STRAY DOGS - Local Council's Obligations

Outpost

ljandk wrote: »

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

Strange comment to make.

Who is getting overheated exactly? This is a conversation on a message board. Hardly a football riot is it?

ljandk

alfiesmum wrote: »

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.

Ok - you go there, the dogs are in kennels. If they're within the 7 days, you can put one on 'hold' on the offchance they're not claimed, but they don't necessarily put all of them down after 7 days anyway. If they show some potential they're given a reprieve, which is where Joe Public comes in, if he hasn't already been. But hey, you're all picking over the bones of stuff that is of little consequence and missing the point - dogs are being released to breed again, creating a viscious cycle. Dealing with the cause and not the complaint - now where did that go?

Outpost

ljandk wrote: »

But hey, you're all picking over the bones of stuff that is of little consequence and missing the point - dogs are being released to breed again, creating a viscious cycle. Dealing with the cause and not the complaint - now where did that go?

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

alfiesmum

I can't do multi quotes but your first post said "As is always the case, if the dog isn't claimed within 7 days it's put to sleep". And now you're saying "but they don't necessarily put all of them down after 7 days anyway". Now I'm trying to be helpful, but if you're changing information about this situation to suit yourself, it's difficult. I sincerely apologise that you think I'm 'missing the point', but I can't see that you've made one yet. Your being very rude, considering I was actually trying to be helpful!

ljandk

Outpost wrote: »

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

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

ljandk

alfiesmum wrote: »

I can't do multi quotes but your first post said "As is always the case, if the dog isn't claimed within 7 days it's put to sleep". And now you're saying "but they don't necessarily put all of them down after 7 days anyway". Now I'm trying to be helpful, but if you're changing information about this situation to suit yourself, it's difficult. I sincerely apologise that you think I'm 'missing the point', but I can't see that you've made one yet. Your being very rude, considering I was actually trying to be helpful!

It wasn't my intention to be rude, the last remark I made was generalised and intended to be a 'what are we like?', but you (and Slap Happy back there) chose to take it the wrong way. This is taking up WAY too much of my time - can't actually believe I'm responding!

Originally I scanned the forum before posting the question, realised it wasn't wise to waffle and over-explain so kept everything to a minimum. I didn't realise I would be given the third degree! The full expo would take up half a page - honestly, though, who has that sort of time to spend reading someone else's blurb? And if y'all do, then please find another hobby that gets you out more.

Nuff said - I'm off on the school run. Suggest you all move away from your machines and get some perspective, instead of picking holes in comments, largely unrelated to a question, just because you don't agree. I'm all for a good healthy debate, but it really needs to be constructive to hold my interest. That's it folks - I'm off!

Mankysteve

ljandk wrote: »

dogs are being released to breed again, creating a viscious cycle. Dealing with the cause and not the complaint - now where did that go?

Indeed, It properly ends cost the council more allowing the dogs to continue to breed.

It should and is our right to find out what the councils are spending our tax payer money on.

Outpost

ljandk wrote: »

It wasn't my intention to be rude, the last remark I made was generalised and intended to be a 'what are we like?', but you (and Slap Happy back there) chose to take it the wrong way. This is taking up WAY too much of my time - can't actually believe I'm responding!

Originally I scanned the forum before posting the question, realised it wasn't wise to waffle and over-explain so kept everything to a minimum. I didn't realise I would be given the third degree! The full expo would take up half a page - honestly, though, who has that sort of time to spend reading someone else's blurb? And if y'all do, then please find another hobby that gets you out more.

Nuff said - I'm off on the school run. Suggest you all move away from your machines and get some perspective, instead of picking holes in comments, largely unrelated to a question, just because you don't agree. I'm all for a good healthy debate, but it really needs to be constructive to hold my interest. That's it folks - I'm off!

Bye!!!

Hern

OP:

Putting aside so many of the daft comments on here from posters who find this topic just too tedious / trivial to merit their concern:

1. The Local Authority has a legal obligation to ensure stray dogs are picked up and removed to a place of safety.

2. The Local Authority also has a legal obligation to ensure that the place of safety is exactly that: not some shoddy butcher's shop with a policy of slaughtering homeless animals within seven days (as seems to be the practice of the one you're referring to.)

3. The Local Authority must make financial provision out of public funds where it uses a contractor to operate its stray dogs service (I can't think of any Council which doesn't use a contractor.)

4. Depending on the size of the administrative area covered by a particular Council, the financial contract can range from as little as £3,000 pa to £35,000 pa.

5. You are entitled to seek details of the contract under the FoI Act. The Local Authority may cite commercial confidentiality and block your request.

6. Whilst awaiting the Council's FoI decision, there is nothing to prevent you from writing to the Councillor for your ward, and simultaneously to your local newspaper, expressing your concern that healthy animals appear to be being euthanised by a commercial outfit with no interest in animal welfare, only in profit. You can then question the suitability of this outfit to continue to be in receipt of public funds.

ljandk

Thank you Hern for a very informative, helpful and appropriate reply.

It was akin to having teeth pulled with a couple of other 'respondents' here. I'll certainly follow your advice. Thanks again.