Dog attacks still increasing - is it time to bring back proper licensing?

I agree, but rounded up by whom?
I can foresee the owners claiming that their mental health has been destroyed by the 'murder' of their fur baby, and no win no fee solicitors lining up to sue the police for damages.
And the pet industry will lobby against any restrictions on pet ownership because it might threaten profits.

No surprises now that the breed responsible for the most recent fatal attack has been revealed:
https://news.sky.com/story/dog-that-killed-nine-month-old-baby-in-rogiet-was-xl-bully-13464450

Not all dog bites are due to a dog being out of control and aggressive.
I know someone who had a dog that bit a child. The dog was fast asleep and the child sat on them.
Some dogs bite due to being in pain or an illness.

I don't think a dog licence and/or insurance is the answer. Criminal charges as I proposed earlier in this thread (charged as if you inflicted the injury yourself) is my preference.

The legacy of Boris Johnson and to the extent the 14 years of Tory rule are that too many people see laws such as licences and rules as optional.

Not just a dog licence but insurance as well.! So you can claim for your injury or your vet bills if it's your dog that's been bitten ! I have 3 dogs and all are insured as well as registered with a vet. As a child I was bitten on the leg at 6 years old by next door neighbours dog and also 8 years of age where I needed stitches in my leg. It didn't put me off dogs. However, we need more dog wardens to enforce dogs on lead, cleaning up mess and where dogs are attacking people or other dogs - therefore the cost must be on the owner of the dog and not the person that gets bitten 👍

They probably will @CharlotteCChapel but then we’d just have to ban those as well. I just think we can’t take such risks with children. Some XL bullies have killed adult males so small kids have no chance at all.

To be fair, on the bite sports thing - there are a lot of people who are genuinely training for competition and would turn away loonies who want a pet dog that can take out a bad guy... These people manage their dogs carefully, and wouldn't suggest in a million years that they make good pets for the ordinary Joe.

However the industry is rife with shock jock, yank and crank trainers who have no interest in the competition world, they just want to sell 'family protection dogs' to anyone who can front up a few grand - and the cut price budget version of that, happy to show Mr Knuckledragger how to goad and jab and beat his dog into lunging and grabbing for any arm or leg, (note how many of the XL Bully attacks start out with dogs jumping and grabbing for sleeves, I can think of at least three videos of that), who mistake fear aggression or hyper arousal as good traits for protection work...

A quick dive into the TikTok world of dog training will show you how many people are out there advising horrific methods, with no disclaimer as to the inherent risks, to anyone with a smartphone.

I agree with everything you say except for two things:
I do agree with this one! - agreeing with 'no dogs allowed to be in the care of under 18s in public (obviously dogs such as guide dogs would be exempt).
Are you really saying that a sensible 14-year-old shouldn't be able to take the family's amiable toy poodle up the road to see a friend or for a quick run around the park? Yes, incidents can happen, but IME they are very rare even when walking in popular areas.
How would you regulate who can have a working dog? There are many many trainers out there training dog for protection work and bite sports, who have zero security work, military or police affiliations - how are you stopping them, they are a huge part of the problem.
Firstly - just for clarity, as I'm sure you know this if (iirc) you have lurchers etc - there is a very hazy dividing line between 'working dog' and 'pet'. I know a huge number of working gundogs, and I've seen a fair few lurchers, some of them enormous, and most of them living pet lives. Some of these dogs are enormous. I've yet to meet one who was a threat to a person.
Secondly, I would argue that bite and protection sports are not part of the problem. See here https://dogtrainersaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/PDTA-Submission.pdf for a reasoned discussion. If there is evidence that there are people training protection where the dogs turn out to be a problem, then perhaps regulate that kind of training. The protection sports (and protection sport breeding) feed in massively to police and military working dogs, to the point that without the 'hobby' people, the breeding lines could easily become unviable. Developments in protection sport training (the use of play, for example) have changed training for the actual working dogs.

It's also worth pointing out that people who belong to dog clubs tend to have pretty high standards for their dogs and aggression, to either people or other dogs, is viewed extremely dimly, and the dog is likely to be banned from future events.

Other than that, you make a lot of excellent points. You're spot on about dog parks - IME popular dog walking places are an absolute magnet for people with dickhead dogs. There's one I go to sometimes (it's a great space for dog training if it's quiet, pitches, scrub, woodland, fences to jump...) and there is a small dog there who I avoid like plague, esp if he is off-lead - as he all too often is. Same place, there used to be a poodle with a bite history.

I also agree about assistance dog. Locally (again) I know of a dog who was trained by her owner and a dog trainer to assist in various tasks. Perhaps the KC could do something useful and assess self-trained assistance dogs for a nominal fee...

ETA, crazy that your fall down the stairs went down as a bite. One of my DC fell over the dog and needed stitches - perhaps that went down as a bite as well! (The dog was a good as gold about it!)

I always think it’s the law abiding and responsible that have to pay for the feckless minority . Rather than the majority being clamped down on why not just make it illegal to own a ‘ fierce ‘ breed if you live in a flat of have no large outside garden etc etc , have a criminal record etc etc . Breeders should be held legally responsible to who they sell to . Ban puppy / dog advertising on gum tree type places . Anything to stop the feckless owning the wrong dogs .

