Stray Dog Survey 2007 a Report Prepared For: Dogs Trust

GfK NOP

Stray Dog Survey 2007 A report prepared for: Dogs Trust

Provided by: GfK NOP Social Research

Your contact:

Lisa Endersbee, Senior Research Executive Phone: +44 (0)20 7890 9865, Fax: +44 (0)20 7890 9744 e-Mail:[email protected]

GfK NOP

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Background and Methodology ...... 3 1.2 Objectives ...... 4 1.3 Definition of Regions ...... 4 1.4 Interpretation of the data ...... 4 2 Summary of Findings ...... 5 2.1 The Number of Stray Dogs Handled ...... 5 2.2 Seizing Stray Dogs ...... 7 2.3 What Happens to the UK’s Stray Dogs? ...... 7 2.4 Ways in Which Dogs are Returned to Owners ...... 9 3 Conclusions ...... 10 4 Regional Summaries ...... 11 4.1 North East ...... 12 4.2 North West ...... 12 4.3 Yorkshire ...... 12 4.4 Midlands ...... 13 4.5 Wales and the West ...... 13 4.6 East and Anglia ...... 14 4.7 London ...... 14 4.8 Southern ...... 14 4.9 South West...... 15 4.10 Borders ...... 15 4.11 Northern Scotland ...... 15 4.12 Central Scotland ...... 16 4.13 Northern Ireland ...... 16 5 Campaign Region Analysis ...... 17 5.1 Year on year changes within the Campaign regions...... 17 5.2 Comparisons between Campaign Regions ...... 18 5.3 Comparisons by Country...... 18 APPENDICES ...... 1 Appendix A: Authorities by Region ...... 1 5.4 TV Region ...... 1 5.5 Campaign Regions ...... 7 Appendix B: Questionnaire, Covering Letters and Tabulations ...... 9

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 2

GfK NOP

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and Methodology

Dogs Trust commissions an annual survey of local authority dog wardens and environmental health officers in order to investigate the state of the nation’s dogs. In 2007, GfK NOP Social Research were again chosen to conduct this survey. An initial telephone sweep of Local Authorities to update contact details and collect email addresses was carried out on the 18th & 19th of April. Postal questionnaires and an initial email invitation were sent to named individuals within 432 local authorities with responsibility for environmental health in the UK on the 1st May 2007. There was also an option of completing the survey on the web. Following postal, email and telephone reminders, 343 questionnaires had been returned by 20th July 2007, giving a response rate of 79%.

1.1.1 Table 1: Response Rates TV Region Authorities Re- Total Authorities Response rate % sponding North East 24 26 92% North West 26 38 68% Yorkshire 18 21 86% Midlands 58 75 77% Wales and West 27 32 84% East & Anglia 29 38 76% London 46 70 66% Southern 38 46 83% South West 20 22 91% Borders 8 8 100% Northern Scotland 7 9 78% Central Scotland 18 21 86% Northern Ireland 24 26 92% Total 343 432 79%

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 3

GfK NOP

1.2 Objectives This survey aims to give information about the number of stray dogs that Local Authorities have become involved with, and the methods that they have used towards stray dogs. Data is collated at both a national and a regional level. The questionnaire also asked about the ways in which dogs were reunited with their owners.

Comparisons are made with previous surveys where appropriate.

1.3 Definition of Regions The findings are analysed according to the 13 ITV Regions throughout the UK. The definitions are as follows: North East (Tyne Tees), North West (Granada), Yorkshire, Midlands (Central), Wales and West (Harlech or HTV), East and Anglia (Anglia), London (LWT/ Carlton), Southern (Meridian), South West (West Country), Border, Northern Scotland (Grampian), Central Scot- land (STV), and Northern Ireland (UTV).

1.4 Interpretation of the data The key findings from this survey are based on numbers collected for each authority (e.g. the number of strays). We have gone on to make estimates for each TV Region based on the assumption that authorities responding are representative of authorities as a whole.

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 4

GfK NOP

2 Summary of Findings

2.1 The Number of Stray Dogs Handled Based on the 343 authorities who responded to this survey, an estimated 105,068 stray dogs were handled by local councils from 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2007. This represents a 3% increase from the estimate of 101,586 dogs handled last year.

2.1.1 Chart 1: The Number of Stray Dogs in the UK Since 1997

140000 136500 135000

133500

130000

122000 120000 117500

113500 111000 110000 105000 105000 105000

100000 102000

90000

80000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

Using 2001 census data, we can estimate how many people there are in the population for each stray dog. In the last year, on average, the local authorities across the UK handled 1 stray for every 559 people. However, there is significant regional variation.

