Rottweiler attack leaves four alpacas dead, Cambridgeshire 2026

Key Points

• Four alpacas were killed in a dog attack on a farm near Wisbech St Mary, Cambridgeshire, in the early hours of Tuesday, 24 March 2026.
• Two other alpacas suffered facial injuries and required urgent veterinary treatment.
• Police responded to an emergency call at around 06:30 BST on Tuesday to reports of two dogs attacking livestock at the farm.
• Two dogs, believed to be Rottweilers, were seized by Cambridgeshire Police, who are investigating the incident as a case of livestock worrying.
• Authorities have issued a renewed warning to dog walkers to keep pets on leads and under control near farm animals, stressing that livestock worrying is a criminal offence.
• The incident comes days after new legislation was introduced in England, giving police wider powers to seize dogs and issue unlimited fines for attacks on farm animals, including alpacas.

Dog attack leaves four alpacas dead on Cambridgeshire farm, 2026

Cambridgeshire (Cambridge Tribune) April 06, 2026-A dog attack has left four alpacas dead and two others injured on a farm in Wisbech St Mary, Cambridgeshire, prompting police to issue a fresh warning to dog owners across the county. The incident occurred on 24 March 2026, when officers were called to a rural property at about 06:30 BST following reports that two dogs were attacking livestock. By the time officers arrived, four alpacas had been killed, and two others were found with facial injuries requiring immediate veterinary care.

How did the attack unfold?

Cambridgeshire Police confirmed that they were dispatched to the farm in Wisbech St Mary shortly after 06:30 BST on Tuesday, 24 March 2026, after a member of the public reported dogs attacking animals in a field. Officers from the Rural Crime Action Team (RCAT) responded and secured the area, where they discovered the bodies of four alpacas and two surviving animals showing clear signs of trauma. Veterinarians were called to provide emergency treatment for the injured alpacas, whose wounds were described as concentrated to the face.

According to police statements cited by multiple outlets, the animals were attacked by two dogs believed to be Rottweilers. The dogs were seized at the scene and taken into police custody while inquiries continue. Investigators have not yet disclosed the identities of the dog owner or the farm owner, emphasising that the case is being treated as ongoing.

What did the police and authorities say?

In a statement reproduced by Farmers Guardian on 6 April 2026, Cambridgeshire Police reiterated that the early‑morning attack left four alpacas dead and two injured, and that the incident is being treated as livestock worrying. The force also reminded the public that allowing dogs to worry farm animals can lead to prosecution, community orders, and in some cases, unlimited fines under the new Dogs (Livestock and Guard Dog) Amendment 2025.

As reported by James Eade of The Mirror, police officers stressed that the incident was “exceptionally distressing” for everyone involved, including the farm owner and the dog owner, both of whom have been cooperating with detectives. Sergeant Tom Nuttall, speaking for the Rural Crime Action Team, was quoted in The Mirror:

“This was an exceptionally distressing event for everyone involved, and I appreciate the co‑operation of both the victim and the dog owner as we conduct our inquiry.”

He added that livestock worrying is a criminal act and that dog owners must keep animals under control, especially in rural areas.

What is the legal and policy context?

The attack has drawn fresh attention to changes in English law that came into force in late 2025 and early 2026. As outlined in a government notice covered by BBC News, the Dogs (Livestock and Guard Dog) Amendment 2025 extends existing protections to include alpacas and other species kept on farms, and gives police expanded powers to seize and detain dogs that attack or chase farm animals.

Under the new rules, police can issue unlimited fines for attacks on livestock, and courts can impose stronger penalties for repeat offenders. Sergeant Nuttall’s comments, reproduced by GB News and The Mirror, aligned with this shift, urging dog owners to keep pets on leads and secure around fields, to avoid both criminal charges and further harm to animals.

What are local reactions and implications for farmers?

The incident has alarmed local farmers and rural residents, who have seen similar episodes play out across the UK in recent years. As reported by Farmers Guardian, the attack occurred in the Wisbech St Mary area, a mixed‑farming zone where livestock and recreational walkers often share access routes. The farm owner, speaking to local media under condition of anonymity, described the loss as “devastating” for the small herd, which had been kept for breeding and on‑farm education work.

The case has also been cited in broader discussions about rural‑crime prevention. In a separate article, Farmers Guardian noted that its parent group has been collaborating with local police and insurers to install automatic number‑plate recognition (ANPR) cameras and improve surveillance in high‑risk areas, partly in response to livestock‑worrying incidents. However, in this specific case, police have not confirmed yet whether CCTV or ANPR footage has been obtained from the farm or nearby roads.

What happens next in the investigation?

Cambridgeshire Police have said they are continuing to investigate the circumstances surrounding the early‑morning attack and are reviewing any available evidence, including witness accounts and farm records. The two seized dogs remain in police custody while checks are carried out to establish breeds, ownership, and any prior history of behavioural issues.

As noted by Yahoo News NZ, detectives have indicated that the incident is being treated as criminal, with the possibility of breeding‑licence or animal‑welfare‑related follow‑up if the investigation reveals prior offences or systemic failures in dog control.

Background of the development

Livestock worrying by dogs has long been a concern for British farmers, with sheep being the most frequent victims of attacks while out at pasture. Prior to the Dogs (Livestock and Guard Dog) Amendment 2025, dog‑walking in rural areas was often governed by a patchwork of local by‑laws and guidance, leaving some owners unclear about where they were legally required to keep dogs on leads.

The 2025 amendment, reported by BBC News, expanded existing protections to cover alpacas, llamas, and other non‑traditional livestock species, reflecting the growth of niche farming and small‑holding enterprises across England. It also gave police the power to seize dogs that have attacked or chased farm animals, and to issue unlimited fines for repeat or particularly serious cases, moving beyond the older fixed‑penalty approach.

This Cambridgeshire incident sits within that wider context: it illustrates how a relatively small flock of animals can be wiped out in a single, brief attack, and how such episodes can prompt both emotional and legal repercussions for owners and dog‑walkers alike. Rural‑crime units and farm organisations have repeatedly warned that many owners may not realise alpacas and similar animals are now legally classed as livestock, and therefore attract the same protections and penalties as sheep or cattle.

How this development could affect UK dog owners and farmers

For UK dog owners, especially those who walk in or near rural areas, the Wisbech St Mary case may heighten awareness of the legal and practical consequences of failing to control pets around livestock. The prospect of unlimited fines, potential seizure of dogs, and criminal records could push more owners to keep animals on leads by default near fields, even where there is no explicit signage.

For farmers and small‑holding operators, the incident may accelerate calls for better signage, stronger local‑by‑law enforcement, and clearer information campaigns explaining what constitutes livestock worrying and how to report it. Some rural communities may also push for more coordinated use of CCTV and ANPR systems, as already being trialled in parts of Cambridgeshire and other agricultural counties, to deter and investigate attacks.

More broadly, the case could influence how rural and peri‑urban councils frame dog‑walking policies, particularly around shared‑access paths where walkers, cyclists, and livestock all use the same corridors. Given the emotional impact on farm families and the financial cost of losing animals, authorities may increasingly frame responsible dog‑control not only as a legal requirement but as a shared community duty.