The authorities in Antigua and Barbuda were very public about their intention to remove stray animals from the streets ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. The operation was announced, explanations were given and assurances were issued that the animals would be treated humanely. The Veterinary Authority responded to concerns by explaining the legal procedures it intended to follow and reassuring the public that this was not a mass euthanasia exercise.
There was no shortage of communication about the collections themselves.
But now, as the operation reaches its scheduled conclusion, we are left asking a question that should have been answered from the beginning. Where are the dogs, and what has happened to them?
Dog Desk Animal Action has spent almost two weeks trying to establish how many animals were collected, where they were taken, who is responsible for their care and what arrangements have been made for their eventual return to owners or rehoming. We have corresponded with the Veterinary Authority, sought information through formal channels and followed local developments as closely as possible. People in Antigua have also tried to obtain answers.
Despite all of this, we still cannot establish how many dogs were removed from the streets.
We have been given reassurances, but very little information that allows us to independently verify what has happened to the animals.
The Veterinary Authority provided Dog Desk Animal Action with a public notice entitled Stray Animal Removal and Humane Handling. It explained that dogs seized by a Dog Control Officer must be taken to an approved animal shelter and impounded for a minimum of two working days, excluding the day of impoundment and any days the shelter is closed. It also referred to the legal requirement to make a bona fide effort to notify owners that their dogs had been impounded and explain how they could reclaim them.
Most importantly, the Authority made a very specific commitment about photographs.
“Photographs of impounded dogs will be taken and shared publicly for 2 working days to help owners identify and reclaim their pets.”
That was not a vague promise to keep people informed. It was a procedure intended to give owners the opportunity to recognise their animals and arrange for their return. The Authority even acknowledged that some dogs roaming the streets might be beloved family pets.
Yet we have been unable to find these photographs.
We have searched the publicly accessible information, examined the Humane Society’s online presence and followed local discussions about the collections. We have not found an identifiable photographic record of the dogs impounded during this operation. We cannot establish where the photographs were published, when they were available or how owners were expected to find them.
This does not prove that the photographs were never taken or shared. But when an authority makes a specific commitment to public identification, it should be possible to establish where and when that process took place.
On 28 October, just two days after the operation began, a Facebook appeal appeared requesting food donations for street dogs that had been captured. The appeal was made by Kevin Vaughn Liddie, who has subsequently posted further information about dogs reportedly collected by a government agency.
We do not know who requested the food donations, which facility the appeal was intended to support or whether the animals concerned were receiving adequate supplies. The appeal alone does not establish any failure of care. Nevertheless, it raises a reasonable question about the arrangements made to feed and support animals removed through a government directed operation.
If the authorities were organising the collection of animals, what provision had been made for their care once they were taken off the streets?
Then, on 6 November, another appeal appeared.
Seven dogs were identified by name as having been rescued from the streets by a government agency and were being advertised as available for adoption.
Charles, Camilla, Baron, Patsy, Pilot, Pauline and Priscilla.
The appeal encouraged people to come forward and offer homes, particularly for Charles and Baron, who were described as especially eager. A telephone number associated with the government Veterinary and Livestock Division was provided. In the comments, Joy Farrell of Dogs and Cats of Antigua indicated that the dogs were at a sanctuary and that photographs would be posted the following day.
It is encouraging to see individual dogs being identified and efforts being made to find them homes. We have no reason to question the intentions of people trying to help them. But the appearance of an adoption appeal raises questions about the procedures that preceded it.
Were these seven dogs collected during the CHOGM operation? When were they taken into custody? Were their identification photographs published as promised? Were owners given the opportunity to reclaim them before they were advertised for adoption? And are these seven dogs the entire number collected, or simply the only ones whose names have reached the public?
We do not know the answers.
There is an important distinction between a dog being available for adoption and a dog being available for reclamation. An animal found wandering in the street is not automatically an abandoned animal. It may have escaped from home, become lost or been separated from someone who is desperately looking for it. That is precisely why identification and notification procedures exist.
The Veterinary Authority’s own notice recognised this responsibility. It stated that owners would be given the opportunity to reclaim their dogs in accordance with the law and that adoption or rehoming would be pursued where animals remained unclaimed.
We have no evidence that these procedures were breached in the cases of the seven named dogs. But we have not been able to verify that the promised public identification process took place either.
The government has also publicly identified the Antigua and Barbuda Humane Society as a destination for animals collected during the operation. Agriculture Minister Anthony Smith stated that dogs were being sheltered there, while veterinarian Dr Chere Kellman reportedly confirmed that dogs she collected were taken directly to the Society, where they had access to food, water and veterinary assistance.
