I just wonder what you will all make of some of the assertions in this latest response from Philip Davies of Carmarthenshire Council

Subject: Y Byd ar Bedwar
    

Dear ************************

When you first made contact with the Council following the Y Byd ar Bedwar programme broadcast on the 16th December. 2008, I could not give you a prompt response, but I am now able to provide you with the details I promised you.  Everyone will receive the same e.mail.

I know that you care passionately about animals and I realise that whatever I say, I will not be able to satisfy you fully that the Council is correctly applying the regulatory standards safeguarding the welfare of dogs.

Each of the three dog breeding establishments' featured in the programme have been licensed by the Council for a number of years and each receives an annual re-licensing inspection and ad-hoc unannounced visits during the year.  Each of the dog breeding establishments' uses local veterinary practices' to ensure that the health and welfare of the dogs is maintained.  For example, one of the dog breeding establishments' featured uses a local veterinary surgeon to periodically check all of the dogs used in breeding activities and each one bred at the establishment has a full examination and treatment where necessary, before leaving the premises.  All of the breeding stock are micro-chipped, as are the majority of the puppies bred there.

None of the veterinary surgeons who have visited the three dog breeding establishments' have reported that animals are suffering or being treated in a cruel way and none of the breed rescue groups that have visited the three dog breeding establishments' have reported any circumstances which requires our intervention.

The Council has concerns about the way in which the television programme was presented and it is continuing to discuss those concerns with the Producer of Y Byd ar Bedwar.

When we inspected the three dog breeding establishments' after the initial viewing of the video footage produced by Y Byd ar Bedwar, it was clear that the kennels were not overcrowded, some parts were untidy, but not dirty to the extent that intervention was necessary.  Dogs did have sufficient food and water available to them and none were found to be suffering from stress and none that were disabled were used for breeding.  One dog with a respiratory condition was being treated by a veterinary surgeon and another with a skin condition was also being treated by a veterinary surgeon.  Bedding was present and beds were present for the dogs.

What we found was that the camera shots did not show the full extent of the kennels or the size of the pens in which the dogs were kept. It would have given the impression to the viewer that dogs were being kept in overcrowded conditions. In each case, there is more than enough space for the dogs accommodated on the premises.

Some of the filming showed dirty areas, but the licensees are adamant that the footage was shot prior to cleaning. The smallholdings would also appear untidy to a viewer who is unfamiliar with subsistence farming.

We know that one shot of a dog's water container, was actually a shot of a water filled plant pot.  Some of the containers did need cleaning however and the licensees admit that, but all dogs had access to water. The scene showing a dirty floor with food strewn accross it is one where the licensee is adamant that she would not have thrown food on the floor as she had no reason to do so.  The feeding bowls can be clearly seen attached to the wall in an easily accesssible position.

One dog in particular, shown in the programme to be continuously circling in its kennel did give cause for concern, but on the day of inspection, it was found to be a very nervous dog when strangers were present.  Further examination showed that it socialised well with other dogs and humans, but it will be monitored closely in future.

We found that the dogs at the breeding establishments' have sufficient space for exercise and socialisation and they do have access to and use the fields of the smallholdings.

Whelping pens were satisfactory. The video footage showed a variety of situations, but beds, heating and bedding were present or had been provided according to the needs of the the individual dog. Some dogs preferred to whelp on a simple concrete surface.

Some of the video footage broadcast included pets of the licensees which were not part of the breeding stock and it would not have been possible for the viewer to know which was which or which dog was receiving veterinary treatment.

The new Animal Welfare Act, 2006 and the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs will lead to an increase in standards and some are already trying to achieve best practice.  There is a regional group, the Dyfed Powys Companion Animal Welfare Forum which has representation from Puppy Love, Puppy Alert and others, who are working towards raising those standards and raising awareness of what is necessary amongst dog owners and breeders.  The Code of Practice can be viewed using this link :-

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/animalwelfare/pets/codesofpractice/081205codeofpractdogs/?lang=en
As a result of the programme, we rated each of the dog breeding establishments' against the Code of Practice, to benchmark them at this time and to enable us to assess improvement or other trends in future years.  The results are encouraging and range between 73 - 80%.  The section dealing with Environment was satisfied in all three cases with a few minor concerns and the section dealing with Keeping a Dog Outside was satisfied in all three cases with some minor repairs necessary and improved access to kennel runs.  The section dealing with Travel was not applicable in all cases, but suitable cages were used.  The section dealing with Diet was satisfied, as was the one relating to Other Dietry Needs.  Puppies are introduced to a limited range of environmental stimuli until they are bought, but the conditions satisfied the Behaviour section at this time.  The section dealing with Exercise was satisfied and sufficient in all three cases.  Dogs were housed in groups and had contact with other dogs, whereas contact with humans was limited.  The use of toys is a new consideration and none were being used and appart from one dog that will be monitored, the section relating to Boredom and Frustration was satisfied and rated as sufficient at this time.  The section dealing with Socialisation was satisfied and good overall, as was the section dealing with Health and Welfare.  No dogs were found to have matted coats and the section relating to Grooming was satisfied.

Finally, some concern has been expressed by you and others that the Council is not taking any formal action as a result of the video footage broadcast on the 16th December, 2008.  It really is not possible to do so and the reason for that is, that the video footage was not in the control of the Council and some of it was obtained in the absence of the licensees making it unreliable enough to warrant any court proceedings or justify the revocation of a licence.

The next meeting of the Dyfed Powys Companion Animal Welfare Forum occurs later this month and I'm sure that the issues arising from the Y Byd ar Bedwar television programme will be discussed there.  I can assure you that Carmarthenshire County Council will work actively to promote and imrpove conditions through the application of the Animal Welfare Act, 2006 and the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs.