Official summary of the legal position on stray dogs in the UK

This is in fact from the Advertising Standards Authority website, which has published their adjudication on a complaint from a member of the public about the Dogs Trust's TV adverts, but it's a useful statement of the facts.

Issue

A viewer challenged whether the claim "Dogs Trust never put a healthy dog down", was misleading, because she understood that that the Dogs Trust handed strays over to the Council Dog Warden who, if they were not reclaimed by their owners after seven days, might put them down.

BCAP Code

3.13.216.3.1

Response

Dog's Trust said, under section 150 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990, anyone finding a stray dog must "forthwith" either "return the dog to its owner" or "take the dog to the officer of the local authority (LA) for the area in which the dog was found". Therefore, if a stray dog was brought to one of their Rehoming Centres by a member of the public or was abandoned there, they had an inescapable legal obligation to immediately notify the local Dog Warden about where and when the dog was found. In view of that, it was not in their interest to suggest in their advertising that they could accept stray dogs found by members of the public.

Dogs Trust said it was rare for a member of the public to approach their Rehoming Centres to ask them to take in a stray dog. However, in those instances, the person was always advised of their legal responsibility to contact the dog warden. If the person was unwilling to do that or if the dog warden was unavailable, the Rehoming Centre might act as the "finder" of the dog and pass it to the LA at the earliest opportunity.

They added that section 149 of the EPA required the LA to keep any stray dog for a period of seven clear days in order to allow the owner to reclaim the dog. If the dog was not reclaimed after that time, it could be passed to Dogs Trust, or a similar welfare organisation, for rehoming; legal title to the dog then also passed to them.

Dogs Trust said, typically, their kennels contained over 1,000 dogs at any one time. They explained that their 17 Rehoming Centres around the UK cared for around 16,000 dogs a year; around 50% were handed over by members of the public no longer able to care for their dogs and the remaining 50% came from other animal rescue organisations or LA kennels after the expiration of the statutory seven-day period prescribed by the EPA.

Dogs Trust said the claim that they never put a healthy dog down was true. In 2009, they cared for 15,886 dogs. Of those, 226 either died in their care or were put to sleep on veterinary advice; that equated to less than 1.5% of the dogs in their care. Dogs Trust were proud of the fact that so few dogs were put to sleep given that many came to them with severe illness or injury. They said a dog could only be put to sleep on the advice of a veterinary surgeon and if there was any doubt about the dog's quality of life, then second opinions were sought.

Dogs Trust said they could not be held responsible for the fate of dogs passed to the LA under statutory requirements. They nevertheless pointed out that independently conducted market research for the year up to 31 March 2010 indicated that of the strays handed in to LAs, only 2.8% were put to sleep for reasons other than ill health.

They said the ad was not currently scheduled to be broadcast again but that they did intend to use it again in future.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA understood that Dogs Trust only put down dogs on the grounds of ill health following the advice of a veterinary surgeon and that, in 2009, less than 1.5% of the dogs they had cared for were put down on such advice.

We also understood that Dogs Trust had a statutory obligation to pass any stray dog handed in to them to the Council Dog Warden for the statutory seven-day period stipulated by the EPA. We noted that, after that period had elapsed, if the dog was not reunited with its owner, it might be passed to Dogs Trust or a similar welfare organisation or it might be re-homed by the LA itself. Furthermore, we understood that the only circumstance in which Dogs Trust would not accept a dog from the LA was if they did not have the kennel space to accommodate it. We noted from the independent market research figures provided that a small percentage of those dogs received by LAs for the year up to 31 March 2010 had been put down for reasons other than ill health. We nevertheless considered that the fate of those dogs was beyond the control of Dogs Trust given their statutory obligations and, because we understood that those healthy dogs whose fate was within their control were not put down, concluded that the claim was not misleading.

We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising) and 16.3.1 (Charities) but did not find it in breach.

Stray dogs

The National RSPCA website has a news item on the concern that dog warden services are likely to be selected for cutbacks. There are some indications that simply abolishing a statutory service as a cost-saving measure is being considered by some politicians—Hammersmith and Fulham's website bluntly states that "Passing the responsibility for stray dogs onto the RSPCA" would save council funds.

Which would be all very well if we really did have limitless funds, which we do not.

It may help if I give a bit of background to explain the current legal situation in relation to stray dogs.

Until 2008, responsibility was shared between the local authority and the Police. The LA was expected to run a dog warden service during normal working hours (9-5 Mon-Fri), while the Police would take in dogs brought to police stations outside those times, or when a dog warden was otherwise not contactable.

The LA was responsible for arranging kennelling for at least 7 days, after which the dog would either be transferred to a rescue organisation, rehomed directly or put to sleep.