I know the kind of people you’re referring to but honestly I just don’t think a dog license will make any kind of difference.

Most people don’t report minor altercations as is is - and even when they do, the police aren’t going to be interested unless the attack puts someone in hospital (or it happens to make the local paper for some reason).

I like the idea of a license I’m just not convinced it would make the slightest bit of difference. It will be almost impossible to police and nobody is going to be scanning chips and checking information until the attack happens and is reported - and by then it’s too late anyway.

I would change the law in a simple way. If a dog harms someone, treat is as if you harmed the person yourself. Apply the legal concept of joint enterprise, so if your dog injures someone such that hospital treatment is needed, it is GBH as a minimum.

IME there are three groups of people in the dog world.

1. Those who own the status dogs who don’t care about legislation still don’t get their dogs microchip and this is the group where the fatal incidents seem to happen.
2. the clueless did zero research before getting the dog, did zero training, treat the dog like it is a mobile teddy bear. This is the dog that is off lead runs up and bites the on lead dog minding it’s own business. These dogs also often bite vets and groomers.
3. the vast majority of owners who did their research, did the training and have good etiquette with their dog - not allowing their off lead dog to approach an on lead one. Know what their dogs limits are - not liking feet touched etc.

Group 3 will do everything right, group 2 will tick the boxes, do the paperwork, but the dog will still be untrained and incidents will occur. Group 1 will ignore everything and will just move on to another power breed if they can’t get an XL bully, which we are already seeing with Cane Corso and Dogue de Bordeaux.
Covid massively increased the number of people in group 2.

I would be happy to see a licensing system, not specifically to mitigate the issue of dangerous dogs (though that would be a part of the reason) but to control the whole swathe of issues relating to dogs, especially animal welfare, but also things like failing to clear up poo, noise nuisance, etc.

The licence would have to be expensive enough to cover the costs of enforcement. That would make it VERY expensive.

In the short term the system would cause all sorts of problems - and I imagine there would be loads of people that simply didn't buy a licence, resulting in a lot of confiscated dogs unhappily in kennels.

The value of a licensing system (if it worked) would ultimately be that it might massively reduce the number of dogs owned - by requiring some demonstration of competence as well as money and whatever other conditions might be imposed. We've reached a horrible point where dogs are bred and bought and sold just as another part of consumer capitalism. That was already bad enough before Covid, but since Covid it has become insane.

Very sensible and reasoned answer.

Some people are bad with their dogs, in the same way that some people supervise their children badly or are generally antisocial, enforcement needs to be proportionate and demonstrably address the problem at hand, most of the people here just don’t like dogs and want them gone from society without considering what that would mean to millions of people, aside from the infringement on personal freedoms dogs are a really important part of the life and support system of a large part of our society and I’m sick of the demonisation.

And this hurts you how exactly? You don’t like dogs, fine then ignore them. I don’t like badly behaved screaming kids, drunk knobheads hanging around town or idiots smoking or vaping so you have to walk through crowds of grossness to get where I’m going. Do I get to ban or licence all of those?

I don’t see the point of dog licensing, all that will happen is that the types of people you’re tying to guard against won’t bother to get them and all the responsible people end up forking out more money .

• how? based on what criteria? in their keeping - where exactly? Police haven't had stray kennels for decades now, council contracted pounds are rammed, and not all have the facilities to take seized dogs anyway. Do you understand how much this would cost the taxpayer, on top of the current astronomical costs for housing dogs whilst they wait for court hearings?
• I would agree with a more cohesive reporting system - currently some hospitals will report any dog related injury as a bite, because that is all their forms allow for. I fell over a dog (and then down the stairs) and my torn ligaments went down as a bite which I said at the time was fucking stupid... but thats the box they had to tick. It would be GREAT if ALL emergency medics could rate bite wounds on the Dunbar Bite Scale (this is what behaviourists use to categorise bites).
• Vets are not behaviourists unless they've completed a Veterinary Behaviour qualification (there are a handful of these in the UK) or are a Clinical Animal Behaviourist, alongside their veterinary qualification. Most vets are not qualified, nor have the facilities, to accurately assess behaviour and to do the job properly you really need the dog housed somewhere suitable, and multiple visits.
• How would this work with the generally non-aggressive but tall breeds - or can we kiss goodbye to Deerhounds, Wolfhounds, Great Danes, Greyhounds, Afghans, who are all significantly taller than XL Bullies, Cane Corsos, etc etc? How would you regulate who can have a working dog? There are many many trainers out there training dog for protection work and bite sports, who have zero security work, military or police affiliations - how are you stopping them, they are a huge part of the problem.
• We have licencing and inspection. It is piss poor and mostly handed over to the RSPCA. Who will pay for this? How will it be non-biased (as if the commercial puppy farmer pays the inspector well thats not going to be a surprise, non-planned, fair assessment is it?!).
• Areas with strict leash laws and dog parks tend to see a dramatic rise in dog aggression as dogs are significantly harder to train, exercise and meet their physical and mental needs. In many places the 'dog parks' are little more than shit filled postage stamps with fencing, where dog aggressive dogs are let run around, dog fights happen multiple times a day and responsible owners avoid them like the plague. For a dog park to be beneficial to dogs welfare it needs to be multiple acres in size, landscaped not barren, and carefully managed and monitored. Who will pay, and where will the land be found?
• I do agree with this one!
• Nope - discriminatory. Very few disabled people can get a dog from a charity because the cost per dog is huge, the wait lists are years long, you will increase the value in people selling trained assistance dogs (a HUGE con market, really bad news) and fewer people will have assistance dos who need them. The EA quite clearly states it is possible to owner train for good reason. I'd propose a much better awareness scheme of what is and is not an assistance dog task, what businesses/venues can expect of an assistance dog and where/when they can ask a dog/handler team to leave.
• These last two are taking away a business owners rights to manage their business the way they want. If you want to shop or eat in a cafe that is dog free, and your local stores/cafes have dogs - tell the owners why you are not spending money there. They let dogs in because thats where the money is coming from, for many, if dogs can't come in, their trade will drop to the point where they are no longer in business (very true in my local, rural area).

