STRAY DOGS - Local Council's Obligations

ljandk

I realise this might seem a daft topic to add to this particular forum, but in a way it's about where our council tax goes, or if it goes, regarding the collection and welfare of stray dogs.

Just like other people have found a loophole in the law to make councils responsible for clearing rubbish (Bill Bryson for one), I wondered if there are any legal experts out there who know whether there's also a loophole (in English law) which could potentially force local authorities to be more responsible, re: stray dogs (story below explains why).

In a nutshell - we found a stray dog. It was microchipped but the contact numbers weren't valid. Long story short - the dog originated from a kennels who take in strays under private contract with our local council. As is always the case, if the dog isn't claimed within 7 days it's put to sleep. That much I understand. But if someone toddles along to the kennels in the meantime, asking to take one of the dogs, they can, with barely any questions asked. This particular kennels don't even bother with a valid address. But the worst thing is, they say they don't have the funds to spay or castrate any of their dogs, so off these animals go, to who knows what life.

I've asked the council if the contract they have with these kennels (who are also a private company operating boarding kennels) is a monetary one, but they won't give up that information. This is the same council complaining about too many dogs being bred and how they don't have enough funds to keep up with the amount of strays on the streets - the same council who've given these kennels carte blanche to let the dogs go again, to be bred some more - and so on it goes.:mad:

I wouldn't mind knowing if some of my council tax goes to this outfit.

Any thoughts anyone? Cheers, Lou

Outpost

I don't actually disagree with your point or mean this to sound dismissive but it seems to me that local councils have enough problems just keeping the lights on these days with all the budget cuts to be worrying overly about unwanted dogs.

ljandk

But ours are notorious for wasting funds, so not an excuse with this bunch. In any case, I can't honestly see how the welfare of a living animal can be compared to lights? Nobody is asking them to reduce funding for nurseries!

Mankysteve

ljandk wrote: »

I've asked the council if the contract they have with these kennels (who are also a private company operating boarding kennels) is a monetary one, but they won't give up that information.

I wouldn't mind knowing if some of my council tax goes to this outfit.

Any thoughts anyone? Cheers, Lou

Put in a freedom of information request. I dont know the procedures but a quick google will get you the answers. The coucil will be paying for there services.

Outpost

ljandk wrote: »

But ours are notorious for wasting funds, so not an excuse with this bunch. In any case, I can't honestly see how the welfare of a living animal can be compared to lights? Nobody is asking them to reduce funding for nurseries!

You can't see it because you're ultimately not in a position of authority and in charge with budgeting for public services and running the operations of a local council.

I'm not trying to stand up for local government here as such but all these leisure centres, council-run clubs and public amenities around the country are not closing because there is an abundance of money are they?

Reactionary comments about 'taking funding from nurseries' are irrelevant.

Given the current financial state of the country I'm merely pointing out that arrangements for stray dogs are, somewhat understandably, not a priority for local government.

Azari

Outpost wrote: »

I don't actually disagree with your point or mean this to sound dismissive but it seems to me that local councils have enough problems just keeping the lights on these days

If only!

Local authorities and all levels of government are cutting and cutting and cutting vital services and yet it never occurs to them to turn off the lights that illuminate the whole country all night long when there's hardly a soul about.

And yet the government are forever on at us to conserve fuel by switching off lights, amongst other things.

alfiesmum

There are a number of schemes operating where people on low incomes can have their dogs neutered for free or at a reduced rate. When you purchase a dog from a rehoming centre, they would generally offer this voucher service. If you rehome a dog from a smaller charity, or breed specific rescue centre, they usually have been neutered. It would be too expensive to neuter every dog that comes through the doors of larger kennels, and they would find it neccesary turn dogs away. Then you'd be back to the good ole days of puppys, bricks and rivers. In general when a dog warden takes a dog to the kennels, the owners have 7 days in which to turn up and claim their dog, if they do so, they will be charged the number of days board for the dog. If they do not get claimed, the council foots the bill for the first 7 days board, after which time, the dog becomes the property of the kennel. The kennel can then rehome, or destroy the dog if advised by a veterinary. Which area do you live in, you don't say, so I can't give you exact arrangement details for your council. I find the policy of the kennels in question to put every dog to sleep after 7 days a little bizzare. They must keep it for the owners to turn up for 7 days, so when does any dog go on 'show' to the public for potential rehoming? Can I ask how you know the dog was microchipped? Did the dog warden check whilst the dog was still with you? And if the numbers were invalid, how do you know the dog came from these kennels. Just curious.

ljandk

I popped the dog to a vet who kindly scanned him for free so that we could potentially reunite it with its owner asap. The details Anibase had on file (which obviously they couldn't reveal to me, re: data protection) weren't valid. They called me back and said they were allowed to tell me that the owner originally got the dog from this particular kennels who they'd contacted and who were happy for me to keep the dog (no surprise there).

We're in Northamptonshire and I probably didn't explain myself too well, judging by the ridiculously defensive remarks made by another on here. Our council have consistently been in the top three worst councils for money management for many years so any financial issue is a sore subject. My point really was that, although, yes I'm an animal lover, I was really wondering how much this outfit gets from the council, bearing in mind they have a very lucrative private side to their business. And yes, you're right, the dogs are literally 'put on parade', which should be of deep concern to someone somewhere, bearing in mind that a dog's true nature will not always be evident in those first 7 days. No appointments necessary - just pop along and pick yourself up a dog.

As for puppies, bricks and rivers - sadly that sort of things still goes on in one form or another. We're never going to prevent that and there's no point in worrying about something we can't control. But we can control what we feel is reasonable local authority spending and I hope everyone went to their voting stations this week!

alfiesmum

With no details to verify who the dog is I cannot see how they know it came from THAT kennel. My other point is that a dog must be kept for the original owners to come forward for the first 7 days, not up for rehoming. Now if they are destroyed, as you say on day 7 'As is always the case, if the dog isn't claimed within 7 days it's put to sleep' , then there has been no time for the public to view/rehome any of them. A lot of what you're saying doesn't make sense to me I'm afraid. And I wasn't sure what information you needed to have, I'll try to find out for you if I can.

Outpost

ljandk wrote: »

We're in Northamptonshire and I probably didn't explain myself too well, judging by the ridiculously defensive remarks made by another on here.

If that thinly-veiled comment was for my benefit then I would refute it - simply pointing out the reality of local councils being forced into making savage cuts and that accommodations for stray dogs are probably not very high up their list of priorities is neither defensive nor ridiculous.

People will occasionally disagree with you in this world of ours. That doesn't mean they're 'defensive' or ridiculous', just that they hold a different (and equally valid) opinion. Probably worth you remembering that.

ljandk

Don't get over-heated about this - it's really not worth it.