The trampling season?

In this opinion piece, one of our COWS members, David, challenges the official Uk statistics, and offers his own gamble assay.

INTRODUCTION

If you have found this website and opened this commodity, you lot may well have recently had an encounter with cattle and are trying to notice out more than.

Yous are non lonely. I experienced a very shut and personal encounter with a herd in July 2014, from which I was lucky to survive, and I too spent time during my convalescence researching the issue to find out what I could take done to avert the assail.

There is no shortage of official guidance – from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), from the National Farmers' Union (NFU), and from the Ramblers. These organisations warn of the risks inherent in cattle, and recommend safety precautions for both farmers and walkers. Merely, afterward serious and fatal attacks on members of the public, reported statements from HSE and NFU are full of platitudes, and downplay attacks to the extent of denying that cattle pose any run a risk to the public.

On the other manus, on my discharge from intensive care, one of the consultants gave me the all-time advice I accept come across, which was to stay out of fields with cows and calves because "it was trampling season".

Killer cattle -every cow is a potential killer

So, why is there a disconnect? Why isn't the common knowledge of the medical profession – that cows are unsafe – shared by those organisations which should be closely involved in understanding the risks? As a general summary of the bug I will discuss in this article, this one attribute stood out from my research.

It seems to me that official organisations control statistics (such equally they are) almost cattle attacks and misuse the statistics which are available. The HSE and NFU cite the size of the cattle herd (9.8 million), and 300,000 farms, the predicted number of countryside visits by the public (ii.93 billion) and the actual fatalities (between ane and two members of the public each twelvemonth, non forgetting 5 farm workers). Their inference is that the statistical likelihood of beingness subject to any cattle attack appears to be so negligible as to be discounted, and and then preventative measures are a waste product of effort.

In comparison, attention is drawn to 3 people killed by lightning each year and the 400 pedestrian deaths. Lightning strikes can be thought of every bit an Deed of God, across even the scope of the HSE to command. As for the pedestrians killed past cars, I constitute a blog from Oil & Gas Prophylactic which cites that 400 figure for pedestrian deaths (too as 24,000 injuries caused by cars) of which 316 pedestrians were killed when crossing the road (assessed at 4 times a day). From this the take a chance of injury was calculated at 200,000 to i. Needless to say, a lot of road safety engineering and car restrictions have been put in place to reduce the risks to that level. Remember that risk assessment (200,000 to 1) when it comes to considering cattle risks.

Given the figures cited by the HSE and NFU on the risk of cattle attacks, what is the problem? It can indeed exist fairly claimed that the risk to the public appears remote in the extreme. Merely, if this is a non-existent effect, why were cattle attacks discussed in Parliament, why did a recent Coroner's Inquest in Wiltshire phone call for a public contend, and why did my consultant talk about the "trampling flavour"?

It is worth earthworks into those figures to see if they reflect the real position.

Is the official and broad-brush comparison of numbers a valid approach or is it a affair of "lies, damned lies and statistics"?

This article considers the statistics past putting forward an culling assessment for discussion. One purpose of this website is to set upwards a reporting system and then more specific statics are available and and then amend judgements can be fabricated about the risks.

Annotation: This commodity is primarily from the standpoint of a member of the public and non the farming industry, whose members are also at risk just who should be in greater control of the hazards.

BACKGROUND

By style of introduction, I will refer to some of the official pronouncements afterward the publicity generated when David Blunkett was injured by a moo-cow.

HSE argument afterwards cow attack

Tony Mitchell, of the Heath and Safety Executive, says that "Cattle are classed as a non-dangerous species and by and big are generally docile. Their inquisitive nature is often mistaken for assailment… when maternal instincts are angry, and then they may behave in a threatening manner". This stock statement seems to exist on HSE autocue. Information technology is issued in almost identical class by other HSE spokesman after later attacks.

NFU statements after cow set on

An unnamed spokesman from the National Farmers' Marriage gives the advice that if felt threatened "only to bear on as normal…. and recollect to close the gate".   Some other NFU person, Ed Rees, thinks information technology sufficient to "merely take a walking stick …be bold and walk straight through them" and some other suggests using a walking pole similar a sword and stabbing the moo-cow's nose similar a matador.

