Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Protecting dogs
A request from a constituent for information on the number of stray dogs put down by each Welsh local authority in the last financial year has produced some disturbing results. The Assembly library provided me with statistics that showed a huge disparity in practice across Wales.
Cardiff tops the league with 45 dogs destroyed in that period. The footnote tells me that they only put down dogs on vet's orders, as do Gwynedd (9 dogs detroyed last year), though not every Council is as forthcoming with this information. Next are Caerphilly (34 dogs put down), Torfaen (31), Rhondda Cynon Taf (30) and Neath Port Talbot (28), closely followed by Conwy (19), Newport (17), Merthyr Tydfil (16), Ynys Mon (12), Vale of Glamorgan (11) and Wrexham (10).
By way of contrast, Bridgend, Carmarthenshire, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Monmouthshire and Swansea submitted a nil return. They put down no dogs at all in this period. The Assembly library inform me that Carmarthenshire, Swansea and the Vale of Glamorgan have non-destruct policies. They will not put down healthy, re-homeable dogs. Dogs are only put down on vet's orders. Perhaps this is a policy that needs to be adopted more widely.
Cardiff tops the league with 45 dogs destroyed in that period. The footnote tells me that they only put down dogs on vet's orders, as do Gwynedd (9 dogs detroyed last year), though not every Council is as forthcoming with this information. Next are Caerphilly (34 dogs put down), Torfaen (31), Rhondda Cynon Taf (30) and Neath Port Talbot (28), closely followed by Conwy (19), Newport (17), Merthyr Tydfil (16), Ynys Mon (12), Vale of Glamorgan (11) and Wrexham (10).
By way of contrast, Bridgend, Carmarthenshire, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Monmouthshire and Swansea submitted a nil return. They put down no dogs at all in this period. The Assembly library inform me that Carmarthenshire, Swansea and the Vale of Glamorgan have non-destruct policies. They will not put down healthy, re-homeable dogs. Dogs are only put down on vet's orders. Perhaps this is a policy that needs to be adopted more widely.
