Are you up to date with the latest dog laws?
Do you have an animal welfare forum?
If not, why not, asks CIEH animal welfare spokesman Lou Leather

At the end of March, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals called a meeting of various bodies, including the CIEH, the National Dog Wardens Association, the Local Government Association and the police, to discuss policy and action on dogs. Among the many issues causing concern were longstanding problems surrounding strays and split responsibilities for dealing with them.

As with many areas of local government, there are wide variations in how things are dealt with from one place to another. This is not entirely unreasonable - local people know local needs after all - just as long as the requirements of statute are adhered to. One of the major stumbling blocks appears to be confusion about the ability or willingness of local authorities and the police to deal with strays. The economies of management sometimes speed ahead of ancient legislation. Police stations are closing in many places, and the requirement to take dogs to the nearest police station, or to the local authority, might lead to tensions regarding who is providing a service for what.

Police enthusiasm to reduce their dealings with stray dogs is fuelled by their previous attempts to "hand-over" the issue to other bodies. But suggestions of 24-hour local authority services are quite rightly questioned by local councils who are equally held under financial restraint. So what happens when animals are run over in traffic accidents? Who responds? Who picks up the bill? How is the veterinary input affected when vets find themselves split between service ethics, unpaid bills, and the increasing possibility of abuse as a return for the good work many of them provide?

The law
Various acts of Parliament say that councils are now the bodies responsible for strays: the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Dogs Acts of 1871 & 1906, and the Environmental Protection ( Stray Dogs ) Regs 1992, together with advisory circulars. The 1908 Act still places a legal duty on the police to accept stray dogs. Similarly the Protection of Animals Act 1911 places a further duty on the police to deal with cruelty, while the RSPCA remains active in bringing offenders before the courts. Local authority officers may only act as witnesses to cruelty cases, and where finances make the decisions, some step aside and say: "This is not for us."

It remains important that where a duty is placed on an authority, they do not think they are able to avoid their responsibilities on the basis of cost. The police cannot decide to wash their hands of dogs, anymore than councils can decide to operate "practices of convenience" on the grounds of economy. It is not possible, for example, to simply let the finder keep the dog - however convenient that may be on a Friday afternoon, when the kennels are on the opposite side of the district!

Problems
Pressing practical issues include: Who has strict responsibility for accepting dogs? Who pays for which part of any procedure? Do councils pay for seven days only? What about accidents? Is a stray still a stray when it is tied to a lampost? Is a "scratch" on a dog enough to justify an "accident" call out? Once procedures are known by the public, they soon decide which is the most effective way to care for an animal.

There are enforcement boundary problems between the different agencies. Contact numbers and personnel may change without that information being passed on throughout the chain of interested parties. Do you know where you would be able to rehome an "animal problem" within your district? For example, if you find 90 German shepherd dogs in a bungalow, and the duty falls on you to sort it out, what do you do? Phone the RSPCA/NCDL and hope they will do it for you? Are service standards equal to the task in hand? Is best practice and good value actively encouraged now, or are you waiting a year or two to see what the others are doing about it? It is vital that you liaise with local organisations as a precaution ahead of such an eventuality.

Good Practice
Problems are far wider than the above. What is happening on breeding? Is the new legislation being applied equally and fairly, or is yours one of the councils who have decided (illegally) to do nothing about the new law? Have you applied the Boarding Establishments standards in your area? Some councils have asked the operators their opinions, and then drawn back from improving standards because the operators thought they were doing OK.

There are notable exceptions of good practice. Authorities like Rotherham have taken a practical and reasonable step forward and used full discussion to progress improvements. Some councils are becoming increasingly active on the pet shop front. Leeds and Haringey have been recent examples of active enforcement. There will always be inadequate legislation unless we treat the matter with the seriousness it deserves. It is most encouraging to see EHOs taking positive action to safeguard the interests of animals for which they have legal responsibilities.

South Kesteven took strong action in producing case law for "winter quarters" for circuses. There are not many councils having to face up to this particular problem, and being able to share the information gained from court work will strengthen the law in our favour ultimately. Ipswich BC has remained active over recent years. They now have a County Animal Welfare Group comprising representatives of the dog warden services for all the districts throughout Suffolk. Hampshire and Essex run similar county groups where enthusiasts have driven forward a perceived need for shared information and agreed standards. These may not be the only people doing sterling work in the animal welfare area on a collective basis, but they are known examples of positive action paying dividends.

The Way Forward
It is usually where people remain isolated that they close the door to good practice. As the demands for best value continue to be applied across the country, it will soon become apparent that policies are being set which are likely not to be council agreed, or even chief officer agreed. There is a need for caution in questionnaire returns to ensure that the policy of the council is reflected, rather than the policy of the individual. Animals are too important to be passed down the chain of command while you get on with "real work". The whole Charter Mark/best value scenario will find out those who are falling beneath the expected level of service.

You should be considering the concept of an Animal Welfare Forum in your county now, if you don't already have one. Invite the police - most forces have an animal welfare liaison officer. They have an interest in wildlife matters, but contacts across the board on other matters also. Parrots and psittacosis, snake-stealing, horse-harrassing, iguana-irritating, terrier-theft and zany zookeepers, are all likely to be among the more unusual problems in your area that you don't even know about yet!

The serious side is the networking to improve standards. Does anyone keep a database of animal case law? Will anyone remember Leeds' problems this time next year? Wouldn't it be helpful to be able to check out who had taken which case and with what results? Are Ipswich, Suffolk, Hampshire and Essex going to stay ahead of the others in coming months? If your authority or county pursues similar activities, or perhaps even better ways of taking animal welfare forward, make sure you let others know about it. Bring the RSPCA in to any forum you set up. They have a wide expertise and network of inspectors. There are many arguments about who should do what... or worse still, why nothing is done on some issues. Hopefully by joining forces, problems will be easier to resolve.

Some areas are lucky enough to have sensible agreements in hand already - police take in strays overnight, councils collect them the next morning for delivery to a local charity for rehoming after seven days - it all runs like clockwork. Some other areas have agencies at loggerheads, where no co-operation is offered, perhaps because of historical reasons, or maybe through individual pig-headedness of officers.

It is easier to sit around a table and explain why something can or cannot be done, should or should not be done, or why the law is or is not effective. Respective policies may be explained and possibly even altered for our mutual benefit. There is a surprising lack of understanding of what the law says by all agencies involved. It is important that the true scientific, factual and legal position is shared. Myth should be removed from animal welfare, and an active County Animal Welfare Forum will go a long way to ensuring this will happen.