In 2008 responsibility was transferred to the local authority, although instead of the dog warden service being expanded to cover 24/7, most LAs simply made some kind of arrangement for "drop-off" points where stray dogs could be taken. The major problem with this is that many people who find stray dogs don't have suitable transport, whereas at least some of them could have walked to their local police station.

Stray dogs never were "the responsibility" of the RSPCA, although most branches take in some dogs from LA kennels; sometimes after the 7 day period is up, and sometimes directly from the dog warden. Sometimes dogs may be taken in directly from the public, either because they're found injured, or because they're in danger, but most animal centres can't take in dogs round the clock. Branches like us which rehome from private boarding kennels can't reasonably expect the staff to turn out at all hours except in very exceptional emergency situations.

I get an impression that many people often believe that the local authority holding kennels are "the RSPCA"—probably in some circumstances because the LA and RSPCA both board dogs at the same private kennels.

We don't ourselves as a branch routinely take in stray dogs from local authorities, although we're occasionally asked to take a dog to save his life and would do our best to stretch funds to accommodate one in that situation.

It looks as though we may be facing a situation in which we are being asked to take up more and more work that's being offloaded from elsewhere.

In which case fundraising has to be our highest priority at the moment. It is no good complaining that we are "all about money". Without money we can't pay vets bills or buy cat and dog food. We can save some costs by getting animals into foster homes, but realistically we still need to use boarding facilities for some animals.

Can anyone offer a home to Charlie?

Charlie was handed in to the police and was  going to be put down because his 7 days were up, so we were asked to take him on.

He's a Staffordshire cross, but gets on well with other dogs. 

There's more information about him on our Rehoming Gallery.

UPDATE: Just to remove any misunderstanding; we stepped in to SAVE Charlie—the 7 day time limit is the statutory length of time a local authority is required to pay kennelling fees for unowned dogs. Once this time limit is up a dog may be passed on to a rescue organisation (us in this case), rehomed directly, or put to sleep.

Pioneers at Bath Cats and Dogs Home

In England and Wales, the term "non-destruction" is normally the preferred term for what would be referred to as "no-kill" in the US and Australia. I hope BCDH won't object to me reproducing the following timeline from their website:

1937

• Three local animal charities unite to become RSPCA Bath Branch.

• Bath resident Mrs Bayntun gifts five acres of land and £4,000 (equivalent to nearly £200,000 now) enabling the new charity to set up a dog shelter.

1948

• John and Mary Hobhouse join the Bath Branch committee.

1953

• John Hobhouse becomes chairman of the Bath Branch (until 2000).

• After considerable arguments, the City Council concede that stray dogs can go to the kennels for re-homing rather than being destroyed.

• The Bath Branch is the first RSPCA branch to implement a strict non-destruction policy.

1955

• John Hobhouse is elected to the RSPCA National Council.

1960

• John’s five-year battle to form and chair a ‘Homeless Animals Committee’ is finally realised.

1962

• The Homeless Animals Committee persuade the RSPCA Council to spend £100,000 to build or rebuild an animal centre in each major city. Within a year these new kennels were saving the lives of 10,000 dogs that would otherwise have been destroyed.

1969 – 1975

• John Hobhouse elected as chairman of the RSPCA National Council. 

1986

• The Friends of Claverton is formed. A separate registered charity, the Friends raise funds through membership and legacies.http://www.friendsofclaverton.org/

1995

• After three generous legacy donations totaling £500,000 the Home plan a redevelopment of the dilapidated 50 year old buildings with modern facilities. 

2001

John is elected Bath and District President

2002

• The first two stages of redevelopment are completed, including four kennel blocks and runs, a cattery, vet suite, administration offices, visitor facilities and a new sewerage system. The cost of £2.2 million had been raised solely by donation and fundraising.

2006

• The third stage of development is completed, with two circular kennels. The cost was paid for by the fundraising efforts of the Friends of Claverton. 

2009

• John Hobhouse dies peacefully in Frome Hospital, Somerset, on Thursday 24 December, aged 99.

There's some more information about how BCDH works with the local authority dog wardens in this article. 

Further thoughts on licences and dog wardens

I suppose attitudes to this are very dependent on whether your view of the role of dog wardens is that it's primarily for the benefit or detriment of dogs.

The majority of calls about uninjured stray dogs that we get at evenings and weekends are from people who've found a dog and want it to be collected and taken somewhere safe to be cared for until the owner is found. Their main concern is usually that the dog may get run over if left. Legally these calls should be the responsibility of the local authority, but very few of these employ dog wardens outside normal working hours.


We get some calls demanding that we come and collect a dog who has bitten someone or savaged another dog and these are really the responsibility of the dog's owner or the police. It's comparatively rare for us to be called about loose dogs because someone feels they are a threat.


If your view of dog wardens is that they are a positive element for animal welfare you will want more cover. If you see them as roaming the streets "seizing" dogs who would be safer where they were you will want less.


