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

We have three dogs, small breed. All insured, chipped and never off lead. I’d have no problem with having a license for them.
As many people have said, the bad owners just won’t bother getting a license or insurance.

I did and I would not consider her to be a responsible owner

I didn't vote because whilst I agree with you that the clamp down should be harder on bull breeds and their crosses, a new harsher licence for all dog owners is unfair.

The gutter residing type of people that own this sort of dog will simply not bother getting a licence.

Law abiding decent people will be the ones that get punished, the ones that have more to their lives than the divs that want to own mental, aggressive dogs.

Plus the government will just see it as a cash cow which will punish decent people far more than the bull/bull cross trash.

Putting in a fairly low amount of effort into google will suggest this is wrong, and that dog attacks requiring hospital treatment are steadily on the increase
You are correct and I am wrong. It is a significant increase, and that's admission rather than A&E trips.
Dog ownership has increased by 23% whilst admissions have increased by 43%, so a proportionate increase, although we do have to point that total numbers are still very low. 13 millions dogs for under 10,000 attacks requiring admission. For comparison, there were almost 4000 admissions dueto knife attacks with an increase of almost 60% in a similar period. In 2023, there were 16 deaths due to dog attacks in England and Wales, there were 224 deaths by knife attacks that same year.

Through your digital ID with automatic fines taken direct from your bank account.

They are already banned and yet they still strut around, unmuzzled.

Can we add off lead friendly dogs; and dickheads who leave their dog home alone for 12+ hours a day and never give it a walk in their life?

It must be possible to create a phone app which would scan the chip which is implanted into dogs.
If it was mandatory for dogs to be chipped then anyone who wanted to could download the app, discreetly scan any passing and report those dogs which didn't have a chip.
A kind of ANPR system for dogs.

Northern ireland has dog licensing. Its about £13/year and an offense not to have one

In the 7 years we've owned our dog and a license no one has ever asked about it or checked it. I dont think even half of the other people we know who own dogs have one.

I've also never seen a dog warden.

I guess there's probably loads of reasons people dont bother, laziness, not aware etc. There's also a small minority here who register their pets with meets under friends and family as certain benefits mean smaller vet fees.

I would just ban XL bullies and order them to be destroyed. The number of families with young kids that have them is frightening. Licensing won’t work as the crap people won’t do it.

It's not the dog, it's the owner imho. There are some dogs that sadly are genetically predisposed to violent behaviour, ie generations of breeding specifically for dog fights. Why then, are people attracted to those types of dogs? Hence I say it's the owner and not the dog.

My husband loves Yorkshire Terriers, I don't mind them. I like Huskies and Labradors, but as my husband says you can't pick them up, take them hostage and put them in the bath very easily like you can Yorkies if they've rolled around in mud or fox poop 😂

Also, I have noticed some dogs are muzzled while out on their walks. That tells me the dog is not totally safe in public. So what's the appeal? I don't want a dog to be muzzled or restrained, I want to say hi to them and pet them!

In my view the answer to the question posed by @GasPanic is that the owner of the dog should bear the costs.
Yes there are a small number of working dogs but by and large keeping a pet is a hobby- something you do for your own entertainment and amusement. If a dog is a nuisance, if it causes any damage or injury then the owner should face consequences and bear the costs.

I would love to believe this.

But IME the people with this kind of dog are rarely in regular paid employment and are claiming benefits. If fined, their benefits will be reduced at source by c£5 a week. They do not care because they will be working cash in hand (or dealing) and it simply has no impact.

So well put.

I'm not a huge dog person, but it always surprises me when there's such resistance from dog lovers to the idea of bringing in some kind of license or tax. This idea would have at least three outcomes based on the most basic incentives theory of human behavior. The people who pay are those who have the resources to do so, and are more likely to be able to love and care for dog properly. This is good. The two groups of people who do not pay are those that realize it's not worth the money and they can't really afford a dog, so they decide not to get one and don't pay. This is also good. Then there'll be people who get one anyone and don't pay, the same types who don't get car insurance, aka criminals. This isn't good, but unfortunately inevitable.

I think this would on balance reduce the number of dogs who go to irresponsible or outright abusive owners, and pay for the impact dogs do have on public spaces, even the best behaved ones (poo all over the place, the impact on other wildlife etc)

They will eventually. Plus an extra cost to the bailiffs.

They don’t pay the fines either!

The fact that his fine doubles every time he gets caught ?

Did you read the OP on that thread?

'He was off lead but he usually is and I’ve never had a problem (he’s 7). We were in a public park where dogs are permitted off lead. Needless to say I won’t be risking that again.'

Which would suggest the OP likely felt they were a responsible owner.
Needless to say they didn't exchange details and she left the victim despite describing her as distressed.

Owners of motor vehicles are still required to have a license and MOT despite the fact that the bad ones don't comply.
We should require owners of dogs to have a license (and maybe some equivalent of MOT) even though the bad ones won't comply.

Given the cost of keeping a dog I suggest a substantial 'up front' fee for the dogs lifetime.

I would also suggest that 'pre ownership' training is needed in particular something on how you are expected to care for and control your dog which an applicant would have to pass

Exactly. Just like people who drive like idiots in dangerous cars don’t bother with insurance or a license. And then they’re punished with a driving ban even though they can’t legally drive anyway - it’s stupid.

It’ll be the same with dogs - Joe Bloggs has an unlicensed dog - take it off him and ban him from getting another. Except that he’s already had an illegal dog taken off him so what’s to stop him getting another?

A young lad near us has had multiple dogs removed from his care and has been banned from owning more - he currently owns four - they just “stay with his granddad” when the police are looking.

Even the good owners with relatively harmless dogs are far too laissez-faire with their pets; assuming that non-dog owners find their pet as adorable as they do.

Apparently lisences were abolished because too few people bothered to get one

especially people who don’t bother to raise a dog properly I would guess

to make them effective it needs to cost enough to employ enough enforcers - which is likely to be expensive and cause problems for normal people in the short term

but it is probably the only way - A huge crackdown on unregistered dogs but it will penalise the responsible owners

and a dna database for poo

if your dog jumps at people keep it on a short lead

even a small skin puncture that does not require stitches can lead to nasty infections

A significant number of drivers in my area drive without a licence, an MOT or insurance. They are involved in accidents and when identified are charged and sometimes imprisoned. They come out and do the same again. They simply do not care about the law.
It is the same with some owners of dangerous dogs - particularly those owners whose dogs are poorly supervised and responsible for most attacks - they simply do not care about the law.

If he was given a tetanus injection we can assume the dog at least broke his skin. No stitches yes but still more than just a dog jumping on him.