The NDWA offers guidance and training for those wishing to become a dog warden and should be the first port of call for anybody interested in embarking on a career as a dog warden. The NDWA believes that control and care are paramount in their line of work, and to this end offer training courses for all dog wardens and advice for people wishing to become a dog warden.

The role of the Dog Warden within society can at times be a much-maligned one. Lots of people, usually dog owners or those who have come into conflict with their Local Authority Dog Warden Service will have a negative opinion of their Dog Warden. The slightest error by a Dog Warden seems destined to never be forgotten, whilst the public can easily ignore the positive effects of promoting responsible dog ownership.[private_Premier]

The actual hands on aspect of working as a Dog Warden can vary from one local authority to the next, although the legislation followed and enforced is basically the same. There are slight variations on legislative matters within the United Kingdom such as in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Local councils have to provide an officer to deal with stray dogs within their area of responsibility in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The job title of this officer can be either Dog Warden, Animal Warden, Dog Control Officer, Animal Welfare Officer and even Community Warden.

The officer may have to deal with other issues apart from stray dogs and these can include enforcement of council dog by-laws, dog fouling, animal boarding licensing, education, prosecutions, dangerous dogs and even dealing with other species.

To be able to carry out the duties of a ‘Dog Warden’, one of the most important qualifications is the ability to actually be able to drive a vehicle, this is helpful when transporting stray dogs to the holding kennels. The ability to deal with the public on the telephone, face-to-face and in confrontational situations is equally important.

The ability to give talks on responsible dog ownership or even what your job entails to schools and other groups is a major asset, one day you may be talking to a handful of people, the next to the whole school, so you need to know your stuff and be confident.

Enforcement work calls for knowledge of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (P.A.C.E) 1984 as on occasion you will be required to attend Court in regard to whatever prosecution you are dealing with. You will need to be able to present and gather evidence in accordance with the P.A.C.E rules.

Animal handling skills and knowledge is essential; some people study at College, have extensive canine knowledge from working with dogs through being a service dog handler, police dog handler or have other dog related experience.

You should also be able to work with other agencies and departments such as the Police and the other emergency services, Social Services, RSPCA, Government departments such as the State Veterinary Service and other animal welfare agencies.

The key thing to remember is that you might only deal with dogs, but at your Council you may actually be the only person who is ever contacted by internal and external organisations for help. You should therefore be totally flexible in regard to what you can actually turn your hand to.

For example, who would deal with stray horses, pigs, cows or birds in your Council? You might be called the Dog Warden, but that does not stop people calling you or telling people to call you!

Vacancies for Dog Warden jobs do occur, but not as frequently as other dog related positions. You should keep an eye on the local press and Local Government publications and employment websites. You should also remember that the job advertised may not actually be called Animal Warden or Dog Warden, please ensure you read between the lines!

There are a number of colleges that advertise Dog Warden courses, they usually last one week and are normally attended by Dog Wardens looking to improve on their current skills, although anybody can attend the course.

The job calls for a combination of common sense and actual related skills; the most important non-vocational skills are flexibility and a sense of humour.

The job is extremely rewarding, one minute you can be laughing, the next crying, but most importantly you are working with and helping dogs and that is what makes it worthwhile.[/private_Premier]

After weighing up the pro’s and con’s it must be realised that not many profit driven contractor’s are going to be able to offer the same level or an even higher level of service provision as an in-house service. Sure it is taken for granted that a contractor is going to offer a lower price than any ‘in-house’ service but is cheaper necessarily better?

Without adequate support it matters not whether a Dog Warden Service is ‘in-house’ or contract, without proper backup and support it will be unable to provide a satisfactory level of service provision to the local authority’s dog control functions. The advantage with ‘in-house’ is that funding can be obtained and used solely for the purpose of improving the Dog Warden Service under the direction of Environmental Health Managers who will drive the dog control element of the service plan through.

