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

[NewHome2026]

Article in the BBC this morning

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgvy2yyv8mo

If it were me I would make it like a driving license, you have to pass a test and you get points if you violate the rules. Too many points and your dog is taken away.

The XL Bully ban was too soft and ineffective - if anyone could get an exemption, what is the point of it? I would say that they should have all been destroyed but i don’t think that stops the bigger problem of people owning inappropriate animals for their lifestyle or experience…and inventing a new muscly status dog. Nobody needs a dog bred for fighting so playing this game of whack-a-mole is pointless.

I don't think a license will make any difference.

Sensible people are probably more worried about the insurance implications than the police. That would be my guess.

It's not increasing, it's just that people will now report any incident involving a dog and the media jumping on any incident with dramatic effect.

In this instance, it would appear there was no actual damage. Xrays, that would appear have shown no broken bones and not cut requiring stitches. Some years ago, this would been a case of 'that damned dog that jumped on me'. Now it's 'that savage dog that attacked me and left me traumatised'.

There are dogs owners who don't have a clue about teaching proper discipline to their dogs, but that doesn't amount to an increase in severe attacks.

So people should just accept it then because it didn’t cause any lasting damage?

I’m not saying not to do it - I’m just pointing out that it won’t be the effective system OP and others seem to believe it to be.

The people who own dogs who bite and attack aren’t going to be the people who do the right thing and register their dogs. Just as they don’t muzzle them and keep them on a lead now.

A license won’t actually stop bad owners because they simply won’t bother paying for one. Loads of people don’t take their dogs to a vet, flea or worm or them, or get them neutered. Their dogs just go unregistered and unless something really bad happens, there’s never any consequences.

The first point I would make is that licensing would give a message to dog owners that having a dog isnt a right and it can be taken away.

The RSPCA published a report many years ago that estimated you would get about 75% compliance with a licensing scheme. One obvious point would be that it would be a very easy 'stick' to beat the sort of owners who were more likley to cause trouble with their dog as they would probably not be licenced.

I believe we need stricter controls around dog ownership.
Are there other countries with a good system that we could learn from?

So people should just accept it then because it didn’t cause any lasting damage?
Did I say that? No. I just said that attacks have not increased. The defi ition of attack has changed.

I agree in principle, but I have some questions about how it would work in practice. What if my husband gets a dog licence and I don’t - am I unable to walk the dog? What about kids? Or would it be more like a person with a licence can obtain a dog and they are then ultimately responsible for that dog?

Well said, I agree completely👏🏻😊

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.

Do you have any stats to support it ?

My point is that responsible dog owners don't need any extra legisltion but would probabaly adhere to it but the idiots who cause the problems may not

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

They don’t pay the fines either!

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

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)

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.