Gunwharfman's post only pinpoints part of the problem. Yes more people are going into the countryside, who are unfamiliar with animals, but there are less people involved with agriculture today so the livestock have less interaction with people. When I was at agricultural college I remember being told, during an animal husbandry lecture, that we would not come across single suckler herds as they were not economic, most of those animals were handled twice a day and individually fed by a herdsman. Now single suckler herds are common, they calve down often unsupervised, rear their calves in a herd environment and the bull runs in the herd throughout the cycle, this is carried out without the day to day intervention of a stockman.
A dog owner would be well advised to release their dog if the find themselves within the herd space. A simple remedy would be for temporary diversions, but the CLA are against this because it would show alternate ways. They would advocate temporary suspensions on safety grounds, yet alternate ways using other field margins is a logical extension of the rights of network as the taxpayer pours huge amounts of money into the countryside for conservation support by way of field margins.
The leisure industry is an established fact and a growing factor in out economy, safety is important but landowners still cling to ideas from before the 20th century as we are entering the 21st. Limousin cattle were introduced over 30 years ago, one of the best kept secrets in the agricultural industry is about their temperament, yet the regulations about the type of cattle allowed where there are rights of way has not been altered since the 1940's, or perhaps even earlier.
Big blocks of countryside are unsuitable for leisure walking, because there are no RoWs within the areas, despite long footpaths being mapped by the OS pre-1949. Much of these areas are purely arable, yet the landowners will not admit their predecessors corrupted the Definitive Map and left off great swathes of our countryside that could provide alternative ways.
Walkers would be well advised to understand livestock, females animals become tetchy when they come into season, usually docile and friendly mares will be different in character, safety laws require the need to recognize potential risk and take action but landowners think that banning people from the countryside is the answer. A small paddock used to keep tups (rams) separate from ewes should be seen as a special risk as tups will butt forcefully at a point where a broken femur is possible. How often do your see such a warning posted, yet a ruling in court makes known risk the property owners responsibility even if the is no public access.
Yes there is some risk with livestock about, walkers should stand firm on their right on be in the countryside, but it is quite clear that the policies pursued by landowners has stopped the agricultural industry keeping pace with the needs of the 21st century in developing the full potential of the access network.
On the other hand irresponsible dog ownership, which I believed should NOT be part of the access issue, is serious public disorder, misdemeanor even criminal behaviour. Owning a dog liable to cause damage to livestock is a potential risk that the dog owner should carry full responsibility for.