Contract services on the other hand may appear to be stuck in situ with no progression for staff members who may never receive a pay rise or bonus for exceeding the level of service provision on offer nor may they receive competent certificated training opportunities. Who makes on this, the contractor, the local authority, but possibly not the member of staff who may be in post for several years and receives no increase in salary at all? Whilst the price of the contract increases over the years and possibly the level of work increases, the provision of a competent service that matches the level of work remains static.

The government recommended number of Dog Wardens per head of population was set at 1:50,000, how many contracts operate with only one dog control staff member of whatever level of training and knowledge in a district with more than 50,000+ residents?

To rely totally on a contractor with no fall back plan or scope for increasing the number of staff and equipment to support a sudden increase in workload is wrong and if you pay for a certain level of service and the contractor fails to maintain or even achieve it, how is the contractor able to believe it provides a competent level of service?

What is equally wrong is to think that by using the cheapest method on offer the local authority is saving money, this really can be a false economy as the level of training available via contracted staff can vary widely whilst ‘in-house’ staff may receive graduated training from an employer committed to the career progression of their employees and may also have other integral roles within the Environmental Health team?

For the sake of animal welfare, operator safety, the protection of public safety and value for money, local authorities should give consideration to the provision of the best level of service they can which incorporates all of the above without compromising any of the above just because it is cheaper to employ a contractor.

There are some excellent well trained dog control contractors out there but there are also some extremely poor ones who give dog control a bad name but because they seem to offer hard pressed councils a cheap option for their dog control commitments they are snapped up as best value, something that may subsequently come out in the wash to show that it most certainly is not.

On the other hand there are also some very poor in-house Dog Warden Services as there are some excellent ones, it really does depend on how much money the councillors want to put in to their services to protect the public.

Section 68 of the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005 is the prime example of local authorities shirking their responsibilities by interpreting the DEFRA guidance to their own ends and not providing a 24/7 service to deal with dogs in their respective districts.

If a culture of getting out of a spot by reading something to mean they do not have to provide a proper service is the norm, what hope is there for the provision of competently trained and funded daytime services which are either in-house or contracted?

Many local authorities do seem to look at the ‘minimum’ level of what is required to discharge their statutory dog control functions, instead of minimizing they should be looking to expand their services and promote responsible dog ownership through a combination of education and enforcement.

I like aircraft but that does not make me an expert on them or able to fly them if I ever had the opportunity to do so. In the animal world there really does seem to be a plethora of ‘experts’ out there who tell us how to deal with various species whether it is how to handle or how to understand them.

Some ‘experts’ really are just that, experts in their respective field but on the other hand there are those ‘experts’ who are uncovered as having little or no knowledge of their subject, yet they spread their views and opinions on the world wide web or hold ‘training courses’ where they eschew their opinions to an anybody.

The danger here is, is the ‘expert’ disseminating correct information and advice or is it just a combination of self opinion, alchemy or pure baloney, or a mixture of all three? As we are told this by an ‘expert’, is it necessarily true, how we gauge whether it is correct or not.

I do not class myself as being an expert of anything, I have carried out presentations on subjects such as dog control in Australia and the United Kingdom but that was after being involved with the subject for fifteen years basically as my day job. Even after 15 years I would not have the arrogance to call myself an expert and there are aspects of dog control that I have never had involvement with such as the world of Section 1 dogs, which sadly seems to be a growth area for experts to become involved in.

Just how many true experts are there and who are they? One of the undoubted leaders in the field of ‘dangerous dogs’ would be Peter Tallack, former Metropolitan Police Dog Handler and now Advisor on Dogs to the Association of Chief Police Officers. With over 35 years experience as a dog handler and police officer dealing with ‘dangerous dogs’ Mr Tallack could rightly be called an expert.

There are dog breed judges who must also be included in the equation based on their knowledge and experience of dogs and then there are Dog Legislation Officers who attend an intensive course.

One thing that must not be allowed is unqualified ‘charlatans’ who claim to be able to identify Pit Bull Terriers and type dogs and there are a number of such people out there who claim that they can identify such dogs.

