Dog Location Site DogLost Joins Forces With Kent Police to Assist Missing Dogs
Published on April 1, 2008 by Freelance Contributors · 14 CommentsDoglost UK and Kent Police have joined forces in a bid to assist owners of missing and stolen dogs in the Kent region.
As from 6th April 2008, anyone reporting either a lost or stolen dog to their local police station , will be advised by police to contact and register their dogs with Doglost UK. Kent Police have produced flyers and posters specifically for this purpose, these will be made available to the public in all stations and local police shops.
Jane Frankland, Kent Co-ordinator for Doglost says
Our partnership with Kent Police can only be described as a major step in helping reduce the misery every owner faces when their dog is either lost or stolen. We hope that with one of the largest police forces taking the lead, that others areas will soon follow.
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
Here we go – the ‘authority’ with no statutory duty from April 6th is now advising owners to register their dogs with another non-statutory organisation that has absolutely no responsibility towards lost or found dogs as of April 6th; whereas what should be happening is that the Police inform the public of the statutory arrangements made by local authorities for the reception of stray dogs and the local authorities make arrangements to discharge those functions appropriately, including matching up dogs they have ‘seized’ under their statutory duty and those REPORTED TO THEM by members of the public who have lost them. Why on earth are the public being advised to contact people who have no statutory responsibility whatever? – I can answer that question for myself THE LUNATICS HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY TAKEN OVER THE ASYLUM.
Doglost maybe a non statutory organisation, however, they are far from lunatics, they provide an efficient and quality service. A large percentage of UK dogwardens and stray dog kennels successfully use the Doglost website to reunite strays with their owners.
They all understand the need and importance of having a centralised reporting database.
Kents Poster clearly states to report to the dogwardens and also provides a space for the dogwardens contact number.
Whilst the police maybe transferring responsibility of strays to Local Authorities on 6th April, they are still duty bound to investigate the crime of dog theft and are still responsible for dangerous dogs.
I find comments by C Jackson somewhat negative. I have followed many succesful reunited stories of missing dogs on the doglost website – a site which make it their responsibility to do so. From what I can read on the leaflets it is good that police are tackling the problem of missing dogs especially stolen ones. Im sure that people approaching stations will be pointed in the right direction as they will also be providing details of dog wardens- maybe C jackson would rather them all be turned away and sent to queue up at the council ofiices rather than assist??
The lunatic comment was not aimed at Doglost but at the Police and Central Government. Doglost is simply assisting in the confusion.
Without any real sense or organisation we are moving, with almost no national advertising, from a century old national system for stray dogs which everyone knows, to a fragmented ‘system’ which even the ‘authorities’ don’t understand or know what their neighbours are doing.
Why, after one hundred and two years, are Kent Police now muddying the waters by advertising Doglost and lumping stolen and stray dogs together. It is ludicrous. There is confusion enough without this just as this ill thought out change is about to take place. There is no mention on that poster of the statutory duty which is placed on local authorities or finders of dogs and which can now place an unwitting finder outside the law. The addition of the space for a local authority contact number looks very much like an afterthought.
Nice of ‘dog lost’, or is that ‘lost dogs’ or ‘missing dog’ or any of the non-stautory groups that have jumped on the bandwagon in the last few years all keen to have a ‘central database’ as long as it is their own database, and keen to have the dog wardens support (of course not to support them would makes dog wardens look as if they are being unco-operative with dog lurvers) and kind eough to ‘make space’ for the dog wardens number.
Is this the non-stautory body so efficient and quality that they don’t know the law? Is it them or another of the groups that e-mail people reporting dogs lost to them that they:
“I do suggest though, when you get him 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.”
Dog identification compliant with the Control of Dogs Order requires that dogs bear the owners name and address (not the dogs name) – a telephone number is useful but not sufficient.
Thanks to other non-stautory agencies guiding and directing government towards what will happen on the 6th of April this country is about to take a huge backward step in the control and welfare of stray dogs. Have fun – you’re welcome to this asylum!
The fact that authorities are not advertising the change over on a grand scale is hardly the fault of Doglost. Will this poster actually cause any more of a problem or will it possibly help a few dogs get home quickly? Doglost to my knowledge contact everyone responsible for stray dogs in the area the dogs missing from. Surley that could actually help if there is confusion for the actual owners?
Sometimes its not known if a dog is stolen or lost. I just dont see what damage this is actually going to do? Maybe I am missing something!