For instance, in the London Television Region local authorities on average dealt with one stray dog for every 1,206 people. In Northern Ireland, there is on average of only 151 people per stray dog reported by Local Authorities.

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 5

GfK NOP

2.1.2 Table 2: Estimated Number of People Per Stray Dog by TV Region Actual number Estimated TV Region of Strays Re- Authorities Strays per number of ported Responding authority people per 05-06 stray dog North East 5679 24 237 494 North West 8223 26 316 523 Yorkshire 5974 18 332 669 Midlands 13711 58 236 572 Wales and West 11664 27 432 312 East & Anglia 4423 29 153 703 London 6156 46 134 1206 Southern 6545 38 172 680 South West 3686 20 184 557 Borders 1104 8 138 630 Northern Scotland 1501 7 214 549 Central Scotland 4453 18 247 733 Northern Ireland 10303 24 429 151 UK Total 83,422 343 243 559

The regional differences in the number of stray dogs reported by different authorities will reflect a number of factors, including the overall population and the number of dogs owned.

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 6

GfK NOP

2.2 Seizing Stray Dogs Local authorities played the most important part in seizing stray dogs, as in previous years. The proportion of stray dogs brought in by the general public has remained the same this year as last year (18%), while the proportion seized by Local Authorities has fallen slightly from 70% to 69%. However, the absolute number of stray dogs reported has increased in this time.

We can estimate that approximately 7,340 dogs were brought to Local Authorities by the Police across the UK. This is lower than last year’s estimate (8,601), and represents approximately 7% of the total number of strays in 2006 - 2007.

2.2.1 Chart 2: How Strays were brought to the Local Authority

90%

78% 78% 77% 77% 80% 77% 75% 73% 73% 71% 70% 69% 70%

60%

50%

40%

Public Proportion of Dogs

Other 30%

19% 18% 20% 17% 15% 14% 15% 18% 13% 12% 12% 11% 13% 10% 12% 10% 11% 11% 10% 10% 10% 10% 9% 9%

0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

2.3 What Happens to the UK’s Stray Dogs? Just over half of stray dogs (51%) were reunited with their owners in 2006-2007. Approximately one in three (35%) of all stray dogs reported are reclaimed within the seven day statutory local authority kennelling period, with a further 16% of all stray dogs returned to the owner without kennelling.

The proportion of stray dogs being put to sleep has risen this year. This year 6,266 stray dogs were put to sleep by authorities taking part in this survey, and from this we can estimate that approximately 7,892 dogs were put to sleep across the UK. This represents 8% of the total number of stray dogs reported.

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 7

GfK NOP

In addition, over 300 dogs were put to sleep under the dangerous dogs act/order. However, this represents less than 0.5% of the total number of stray dogs reported.

2.3.1 Chart 3: What Happens to Stray Dogs?

60%

51% 49% 48% 48% 48% 48% 48% 50% 46% 46% 44% 44%

Returned to Owner 40% Rehomed by LA

Passed on to Welfare Organisations or Dog Kennels 30% Put to Sleep 25% 24% 24% 23% 23% Proportion of Dogs 22% 22% 21% 21% 21% 20% 19% 17% 17% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 15%15% 15% 14% 14%14% 13% 13% 11% 10% 10% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8%

0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

Many strays are passed on to welfare organisations or dog kennels after the statutory period (25%). Since the first Stray Dogs Survey in 1997 the proportion of stray dogs reported as having been re-homed by the local authority has risen from 10% of the total reported number of strays to its current level of 16%. Indeed, this figure has remained static over the last 2 waves of the survey.

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 8

GfK NOP

2.4 Ways in Which Dogs are Returned to Owners The questionnaire asks about methods used to trace owners of dogs that have been successfully returned to their owners. Of the four main methods by which dogs are returned, the owner contacting the local authority directly accounts for the largest proportion, with just under half (45%) of reasons given for dogs being returned to owners attributable to this. Micro-chipping has risen in significance over the last 7 waves of this survey since 1999, from 7% of reasons given to 24% in 2006 and 32% this year*. The rise in the number of dogs being returned as a result of having a micro-chip could account for the fall in the number of owners contacting the LA directly. Micro-chipping continues to be more important than ID disks for re-contacting owners, which only accounts for 14% of the methods used for the return of dogs. This figure has remained static compared with data from last year.

2.4.1 Chart 4: Relative Importance of Methods Used to Return Stray Dogs

60%

54% 52% 50% 46% 43% 49% 48% 45% 45% 42% 40% 41% 32% Microchipping 32% ID Disk 30% 26% 28% Owner contacting LA 23% Dog known to warden 22% 22%

24% Proportion of Dogs

20% 18% 16% 14% 20% 17% 12% 14% 13% 10% 7% 13% 12% 12% 9% 11% 11% 8% 8%

0% 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

There is regional variation in the means by which dogs are identified and returned to their owners. Micro-chipping accounts for over four in ten (46%) of methods in North West and Wales and the West (43%), but much less than this in Borders (9%).