Those assurances are welcome, but they do not answer the questions we have been asking.
We have been unable to locate a comprehensive public record from the Humane Society identifying the dogs received during the operation. There is no intake figure we have been able to verify, no accessible photographic register covering the collected animals and no published breakdown showing how many dogs have been reclaimed, rehomed or remain in care.
It is entirely possible that records are being maintained internally. It is also possible that information has been shared through channels we have not been able to access. We are not suggesting otherwise. But the existence of internal records is not the same as making information available to owners and members of the public who have been promised it.
What makes this situation particularly difficult to understand is the contrast between the publicity surrounding the collections and the lack of accessible information about their outcomes.
The public was told that animals would be removed. The authorities explained why the operation was necessary. They responded to concerns, outlined procedures and issued assurances about humane treatment. Yet we are now attempting to piece together what happened afterwards from individual Facebook posts, appeals for donations and scattered comments about dogs being available for adoption.
Why should that be necessary?
If a government authority collects animals from public streets, it should be able to account for them. There should be a record of how many were taken, where they were housed, whether they were identified as owned animals and what eventually happened to them. Where dogs have been transferred between facilities, that movement should be traceable. Where they have been reclaimed or adopted, those outcomes should be recorded. Where animals remain in custody, their welfare arrangements should be clear.
And if identification photographs were promised, the public should be able to establish where they were published.
This is not an accusation that the animals have been harmed or that the authorities have deliberately concealed their whereabouts. We do not have evidence to support either conclusion. Nor are we suggesting that the individuals and organisations attempting to care for the dogs are responsible for the lack of publicly accessible government records.
Our concern is much simpler than that.
The authorities made the collection of these animals a public exercise, but the outcomes remain largely beyond public scrutiny.
We cannot assess the success of an animal welfare operation simply by knowing that dogs have been removed from the streets. Removal is an action, not an outcome. What happens to an animal afterwards is just as important as the circumstances in which it was collected.
A dog taken into custody still needs food, shelter, veterinary attention and appropriate handling. If it belongs to someone, there must be a lawful process through which that person can recover it. If it is genuinely unclaimed, decisions about its future must be made responsibly and recorded. These are not unreasonable expectations. They are fundamental to any system that claims to manage animals humanely.
There is also a wider issue here that extends far beyond Antigua and Barbuda.
Around the world, governments announce stray animal collection programmes in the name of public safety, disease control, tourism, major events or animal welfare. Sometimes the number of animals removed is presented as evidence that a problem has been addressed. But how often does the public receive an equally detailed account of what happened to those animals afterwards?
How many were reunited with their owners? How many were adopted? How many remained in shelters? How many died? How many were euthanised? How many were transferred elsewhere?
Without those figures, it is impossible to properly evaluate the outcomes of a programme or determine whether its stated welfare objectives were achieved.
That is why Dog Desk Animal Action continues to pursue the issue of traceability and accountability. It is not enough for authorities to say that animals have been dealt with humanely. There must be records capable of demonstrating what happened.
In Antigua, we have now been given the names of seven dogs reportedly collected by a government agency. We hope Charles, Camilla, Baron, Patsy, Pilot, Pauline and Priscilla are safe, receiving appropriate care and, if genuinely unclaimed and eligible for adoption, able to find permanent homes.
But seven names do not tell us how many dogs were collected during an operation that ran for almost two weeks.
They do not tell us whether every animal was accounted for, whether every owner had the opportunity to reclaim their dog or whether all the animals remain alive and in care.
And they do not explain what happened to the identification photographs that the Veterinary Authority promised would be made public.
Dog Desk Animal Action has already sought information through formal channels. We continue to ask for the total number of animals collected between 26 October and 6 November, the facilities to which they were taken, the records of their subsequent movements and the outcomes recorded for them. We also want confirmation of where and when the promised identification photographs were published.
We are not asking for confidential personal information or anything that would compromise the welfare of the animals. We are asking for a transparent account of a government-directed operation involving living animals taken into public custody.
There should be nothing extraordinary about that request.
The public was informed about the collections. The public was reassured about the treatment of the animals. The public was promised photographs to assist with identification and reclamation.
The public should now be told what happened to the dogs. The dogs were publicly collected. Their fate should not be a private matter.
Dog Desk Animal Action CIC continues to seek documentary evidence and official records relating to the animals collected during the Antigua and Barbuda operation. Anyone with relevant information, including identification photographs or published records, can contact us through dogdeskanimalaction.com.