The passive and neutral terms used and advice given (and from my personal experience entirely optimistic and unpractical suggestions) are interesting and deliberate. Why not say what is actually the truth; that cattle can be unsafe.

The Animals Act, 1971, defines "unsafe animals" as "an fauna not usually domesticated which if unrestrained could cause serious injury". This definition appears to exclude cattle. Simply, the NFU is wrong in proverb "Cattle are classed as a non-dangerous species." Cattle are not classified as "non-dangerous". They are only not classified as "dangerous animals" which is dissimilar in emphasis. A then-called not-dangerous beast is just as capable of inflicting serious injury.

When I was attacked…

When I was the victim of an unprovoked and coordinated herd attack by a group of cows, I was pleased to acquire from the HSE that I was simply mistaking the cows' natural inquisitiveness every bit a deliberate set on. I was likewise told that the trampling was just a casual threat on the part of the cattle, because if the herd had intended to carry out their threat, then I actually would take been in trouble!

Referring back to the NFU spokesman's communication after the Blunkett assail: "only to carry on as normal…. and call up to close the gate."I conspicuously did not follow his advice. Acting normally when being charged past a herd was not an selection, and the furthest thing from my mind while beingness airlifted away from the field was to worry if I had left a gate open.

Neither did I "simply take a walking stick …be bold and walk direct through them." The walking stick I was conveying did non survive the first hit of the skirmish and although fencing at school may take helped me to take out one beast, the other 24 would have been beyond my skills.

The HSE and NFU spokesmen either knew nothing about the existent nature of cattle attacks (in which case, why were they acting every bit spokesmen?) or their statements were deliberately misleading.

COUNTRYSIDE VISITS

Of the claimed 2.93 billion almanac visits to enjoy the countryside, how many of those people actually see any cattle? What is the ground for that figure?

The 2.93 billion figure comes from one of the annual Natural England MENE studies into public visits to a natural environment, and has nothing to do with visits downwardly to the farm. Natural environments include urban parks, the seaside, woods and like, none of which is typically classed equally cattle grazing country. For instance, visits to the coast include sitting in a auto looking at the ocean view or eating at a promenade eatery, and then I think from these caveats that juxtaposing a statistic including those activities against cattle attacks stretches credulity.

The closest nigh people will get to cattle will be sitting in the beer garden of The Bull public house.

But the MENE study has some points of interest. Of the full visits, it is assessed some 28% were to urban parks and 17% were on footpaths or bridleways which may exist where cattle could be encountered. Just within that percentage many footpath walks will also exist in towns or on formal paths, woods or lake walks, rather than beyond farms. Even then, many farms are specialist arable or sheep farms, rather than for cattle. Cattle are not uniformly distributed across the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. The predominantly arable areas of the south and east side of the state take lower cattle density than Wales, northern areas of England and southward and east Scotland.

So, to apply the figure 2.93 billion and imply that represents countryside visits is misleading. The estimated figure for public encounters with cattle is not a figure I tin can find.

CATTLE HERDS

There are 9.eight one thousand thousand head of cattle, and it is accustomed that not all cattle are rampaging through the countryside causing havoc, and indeed most may unremarkably be docile. Just that is not really the consequence. The risk posed past each cattle herd should be individually assessed, based against overall figures and similar cattle herds.

No insurance actuary assesses the accident risk of teenage drivers based on accident rates for fifty-year-old women drivers. They look at peer-group statistics.

Using DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food, and Rural affairs) figures, it is estimated that 20% of cattle are permanently kept indoors, and will not encounter the public. Indeed, cattle are housed over 4 to 5 winter months and and so any potential cattle encountering annual country visits should be reduced to reflect seasonal variation where cattle encounters are precluded.

The herd total includes a mix between dairy and beef cattle, bulls, breeding stock, young stock and calves. But as for car drivers, each group presents dissimilar characteristics and risks. At that place are also different cattle breeds, farm management and handling methods which may incline cattle towards the docile or ambitious ends of the spectrum.