Identification by unqualified people raises the risk of dogs that are not of type being incorrectly identified and if the owners are convinced to sign the dogs over to prevent a court case, then the fate of these dogs is sealed. By signing the dog over based on the assessment of an unqualified expert, does this mean that the dog owner is agreeing that their dog is of type?

Breed Specific Legislation is wrong and should be repealed, but what is equally important is that only authorised and competently trained persons should carry out assessments of dogs, non-experts should not be allowed to seize alleged Pit Bull Terrier or type dogs until the law can be repealed.

The fact that there appears to be totally unqualified persons dealing with the identification of dogs alleged to be Pit Bull Terrier or type is very wrong and has to be stopped now.

The legislation relating to stray dogs is from the 1990’s so just how outdated is it?

Documentation IS available to the public, or at least it should be, it is called the Register of Seized Dogs and shows which dogs have been seized by a particular council. All councils have to keep this register by law.

If a person has let a dog stray because they no longer want the dog, what can the council do even if they know who the owner is yet they refuse to reclaim it? There is no requirement for a dog owner to claim their dog even if there was no charge before it would be handed back.

If a dog has been through the local council holding kennels, it will be at a facility such as an RSPCA, Blue Cross, and Battersea Dogs Home, Dog’s Trust or smaller animal charity. The dog will be in the rehoming system after it has done it’s time as a stray as the major charities moved away from holding dogs on behalf of councils to force the councils to deal with stray dogs. This was something that councils have had to deal with since the inception of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The reason dogs that are now at animal charities may have to be destroyed is down to a number of scenarios, the main ones being irresponsible dog ownership closely followed by irresponsible breeding. Why as a point of interest are there currently so many Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the rehoming system?

These dogs and other unwanted bull breeds are contributing to the canine equivalent of NHS bed blocking, is it down to too many being bred or a sudden downturn in the popularity of bull breeds, whatever the reason there are a lot of them in the rehoming chain at present.

Another factor may be the lack of commitment from a number of charities for taking on Staffordshire Bull Terrier and other bull breeds, if no one is going to take them on from a council holding kennels, just what options are left?

In an ideal world there would be no stray dogs, dog wardens or the need for organisations such as the RSPCA as there would also be no animal cruelty or welfare issues.

There is currently a crisis with stray dogs that are going through holding kennels and on to animal charities after the seven day period, what will happen and who will pay if dogs have to be kept by council holding kennels for twenty eight days?

Many holding kennels hold on to their dogs for longer than seven days and do indeed find places with animal charities for the dogs to go on to and there are many hard working stressed people going the extra mile for the dogs in their care and this petition whilst having noble reasons ignores the contribution and commitment of these people.

What needs to be addressed is the practice where some wealthy charities are able to keep dogs forever in their kennels whilst others fight for every penny to enable dogs to be placed with new owners.

As all the dog charities have an ultimate and primary goal to help dogs, why is it not possible for an enormous coalition of dog charities to be formed where there is a division of funding that allows frontline smaller charities and societies to receive funding to work with the major charities?

Inadequate funding from government, poorly written legislation as well as poor guidance to local authorities contributes to the current problems with stray dogs. Without proper funding and support local councils have to make the best of a bad job with the resources they have to hand.

WARA has close links and ties with the National Animal Control Association (NACA) from the United States of America and the National Dog Warden Association (NDWA) in the UK. Steve recently gave a presentation on the role of a Western Australian Ranger at the NDWA annual conference in Altringham Cheshire in October 2008.

Members from all three organisations now have the opportunity to attend training workshops at any forthcoming training seminars of each other’s respective associations.

All three associations promote responsible dog ownership and encourage the correct training of officers who have to handle animals and deal with enforcement issues in their communities. Although some workshops will be orientated towards local issues and may not be relevant to officers from outside one of the partner countries, there are still lots of workshops on offer which will be of interest to delegates and can help them in their work in their home country.