* The proportion returned through micro-chipping refers only to instances where the method used to return stray dogs has been identified, i.e. unspecified methods of tracing owners have been excluded from this calculation.

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 9

GfK NOP

3 Conclusions The number of stray dogs reported by UK authorities overall has risen this year compared to last year, following a brief fall in 2006. The actual number now stands at an estimated 105,068 below the level of 136,500 reported in 1997, representing a fall of 23% over this 10- year period.

Regional variations remain, and as in previous years Northern Ireland, Wales, the West and the Borders continue to have greater numbers of stray dogs per head of population than elsewhere.

Micro-chipping continues to play an increasing role in tracing the owners of stray dogs, now accounting for nearly a third of stray dogs returned to owners (32%).

Since 1999 the proportion of stray dogs recorded as having been put to sleep has remained the same at 8% this year. In 1999 the actual number of stray dogs was estimated at 133,500. The number of dogs put to sleep in 1999 was approximately 21,300. This year the number of dogs put to sleep is estimated at approximately 7,892, a 63% decrease than seven years ago. This continues to represents a real and substantial reduction over a short period.

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 10

GfK NOP

4 Regional Summaries

TV Region

Total* North North York- Mid- Wales East & Lon- South- South Bor- North Cent NI East West shire lands & West Anglia don ern West ders Scot Scot

Base 343 24 26 18 58 27 29 46 38 20 8 7 18 24

Response rate 79 92 68 86 77 84 76 66 83 91 100 78 86 92

Number of Strays 105,068 6,152 12,018 6,970 17,730 13,824 5,796 9,368 7,923 4,055 1,104 1,930 5,195 11,162

Number put to 7892 234 1267 770 359 504 115 181 76 19 72 49 272 3456 sleep

Number re-united 49,884 2789 5604 3205 8315 5771 3660 4673 4989 2643 817 1324 2636 2881

Passed onto wel- 24,235 1809 3310 1871 4600 4974 1668 1587 1018 623 303 249 789 1132 fare orgs

People per stray 559 494 523 669 572 312 703 1206 680 557 630 549 773 151

*Nb: in order to be comparable with methods used in previous surveys, the national total is calculated separately from the regional totals

GfK NOP, London, June 2006, Job no. 450960 11

GfK NOP

4.1 North East This year, the response rate from North East authorities was high at 92%. The number of stray dogs reported in the North East TV region has fallen by 1%, from an estimated 6,222 strays last year to an estimated 6,152 strays this year. The number of strays per person in the North East is 494, above the national average of 559.

The number of strays destroyed has decreased in absolute terms by 62% from 616 in 2005 to an estimated 234 this year.

Overall, 46% of strays in the North East were reported as having been re-united with their owners. Where a reason was given for those strays being returned to their owners, the proportion returned through the use of micro-chips is 32%.

This year a higher proportion of strays were re-homed by being passed on to welfare organisations than in previous years (29% in 2006-2007, as opposed to 22% in 2005-2006 and 21% in 2004-2005).

4.2 North West In 2007 the response rate from local authorities in the North West increased slightly from 66% to 68%. The number of stray dogs in the North West increased by an estimated 6%, from 11,326 up to 12,018. The number of strays per person is above the national average, at 523 people per stray. There was a rise in the number of stray dogs put to sleep, up from 813 in 2005-2006 to 1267 in 2006-2007. This represents a rise in the proportion of stray dogs put to sleep from 7% last year to 56% this year.

Overall, nearly a half (47%) of stray dogs were returned to their owners. Over a quarter (28%) of strays in the North West were passed on to welfare organisations.

4.3 Yorkshire This year there was a marked increase in response rates from Yorkshire authorities; 86% responded this year as opposed to 62% in the last wave. The total estimated number of strays in the Yorkshire region has increased since last year, from 6,071 to 6,970 (a increase of 15%). In Yorkshire there are fewer stray dogs per head of population than the national average, one stray for every 669 people as opposed to one for every 559 people nationally.

The estimated number of dogs put to sleep has risen since last year. In 2006 the figure was 412 while this year it is 770 constituting a 87% rise. At 11% of total strays, this is above the national average of 8%.

GfK NOP, London, June 2006, Job no. 450960 12

GfK NOP

Micro-chipping was given as a reason for having re-united dogs with their owners in 39% of such cases. Below half (46%) of strays are re-united with their owners in Yorkshire, which is in line with the national average of 47%. Nearly three in ten (27%) dogs are passed on to welfare organisations.