Then a simple headline total is misleading for a complex mix of reasons and figures. The adventure and run a risk a cattle herd presents should be based on comparable herds, not a full general total figure. Yous don't equate and expect the same performance from a Porsche and a Ford Fiesta just because they are both cars.

Limousin suckler cows are dangerous

CATTLE RISK FACTORS

What seems to be anecdotally accepted (although at this time statistics do not seem available to conspicuously evidence the point) is that within the overall numbers, there is a grouping of cattle which seem likely to deport far more aggressively than the common herd.

What are grouped equally "continental" breed cattle, every bit opposed to traditional British breeds, are regarded as more unpredictable and less calm and docile in behaviour. Unfortunately, these more highly strung cattle also have a greater body mass and capacity to cause injury than British breeds.

These continental breeds, including Limousin, Charolais and Simmental, were introduced in the U.k. in the 1970's and now make up much of the beefiness herd, although full figures are difficult to obtain. The British Limousin Cattle Social club estimates that breed accounts for 32% of the beef herd and the Limousin gene is present in 75%. Interestingly the Limousin Order has an commodity setting out the efforts of stockmen to brood more docile cattle, which presupposes in that location is a recognised event with the lack of docility in the breed.

Continental breed beefiness cows kept as suckler herds (cows with calves at pes) are regarded by the farming community itself as posing a particular chance of assailment. It is recognised that individual suckler cows that may otherwise be docile can change character considering of maternal instincts with their calves, leading to protective and ambitious behaviour. As was given in expert testify at the 2015 inquest into the expiry of Mr Porter "A farmer who puts a suckler herd in a field with a footpath is aware there is a high chance of attack to the public".

That state of affairs is fabricated worse in those suckler herds that are extensively farmed and left to themselves. According to Defra, some 60% of such herds are on remote moorland areas where public encounters are rare. With footling farmer and public contact, familiarisation with humans is express.

ESTIMATING CATTLE RISK

Co-ordinate to data from the AHDB (Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board), of the total 9.viii 1000000 head of cattle, only some 1.57 1000000 are convenance beef cows, of which I suspect most are Continental-breed suckler cows. Of these, 60% are kept in remote areas away from regular human contact, giving an estimated number of 942,000 cows who could be considered to pose the highest take a chance to humans.

So, by looking a fleck further into the figures, and applying some unproblematic risk analysis, the "official" headline risk of a public death of some nine,800,000 to one can be reduced to some 942,000 to 1.

Only fifty-fifty that analysis is incomplete. The simple number cess considering cows equally individuals, and not as a co-ordinated herd, is wrong. Cows are kept in herds.

The majority of stories 1 reads near are whole herd attacks and not a single rogue cow. There may be one specially aggressive, hormonal leader cow, with the rest just following to assault out of group cooperation and to protect the herd as a whole. But the lead cows may change equally different private cows become through different phases in the maternal calving cycle. Although information technology seems spring and summer predominates for calving, in fact calving occurs all year round.

With dissimilar cows each calendar month feeling particularly maternal, and taking the aggressive atomic number 82, the whole herd is permanently on a war basis.

According to AHDB, the average size of a suckler herd is 27. If we take the 942,000 cows that pose the greatest take chances (the remote-breeding, individual suckler cows), we tin can separate them into attack groups of 27. This gives us 35,000 potentially dangerous herds that tin put an individual fellow member of the public at take a chance.

In other words, the hazard of a fellow member of the public being killed by an private herd is not ix,800,000 to ane, merely more like 35,000 to one. That risk can be referred back to the 200,000 to i run a risk for pedestrian fatalities.

CATTLE INCIDENTS versus CATTLE DEATHS

The official figures most universally concentrate on fatalities. Expiry is indeed an inconvenience to the deceased, more than so to family and dependents left behind. Less often discussed is the number of injured victims, which tin range from potentially fatal only recoverable injuries, permanent disabilities, broken bones and uncomplicated bruising, down to mental trauma from situations where escape was made.

Those situations are less often discussed for the simple reason that information technology is difficult to get a grasp of the number in those categories.

Any the victim suffered, it tin can be bodacious that their future walking habits, and enjoyment of the countryside, will take been permanently altered and constrained.