The first test of the tri-nation approach to professional training opportunities is a NACA offer to both NDWA and WARA members to attend the ‘Gateway to the Best’ Seminar to be held in Saint Louis Missouri on Friday 29th and Saturday 30th May 2009. NACA has its own training academy that offers a continuous stream of training workshops throughout the year in a number of States across America.

Training is graded into Level’s 1, 2 and 3 with various specialisations that are not currently taught in other countries and in total NACA’s training academy offers around 40 courses and workshops per year.

An example of the specialist training on offer through the academy is:

Pennsylvania Humane Police Officer Training Program

The Pennsylvania Humane Police Officer Training Program is a state mandated training program for those individuals who are seeking appointment to become a Certified Humane Police Officer within the State of Pennsylvania.

The National Animal Control Association provides one (1) part of this training annually. The curriculum consists of the following training:

* Role of the Cruelty Investigator
* Stages of the Investigation
* The Job of the PA Humane Police Officer
* Pennsylvania Humane Laws
* Laws and the Legal System
* Rules of Evidence
* Search and Seizure
* Report Writing
* Evidence Collection
* Courtroom Testimony
* Interview and Interrogation
* Photography, Sketching and Video Taping

Upon successful completion of a written test and completion of part 2, which is conducted by Penn State University, individuals may then be appointed by their County Judge to be a Humane Police Officer in that jurisdiction. The current tuition cost is US$475.

Even though the program was designed for those seeking certification in Pennsylvania, the program is open to anyone who might wish to attend. Registration for this program is handled by the Federated Humane Societies of Pennsylvania. You may contact Anne Irwin, Executive Director, Bucks County S.P.C.A. at 215-794-7425 for more information or the National Animal Control Association, 913-768-1319 or e-mail: naca@nacanet.org.

The next course is taking place 4-7 May 2009 in Harrisburg Pennsylvania.

This course offers a generic approach to animal investigation skills and would benefit Dog Wardens and Animal Welfare Officers in evidence gathering techniques when dealing with situations that they may discover where animals are not being cared for correctly. This type of training would assist those officers whose authorities have adopted the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Other workshops available include Bite stick certification, chemical immobilisation and Level 1, 2 and 3 academies where a variety of subjects will be covered. Some UK police forces allow dog control officers to carry bite sticks with written authorisation so a bite stick certification course would back up the competence of the user in using one against a dog.

The opportunity to attend fellow associations training seminars is not as farfetched as it seems. An example being that in the USA, American officers may travel from one side of the continental USA to the other to attend seminars. This distance can be as far as it is from the UK to the eastern seaboard of the United States if not further.

It is not far to go to receive quality training on subjects that may not get covered at home, especially if a holiday or a short break is added to the itinerary.

Speakers from all three organisations regularly carry out presentations at each other’s training conferences and this method of sharing knowledge also fosters and maintains the strong bonds between Australia, the United States and the UK, something that has been the case for a very long time.

With the sharing of knowledge and information in the field of animal care and control, it makes those bonds even closer.

www.nacanet.org
www.ndwa.co.uk
www.warangers.asn.au

By Neil Burton

They turned up in their hundreds, dog owners, horse owners, walkers, residents and visitors alike to the New Forest in a variety of breeds, shapes, sizes and species protesting through the newly formed Forest Uprising Group (F.U.G) and the New Forest Dog Owners Group (NFDOG) at the National Park Authority’s (NPA) controversial consultation document that aims to restrict horse ownership and curtail dog walking in certain areas of the New Forest that are under the control of the NPA.

Aptly the location for the rally was the Wilverley Plain area of the New Forest which is a central area of the forest.

In relation to restricting dog walking in the New Forest, the document identifies the perceived need for the closure of certain car parks to make areas of the forest dog free.

Horse owners are expected to apply for planning permission to keep a horse within the NPA boundaries and the amount of grazing per equine one hectare (2.4 acres) is seen as a danger to them through laminitis and other issues.