It may be helpful to look at some of the material on the website of the National Dog Wardens Association and, in particular, their comments on an earlier government consultation on introduction of  a compulsory microchipping and insurance system which for practical purposes would be similar to a dog licence system (part of the DEFRA consultation on Dangerous Dogs).

[Q27: Do you think that requiring all dogs to be covered by third-party insurance could have a significant financial impact upon individual dog owners? Why?]

It is estimated that 25% of car drivers in the UK have no insurance, so you would have to assume that 25% of dog owners would not adhere to any licensing requirements.  If this were to be so, any dogs seized and not having a license would only be released back to the owner after the dog had been licensed (the statutory government charge for stray dogs would be waived to enable registration to be carried out for a year) A lot of dog owners leave their seized dogs at the holding kennels rather than claim them because they begrudge paying the fees, this shows that possibly it is better for that particular dog to not be with such a person. Where an owner’s dog is involved in an incident and he is found to be uninsured, this would constitute a serious offence (as with cars). We would support reductions for pensioners and multi-dog households,

[Q28: Do you think that requiring all dogs to be covered by third-party insurance will have a financial impact upon welfare organisations/dog homes? Why?]

Why would it?  If a stray dog is rehomed by a Local Authority to an animal welfare charity, when that charity rehome the dog, they should have a legal requirement to make the new owner fill in the registration form for the area they live in.  Example being, a person is adopting a Labrador and they live in Manchester, the new owners come to collect the dog and they have with them the Dog License complete with insurance. Dogs’ homes/charities should have insurance for the whole premises rather than for individual dogs.

[Q29: Do you think that all dogs should have to be microchipped? Why?]

Yes but microchipping of all dogs is not the be all and end all it is made out to be!  Dog Wardens average about 40% of dogs with microchips handled by them having out of date, incorrect or no details at all on the microchips?  Who would enforce any discrepancies regarding microchips……Local Authority Dog Wardens, not Petlog, not the animal welfare organisations or even the police?  Do Local Authorities have the resources to carry out this work in the current climate with Local Authorities cutting the size of Dog Warden Services or downgrading the important work they do? Compulsory microchipping would work well in conjunction with the insurance requirement (see above Q.25), otherwise it is difficult to enforce on it’s own as most people who move or give away/sell their dogs forget to change the details

[Q30: Do you think that all puppies born after a specified date should be microchipped before the age of one year? Why?]

As Q29. I think microchipping/insuring puppies is important and, with this proof of ownership, would help to combat the puppy farmers and irresponsible back-street breeders. Puppies should be insured and chipped before they are sold – there could be a specific clause that allows transfer of ownership with the insurance policy for puppies that are intended for gift/sale; this would apply to private as well as commercial breeders.

[Q31: How do you think such a requirement could be introduced and enforced?] 

Who would enforce it, hard pressed Dog Wardens who as this consultation document points out varies from highly motivated, well trained and knowledgeable to poorly trained ones.  Many Local Authorities fail to appreciate the important role that Dog Wardens play in community safety and those who have downgraded their services to stray dogs being dealt with by Pest Control Officers/Community Safety Officers for example are not going to have individuals who are spending 100% of their work day dealing with dog issues. Any enforcement needs to be carried out by motivated, well trained and knowledgeable Dog Wardens who are fully supported by their Local Authorities and properly funded. Again, works best in conjunction with insurance where insurance companies would run the database. It would tend to be enforced only when a problem dog comes to light that isn’t insured which is why the penalty for non-insurance should be an adequate deterrent. Yes, this would initially require extra enforcement by Police/Local authorities but could ultimately reduce enforcement.

and:

[Q39: Do you think the government needs to do more to raise public awareness of the existing law and what to do if you are aware of a possible breach?] 

I think the public are aware of the existing law but they are also hopelessly misinformed with regards to dog behaviour and responsible ownership. The government need to lend more support to Local Authorities who should be at the forefront of public education. Instead, more local authorities are cutting their dog warden budget or outsourcing their stray dog contracts.

Relocating control of dogs to the "Pests" department is not likely to improve their care!

I think there's a more general problem about the public view of animals being "seized" (by RSPCA, Police, dog wardens etc.). Most of the time this is reactive, as a result of a call from a member of the public asking someone to collect an animal, because it's thought to be ill, injured or otherwise at risk in some way. Sometimes an animal may not have been seized in any meaningful sense of the word: for example where the animal's carer has asked to sign it over to the RSPCA. We've had situations where a third party referred to us "seizing" a dog when we'd in reality been asked by an owner to take the dog for rehoming as an alternative to euthanasia.

Stray dog frustration

This is the second time in as many weeks that I've had a call from someone who's found a stray dog. By law stray dogs are the responsibility of the local council and should be reported to their dog warden, but there's no guarante of cover unless the dog is found between 9 and 5 on a weekday.