4.4 Midlands In the Midlands, the response rate to the stray dogs survey increased this year from 61% of authorities in 2005-2006 to 77%. The estimated number of strays in the Midlands has increased from 14,889 last year to 17,730 this year (a rise of 19%). This corresponds to one stray for every 572 people according to 2001 census data, below the national average of one stray for every 559 people.

The estimated number of strays put to sleep in the Midlands has fallen by 10% since last year, from 399 dogs to 359. However, this represents only 2% of strays in the Midlands overall, and therefore below the national average of 8%.

Just under half (47%) of strays were returned to their owners, and of these three in ten (30%) were returned as a result of the use of micro-chips. Over a quarter (26%) of strays were passed on to welfare organisations.

4.5 Wales and the West This year the response rate from authorities in Wales and the West was 84%, which is higher than last year’s response of 75%. This year's estimated number of strays (13,824) represents an increase of 2% compared to last years figure (13,613). This gives a stray per head of population figure of one stray for 312 people. This is still higher than the national average of one stray for every 559 people, and Wales and the West has the second largest number of strays per person in the UK, after Northern Ireland.

The number of dogs estimated as having been put to sleep in Wales and the West has risen by 16% this year, from 435 to 504. It should be noted that this represents 4% of the stray population, and therefore proportionately less than the national average of 8% of strays put to sleep.

Authorities in Wales and the West again returned 42% of stray dogs to their owners. Where identifiable methods of return have been identified, the proportion of dogs returned as a result of micro-chipping stands at 43%. Over a third of (36%) strays are passed on to welfare organisations.

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 13

GfK NOP

4.6 East and Anglia The response from East and Anglia authorities was up this year, at 76% compared to 61% last year. The estimated number of strays is up from 4,046 last year to 5,796 this year, a rise of 43%. The number of people per stray dog in the East and Anglia is 703, indicating that there are fewer strays in this region than the UK average of 559. The number of strays estimated as having been put to sleep in this region has risen slightly from 112 last year to its current level of 115. This represents only 2% of strays in the region, a low level nationally. Just under two thirds (63%) of strays were reunited with their owners, and where the methods have been identified, a third (33%) of these have been as a result of micro-chipping. This year around one in three (29%) of strays in this region were recorded as having been passed on to welfare organisations.

4.7 London Authorities in the London TV region gave a higher response rate this year, at 66% as opposed to 47% last year. Although 66% is nearly two thirds of eligible authorities, it is the lowest response of any TV region. The estimated number of strays reported by local authorities in the London region has risen from 7,021 to 9,368, a rise of 33%. This gives one dog for every 1,206 people. The estimated number of dogs put to sleep has increased from 157 to 181, a rise of 15%. This represents only 2% of strays in the London TV region, a low level nationally.

Approximately a half of stray dogs were reported as being returned to their owners, and of the reasons given for this, 34% were due to micro-chips. This year it is estimated that 1,587, (17%) of stray dogs were passed on to a welfare organisation.

4.8 Southern Approximately 83% of authorities responded from the Southern Region this year, an increase on the 56% achieved last year. The number of strays estimated in the southern region has increased from 6,834 last year to 7,923, a rise of 16%. This corresponds to one stray for every 680 people, better than the UK average of one stray for every 559 people. The number of stray dogs put to sleep in the South this year has fallen slightly, 76 compared to 107 in 2005-2006. This represents 1% of the total number of reported strays in the Southern region.

This year 63% of strays in the Southern TV region have been reported as being reunited with their owner, compared to 73% in 2005-2006. Where a reason for this was given, 29% were returned through micro-chips. Fewer than one in five strays (13%) were passed on to welfare organisations in the South.

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 14

GfK NOP

4.9 South West Just over nine in ten South West authorities responded this year (91%), an increase on last year’s total of 77%. The estimated number of strays reported in the South West TV region has risen from 3,692 last year to 4,055, a increase of 10%. This equates to one dog for every 557 people, roughly equal to the UK average. The number of dogs put to sleep is very low at 19; which represents less than 1% of the total number of strays and represents the lowest level nationally.

Over three in five stray dogs (65%) that are found in the South West are returned to their owners. Of reasons given for having been returned, 21% are because of the use of micro- chips. Just over one in seven (15%) strays are passed on to welfare organisations.

4.10 Borders The best response rate was achieved in the Borders TV region. It increased to 100% this year, compared to 88% last year. It should be noted that this TV region has the least number of authorities. Actual figures for all of the authorities in this TV region show that there are fewer strays than estimated in the previous year, 1,104 compared to an estimate of 2,431 in 2005-2006. This gives a stray per person figure of 630, slightly better than the UK average of 559. The estimated number of stray dogs put to sleep has decreased from 74 in 2005-2006 to 72 this year. This represents 7% of the stray population, and is lower than the UK average.