Joining speakers from both F.U.G and NFDOG, the British Horse Society and concerned members of the public were the New Forest’s two Members of Parliament, Dr Julian Lewis and Desmond Swayne who presented a united front and called for the abolition of the unelected NPA who according to Desmond Swayne MP ‘like to tell people what to do, but put two fingers up to those who question them’.

The consultation report was also slated as ‘incomprehensible jargon that when translated into plain English does not actually say what is written, by Dr Lewis.

The report was further criticised by Mr Swayne ‘as being written by people who have never kept a horse or walked a dog’ and shows that the NPA is totally out of touch and there is only one solution, get rid of it!

The report that took a number of years to write by a team of consultants from Bristol only has a consultation period of ten weeks in which people can respond which had angered many people.

F.U.G. are considering a legal challenge to the report that closes the consultation period on 31st October 2008.

The combined efforts of dog and horse owners in this instance have resulted in people power versus an unelected organisation that people of all political persuasions are now fighting for the abolition of. The NFNPA is a government imposed organisation and the first National Park for 50 years.

Perhaps it is a sign to elected and unelected agencies that they really do need to find out what in this case dog and horse owners who are in fact voters at local and national level really want.

www.forestuprising.org.uk

Long time NDWA member Dave Griffiths, an Environmental Protection Officer with East Hampshire District Council will also be giving an updated version of his well received presentation on how things have progressed in Hampshire since Section 68 of the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005 took responsibility for dealing with dogs away from the Police. Dave first spoke at the RSPCA Dangerous Dog Conference in London earlier this year that was attended by amongst others, Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom of North Wales Police and lead officer on dogs from ACPO and DEFRA Minister Lord Rooker.

Mark Kumpf President of the National Animal Control Association and Vice President Debbie Dawson from the USA will be carrying out a series of presentations on rabies, animal hoarding and a general insight into dog control issues in the USA.

Steve Elvidge from the Western Australia Rangers Association will be giving a presentation on the role of a WA Ranger, it is very different role to that of a Dog Warden or Animal Welfare Officer in the United Kingdom but they do face similar issues in regard to general dog control.

Presentations will also be given by Melanie Page from Deed Not Breed, Inspector Neil Davies of Merseyside Police Dog Section and K9 Magazine Editor-in-Chief Ryan O’Meara who will give a talk on canine aggression and how to recognise it.

The seminar is open to everyone, not just NDWA members. Should you wish to attend, please go to www.ndwa.co.uk and click on AGM’s & Seminars to find details on how to book and how to get to the location.

The conference is being held at the Cresta Court Hotel, Church Street, Altringham, Cheshire WA14 4DP on Monday 13th and Tuesday 14th October 2008.

I explained that the ‘old dog licence’ evolved from a ship tax from the 1700’s and that with the introduction of decimalisation the grand amount of 7 shillings and sixpence for a dog licence was turned into 35 pence meant the death of dog licensing. As many readers will be aware, the cost of collection far outweighed the amount of revenue generated; this made me think about the difference between the UK and Western Australia in regard to dog control.

Dog laws in the state of Western Australia are enforced by the above mentioned Rangers who amongst their other duties also deal with parking, off-road vehicles, litter, fire control and court prosecution work. Far from being the equivalent of UK Dog Wardens and Animal Welfare Officers and dealing solely with dog related issues, the Rangers have a pivotal role in their communities’ safety and many are involved in fire control duties, something that is outside the remit of dog control officers in the UK.

The correct title for the Rangers is Local Government Rangers/Patrol Officers and they enforce various acts of parliament as well as local authority laws, they are not as their information leaflet points out Park Rangers!

There are around 14 dog related laws that can be enforced in Western Australia by the Rangers and they all carry an ‘on the spot’ fine.

STRAY DOGS

Stray dogs only have to be held for 72 hours before they become the property of the local authority and can either be re-homed or destroyed, although there is an amendment on the cards for dogs to be held for seven days as in the UK. There is an impound fee that has to be paid before the dog will be returned as well as a sustenance fee (kennel charge) if the dog is not registered then it has to be registered and the owner may also face a fine for not registering the dog.

