DATA REPORT: July 2023

analysis of statistics

COWS – data collected via our online reporting tool.

5th July 2023

We have been collecting data since July 2017, using a self-reporting form. A slow start, but more reports began to come during lockdown. Our data is not comprehensive by any means and probably only represents the tip of the iceberg. Deaths and very serious injuries are often NOT reported, as either the victim or their family is too traumatised to relive their experiences.

The percentages given below are the percentages of those who completed that particular field in the report. Some people skipped some of the fields.

Number of reports

676        completed reports over 6 years, although 11 incidents took place before 2017.

665        incidents in England or Wales, and 11 from elsewhere.

649  (96%)  were on a public footpath, 18 unsure, and 9 were not on a public footpath or had left the footpath by the time the attack occurred.

Type of herd involved

(could give more than one answer)

381        35%       group of cows

206        19%       said calves were present in the field.

119        11%        group of bullocks,

95           9%          group of heifers (young cows)

78            7%         bull with cows

74           7%          single cow

22           2%          single bull

22           2%           group of bulls (these may have been large bullocks)

71            8%         weren’t sure or didn’t answer

Most people were unsure of the breed. Those that did respond mentioned numerous breeds, including Limousin, Charolais, Belgian Blue, British Holstein, Jersey, Friesian, Belted Galloway, Aberdeen Angus, Ayrshire, Red Polls, Herefords, Devon Red, Black Dexter, Welsh Black, Norfolk Red, Lincoln Red, Longhorn, Simmental, White Park, Highland Cattle.

Dogs

Contrary to popular belief, more than half the incidents did not involve a dog.

356        53%        no dog involved

285        42%        had dog or dogs, but on lead at beginning of incident

35            5%        dog or dogs, not on lead at beginning of incident

Was the dog harmed?

16           5%          said dog was injured

4             1%          dog was killed

Number of walkers in group

289        43%       were in a group of two

271        40%       were alone

100        15%       small group of 3-5 people (this included children)

16           3%           larger groups

Immediate result of the incident

41           6%          Just an inconvenience (turned back or found a different route, etc.)

384        57%       Not injured, but badly frightened

164        24%       Minor injuries (bruising, cuts, scratches – some sustained trying to escape)

47           7%          Significant injuries (broken bones or concussion requiring hospital observation)

16           2%          Serious and possible fatal injury (punctured lungs, ruptured internal organs, coma)

0              0%          Permanent life-altering disability

3             0.5%      death

Medical help needed?

554        80%        none

41           6%           treated in A&E or minor injuries unit, then sent home

27           4%          emergency admission to hospital

19           3%          were airlifted by helicopter from the scene

14           2%           no immediate treatment but later attended GP

12           2%           no immediate treatment but later attended hospital

3             0.5%    assessed by paramedics at scene and sent home

21           3%          gave another or no answer

Warning signs seen?

557        83%       no signs seen

81           12%       yes, were signs

33           5%          can’t remember

Was incident reported to anyone else?

371        44%       No

80           10%       police

80           10%       local authority

79           9%           farmer

65           8%          H&SE

43           5%          Ramblers Association

27           3%          don’t know

92           11%       someone else (e.g. National Trust, park official, etc)

Being investigated?

527         87%      no

30           5%          H&SE

18           3%           police

17           3%           local authority

12           2%          someone else

4             1%          coroner   (4 cases)

Suggestions:

Many people mentioned signs or fencing, some mentioned risk assessments, alternative footpaths, escape routes, no calves near footpaths, education of public, information about owner, etc.

One thought on “DATA REPORT: July 2023”

  1. If a farmer puts up a warning sign – surely this is admitting the cattle could be dangerous and to get ready to run for your life or face the consequences. It is not a walkers responsibility to find another route as we were once advised by a national Park Officer. If anyone had a dangerous animal they would have to control, contain or look after it as appropriate. We think fencing or electric fencing should be used so walkers can walk in peace without threat of attack. We now have altered our walks so we never go near any cattle as terrified of the consequences due to past experiences.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Susan And David Glanville Cancel reply