Dog Wardens Hit Out at Dogs Trust ‘Spin’
Published on February 27, 2008 by Freelance Contributors · 3 CommentsBy Sue Bell, NDWA President
We’re really concerned that this removal of the police from the equation completely is going to end up with a lot of stray dogs running around Chris Lawrence, the Dogs Trust
The above quote is taken from a BBC article that screams in its title: ‘Councils ‘not ready’ for strays’ referring to the fact that from the 6th of April this year Local Authorities in the UK will become the only service with a responsibility for dealing with stray dogs, as on that date Police responsibility to accept strays taken to police stations by the public will end.
While Local Authorities have had a statutory duty to deal with stray dogs since the implementation of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, The requirement that the Police accept stray dogs from the public is much older and given in the Dogs Act 1906. With both pieces of legislation in place, there were two organisations that had a statutory responsibility to deal with stray dogs and adequate 24 hour cover was generally accessible .
Angry Dog Wardens have contacted the National Dog Warden Association to express their disbelief at the comments made on behalf of the Dog’s Trust, as it is well known that this charity along with other well known dog related organisations, including the RSPCA and Kennel Club, were consulted by DEFRA on this so called transfer of responsibilities before it was introduced by Section 68 of the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005 – and did not object to it.
Mr Laurence further states:
‘Our worry is that it’s going to be pretty much a disaster for the first few months.’
‘We’re really concerned that this removal of the police from the equation completely is going to end up with a lot of stray dogs running around, nobody to pick them up, nobody to care for them.’
Local authorities do pick up and care for stray dogs during the day and some also do so during the evenings, but have neither the funding or capacity to extend these services to provide 24/7/365 cover and the reason that a potential disaster is fast approaching is due to the poorly thought out legislative implementation of Section 68.
DEFRA’s guidance for the change only states that councils accept dogs ‘out of hours’ ‘where practicable’ and further states that there is no need for a dog capture or collection service only the provision of an ‘acceptance point’ or points to which the public can take stray dogs.
The DEFRA guidance on dealing with stray dogs out of hours caused dismay amongst Dog Warden’s and some Councils when it first came out.
There is documentary evidence in the form of news items on the NDWA website as well as documents and discussion papers that NDWA has put forward, but sadly without the ‘clout’ that some wealthy animal welfare charities have.
NDWA was then and remains now opposed to ‘acceptance points’ due to the issue of liability, what happens when the finder of a dog is told by the ‘council’ to take it to their local ‘acceptance point’ and it attacks them or causes damage to the finders vehicle? As the council, as opposed to the law, told the person to take the dog to a certain location, will the council not be liable?
Mr Laurence sits on a number of the consulted bodies that advise government on diverse matters canine; was he unable to convince them that a badly funded, non statutory out of hours ‘acceptance’ of stray dogs ‘where practical’ was most certainly not the way forward when trying to replace the existing system which, at least, clearly directed the public (nationwide) to take any stray dog they found to a Police Station?
There are members of NDWA who are absolutely furious at this attempt by the Dogs Trust’s spokeman at spin on a problem that he and his organisation helped create themselves?
The ACPO spokesperson says:
‘stray dogs are essentially an environmental and public health issue which in modern times should not remain as a function of the police.’
However, when stray dogs are chasing livestock, that remains a police matter, when stray dogs are attacking people in the street that remains a police matter, when stray dogs are wandering on to roads and causing traffic hold ups or even accidents that remains a police matter.
The police have been eager for years to be rid of dealing with stray dogs and many forces quickly got rid of their kennels at their police stations, but in doing so they seemed to have forgotten about what do they do when they arrest somebody with a dog or dogs.That is nothing to do with the local council; the police still need kennels for prisoner dogs and many other situations where they may need to secure a dog for a couple of hours whilst they sort out a situation.
DEFRA and their advisors had plenty of opportunity to introduce a system for dealing with stray dogs that was fit for purpose for the 21st century, unfortunately it will be more likely, fit for the 19th century.; but please don’t blame the councils or their Dog Wardens, blame the government , their civil servants and their advisors for this impending ’disaster’ as either leaving the status quo or realising in advance the size of funding and type of service necessary to be created to improve on it might have prevented this situation.
Highly Recommended: This could be the most important link you EVER click as far as your dog’s life is concerned – see why….!
I would like to say its unbelievable that in the modern world those whose job or homelife is effected by a change of legislation do not get a voice.
As I said, I would like too but I cant, look at how the Kennel Club ignored a straightforward set of questions in recent articles.
Its easy for anyone to see how little the NDWA where consulted on this with a little look on the internet. Its also clear to see that the dogs trust and (this will surprise you) the Kennel Club where involved, even to the point of being involved in the preperation of guidelines to La’s on how to do a job they have been doing for years!
One day we WILL get our own voices back.
Alison
This has always happened throughout the history of the NDWA. they have had an Animal Welfare Officer handbook on their website for several years, so what does the PAC do, they bring out their own version, why? I read a copy and thought that the dismissal of the legal form of ID into one paragraph whilst microchipping was given nearly two pages displayed a blatant bias towards microchips? Alison, you are right when you ask why they, Dogs Trust, Kennel Club, RSPCA etc can tell Dog Wardens how to do their own jobs displays a total disrespect of the role of Dog Warden.
Alison
There are many ‘organisations’ working behind the scenes getting things introduced that then require council dog wardens to enforce them, just dont expect the ‘organisations’ to have to enforce anything due to their status etc!
The PAC ‘Animal Welfare Officer’ handbook is an insult to dog wardens as NDWA has had its own ‘Animal Welfare officer’ handbook on its website for several years now, what does PAC know that dog wardens of many years experience do not know? When you read the PAC version you can see that there is a hidden agenda for microchipping to be made into a form of, if not the form of legal identfication for the UK. One meagre critical paragraph about the legal collar and tag form of ID, but two pages on how good microchips are? I am sorry but why is microchipping given such prominence unless their is an agenda at stake?
Further to what you say about the NDWA, I think that it is ignored by government and the big animal charities because it is prepared to put its head above the parapet and say if something is wrong. Examples being, they were the original opponents of breed specific legislation back in 1990 (check out who supported it then and who enthusiastically prosecuted and in some cases worked with the police raiding homes to seize or even on some occasions destroy PBT types) More recently NDWA have been opposed to Section 68, just read the main article to see why. The advisors to DEFRA do not do the job so have little comprehension of what is actually required in regard to dealing with stray dogs apart from when they have done their time and they are put in the rehoming system.
The imposition of their ideas and thoughts onto dog wardens just shows just how little respect a lot of the big charities have for them. Maybe it is time that dog wardens started giving their views on how dog charities should amend their rehoming procedures and bring them into the modern age, not everyone can afford to stay at home with a dog all day? Where would a dog probably rather be, in the animal home kennels or in a house, with or without somebody there all day?
One day the ordinary people will get their voices heard against the unelected advisors and ‘experts’ who want their own agendas introduced.
What could some of them be, keep an ear to the ground for:
Dog registration
Microchips as the legal method of ID for dogs in UK
Increased dog control measures against ‘specific breeds’
When the above are introduced, remember that it was mentioned here first on the K9 Magazine http://www.dogmagazine.net site!