DOG REGISTRATION

Registration applies to all dogs over the age of 3 months and can be taken out for one year or for three years, the costs are:

1 Year 3 Years

Neutered/spayed A$10 A$18

Un-neutered A$30 A$75

There are exemptions such as there is no charge for a Guide Dog, dogs used for droving and tending cattle have a 25% exemption and dogs owned by pensioners are eligible for a 50% reduction.

Foxhound packs are registered at a cost of A$40 per kennelled pack or not less than ten hounds.

Should for whatever reason a person fail to register their dog before 31st May in any year then they have to pay 50% of the fee from the date they register it.

The registration period runs from 1st November through to 31st October of the following year.

The revenue raised is used by local authorities to help recover a portion of their costs not only relating to licensing but also in the administration and enforcement of the Dog Act 1976 which is the primary piece of legislation for dog control in Western Australia.

DOG CONTROL

Dogs must be kept on a lead in public less for when they are at a designated dog exercise area, there is an on the spot fine of A$100 for not having it on a lead or for also allowing it to roam. Should the courts become involved then the fine may be up to A$1,000.

BARKING DOGS

Another area where the Rangers can deal with a dog nuisance is by issuing an on the spot fine for allowing a dog to bark persistently, this fine is A$100 with the possibility of a fine up to A$2,000 if taken to court.

DOG FOULING

Just as there are problems caused by irresponsible dog owners who fail to clear up after their dogs in the UK, the same applies to Western Australia. Local authorities have by-laws in place to deal with such irresponsible dog owners.

DANGEROUS DOGS

There are severe laws for dog attacks such as a dog attacking a person or other animal, the dog owner is held responsible even if they were not present when the attack took place. The only exemption would be where the dog was provoked to attack perhaps by an intruder being on the owner’s property without a lawful excuse or another animal strays onto the dog owner’s property.

The fine for a dog attack is A$10,000 with an additional 12 months imprisonment if the dog owner caused the attack by inciting the dog to attack.

Another area that differs between the UK and WA is that local government can declare a dog as dangerous if it attacks, shows a tendency to attack or repeatedly rushes, threatens or chases people or animals.

Once a dog has been declared as dangerous, it has to be muzzled at all times in a public place, the council can also impose further restrictions such as requiring that the dog be kept on a leash even in a dog exercise area (where dogs can be let off their leads) or the dog could be excluded from specific areas. It has to wear a specific collar that has red and yellow stripes on it and a dangerous dog sign has to be placed at the owner’s property or where the dog is kept.

The fine for failing to comply with a declaration order is A$4,000.

A dog owner may appeal to the local authority that has imposed the declaration order or to a court if they feel the order is unfair. The dangerous dog declaration will only be removed by the local authority if it is satisfied that the dog is safe (i.e. by passing an obedience training course).

Should the owner of a dog declared dangerous receive an on the spot fine for a dog related offence the fine is doubled.

NAME AND ADDRESS TAG

It is a requirement for dogs to wear a tag showing the name and address of the owner as well as a local authority registration tag. An offence is committed if the dog is not wearing a collar and both of these tags, owners will receive an on the spot fine of A$50.

PROHIBITED BREEDS

In accordance with the Dog (Restricted Breeds) Regulations of 2002 the following dogs are defined as ‘restricted breed dogs’ whose importation into Australia is prohibited:

Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasiliera, Japanese Tosa and American Pit Bull Terrier

The regulations provides for a ‘restricted breed dog’ to include any dog of a mixed breed which visibly contains any of the above breeds.

In November 2005 the Presa Canaria was added to the above list.

Restricted breed dogs have to wear a collar with the same specifications as that worn by a dog that has been declared dangerous. The collar has to have alternating red and yellow stripes and be of a minimum width dependent on the size of the dog.

