Nov
NDWA Hits Out at DEFRA’s Stray Dogs Advice
written by Cuthbert Jackson. All rights reserved.
NDWA CALLS DEFRA STRAY DOG GUIDANCE – MISGUIDED
DEFRA recently told local authorities that section 68 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act will come into force on Sunday 6th April 2008. A ludicrously small (£4 million) transfer of funds from the police to the local authority purse having been negotiated to replicate (or improve) the facilities and infrastructure which the police historically provided and are, even now, trying to quickly dismantle.
Together with the letter advising the new arrangements, DEFRA issued ‘guidance’ in which the following paragraph appears. It is one paragraph among many that indicate how DEFRA has been confused by those advising and lobbying them over the transfer.
Lost, stolen and abandoned dogs
46. Authorities will be aware of the intrinsic link between lost, stolen and stray dogs, but should note the distinction between reporting lost property and reporting a stray. Whilst the local authority is responsible for strays, the police are responsible for recording reported lost property, including dogs, and also dog theft, which is a criminal offence. Local authority officers will record details of any reported stray dog, but they should also advise owners of lost or stolen dogs to file a report with the police. With respect to abandoned dogs, kennels or welfare organisations should be contacted to see if they could re home the dog.
If guidance is a matter of providing clear understand and definition, in this paragraph and others DEFRA fails miserably. Let us consider for a moment the facts: If I lose my wallet I may report the loss to a Police station. The police will record it in their ‘lost property’ book and if it is handed in contact me and return it to me.
If I have evidence that my wallet has been taken from me I may report the theft to a police station (explaining why I believe it to have been ‘stolen’ rather than ‘lost’) they will record ‘theft’ as a crime and investigate the evidence I provide and any other evidence they gather to apprehend the perpetrator (they might also list my wallet as ‘lost’ property just in case it is handed in).
If the Police remain responsible for recording all ‘lost’ property (as stated in para 46 of the guidance) they still have a legal responsibility to make a record of all stray dogs reported ‘missing’ to them, but how will they be able to reconcile these reports with what is ‘found’ when after 6th April 2008 the local authorities will create the ‘found’ record and deal with the ‘found property’ of dogs? Are DEFRA suggesting that the ‘lost’ property register (held by the Police) be routinely checked against the ‘found’ record (held by the local authority)?
Is the ‘guidance’ really suggesting that the Police are obliged to make a record of dogs (as lost property) even though they will play no part in dealing with this type of lost property anymore?
Theft is a different matter requiring the investigation of the evidence of a crime. If there is no evidence is there a crime? Not every missing dog is stolen; in fact very few of the 100,000 + stray dogs dealt with every year are stolen. But, if there is evidence of a crime it must be reported to and be investigated by the police. In doing so they will allocate a crime number, which is not necessarily a lost property number.
Local authorities have no responsibility in the investigation of theft.
Finally, abandoned dogs; no definition whatever is provided by the guidance for this concept of ‘abandoned’ yet it is suggested that there may be reason to use some vague alternative procedure. When exactly should kennels or welfare organisations be contacted? How is an ‘abandoned’ dog distinguished from a ‘stray’ dog?
Dog warden’s experiences show that a dog stolen in one area can be found straying (or should that be abandoned?) in another. What is clear is that it is vitally important that the procedures followed are consistent and deal first with the dog as a stray (permitting its seizure, the making of a record the public can access and its detention in kennels) and then with its past and future (checking it for identification and reuniting it with a former owner, if there is one, or finding a new one once it becomes the council’s legal property after seven days).
This whole section of guidance appears to have been confused by the contributing groups pressurising DEFRA. Groups concerned over dog theft have made it their practice to tell everybody to report their missing dog as stolen, even where there is total lack of evidence for such a theft, and sometimes ignoring clear evidence that the owners own irresponsibility that has led to the dog straying. The following is taken directly from Lost Dogs UK and appears as a routine response to all missing reports:
‘We suggest you make sure to get a Crime Number from the Police so your loss is logged on their computer. And remember that dogs come under the Sale of Goods Act and are therefore a chattel or ‘good’ which makes the theft of a dog equal to having your car, watch, wallet etc. stolen.
I do suggest though, when you get her back, remove any tag with a name on it and replace it with one giving your own telephone number. Knowing the name of a dog makes it so much easier for thieves.’
Not only suggesting that every dog loss is reported as theft but that on return the law (Control of Dogs Order 1992) be broken by providing only a telephone number on the tag rather than the name (of owner – not dog) and address required.
With regard to ‘abandonment’ animal welfare groups, even major animal welfare charities, have persistently suggested that there is some kind of clarity differentiating a stray and an abandoned dog when there is not; by doing so they have allowed themselves to take charge of dogs they present as being abandoned without following the clear procedures relating to stray dogs which are designed to get dogs back to their owner if there is one – nothing prevents welfare’s involvement for the re-homing of animals after this process has been completed, which is precisely when their reluctance to help local authorities is most often revealed.
DEFRA should not be satisfied with their attempts within the guidance and the NDWA requests that the problematic areas presented in this article be addressed and clarified in writing as a first step.
Why does the government never listen to the people who have to deal with controlling dogs? This sounds like yet another case of the government listening to wealthy animal welfare organisations who want to impose their views of dealing with stray dogs but their people are not expected to have to deal with the fallout, that is left for dog wardens and councils!
Wake up DEFRA and listen to the folks out on the ground who have to deal with stray dogs on a daily basis rather than lobbyists coming to you from organisations who have no input with stray dogs but have the money to get to speak to MP’s etc!
I own a boarding kennels, continuously licensed for the past 21 years which has been handling stray dogs for three local councils for several yeas now, and is currently trying to negotiate new contracts for 6 April 2008.
I too was totally taken aback by DEFRA’s guidance, extraordinarily airy-fairy, and am just now preparing a presentation to various local councils, stressing the consortium approach, most especially with regard to the out of hours service.
I would be happy to speak/write/e-mail my thoughts if they would be of interest to your readers!