In my opinion, the temporary diversion should accommodate all classes of users entitled to use the the PROW because the landowner has, by the temporary diversion of a BRIDLEWAY, recognised the risk but mitigated it only for one class of user.

Of course we, as horse owners, should recognise and support farming. It should also be acknowledged that many an equestrian has kept a struggling farm afloat when they've been hit by epidemic disease, poor weather, new legislation etc. Every year I hand thousands of pounds to my local farmer. Hobby riders are not a 'nuisance', they're a financially important part of the infrastructure of rural England and deserve to be seen as such. We have enough trouble with an uneducated public thinking we're entitled without flinging that insult at each other.

You have misunderstood, or not fully read the information provided by OP.

This public bridleway through the pasture now grazed by cattle, it is NOT diverted, at all.

It remains open to the full range of legitimate users: riders, cyclists, walkers.

Diverting any PRoW is a specific process, requiring permission of the highway authority, notifications, etc. To do so without that authorisation risks prosecution for obstruction of a public highway, which is a criminal offence.

Here, a landowner (possibly same person who owns the field with cattle and RoW, it’s unclear), has offered an additional, “permissive” path for WALKERS only, which that landowner is entitled to do.

Permissive means exactly that - with the permission of landowner - which permission can include / exclude whatever category of user the landowner wants, which decision has NOTHING to do with the Council’s PRoW officers, and which the public have NO automatic right of use to, whatsoever. How is this difficult to understand?

If the OP genuinely hopes for horse riders (and presumably cyclists?) to be allowed access to this concessionary footpath, then cultivating rapport with the landowner rather than futile complaints to the highway authority would be more tactful..... and cross her fingers that neither the landlord nor farmer have already seen the ill informed, self righteous posts on here.

Again: the Council cannot authorise use of a permissive path on private land, that is at the landowner’s discretion.

In relation to corridoring the existing bridleway to fence off the cattle, just have a look at the Daily Mail article and photographs posted earlier, where a new landowner has eliminated all livestock contact and all risk to path users. Well done, that man? Actually, he’s done this to protect his land and livestock from the public....
Ghastly to see, unpleasant to use, exceptionally expensive to achieve, and often impossible when the livestock need to access water, shade, grass etc, across the area.

Any suggestion of diverting the bridleway around the edge to facilitate a corridor, requires the legal process described above, also costly for the landowner, and - unfortunately- often resisted by user groups such as Ramblers’Association.

If you find riding through cattle is stressful, then either train and acclimatise your horse, or ride elsewhere while the livestock graze.

 

[MuddyMonster]

I wonder how many people contributing to this thread know anything much about farming?

It's all very well talking about "rights" if you want all farms to end up as part of one the mega- farming companies owning millions of acres of farmland with the flexibilty that brings. A normal beef farmer in this country won't have a mass of grazing to choose between, and a demand that a field is not grazed so that people whose horses haven't been desensitised to cows can ride across it might make or break that herd financially especially if it extends the time the herd needs to be kept indoors.
.

It depends on how you define 'know much about farming'. I think a know a bit more than an average townie but I'm sure some on this post will think I'm a vegetarian woke who knows nothing at all about it

I livery on a farm and use PROWs that go through neighbouring farm routes. I often stop for chat's with 'my' farmer and neighbouring farmer - sometimes pop in for a cup of tea (although I do lie through my teeth about liking black tea, there's no way I'm admitting I use plant based milk ) and buy directly off them - for the meat and dairy eaters in my family.

But I still don't think it's entirely unjustified to involve other parties to try to resolve a possible safety issue where possible, especially where it has been offered to one group of user's. I appreciate other people think differently and that's fine.

Although, I did make sure to extra thank our local farmer yeaterday who always fencs off their cattle in fields, because they think it's just a sensible precaution. I wouldnt dream of complaining when the herd come investigating us or are v.noisy etc as they can't get to us. There are people that wont use the routes at those times & that's their choice, I'm sure some would rather there weren't ever cows out but I think what we have is a sensible compromise that allows most to use the local countryside safely.

