Should Fostering Replace Kennelling?

Published on March 14, 2008 by Freelance Contributors   ·   2 Comments

By Cuthbert Jackson, National Dog Warden Association  | All rights reserved.

There are currently two, radically different, representative positions that are undermining the use of kennelling to “detain” stray dogs “seized” under the Environmental Protection Act. On the one hand there are those who would broadly define their position as concern regarding the welfare of the animals.

On the other hand there are those whose principal concern is with regard to the increasing cost of dealing with stray dogs. Unfortunately both positions, for completely different reasons, are moving towards an alternative which is ill-considered – ‘fostering’. This article merely intends to point out the potential consequences of their, well intentioned, folly.

Firstly, what does the law require? Well the words “seize” and “detain” are the words of the law. The act of seizure is the act removing the dogs (“where practicable”) from the streets and detention is the process of keeping them, I appreciate that these, legal, terms are not particularly sensitive in the images they present to some people.

No further definition is given by the law with regard to where that detention must be done, the only additional definition is that it must be for a period of no less than seven days and during that period the dog shall be “properly fed and maintained” and a public “record” be kept of where it was seized and where it is detained.

One additional point to note at this stage is that the process of “seizure” is completely different to the process of finding a dog. A “finder” (in law) must return the dog to its rightful owner, or, take it to the police or local authority, or, may keep the dog, but only with the knowledge and/or consent of the police or local authority (and the law is slightly different for both). But a dog kept by a finder never becomes theirs in law as they have not been able to enter any legally binding exchange for the “property” (the dog).

So although, as the finder, they must kept it and not dispose of it for a calendar month at the end of that period it is not theirs in any legal sense. A dog formally ‘seized’ by the local authority, and not claimed within seven days by its owner, becomes, by law, the property of the local authority, who are then empowered to give it away, or sell it, or humanely destroy it (the only thing they must not do is dispose of it for purposes of vivisection). Whoever receives such a dog from the local authority does become its legal owner.

When the Environmental Protection Act 1990 brought these ‘rules’ into existence most local authorities used the same procedures that the police had already established in their dealing with stray dogs under the Dogs Act 1906. Dogs were ‘seized’ and then taken to a kennels at which the ‘detention’ phase was completed. Did it work? Well, the statistics of both the National Dog Warden Association and the Dogs Trust show that annually, since 1993, within 4% of 50% of stray dogs are returned to their owner every year and the percentage was not significantly altered by larger numbers of dogs being kennelled (rather than being returned directly to their owners, a practice which proved to have little deterrent effect on the behaviour of permitting the dog to stray).

Those who commonly describe their agenda as ‘animal welfare’ became involved in criticism of some of the kennels involved in the detention process and have been fairly critical about the conditions in which dogs are kept. Unfortunately they have not proved to be particularity good evidence providers; much of what they have said has proved anecdotal and where malpractice has been proven local authorities have usually been keen to demand, and see implemented, improvement or changed practices.

The best way that local authorities have of protecting themselves against such accusations of malpractice is to ensure that they use only premises for the reception and detention of stray dogs that adequately meet the requirements they make for licensed boarding kennels.

If complainants with an animal welfare agenda are able to prove that those standards are not met it is reasonable to require that they do so in a substantive way which can be judged against the objective standard used to grant the boarding kennel licence. Unfortunately the law does not require that charities accommodating dogs be licensed as boarding kennels and it is therefore possible for dogs to be housed other than in formally licensed establishments – but nothing prevents local authorities from applying ‘boarding kennel’ standards to any accommodation they use for stray dogs.

To accommodate stray dogs to a recognisable ‘boarding’ standard should be achievable, but it does not mean that the condition of dogs held will not deteriorate either during the initial seven days of after it if they are kept for a longer period in order to re-home them. It is incredibly difficult to stabilise many dogs in kennels and even good boarding kennels may hand back dogs to their owners having suffered weight loss; my own German Shepherd is notorious for this when his three fellow boarders come back fatter!

This type of ‘Boarding’ kennelling should not be considered ‘long term’ nor is it rehabilitation and it should be understood that long term care and rehabilitation of stray dogs is not the function of the local authorities which seize them either in law or morally. The moral responsibility lies with those whose funding and structure tells the public that they are there for that purpose.

Kennelling of dogs costs money; done properly it costs quite a lot of money, and it is at this juncture that the radically different arguments of the non-welfare side begin. With the forthcoming requirements to deal with stray dogs which once might have been presented to the police, local authorities are currently looking for solutions to an insolvable problem. Since 1906 the police had an infrastructure to receive strays form the public, for about £9000 a year (for three years from April 6th 2008) each local authority is expected receive those dogs the police is no longer dealing with; replicating or improving on the kind of infrastructure the police are even now dismantling.