Of those strays reported by Borders authorities, around three quarters (74%) were recorded as having been returned to their owners, and of reasons given for dogs being returned, micro- chipping featured in only 9% of cases, a fall of 50% in the past two years. Just over a quarter (27%) of stray dogs in the Borders region were passed on to welfare organisations.

4.11 Northern Scotland The response rate for Northern Scotland authorities has increased from 56% in 2005-2006 to 78% this year. The estimated number of strays reported in Northern Scotland has fallen by 4%, from 2,016 to 1,930. This represents a number of people per stray figure of 549, slightly higher than the UK average of one stray for 559 people. The number of strays reported as having been put down has increased this year from 40 to 49 - making up 3% of total strays in this region.

Over two thirds (69%) of dogs have been returned to their owners, and of those for whom reasons have been recorded, a quarter (25%) are attributed to micro-chips.

Just over one in ten (13%) of stray dogs in Northern Scotland are recorded as having been passed on to welfare organisations; however this may reflect the success with which dogs in this region are re-united with their owners.

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 15

GfK NOP

4.12 Central Scotland Nearly nine in ten (86%) authorities in Central Scotland responded this year compared to two thirds (67%) last year. The number of estimated strays in Central Scotland has fallen this year by 22% from 6,674 last year to its current level of 5,195. This equates to one stray per 733 people, which is lower than the UK average.

The number of dogs put to sleep has decreased by 39% from 443 last year to 272 this year. Over a half (51%) of dogs have been returned to their owners, and of those dogs for whom reasons have been given, over a third (36%) have been returned through the use of micro- chips. One in seven (15%) strays in Central Scotland has been passed on to welfare organisations.

4.13 Northern Ireland Northern Irish authorities gave a response rate of 92% this year, up on the 81% recorded last year. The estimated number of strays recorded in Northern Ireland has remained roughly the same since last year from 11,155 dogs in 2005-2006 to 11,166 in 2006-2007. Using 2001 census data this equates to 151 people per stray dog, the highest number of stray dogs per head of population of any region in the UK.

The number of dogs put to sleep has risen by 12% since last year from 3,079 to this years estimate of 3,456. This represents 31% of stray dogs reported in the region, much higher than the UK average of 8%.

Just over a quarter (26%) of stray dogs are returned to their owners, and of those for whom a reason has been revealed, 18% were attributed to micro-chips. Again, only 10% of stray dogs in Northern Ireland have been passed on to welfare organisations.

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 16

GfK NOP

5 Campaign Region Analysis

Campaign Region Total North East North West Wales Northern Ireland

Base 343 35 28 20 24

Response rate 79 92 68 91 92

Number of Strays 105,068 9,109 13,070 10,617 11,162

Number put to 7892 828 1363 415 3456 sleep

Number re-united 49,884 4279 6100 4120 2881

Passed on to wel- 24,235 2655 3677 4245 1132 fare orgs

People per stray 559 557 534 273 151

There are four Campaign (GADAL) regions in the UK. These are areas in which Dogs Trust works especially closely with local authorities to reduce the number of stray dogs.

5.1 Year on year changes within the Campaign regions The Northern Ireland campaign region is identical to the Northern Ireland TV region, and all results pertaining to Northern Ireland therefore apply to the Northern Ireland campaign area.

The estimated number of strays in the North East campaign region has risen by 4% since last year to 9,106 and the estimated number of dogs reunited with their owner has risen by 15% to 4,279. Since last year the number of dogs put to sleep has risen by an estimated 10% to 828 and the number passed to welfare organisations has risen by 34% to 2,655.

The estimated number of strays in the North West has risen by 6% to 13,070, and the number of strays reunited with their owner has increased by 71% to 6,100. The estimate of dogs put to sleep has risen 46% to 1363, which reflects an actual rise of 428 dogs. The estimated number of dogs passed to welfare organisations has fallen by 8% to 3,677.

In Wales, the estimated number of stray dogs has fallen by 3% from last year to 10,617 in 2006-2007. The number of dogs reunited with their owners has remained fairly static at roughly 4100 dogs, and the number put to sleep has risen by 14% to 415. The estimated number of dogs passed to welfare organisations has risen by 28% to 4245.

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 17

GfK NOP

5.2 Comparisons between Campaign Regions As stated elsewhere in the report, Northern Ireland has the worst score for stray dogs per person, with only 151 people per stray dog, based on this year’s estimate. The next highest number of stray dogs occurs in the Wales campaign region with only 273 people per stray. The North East campaign region has an estimated 557 people per stray. The North West campaign region has 534 people per stray.

