A nice gentlemen, who informed me that the concept of using dogs in this manner in the UK, was at best frowned upon by the CAA on the grounds of safety!
That's not how the CAA says it works these days. The airport should do a risk assessment of the birdstrike threat and, if necessary, mitigate the risk to an acceptable level. If the use of dogs as a mitigating measure can be implemented safely - as shown through a Safety Case - and in compliance with any relevant prescriptive rules then the CAA should accept it.
I presume that the dogs would always be accompanied by a handler (rather than allowed to roam on their own). It sounds similar to the use of hawks which has been used successfully at some airports in the UK but, as far as I am aware, not on a long term basis because they are far more costly than other techniques that are considered to work well enough (when applied properly). One problem that is difficult to mitigate when trying to argue the safety of animals is that they may scare a flock of birds into the air and into the path of an aircraft - something that a fireman with a firecracker will not do with the proper training. I suspect that it would be far easier to argue for the use of dogs at a quieter airport than a busy one but the additional costs would then be less easy to bear, regardless of how effective the dogs were.
I'm not saying that I disagree with your point completely - but, equally, I can understand a cautious approach from the CAA.
I presume Poppycock is one of your dogs??????