Hi Alison
I’m certainly not blaming Doglost themselves. The fault lies with Central Government (Defra) mainly, but after all these years of silence from police nationally, suddenly we get this from Kent Police immediately before the biggest change in stray dog legislation and arrangements for 102 years. The confusion among local authorities is bad enough but amongst the general public from this coming Sunday I dread to think. We seem to keep losing standard national legislation/arrangements (Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act anyone?) to fragmented local arrangements. All in the name of standardisation? In the publics eyes, lost, stolen & found dogs are all lumped into the one category and this poster, I suggest, just perpetuates that. Up until now the majority of DW’s (still) were local authority officers with rigorous controls placed upon them. This is already proving to be the thin edge of the wedge, where private companies with little knowledge of the law or consideration of it are edging out the dedicated Dog/Animal Warden. I hope the change over goes smoothly over the next few months but I certainly won’t be holding my breath.
Dog Wardens are very hot under the collar about this right now, perhaps because we see the shadows in the mist.
DEFRA and the Home Office are responsible for the forthcoming confusion over who deals with stray dogs. Dog Lost does good work but it is not a substitute for statutory functions executed by local authorities. The government should hang its head in shame and the pathetic local government association has hung stray dogs out to dry. the LGA obviously does not recognise or appreciate the role of dog wardens. An excellent opportunity to sort this transfer out was betrayed by DEFRA and its advisors, next time talk to the people who do the work rather than ‘pundits’ and ‘yes’ people!
One kind of person that was consigned to the asylum was the person who believed they were something they were not. Keep on believing your own publicity and you will do very well in the asylum and enjoy it much more than I do. Sad to say Alison you are missing quite a lot on this one and I can’t summon up the energy to explain, think its simply time I left the asylum.
Hi Dave,
I do agree there is going to be massive amounts of confusion. The whole thing is almost as big a joke as the DDA as far as whats going on. There are many issues i can see becoming serious issues for all concerned as the changeover takes a hold. Every area will be different and I havent seen anywhere near enough information. My own area has issued information to all homes yet it fails to tell me where i take any dog i find. There are problems at the height of DEFRA and co (as usual!)
Saying that Doglost involvment doesnt appear to be stopping those groups explaining things clearly, issuing guidance etc(tho personally i think they arent because half still dont have a clue what they are going to be doing!). They can do that with or without the Doglost link. Doglost themselves may help reunite dogs so to me thats good.
Hi Alison
I am the current Chairman of the National Dog Warden Association and the sad fact is that DEFRA has issued appalling guidance that in effect will cause untold problems for dogs, their owners, dog wardens and councils.
It is bizarre that Kent Police decided to team up with an organisation that has no statutory role in dealing with stray dogs? Although at least I suppose that this police force has tried to inform the residents of Kent what to do regarding finding or losing dogs post 6th April 2008? I use the Doglost website on occasion but I have noted several anti dog warden comments on it from contributors, although we do livew in a democracy and people are entitled to their opinions! In regard to some other posts on the Doglost website, I have read words to the effect that the author writes that they have not contacted the local authority about a particular dog that has been found because they have decided it will not get a fair chance if the dog warden gets the dog?
The law is completely clear in regard to what you do if you find a dog, you have to either return it to its owner forthwith, or contact the local authority, anything else is technically theft, something that Dog Lost as an organisation was set up to fight if I am correct?
There really does need to be one national lost and found site that collates information for all dogs reported either lost and found, currently there are too many sites which although admirable in their efforts to reunite lost dogs, can as a result make searching for a lost dog difficult.
I am a local government officer employed as a dog warden and I have had recent dealings with people who had ‘found’ a dog and in their eyes because they did not think it was ‘a pedigree’ they did not bother to report it to the council or at the time the police? This is outright theft and not anything to do with the dogs breed (which is irrelevant!) luckily for those people the owner of the dog did not want to press charges.
Failure to notify the local authority that you have found a dog forthwith can result in prosecution under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and a fine of up to £500.
Should the police deal with a person who has a dog in their possession that is not thiers, then they may go for prosecution under straightforward theft or theft by finding legislation.
Last year one such theft by finding of a dog that I was involved with resulted in the finder receiving a three week jail sentence.
A lot of people who find dogs become misguided in what will happen to them and think they are doing right by not informing the local council, all they are doing is possibly causing anguish and heartbreak to the dogs owner and getting themselves into a position that by being in possession of a dog that they have no right to be holding on to, makes them a dog thief plain and simple regardless of however well intentioned they are.
When a dog has been found the finder should call the local council immediately before they call a non statutory lost and found dog website because the council may already have the dog owners details and they can reunite both as soon as possible.