The percentage of strays that are returned to their owner is 47% in the North East, 47% in the North West, and 39% in Wales. In Northern Ireland just over one in four (26%) of strays are returned to owners.

In the North East 9% of strays are put to sleep. This compares to 10% in the North West and 4% in Wales, but 31% of strays in Northern Ireland.

5.3 Comparisons by Country Country Eng Scot Wales NI

Base 271 28 20 24

Response rate 77 88 91 92

Number of Strays 74,440 7,037 10,617 11,162

Number put to 3110 349 415 3456 sleep

Number re-united 38,523 4,051 4,120 2,881

Passed onto wel- 17,365 1,107 4,245 1,132 fare orgs

People per stray 658 728 273 151

It is clear from the table above that the number of people to stray dogs is highest in Scotland. There is a difference in the number of dogs put to sleep across the UK. Over three in ten (31%) of stray dogs in Northern Ireland are put to sleep, but only 4% of strays in Wales are put to sleep. In England 4% of stray dogs are put to sleep, and in Scotland the figure is 5%. The situation is reversed if we consider how many dogs are passed on to welfare organisations. In Northern Ireland, only 10% of the stray dog population were reported as having been passed on to welfare organisations, compared with 23% of strays in England, 16% of strays in Scotland and 40% of strays in Wales being passed on to welfare organisations. It seems that practices regarding the treatment of stray dogs in Northern Ireland diverge from rest of the UK in some respects.

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 18

GfK NOP

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Authorities by Region

5.4 TV Region

North East

Alnwick District Council Middlesbrough Council Blyth Valley Borough Council Newcastle City Council Castle Morpeth Borough Council Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Chester-Le-Street District Council Richmondshire District Council City of Sunderland Scarborough Borough Council Darlington Borough Council Sedgefield Borough Council Derwentside District Council South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council Durham City Council Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council East Riding of Yorkshire Council Teesdale District Council Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council Tynedale District Council Hambleton District Council Wansbeck District Council Hartlepool Borough Council Wear Valley District Council

North West

Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council Preston City Council Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Rossendale Borough Council Borough of Macclesfield South Ribble Borough Council Congleton Borough Council St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Fylde Borough Council Vale Royal Borough Council Halton Borough Council Warrington Borough Council High Peak Borough Council West Lancashire District Council Hyndburn Borough Council Wigan Council Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Lancaster City Council Wyre Borough Council Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

GfK NOP, London, June 2006, Job no. 450960 1

GfK NOP

Yorkshire

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Kingston upon Hull City Council Bassetlaw District Council Kirklees Council Chesterfield Borough Council Leeds City Council City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council City of York Council Ryedale District Council Craven District Council Selby District Council Derbyshire Dales District Council Sheffield City Council East Lindsey District Council West Lindsey District Council Harrogate Borough Council

Midlands

Amber Valley Borough Council North East Derbyshire District Council Ashfield District Council North East Lincolnshire Council Aylesbury Vale District Council North Kesteven District Council Birmingham City Council North Lincolnshire Council Blaby District Council North Shropshire District Council Borough of Telford and Wrekin North Warwickshire Borough Council Boston Borough Council Northampton Borough Council Bridgnorth District Council Nottingham City Council Broxtowe Borough Council Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Cannock Chase District Council Oadby and Wigston Borough Council Cheltenham Borough Council Oxford City Council Cherwell District Council Rushcliffe Borough Council Corby Borough Council Rutland County Council Cotswold District Council Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Derby City Council South Derbyshire District Council East Staffordshire Borough Council South Gloucestershire Council Erewash Borough Council South Northamptonshire Council Herefordshire Council South Oxfordshire District Council Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council South Shropshire District Council Leicester City Council South Staffordshire Council Lichfield District Council Stafford Borough Council Lincoln City Council Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Malvern Hills District Council Stratford on Avon District Council Mansfield District Council Tewesbury Borough Council Melton Borough Council Warwick District Council Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council West Oxfordshire District Council Wychavon District Council

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 2

GfK NOP

Wales and West

Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council Bridgend County Borough Council Monmouthshire County Council Cardiff County Council Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Ceredigion County Council Newport County Borough Council City and County of Swansea Powys County Council Conwy County Borough Council Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council Denbighshire County Council Torfaen County Borough Council Flintshire County Council Vale of Glamorgan Council Gwynedd Council Wrexham County Borough Council Isle of Anglesey County Council

East & Anglia

Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk North Norfolk District Council Braintree District Council Norwich City Council Broadland District Council Peterborough City Council Cambridge City Council Rochford District Council Chelmsford Borough Council South Bedfordshire District Council Colchester Borough Council South Cambridgeshire District Council East Cambridgeshire District Council South Kesteven District Council East Northamptonshire Council St Edmundsbury Borough Council Fenland District Council Suffolk Coastal District Council Huntingdonshire District Council Tendring District Council Ipswich Borough Council Uttlesford District Council Luton Borough Council Waveney District Council Mid Bedfordshire District Council Wellingborough Borough Council North Hertfordshire District Council

