Using the drivers licence model, first of all are you licencing a person to own a dog, any dog and one licence applies to all the dogs they own?
Or are you licencing the dog itself? So not like drivers licences at all more like car registration numbers.
Lets go with that - thats a database that will likely cost several million pounds to set up - and needs a foolproof way to attach data to the dog (you can't stamp a VIN on a dog's chassis) and a database that can only be edited by a select few.
- Microchips are currently registered by multiple companies none of whom really want to amalgamate their databases.
- Chips fail, move and can be removed with a deft hand and a sharp blade
- Chip data entries can be altered by dog wardens and rescue employees easily without stringent checks.
Who is paying to sort these issues, mainly the database one - keeping in mind that it will not be appropriate for people to wait months to changes in licence details as we are talking about living animals not lumps of metal.
These are not insurmountable but... the next issue is this:
Seizing cars is reasonably easy, dump them on a lot, either someone sorts it and pays and picks them up or they get sent to auction or scrap.
Seizing living animals is not easy - where do you put them?
The current system for seized animals is that they are housed at the taxpayers expense in kennels that have won the contract for that, by being the lowest bidder. These kennels are to put it mildly, not very nice. In many cases dogs seized by the police go on to suffer severe neglect as a result, not getting veterinary care, medication, correct diet, exercise, handling or training.
You say 'at the owners expense' but you would be forcing people to pay out money to an unknown business (because the current system is that the kennels are a secret location, owners do not know where their dogs are or dogs would be stolen back), for an unknown period of time. How do you ensure those costs are the same across the country, given each business will price differently, have different overheads etc etc?
Likely there would have to be a 'sign over' system where owners could sign their dog over to be rehomed or euthanised - without the 'rehome' option, just euthanasia, thats going to look really awful to the dog loving public, which you may not care about but tends to mean less compliance with rules and more rebellion!
Where will signed over dogs go, rescues are full already!
The current system of seizing dogs (either dogs who are accused of an offence or dogs accused of being an illegal breed) costs the taxpayer tens of thousands a year and this proposal would ramp that up massively, as dogs would end up in kennels with owners unable to pay and kennel owners still needing paying. If the government aren't covering those costs you'll find there are next to no businesses willing to take on such a contract to hold these dogs as it would be up to them to chase for payment. (This is why the taxpayer pays currently!).
i don't see how this can work, without costing the taxpayer billions, causing serious animal welfare issues and it still won't address the people who have no intention of being responsible owners.
To make the licencing costs cover all these costs would be to punish responsible owners who have done nothing wrong and almost certainly never will, and it would make the licence cost so high as to be prohibitive.
You'd end up with Doris round the corner unable to own her little yorkie, but Nasty Steve will still be keeping six Bully Kuttas in his basement that he exercises on treadmills, walks at midnight and feeds on kittens.