Also, if a finder wishes to keep hold of a dog, they must ensure that the local dog warden visits them to legally seize the dog and check it for various forms of ID and then leave the dog with the finder. By allowing the dog to remain with the finder and subsequently take it on if uncalimed means that should the owner come forward, the finder has to hand it back as even if it was two or three years later, ownership never passes to the finder.
If the dog warden does not visit the finder even if the finder has reported the dog via telephone, it has still not legally been seized by the local council. The renowned dog law expert Trevor Cooper pointed out at a seminar that ‘seizing dogs’ over the telephone is lazy and not good practice, so you must always ensure that the dog warden visits you if you have found a dog that you wish to keep hold of.
If the dog is taken to the councils kennels and then after the statutory seven days it is rehomed to the finder, then ownership changes to the finder and they do not have to return the dog, something that has happened on a couple of occasions in my area recently.
I hope that Doglost is liaising with all the local authorities in the county of Kent to collate reports of lost and found dogs within the various local authority boundaries and this provides a one stop shop for reporting dogs?
A lot of councils have not issued any information because they are either not doing anything (DEFRA does say ‘where practicable’, it may have been decided that it is not ‘practicable’ to do anything at all?), they are keeping their heads down and hope it all goes away! or they may already have some local arrangements sorted out and operating.
‘I find comments by C Jackson somewhat negative. I have followed many succesful reunited stories of missing dogs on the doglost website – a site which make it their responsibility to do so. From what I can read on the leaflets it is good that police are tackling the problem of missing dogs especially stolen ones. Im sure that people approaching stations will be pointed in the right direction as they will also be providing details of dog wardens- maybe C jackson would rather them all be turned away and sent to queue up at the council ofiices rather than assist??’
Hello Graham
If this is your line of thought, next time you see a mass brawl taking place or a drink driver careering all over the road, a person running around with a gun or knife or even a bank robbery taking place even though you have no statutory duty to get involved, go and arrest everybody on behalf of the police!
I do not read anything negative in the comments of C Jackson, if anything he points out how stupid it is for a non statutory body getting involved with a statutory function of local government in respect of dealing with stray dogs? Even the rspca and other charities do not deal with stray dogs until they have done their time with the council.
How many of the succesful reunification stories you have read about on the dog lost site, how many were via councils, you will probably say none?
Worse thing of all is the ignorance of the general public caused by a complete failure by defra and the police to tell the people of the country what to do with dogs. They have both walked away from stray dogs, what a total nightmare and yes the LUNACTICS (defra) HAVE TAKEN OVER THE ASYLUM
Do not be critical of C Jackson, be critical of defra and the police for causing all this.
The Dog Warden Association comprises people who have a statutory responsiblity to deal with stray dogs and they already have their own lost and found website, why not use this one for a single national site?
Why dont the government use them, dog wardens are local government workers?
This article has been printed previously on the K9 Magazine website:
Written By Hamish Lazari . All rights reserved.
With all the current talk and behind the scenes manoeuvring regarding having a single lost and found dog site to record missing and found dogs, I turned my attention to the National Dog Warden Association one.
On the plus side it has every single United Kingdom Local Authority on it, it allows for details of the dog to be recorded, it also displays by postcode or local authority name those dogs found.
An advantage to the NDWA site is that apart from it being free, it is also non judgemental and has no area where contributors can make comments when blaming entire groups of people, the police or dog wardens in regard to perceived lack of action or actually being in the vicinity of an area where a dog has disappeared from.
Information is input by local authority dog warden’s and will be information relating to a legally seized dog that has come into the domain of a local authority dog warden service
With the NDWA site, dog wardens can either enter the information themselves or if their council has its own lost and found register it can be accessed via the NDWA site.
A number of the current plethora of lost/found sites charge a fee or may ask for a donation although many especially breed specific ones are free of charge as the motive of the volunteers is to obviously reunite a reported lost or found dog as soon as possible.
With the large amount of sites in use, it can take an age to trawl through them all if looking for a dog and how many sites do you report a dog lost or found to anyway?
If the government is looking for a single basic national site, it could do worse than look at the NDWA site which is currently in situ and ready to go and has been for a number of years.
It would be a simple procedure to add an area where lost dogs could be added by owners or local authorities.
THE LUNATICS HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY TAKEN OVER THE ASYLUM.???
Whats that all about, why on earth would people who dedicate there own time for a non profit organisation into helping others be lunatics.
People just trying to help others and taking an interest in the community. The police cant do every thing, so surly its better for them to work with locals in some instances.