In most districts the money will barely be enough to deal with those dogs by whatever ad hoc arrangements can be made; it will certainly not be enough to build kennels or staff services. As a result many local authorities are combining into cooperatives which together provide the (poorly defined) minimum requirements of the new legislation (s68 Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005) some are looking for any innovation that will make the money available adequate to fulfil the basic requirements.

So both sides (which are poles apart) have come to ‘fostering’ as one of their answers. The welfarists see ‘fostering’ as a way of avoiding what they choose to describe as the ‘hell holes’ of local authority kennelling and those with a monetary reason see it (or have been presented with it by those tendering for their service) as a money saving device that will also find acceptance with those concerned about welfare; a very cosy union; until we look at the real world!

Very often the general public make a decision about the person who owned a dog which is far more judgemental than the police and local authority services given the legal responsibility to deal with the situation can be. They decide, often on the condition of the dog, that the previous owner did not deserve to have the dog in the first place. They make this decision emotionally and it is often a bad decision ignoring all other factors; for example the dog they find as a stray may be a dog previously stolen which may have fallen into poor condition at the hands of the thief, emotional decisions made on that condition should not prevent application of the law which would return it not to the thief but to its original owner. But it is the kind of situation where the general public make the wrong decisions.

Local authorities are not judgemental in the application of the law. Anyone making a proper claim to a stray dog and paying the charges due are, legally, entitled to its return. Their behaviour, social standing or ability are not part of the equation. The use of ‘fosterers’ has proved to be extremely dangerous as where a finder has gone on to foster a dog (which is often the case) they often wish to be part of the moral judgement in returning it, they ‘fall in love’ with it and do not want it to be returned to a life less than that which they are able to provide for it – regardless of the legal claim of others on it. But this emotional hurdle to a ‘professional’ attitude to fostering a stray dog, which is where the problems start, might be overcome if their responsibilities are clearly defined.

It is less easy to overcome some of the other problems inherent with the concept of using a ‘fostering’ rather than a ‘kennelling’ service. Stray dogs often become stray dogs for simple reasons; sometimes they are thrown out and sometimes they are the kind of characters that ‘get out’. I do not know of a dog warden who has not heard from a person wanting to claim their stray (sometimes for the umpteenth time) that “he’s an escape artist”.

Of course he remains an “escape artist” even during his detention and I know of some, rare, dogs who have even managed to escape from what are to all intents and purposes utterly secure kennels. What can be sure is that I have known many, many, more escape from ‘finders’ and ‘fosterers’. The less secure the accommodation the more risk that there is of this and it can only be considered an unacceptable and unprofessional risk.

Then there are the elements of very real danger. A stray dog is per se from an unknown background and environment. Many stray dogs not exhibiting any signs of illness when ‘seized’ have proved to be carriers of various diseases. To house them other than in appropriate isolation can have devastating consequences. But it doesn’t stop there; a stray dog is often exhibiting a different aspect of its temperament – as perhaps you would if you felt abandoned, frightened or even going about what you believe to be your own business when apprehended as behaving illegally.

This creates a wide variety of problems which may not at first be appreciated. A dog that begins in a completely submissive state can rapidly become dominant and even aggressive while a dog that is initially aggressive can calm down into a passive if not even affectionate state. Kennels permits those caring for the dog to observe and interact in a controlled way with these changes the domestic environment of a fosterer does not (unless they have specially adapted premises which most do not).

Again the immediate emotional bond of a ‘fosterer’ can blind them to the changes occurring in the dog. They want each dog to have a good outcome and are therefore more willing to ignore danger signs, besides which; if a fostering scheme is adopted to save money it is likely that it is assumed that kennelling will not be required; so if problems are encountered by a fosterer where is the dog to go to? Another fosterer?

As an addition to a formal kennelling system (i.e. after the dog has been held, and studied, for the statutory period) fostering may have a place, to envisage that it is an appropriate method with which to replace the kennelling of stray dogs flies in the face of reason.

Fostering can provide a more domestic and caring environment for long term care and rehabilitation and has an important role to play to fulfil those needs; but it should not be considered as an appropriate or professional way of immediately discharging local authority responsibilities with regard to the seizure and detention of stray dogs. If there are faults within kennelling systems used by local authorities it should not be thought that transferring to ‘fostering’ is an appropriate solution; if local authorities need to save on budgets it should not be thought that transferring to ‘fostering’ is an appropriate way of making those savings. A professional attitude to the execution of these duties is not provided by using ‘fostering’ to cover up under funding or lack of investment in appropriate services.

In getting to grips with the pressures put on them by s68 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 local authorities should take great care to avoid what might appear on the surface to be cheap or easy ways out, even when they also appear to deflect animal welfare criticism. While ‘fostering’ may have a clear place in the long term care and rehabilitation of dogs that need re-homing (even the re-homing of unclaimed strays) it would be a dangerous practice to adopt to fulfil legal requirements

Highly Recommended: This could be the most important link you EVER click as far as your dog’s life is concerned – see why….!

Tags:  Animal Welfare, Social Issues