|
Dog
thefts: KC allow ‘no address option’
In
a statement issued this week the Kennel Club is to allow exhibitors
the option of being catalogued without address details in an
effort to deny interested parties the addresses of breeders
and exhibitors of specific breeds. The move will prove of particular
interest to sighthound breeders, some of whom have been targeted
by thieves in recent years.
At the Kennel Club AGM last May the plight of breeders who have
suffered this problem was placed before members by senior member
Mr Nick Bryce-Smith who, with his wife Marie, exhibits Salukis.
Speaking to OUR DOGS earlier this week Mr Bryce-Smith was delighted
with the result of the General Committee’s deliberations,
saying that the move was a positive help to those who fear such
unwanted attention.
Catalogue compilers will now have to create an optional ‘anonymity’
box for exhibitors to tick as required. In some cases complex
computer programmes will have to be modified to accommodate
the new regulation which has immediate effect.
Owners of pedigree dogs across the UK have been living in fear
of an organised crime ring which is operating from Kent in the
East to Gloucestershire in the West and as far north as Oxfordshire
and Cambridgeshire.
Although the police forces in various counties treat the disappearances
as random, isolated incidents, there is nothing random or isolated
about the escalating number of thefts. The crime syndicate’s
modus operandi is to make careful observations of the dogs they
intend to steal – usually from dog owners who breed or
exhibit their dogs regularly at shows and who, in many cases,
live in isolated homes. Then the gang moves in when the owners
are not about and steal the dogs they require. The thieves then
contact the distraught owners and demand a ‘ransom’
– usually hundreds of pounds – for the dogs’
safe return.
One West Highland White Terrier breeder from Kent had two of
her dogs - one of which was qualified for Crufts - stolen from
her kennels in October 2001. She started placing adverts in
her local free papers and was horrified when several other dog
owners came forward and said that they, too, had had their dogs
stolen.‘I started doing my own investigations and even
drew up a large map of the areas where dogs had been stolen,’
the breeder told OUR DOGS. ‘It was obvious to me –
and many of the other owners – that there was a definite
organised ring operating in the area, coming off three main
routes. I conveyed this information to the police when I reported
the theft to the police and showed them my map, pointing out
all the other thefts, all of which have taken place in the past
two or three months, and they simply weren’t interested.
In fact, the officer I spoke to pointed out that the thefts
covered areas ‘beyond their boundaries’ and said they
couldn’t encroach on those areas.’
The breeder also discovered that the police log most of the
dog thefts as the dogs merely being ‘missing’, unless
a theft is actually observed taking place.
‘If they listed all the thefts as actual thefts, the figures
would go through the roof,’ she added.
Malcolm Moss, Conservative MP for North East Cambridgeshire,
has called for a national campaign to make dog owners aware
of the canine crime syndicate and called on the Government (Home
Office) to take action.
‘This is a national problem and it needs addressing nationally,’
said Mr Moss. ‘From the evidence I have seen, it is an
organised crime ring which operates with inside knowledge and
steals people’s pets.’
‘Dog owners have a right to the same protection of the
law as any other taxpaying citizen and I intend once again to
make this point very clearly to the Minister and demand that
these cases are taken seriously.’
The Home Office merely dismissed the thefts as a matter for
local police forces. Kaye Fitzgerald-Gorham of the missing dog
organisation Lurcher Search said that the problem of organised
dog thefts was growing worse.
‘At Lurcher Search we operate in conjunction with several
other dog charities and groups who run logs of missing dogs,
but perhaps its time for us to join forces and operate a nationwide
network,’ she said
The spokesperson for the Kennel Club commented: ‘The Kennel
Club is aware that sometimes pedigree dogs are taken by opportunists
or stolen to order, and we have also heard of instances where
dogs are stolen, and then a ransom demand is made for their
safe return.
‘This issue obviously causes a great deal of distress for
both dog and owner and our advice would be that owners remain
extremely vigilant and do not leave their dogs unattended in
the garden or car whilst shopping, for example, and also ensure
that the dogs are microchipped or tattooed, as this will assist
greatly in the speedy reuniting process and also conclusively
prove ownership, should a dispute arise.
‘A Central Dog Theft Registry would be a good idea in instances
where the dog was not microchipped. The Dogs’ Home, Battersea,
for example currently operate a 'Lost Dog Line' for the London
area, which has been phenomenally successful with regard to
reuniting lost - or stolen - dogs that are then abandoned, with
their owners’.
The KC announcement issued last Tuesday said:-
DISCLOSURE OF ADDRESSES IN CATALOGUES
‘A
number of concerns have been raised over the past year concerning
the theft of pedigree dogs which may be related to the addresses
of exhibitors appearing in show catalogues.
These concerns have also been raised by Breed Clubs and the
Avon & Somerset Constabulary.
‘Discussions took place on this issue and at its meeting
held on 15 October 2002 the General Committee agreed a change
in the following Regulations to allow for exhibitors to have
the choice as to whether they wish their addresses to appear
in catalogues.
‘F(1)12.(6).
FROM:
Championship Shows.
At the beginning of each breed classification an alphabetical
index containing the names and addresses of exhibitors, the
number and name of each exhibit and the numbers of the classes
in which it is entered, giving a separate line to the name
of each exhibitor, and full particulars of each exhibit as
given on the entry form completed by the exhibitor. The number
and name of each exhibit must be given in each class for which
it is entered.
‘TO:
Championship Shows.
At the beginning of each breed classification an alphabetical
index containing the names of exhibitors, addresses (unless
requested by the exhibitor to be withheld for publication),
the number and name of each exhibit and the numbers of the
classes in which it is entered, giving a separate line to
the name of each exhibitor, and full particulars of each exhibit
as given on the entry form completed by the exhibitor. The
number and name of each exhibit must be given in each class
for which it is entered.
(Amendment underlined)
‘F(1)12.(8)
FROM:
Open and Limited Shows.
Names and addresses of all exhibitors and full particulars
of each exhibit as given on the entry form by the exhibitor.
TO:
Open and Limited Shows.
Names of exhibitors, addresses (unless requested by the exhibitor
to be withheld for publication), of all exhibitors and full
particulars of each exhibit as given on the entry form by
the exhibitor.
(Amendment underlined)
‘Therefore, societies are requested to arrange with their
printers for a box to appear on entry forms that exhibitors
are able to tick to request that their addresses do not appear
in catalogues. The name of the owner, name of the dog, its
breed and breeding details will still be included in catalogues
– it is only the owner’s address which can be omitted
at the exhibitor’s specific request. The address must
continue to be supplied to the society’.
Additional reporting by bernie Lovitt
|