 

[YorksG]

The OP made a pretty unpleasant comment about the land owner, who it would appear is renting the grazing to the owner of the cows, saying "no one has a good word to say about her". The landowner has put aside a permissive route for walkers, which she was under no obligation to do. So the dog walkers ought to have something good to say about her.
The op also stated that the farmer thought the landowner ought to provide a second route for horses, perhaps he could rent some extra land and allow the permissive route to go over where he has rented?
What is most likely to happen, now that the op has made this ridiculous and malicious complaint to the council, should they follow it up, is that the farmer loses his grazing altogether and the landowner looks to develop the land, with a fully fenced right of way, or of the developer does what has happened in other places and the prow becomes extinguished.
What a win!

 

[Fred66]

The OP made a pretty unpleasant comment about the land owner, who it would appear is renting the grazing to the owner of the cows, saying "no one has a good word to say about her". The landowner has put aside a permissive route for walkers, which she was under no obligation to do. So the dog walkers ought to have something good to say about her.
The op also stated that the farmer thought the landowner ought to provide a second route for horses, perhaps he could rent some extra land and allow the permissive route to go over where he has rented?
What is most likely to happen, now that the op has made this ridiculous and malicious complaint to the council, should they follow it up, is that the farmer loses his grazing altogether and the landowner looks to develop the land, with a fully fenced right of way, or of the developer does what has happened in other places and the prow becomes extinguished.
What a win!

I think the most likely thing is the cattle owner gets a recommendation to put up electric fencing to section the PROW from the cattle. If this is round the edge of the field then it’s practicable with minimal loss of grazing.

From horse point of view then will still have nosy calves in close proximity with a confined pathway. Could end up more dangerous.

If the PROW is through the middle of the field it’s less easy to section and there would be an even narrower pathway

Once it’s sectioned off then there would be no obligation on him to remove it he could end up leaving it there permanently which might be even more irritating

 

[YorksG]

I think the most likely thing is the cattle owner gets a recommendation to put up electric fencing to section the PROW from the cattle. If this is round the edge of the field then it’s practicable with minimal loss of grazing.

From horse point of view then will still have nosy calves in close proximity with a confined pathway. Could end up more dangerous.

If the PROW is through the middle of the field it’s less easy to section and there would be an even narrower pathway

Once it’s sectioned off then there would be no obligation on him to leaving it there permanently which might be even more irritating

Except that the landowner will be the one contacted by highways, will also be the one classed as responsible for any difficulties, unless it's a full recognised agricultural tenancy. Landowners are selling up all over and nonsense like this only accelerates the process

 

[Fred66]

Except that the landowner will be the one contacted by highways, will also be the one classed as responsible for any difficulties, unless it's a full recognised agricultural tenancy. Landowners are selling up all over and nonsense like this only accelerates the process

True, reading the OP posts I think the landowner is the neighbour and the one granting the permissive path for dog walkers.

 

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

I think the most likely thing is the cattle owner gets a recommendation to put up electric fencing to section the PROW from the cattle. If this is round the edge of the field then it’s practicable with minimal loss of grazing.

From horse point of view then will still have nosy calves in close proximity with a confined pathway. Could end up more dangerous.

If the PROW is through the middle of the field it’s less easy to section and there would be an even narrower pathway

Once it’s sectioned off then there would be no obligation on him to remove it he could end up leaving it there permanently which might be even more irritating

Cattle, especially nosy youngsters, don't really respect electric fencing, so most farmers, if advised to fence off a bridleway that runs along the edge of a field would probably prefer to use barbed wire, which cattle do respect normally. I'm sure riders will love that.

 

[limestonelil]

Thanks to you Exasperated. I couldn't have typed that explanation and was just going to put it's only HSE advice, not law.