There is a campaign by dickhead owners and breeders of these dogs.
Don't ban me licence me.
Started by someone Reid from America,big pitbull breeder.
Yeah right.
Anything to get round the not being able to breed and make more money ,nothing to do with safety as the owners are largely irresponsible morons.
I think the idea for banning was to protect the public not the morons who own such dogs, it’s largely been effective but sadly these moronic dogs are still attacking and killing other animals.

The issue with a list like this is that some of them penalise good dog owners and well-mannered dogs, and some of them are very open to interpretation, and some look good on the surface, but scratch them and there are problems.

For example:
no dogs off-lead in public unless it's an approved area (e.g., licensed dog park)
I live rurally. I can walk miles and see either nobody, or only people (and dogs) that I know. Why should my dogs be in lead in those circumstances? Free running is key to the well-being of many, many dogs. Why should well-behaved dogs with decent recall be on-lead because a minority of dogs are a problem?
all other dogs to be neutered.
At what age should a dog be neutered? Early neutering can predispose to some medical conditions. I leave my dogs intact until they're four or five, to let them mature mentally as well as physically. I've seen three bitches through quite a lot of seasons, and we've never had a pregnancy.
dogs that bite get risk-assessed by a vet (at owners expense) no risk-assessment or a failed assessment = humanely destroyed
Good luck finding a vet keen to do that - and capable of doing so. Vets are not behavioural specialists. Many dogs with aggression issues can be turned around by competent training.

Idiots will be idiots, but it should be possible to regulate them without buggering it up for well-mannered dogs and sensible owners.

https://www.college.police.uk/support-forces/practices/local-environmental-awareness-dogs

https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectID=19861

I don't think a dog licence would make any difference because responsible dog owners would get one and irresponsible dog owners wouldn't do so; and the cost of enforcing it would be huge at a time when councils are struggling with insufficient budgets.

My belief is that the problem should be dealt with at source. I don't know which Government department is in charge of monitoring imported breeds of dog - DEFRA?- or even if there is one, but there needs to be one set up urgently to monitor imported breeds and ban them before they set foot in the UK.
Both the XL Bully and the American Pitbull Terrier (banned under the original Dangerous Dogs Act) are American imports. The fatality (and bite) stats in the USA are crystal clear: both breeds can be extremely dangerous and have caused a high level of fatalities. This really should come as no surprise as both breeds are bred from the survivors of Pitbull fights. They've not been bred to herd sheep, retrieve game, run swiftly or be a companion animal. They have been selectively bred to kill. It beggars belief that either breed was allowed to be imported onto our island in the first place and surprise, surprise what happened in the States is exactly what happened here. I'm not usually in favour of a nanny state but unfortunately there seems to be a subsection of our dog-owning population who view a dog as the legal alternative to owning a gun; and the more menacing and powerful the dog is the better. In most cases the owners are not experienced dog owners accustomed to successfully raising and handling guard breeds, which would at least be a start. In too many cases, they are amateurs or this is the owner's first dog and for reasons of bravado, arrogance and utter stupidly they choose to introduce one as a family 'pet' very often living with their children. Not only that, before the ban, the owners were exercising these creatures unmuzzled in a public place with no realistic prospect of physically controlling their dog as they are simply too powerful. We all know the outcome of that scenario. And it's not only human beings they've killed; countless innocent dogs and cats have been fatally attacked by them.
It would be incorrect to state that every XL Bully is a killer because some miraculously have escaped the effects of genetics. Nonetheless, I wouldn't trust any of them, regardless of what the owner had to say. What a pity the government didn't ban the importation of them in the first place.

People aren’t saying there shouldn’t be licensing because it will be ignored.

They’re saying that because it will be ignored, it won’t do any of the things the OP hopes it will do. It will just be an added expense for responsible owners that makes no difference to the number of out of control dogs or attacks.