Restricted breed dogs have to be kept in an enclosure that is capable of preventing a young child from entering the enclosure or the dog escaping. Dog owners are also required to display a sign of a specified size that has the words WARNING and DANGEROUS DOG in capital letters and the head and neck of a dog in a circle.

When any restricted dog is taken out in public, it has to be muzzled and on a lead and must not be under the control of a person under the age of 18.

A dog owner is not allowed to own more than two restricted breed dogs unless a permit has been obtained from the local authority.

A restricted breed dog can be seized and detained for not wearing a dangerous dog collar, the owner not displaying the correct dangerous dog sign or it is not muzzled or on a lead in public or under the control of a person under 18. A dog seized for any of these omissions may be destroyed after eight days.

The owner can be fined up to A$5,000 for any breach of the regulations.

Although it appears that there are a lot of dog related offences that the dog owner in the street can face in Western Australia, the method of registration and enforcement has been handed to local authorities to enforce. Whenever there is talk of compulsory registration in the UK a deadlock is usually reached when the subject of micro chipping or tattooing is broached, why not just use the addition of a registration tag on the currently legally required dog collar as is the preferred method in Western Australia?

Local authorities in the UK would then have to keep a localised register similar to the register of seized dogs that is a statutory requirement under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

There are also a number of local authorities in the UK that have voluntary licensing schemes in their areas, these promote responsible dog ownership and subject to how the scheme works must result in a lesser number of dogs having to be seized with all the associated resource implications to the council.

The Department for Farming and Rural Activities (DEFRA) should look at the way dog licensing is carried out in Western Australia, the use of the registration tag and a dog licensing register at the council offices is a low tech yet effective way of running such a scheme subject to adequate funding and support from government.

Any compulsory dog licensing scheme should remain within the remit of local government and not end up in the hands of private profit driven companies. As local government employees would be enforcing any dog licensing conditions, the income raised should be put back into promoting responsible dog ownership within the local area for the benefit of all members of the local community.

The constituent members of the group realised that they could lobby the Cypriot government more effectively if they all joined forces for the benefit of the animals of Cyprus.

The greatest achievement amongst the plethora of improvements they have already obtained for animal welfare is the forthcoming formation of an ‘Animal Police’ force.

After lobbying the government, namely the Minister of Agriculture under whose jurisdiction animal welfare falls. The Minister of Justice decreed that the five districts of the republic of Cyprus will have two dedicated officers per district from the national police force trained to deal with and enforce animal legislation.

Ten police officers out of a population of over 778,000 does not sound much, but it is a start and is ‘only’ 20,000 more residents than the UK government ratio of 1 Dog Warden/Animal Welfare Officer per 50,000 residents.

The Minister of Justice has ordered that the 10 ‘Animal Police’ will be employed solely on animal welfare work.

Animal welfare training is being sourced through the RSPCA as the President of the Federation of Cypriot Animal Welfare Organisations, Maria Anastiades is also the RSPCA representative in Cyprus.

Once the Animal Police start work it can only benefit the animals of Cyprus as it is alleged that many government Veterinary Inspectors who should be investigating complaints are recruited directly from the employment exchange with little or no knowledge of working with animals or of legislation.

This positive result shows that when a united front is presented to ‘government’ they do listen and that people power is still important wherever we live.

What dogs were they, Border Collies perhaps, no they were German Shepherd Dogs, six of them with their master.

I was amazed at the sight of these dogs working this large flock of sheep and goats and had to stop and go back to have another look.

The dogs were indeed black and tan German Shepherd Dogs, but hang on a minute the clue is in the name, German SHEPHERD Dog, how silly of me to be amazed at dogs doing what they were intended to do!

Why did I not merely think ‘GSD’s working’, possibly because in the UK we associate Border Collie dogs with herding work, we also associate GSD’s with police dog and security dog functions.

I wonder what other breeds actually still do the jobs they were intended to do in the past?

If you know of any why not let K9 Magazine know?