Until a few months ago, the main police station in central Cambridge used to hold dogs overnight and over the weekend, but that seems to have been stopped, although the council website is still advising people to contact the police about stray dogs.

"If you find a dog in the evening or at the weekend, you should contact Cambridgeshire Police on 08454 564564.

You may be asked to take the dog to the police at Parkside police station, if you are able to do so safely."

and the police website still says that Parkside police station will accept dogs when no dog warden is available.

Injured staffie

He was found in Milton Country Park by a member of the public and taken to Village Vets for first aid. They think he's definitely got a broken jaw and possibly a fractured leg, so we're covering the cost of first aid with them and one of our volunteer drivers is going to transfer him to the clinic tomorrow morning.

No details yet about his general appearance, other than that he's very friendly. If he might be yours, please contact Village Vets (before tomorrow) or email rosemary@rspca-cambridge.org.uk (after then).

Found: Rottweiler

He was found wandering on a busy road when one of the Vet School nurses was passing, so she took him in to avoid him getting hit by a car. We're going to take him to Park Side police kennels over the weekend so he can be transferred to Wood Green Animal Shelters on Tuesday, after the holiday, as they have the local authority contract to rehome uninjured stray dogs.

Stray dogs

From the South Cambs website:

"Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 any dog found wandering in a public place alone can be seized by the council as a stray and taken to kennels. Owners will have to pay a seizure and kennelling fee before the dog can be released. If the dog is not claimed within seven days it will be signed over to the kennels for possible re-homing and you as the former owner will loose all rights to its return.

From April 2008 Cambridgeshire Police no longer have any responsibilities for stray dogs and are not legally obliged to accept any that are brought to them. However, arrangements have been made for the Police to accept stray dogs on behalf of the council outside normal office hours and at weekends at Parkside Police Station in Cambridge.

It is a legal requirement that every dog in a public place must wear a collar and tag with identification. This enables anyone finding a stray dog to contact its owner."

This is an extremely helpful decision by Cambs. police. If your dog strays, be aware that the reclamation fee may be as much as £100 if the council has had to board him for several days, or used its out of hours arrangements. I've just had to refuse to help someone with no money and a £100 fee to pay. Unfortunately we just don't have enough funds to help with anything other than lifesaving treatment. In any case, I'm doubtful whether this would be an appropriate use of charitable funds; the council charges fees as a deterrent as well as a way to recoup its costs.

Updates

Nicola transported bladder trouble cat 1 to the kennels last Friday and I'm hoping that the fact that they've not been in contact about him means he's not had any more problems.

Bladder trouble cat 2 (with the fractured pelvis) started peeing on Monday & I've now got him in my spare room in cat pen (back to the Vet School for a recheck X-ray in 2 weeks). They think the not-peeing was just because it hurt and that he's got no long-term medical problems. He's a very nice looking male (all black), was entire but the Vet School castrated him when they fixed his pelvis. Other than warning any new owner that he's got metal screws inside, which will show up on any future x-ray, he should do well. 

He ate his supper last night and used his litter tray, but still looks rather horrified when anyone comes in the room, poor little chap. Fear of vets seems to be a hazard for cats with pelvic fractures as they get quite a lot of very painful handling during the initial period of examination. My own Elsie has the embarrassing distinction of being banned by the vet unless she's really, really ill because she turns into an insane fear-biter at the surgery. At her last visit she had to be recaptured as she tried to exit through the window-glass by putting her carrier over her and sliding a board across the top, rather like someone catching a wasp with a drinking glass and a piece of card.

The vets phoned this morning to say that Darcy, the pyothorax cat, had a good night and looks quite bright. They'll do another x-ray of his chest on Monday.

The stray terrier has a broken pelvis, which they'll probably operate on today, but they are hopeful that his head injuries aren't serious as he seems brighter in himself. He'll need several weeks cage rest before he can go to the kennels for rehoming and we hope one of our fosterers will be able to take him.

If you might be interested in fostering animals for the branch, please email rspcacambridge@aol.com

Injured stray dog

Not completely sure whether this was the result of miscommunication, lack of money or just general snafu. The 24 hour vet phoned last night to say someone had brought in an injured stray: probably from one of the local Traveller sites and probably hit by a car. The dog warden service normally only works 9-5, so I wasn't surprised to be asked if we'd help with funds for initial treatment. I asked the vets to contact the local dog warden service first thing in the hope that they'd be able to help with further costs, or at least provide transport to our clinic.

They did try, but were told South Cambs no longer has a dog warden service, which is very bad news if true. Their website still gives contact numbers, so this may just be temporary, or it may be that they simply don't have any funding to deal with injured dogs. By then all the volunteer drivers who might have helped with transport were otherwise occupied, so I asked the vet to use the pet taxi service to send the dog to the clinic to give him at least a chance rather than simply having him put down there and then.