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 3

GfK NOP

London

Basildon District Council London Borough of Hillingdon Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council London Borough of Lambeth Bexley Council London Borough of Lewisham Borough of Spelthorne London Borough of Tower Hamlets Brent Council London Borough of Waltham Forest Castle Point Borough Council London Borough of Wandsworth Croydon Council Milton Keynes Council Dacorum Borough Council Mole Valley District Council Dartford Borough Council Reading Borough Council East Hertfordshire District Council Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Elmbridge Borough Council South Bucks District Council Epsom and Ewell Borough Council St Albans District Council Gravesham Borough Council Stevenage Borough Council Greenwich London Borough Council Swale Borough Council Hertsmere Borough Council Three Rivers District Council Islington Council Thurrock Council London Borough of Bromley Watford Borough Council London Borough of Hackney Welwyn Hatfield District Council London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Woking Borough Council London Borough of Havering Council Wycombe District Council

Southern

Arun District Council Mid Sussex District Council Ashford Borough Council New Forest District Council Borough of Poole North Dorset District Council Bracknell Forest Borough Council Portsmouth City Council Brighton and Hove City Council Purbeck District Council Chichester District Council Rushmoor Borough Council Christchurch Borough Council Salisbury District Council Dover District Council Sevenoaks District Council East Dorset District Council Southampton City Council East Hampshire District Council Surrey Heath Borough Council Eastbourne Borough Council Thanet District Council Fareham Borough Council Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Hart District Council Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Hastings Borough Council Wealden District Council Havant Borough Council West Berkshire Council Horsham District Council Winchester City Council Lewes District Council Wokingham District Council Maidstone Borough Council Worthing Borough Council

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 4

GfK NOP

South West

Bolsover District Council Penwith District Council Caradon District Council Plymouth City Council Carrick District Council South Hams District Council East Devon District Council South Somerset District Council Exeter City Council Stroud District Council Kerrier District Council Torbay Council Mid Devon District Council Torridge District Council North Cornwall District Council West Devon Borough Council North Devon District Council Weymouth and Portland Borough Council North Somerset Council

Borders

Allerdale Borough Council Eden District Council Carlisle City Council Scottish Borders Council Copeland Borough Council South Lakeland District Council

Northern Scotland

Aberdeenshire Council Moray District Council Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar Orkney Islands Council Dundee City Council Shetland Islands Council Highland Council

Central Scotland

City Of Edinburgh District Council Midlothian Council Clackmannashire Council North Ayrshire District Council East Ayrshire Council North Lanarkshire Council East Dunbartonshire Council Perth & Kinross Council East Lothian Council Renfrewshire Council East Renfrewshire County Council South Lanarkshire District Council Fife Council Stirling District Council Glasgow City Council West Dunbartonshire District Council Inverclyde Council

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 5

GfK NOP

Northern Ireland

Antrim Borough Council Down District Council Ards Borough Council Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council Armagh District Council Fermanagh District Council Ballymena Borough Council Larne Borough Council Ballymoney Borough Council Limavady Borough Council Banbridge District Council Lisburn Borough Council Belfast City Council Magherafelt District Council Carrickfergus Borough Council Moyle District Council Castlereigh Borough Council Newry & Mourne District Council Coleraine Borough Council North Down Borough Council Craigavon Borough Council Omagh District Council Derry City Council Strabane District Council

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 6

GfK NOP

5.5 Campaign Regions GADAL North East

Allerdale Borough Council Harrogate Borough Council Alnwick District Council Hartlepool Borough Council Blyth Valley Borough Council Leeds City Council Carlisle City Council Middlesbrough Council Castle Morpeth Borough Council Newcastle City Council Chester-Le-Street District Council Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council Richmondshire District Council City of Sunderland Ryedale District Council City of York Council Sedgefield Borough Council Copeland Borough Council Selby District Council Craven District Council South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council Darlington Borough Council Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Derwentside District Council Teesdale District Council Durham City Council Tynedale District Council Eden District Council Wansbeck District Council Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council Wear Valley District Council Hambleton District Council

NON GADAL North East

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

GADAL North West

Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council Preston City Council Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Borough of Macclesfield Rossendale Borough Council Chester City Council South Ribble Borough Council Congleton Borough Council St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Fylde Borough Council Vale Royal Borough Council Halton Borough Council Warrington Borough Council High Peak Borough Council West Lancashire District Council Hyndburn Borough Council Wigan Council Kirklees Council Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council Wyre Borough Council Lancaster City Council