One event that official bodies seem not to sympathize or deliberately under-play, as exampled in the neutral and passive language cited above, is that all cattle attacks and incidents are potentially fatal. Existence biffed by ¾ tonne of beef from a single cow is no trivial affair, let forth being trampled multiple times past a herd. One time the herd shows "inquisitiveness" towards an interloper into their domain, the severity of injury suffered, or fortune in escaping unscathed, is merely a matter of luck.

Cattle do not think that they volition just gently "threaten" i interloper to teach a lesson, but go harder on another. The herd intention is to eliminate a threat.

So, more than numbers…

I have seen a Scoping Review about the risks of cattle to the public, based on media report searches over 20 years up to 2013. A figure of 54 attacks was constitute, of which about a quarter were fatal (xiii). So that gives some 41 media-reported injury incidents, or roughly two a yr. That number seriously understates the event considering it is known from HSE that there were more injuries.

A BBC news report in 2009 (after the David Blunkett incident) gave a figure obtained from the HSE for the previous viii years of eighteen deaths (2 a twelvemonth) and 481 serious injuries (60 a year). The 18 deaths is the figure usually reported for public deaths over the 15 year menstruum up to 2013 (so clearly not the aforementioned statistic as in the Scoping Review above). I presume the 481 injuries only refers to members of the public, and not to farm workers. It is non known how serious those injuries were, but for the HSE to have been involved and recorded the injury number it can be assumed the severity was at the higher end of the calibration.

The HSE concede that there is probable to be an under-reporting of injuries due to lack of awareness of the need for farmers to written report a cattle set on injury equally a workplace injury under RIDDOR.

Another BBC News publication from 2014 (Perils of the English Countryside) is aimed at the public and gives various figures for different fauna and other hazards. I do not know the source of the figures but in the years between 2001 and 2011 the deaths from bulls is stated equally 15, major injuries as 77 and injuries requiring treatment as 82. Equivalent figures for cows are 17, 362 and 328 respectively. And then cows attack more than, but maybe that's because at that place are more of them.

These BBC figures give united states a total of nearly 900 incidents. The total average annual figures are roughly 3 deaths, 40 serious injuries and 37 lesser injuries, simply all of these 80 annual incidents had the potential to be fatal. Those figures are similar in magnitude to the HSE figures cited previously.

David cows 1

INCIDENTS WITH NO INJURY

But many incidents involving cattle and the public cause no specific injury. The fellow member of the public escapes the field, or does non fifty-fifty enter, or with the do good of a walking stick walks boldly through to scatter the submissive herd, closing the gate behind.

The numbers of those incidents is fifty-fifty more than difficult to obtain. Subjectively, just as there is a multiplier between deaths and the greater number of injuries (10 25), so information technology is to exist expected that the ratio of injury to escape would escalate.

After cattle attacks reported in the media, typically many comments are submitted past members of the public relating to like personal incidents where they had a lucky escape.

Ramblers take a Pathwatch reporting line for footpath issues and Ramblers have provided me with figures for 2015. The public logged 469 incidents where a path was "inconvenient" to utilize because of the presence of cows or bulls, and 114 incidents where the path was "unusable" considering of cows or bulls.

These are non injury reports, merely nearly 600 ramblers or countryside visitors who in ane single yr were sufficiently disgruntled to become to the problem of reporting concerns because cattle in some way reduced or prevented their apply of a public footpath.

SUMMARY

Then make of these figures what yous will. I am not a statistician and fault may well be found with my logic and methods, but I propose mistake tin can likewise be institute in the logic and methods of official organisations which collate the statistics and partially stand for conclusions drawn from those figures.

It is clear that the result of cattle attack is non limited to a simple ane in ix.7 million chance, and from such headlines every bit "Killer Cows" information technology seems the media and public are becoming increasingly aware that cattle incidents are relatively frequent and apparently becoming more frequent.

There are published figures available which give a glimpse of the overall extent of the hazard of cattle, which indeed merits a public or parliamentary fence. What is also needed is greater inquiry and refinement of the figures.

You lot can help by reporting whatsoever incidents on this spider web site.

However, none of this further research should delay action being taken to reduce what is clearly a known and significant problem.

In later papers what improved action that tin can be taken will be discussed.