 

[paddy555]

Cattle, especially nosy youngsters, don't really respect electric fencing, so most farmers, if advised to fence off a bridleway that runs along the edge of a field would probably prefer to use barbed wire, which cattle do respect normally. I'm sure riders will love that.

in our area farmers electric fence fields to strip graze cows and calves on grass or roots. The cows are one side and the errant calves have escaped and are running around on the other side. So if they used electric fencing riders will be trapped in their electric fenced ROW along with the calves. A cross field bridlepath has only to be 2m wide. Many horses are electric fence trained so they are going to be very happy having live fence on either side not forgetting their new found friends ie the calves . What fun

 

[Exasperated]

Thanks to you Exasperated. I couldn't have typed that explanation and was just going to put it's only HSE advice, not law.

Most welcome, was just waiting for pain killers to kick in, anyway.

It’s not necessarily advice I’d disagree with, actually, but is often quite impossible to achieve, for some of the reasons given.

HSE state all sorts of advice on workplaces (farms are industrial workplaces, farmers’ fields their workplaces, even though joe public thinks they’re recreational playgrounds), from the correct lumens lighting, space, seating / viewing angles of office workstations, onwards.

I think most posters would not have to search very far in their own workplaces or livery yards, to find multiple, sensible, HSE recommendations entirely disregarded - even when far easier to implement than something like this.

 

[spotty_pony2]

But no one is stopping OP from using the PROW, the entitlement is regarding the desire to use an alternate temporary permissive footpath.

The landowner is entitled to put stock on his land. His risk assessment was such that he identified a higher risk to pedestrians with dogs and he has negotiated an alternate permissive temporary route with the neighbour to mitigate. The neighbour is not willing to give permission to horses for that route, the risk to horse riders is however not as high.

Entitled horse riders give considerate ones a bad name, and should be called out on it.

you clearly didn’t read the whole thing then as I’m not explaining it all again. I don’t care whether the track is diverted or what happens. I’m not bothered about riding on the diverted track either. I’m just trying to make it safe. Had another lovely email back from council today who are giving me full support on this matter.

 

[minesadouble]

I've read the whole thread but now you've confused me by saying you don't care what happens, however you obviously care enough to contact the Council and try to cause trouble for the Land Owner who is doing absolutely nothing they are not legally entitled to do judging by the sketchy details you have given?

I do think that by and large horse owners are viewed as entitled and you are doing nothing to dispel that myth.

 

[ycbm]

you clearly didn’t read the whole thing then as I’m not explaining it all again. I don’t care whether the track is diverted or what happens. I’m not bothered about riding on the diverted track either. I’m just trying to make it safe. Had another lovely email back from council today who are giving me full support on this matter.

So if I'm in your area, you're trying to make the path safe for me? I sort of appreciate your concern, but cows on a bridleway wouldn't bother me at all.

The irony is that you even got through them safely yourself, you were just scared. The council have no choice but to respond positively to you, you have reported what you perceive is a public safety issue. I don't really think it's fair to cause trouble to the farmer from the council on that basis, sorry.
.

 

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

So if I'm in your area, you're trying to make the path safe for me? I sort of appreciate your concern, but cows on a bridleway wouldn't bother me at all.

The irony is that you even got through them safely yourself, you were just scared. The council have no choice but to respond positively to you, you have reported what you perceive is a public safety issue. I don't really think it's fair to cause trouble to the farmer from the council on that basis, sorry.
.

And even less fair to demand access to a permissive, temporary footpath to allow dig walkers to avoid the cattle as a safety issue.

 

[Exasperated]

I've read the whole thread but now you've confused me by saying you don't care what happens, however you obviously care enough to contact the Council and try to cause trouble for the Land Owner who is doing absolutely nothing they are not legally entitled to do judging by the sketchy details you have given?

I do think that by and large horse owners are viewed as entitled and you are doing nothing to dispel that myth.