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 7

GfK NOP

GADAL Wales

GADAL Northern Ireland

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 8

GfK NOP

Appendix B: Questionnaire, Covering Letters/email and Tabulations

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 9

GfK NOP

Covering letters to those who responded to the survey in 2006 & Email invitation text for all those who gave an email address

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 10

GfK NOP

«Job_Title» «Address_line_1» «Address_line_2» «Address_line_3» «Town» «County» «Postcode» Date

Dear «Title» «Last_Name»,

Re: Annual Dogs Trust Stray Dogs Survey 2007

Thank you so much for completing last year’s survey on stray dogs. Your response was invaluable as it helped to create the most complete picture of the stray and abandoned dog situation in the UK.

I am writing to ask you, once again, for your help. In the next few days you will receive the 2007 survey from GfK NOP. I would be extremely grateful if you could complete the survey again this year.

The survey helps us to raise public awareness of the stray dog situation and as I men- tioned forms the basis of our funding allocations. Last year, Dogs Trust invested over £3million in microchipping and neutering campaigns around the UK.

The findings of the survey enable us to target our efforts and funds to the areas of great- est need to ensure we are making the biggest difference.

To thank you for your kind assistance, a summary report of the survey will be sent out to everyone who responds.

Thank you, in advance, for your co-operation. Together, I hope we can continue to build a better future for dogs.

Yours sincerely

Clarissa Baldwin

Chief Executive Dogs Trust

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 11

GfK NOP

«Title» «First_Name» «Last_Name» «Job_Title» «Organisation_Name» «Address_line_1» «Postcode» Date Dear Personalised

RE: Dogs Trust Annual Stray Dogs Survey 2007

Thank you for completing last year’s survey on stray and abandoned dogs taken in by local authorities throughout the UK. We are writing to ask you, once again, for your help.

We would be extremely grateful if you could complete and return the enclosed survey once again, in the reply paid envelope provided or fill it in online at: http://www.surveys.com/dogstrust (entering your ID number) by 11th June 2007.

Your response will help to give the most complete national picture of the stray dog situation in the UK. The findings of the survey enable us to raise public awareness of the stray dog issue and will form the basis of our regional funding allocations.

As an example, previous surveys allowed us to target certain local authority areas with practi- cal help to the tune of over £3 million in 2006. Feedback from Environmental Health Depart- ments in these areas shows that the initiatives are having a very positive effect, not only re- ducing the numbers of strays, but also the associated problems such as dog fouling.

The survey is being carried out in conjunction with GfK NOP, a leading market research com- pany. All respondent details remain confidential to GfK NOP unless express permission is given.

Also, to thank you for your assistance, a summary report of the survey will be sent out to everyone who responds.

As this type of information is available under the Freedom of Information Act, if you would prefer this survey to be handled by your Freedom of Information Department, we would be very grateful if you could redirect this questionnaire to them. Or if you are not the appropriate person to complete this questionnaire, please pass it to a relevant colleague in your department.

Thank you, in advance, for your co-operation. Together, I know we can continue to build a better future for dogs.

Yours sincerely

Clarissa Baldwin Lisa Endersbee Chief Executive Dogs Trust Senior Researcher GfK NOP

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 12

GfK NOP

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 13

GfK NOP

Email Invitation Text Dear Name,

Dogs Trust Annual Stray Dogs Survey 2007

We would be extremely grateful if you could complete this online questionnaire about the number of stray dogs in your authority.

Your response is invaluable as it will help provide the most complete picture of the stray dog situation in the UK. The findings of this survey enable us to raise public awareness of the stray dog issue and form the basis of our regional funding allocations.

The survey is being carried out in conjunction with GfK NOP, a leading market research com- pany. All respondent details remain confidential to GfK NOP unless express permission is given.

To access the short survey please click once on the link below.

LINK

Don’t worry if you can’t complete all of the questions in one go. To access the survey again simply click on the link above (again once) and you will pick up where you left off.

We would be very grateful if you could take the time to complete the survey within the next few days. Also, to thank you for your assistance, a summary report of the survey will be sent out to everyone who responds.

Thank you, in advance, for your co-operation. Together, I know we can continue to build a better future for dogs.

If you have any questions about the survey please feel free to email Lisa Endersbee, Senior Research Officer - [email protected]. If you complete the online survey you can ignore the paper questionnaire sent through to you in the post. You will not receive any more reminders.

Thanks in advance,

Elvira Meucci Head of Campaigns Dogs Trust - A Dog Is For Life

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 14

GfK NOP

Questionnaire

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 15

GfK NOP

Tabulations

GfK NOP, London, July 2007, Job no. 451338 16