The worst can happen here is the landowner will be infuriated and really dig her heels in, whereas a less confrontational request for expanding the permissive route to accommodate other users, might have been more helpful.

This landowner May genuinely not view horse riders as under threat from cattle; I don’t, altho agree they can be a bloody nuisance and sometimes intimidate, and plenty of horse riders would agree.

However, perhaps the Council can still negotiate this concession.
If she’s a substantial landowner, chances are will have other RoW and often deals with Council anyway, although PRoW officers aren’t renowned for their diplomacy!

In terms of the regulations, the landowner has actually behaved impeccably:

1. Turned out an appropriate bull with cows and calves into pasture containing a RoW (W&C 1981 Act: correct)
2. Conducted a risk assessment and correctly identified a higher risk to walkers (HSE: correct)
3. Taken mitigating actions to reduce that risk, being able to offer a permissive F.Path to the group most at risk (HSE advice and industry guidelines: correct)
4. Has not diverted, obstructed or in any way impacted the public bridleway, which remains open (Highways Act 1980: correct)

Quite why she is being maligned over these actions is unclear, bad-mouthing isn’t going to help - either in this case, or with the relationship between landowners and user groups, generally.

 

[paddy555]

you clearly didn’t read the whole thing then as I’m not explaining it all again. I don’t care whether the track is diverted or what happens. I’m not bothered about riding on the diverted track either. I’m just trying to make it safe. Had another lovely email back from council today who are giving me full support on this matter.

sp you want to make it safe. OK we have established the landowner will not help with access so what exactly do you want the farmer to do? he cannot ask the landowner so what should he do that would keep you happy. What is it exactly that you want.

 

[Fred66]

I’ve ridden through loads over the years including dairy before it was made law they are separate and never had issues. it’s more the fact it’s one rule for the walkers and us as riders are being disregarded that has got my back up tbh…

I’ve tried and she was very rude and told me the cows will be fine and ‘there’s plenty of other bridleways to choose from’. So council are now taking it into their own hands. She is well known around the village and nobody has a nice word to say about her.

you clearly didn’t read the whole thing then as I’m not explaining it all again. I don’t care whether the track is diverted or what happens. I’m not bothered about riding on the diverted track either. I’m just trying to make it safe. Had another lovely email back from council today who are giving me full support on this matter.

I did read the whole post, you clearly can’t remember all the posts you have made.

You were rude in your opening post about the landowner. The same landowner that had no obligation to offer up an alternate route for walkers but did so anyway.

The fact that you didn’t like her answer in not giving access to horse riders has led you to making a complaint about her on here and a complaint to the council.

If I were the landowner and found out you were bad mouthing me then I would be rescinding permission for the alternate route and posting on the village facebook to say that unfortunately due to complaints received from OP about not allowing horses as well as walkers on the alternate path I have no choice but to cancel everyone’s access.

But then I’m petty.

 

[anglo]

Is it legal? There is a herd of cows with their calves and also a bull on one of the bridleways near me. I rode through there the other day and they came bombing across the field at me. Luckily my boy was very good but had he decided to bolt they would definitely have followed me and it could have been nasty.

Farmer has obviously had some complaints because there was a message on the local village facebook group this morning saying that the cows are ‘inquisitive’ and there is a temporary route for dog walkers to avoid the field and still use the right of way. There is no alternative for horses and riders but it is very possible they could allow us to ride on the temporary route too. The farmers are all for it and happy to help but they do not own the field and the landowner is a funny woman and a bully and is adamant the cows are fine..! I have reported to council. Am I right in thinking this is something that needs addressing? Her other option is to fence the bridleway but that will be a more expensive solution option but it’s her call!

I would not ride my horse through a field with cows in but would avoid the bridleway for the time they were there . Alternatively if you can you agree with the landwoner to use the temporay route , that should be fine . I feel farmers have enough difficulties without adding to them by upsetting their landowner.