Dog licencing scheme

[Gwythr]

Hi all.. After some recent tragedies involving dangerous dogs or cruelty to dogs this government petition has caught my eye: petition.parliament.uk/petitions/257660

Does anybody else agree that this would be a good idea?

Thanks

Whilst I have no objections to paying for dog license and attending any mandatory classes I doubt it would make any difference for 'bad' ownership.

I am all for licensing. However I think its a case of preaching to the converted. Good owners will happily get a license and the bad ones wont..

Lacking any scientific rigour whatsoever.

Dog ownership licences could be revoked upon a dog being mistreated or dangerous.

How is that any more of a deterrent than prison and fines are today? If they don't work then revocation of a licence won't make any difference.

Responsible dog owners would likely not hesitate to attend mandetory courses

Responsible dog owners are already far more likely to attend voluntary courses so no gains there.

and a dog licence would discourage irresponsible or criminal dog ownership

How exactly?

A licencing scheme of this type would give the RSPCA and authorities more powers to enforce animal cruelty or dangerous dog legislation.

How?

Any fee charged for a licence could be used towards organising education and enforcing animal rescue operation and care

Hmmm...

Apart from the obvious spelling errors, the reasoning looks like it was sketched out after a night at the pub. I suspect this was a knee jerk reaction by someone with little insight.

Like bitey adding the cost of a license to the overall cost of keeping a dog would be fine by me. We attended plenty of voluntary classes so a few more wouldn't have made any difference. I just fail to see how this, in the form proposed by this petition, would make any difference.

You have two threads going. I'd get the Dangerous Dog License thread zapped, OP, since this is not a proposal for a license for owners of dangerous breeds.

I'm not supportive of a tax which would actually do nothing to encourage safety and welfare of animals and those in contact with them.

Well only allowing breeders to sell to people with licences or rescue dogs being rehomed with people with the licence would give the authorities some legal basis for confiscating dangerous or mistreated animals?

I'm assuming Mr chav down the road is unlikely to get a licence for his pitbull dogs, as opposed to average Joe who who will attend a course to learn to care for the family labrador?

Micro chipping was made mandatory.

Except no one has actually enforced it at all as far as I can tell.

Licenses will just penalise legitimate hard working owners. Those who don't want to pay simply won't.

I'm assuming Mr chav down the road is unlikely to get a licence for his pitbull dogs, as opposed to average Joe who who will attend a course to learn to care for the family labrador?

The cost of dogs is high and that doesn't put people off from buying them so a license would be a drop in the ocean.

I equate it to car insurance. Responsible people ensure they don't drive without it. Irresponsible people don't bother and just accept a fine when they get caught.

That's a fair enough point.. But would somebody who floats a scheme of this type mistreat or neglect an animal knowing they don't have a licence and risk having their pet taken away?

Same with somebody with a potentially dangerous dog. First complaint that the RSPCA or police receive would give the authorities an opportunity to remove the animal if there is not a valid licence in place?

Obviously it's not as black and white as that, but when children are being mauled to death or animals kept in appalling conditions, why wouldn't this be better than the current situation?

As for people not being able to afford a fee, should they really own a pet dog then? What about food costs or unforeseen vets bills.. Dog ownership isn't really a god given right if your circumstances don't allow for proper ownership

the licence would give the authorities some legal basis for confiscating dangerous or mistreated animals

They already have this.

Dangerous dogs are covered under the DDA and can be confisacted or other restrictions imposed.

Mistreated dogs are covered under several welfare laws and can be taken from the owners.

You could argue laws do not go far enough or carry heavy enough sentencing but what new does the license add?

But would somebody who floats a scheme of this type mistreat or neglect an animal knowing they don't have a licence and risk having their pet taken away?

We have laws for animal cruelty now so why do we need a license?

Honestly I would pay for one as it's not the money I have an issue with. It's the fact that I don't believe it would make any difference.

I think the main benefit would be the enforcement of only allowing people with a licence to adopt or buy a pet dog..

If it sounds too much like hard work to gain a licence, then a pet dog may not be the right choice?

the RSPCA are lobbying for the re-introduction of a mandatory dog licence for every dog, and claim that this will help to reduce the number of homeless and uncared for dogs in the country and generally improve welfare standards.

So they obviously agree?

I think the main benefit would be the enforcement of only allowing people with a licence to adopt or buy a pet dog..

If it sounds too much like hard work to gain a licence, then a pet dog may not be the right choice?

Buying a dog is easy, just look at all the adverts where people are trying to sell young dogs. The hard work comes after you have bought them so getting a license won't change that.

I won't be signing the petition because I think it's too simplistic, would cost the government e.g. the tax payer money to set up as it wouldn't be self sufficient and more importantly it would make no difference as we have laws now which aren't enforced.

Do you really think a piece of paper or a few mandatory 'lessons' will stop abuse or the family pet mauling a child?

the RSPCA are lobbying for the re-introduction of a mandatory dog licence for every dog, and claim that this will help to reduce the number of homeless and uncared for dogs in the country and generally improve welfare standards.

There used to be a mandatory dog license. I remember my parents having to get one. I would like to see statistics for whether we had less strays back then. I also think generally animal welfare standards are better now than back then.

Selling puppies is easy now BECAUSE there is no legislation?..

Your entitled to disagree with the petitions sentiment..

Animal welfare has made progress in recent years, but the abolition of a dog licence is hardly to blame?

I think the original licence failed because it wasn't enforced properly..

There isn't as many stray dogs now because they are taken to rescue centres and a fee is paid by the owner to have them given back.. Which supports the idea that proper enforcement works

As for the tax payer footing any organisational costs, surely a scheme of this type is a source of revenue?

I think your mistaking homeless with stray too..

Homeless = not having a home
Stray = wandering the streets

As for the tax payer footing any organisational costs, surely a scheme of this type is a source of revenue?

It won't pay for itself outright so yes costs matter as pointless to have something that costs unless you can do critical assessments as to their effectiveness.

There isn't as many stray dogs now because they are taken to rescue centres and a fee is paid by the owner to have them given back.. Which supports the idea that proper enforcement works

But I thought your argument from the RSPCA said a license would cut the number down when it's down without one.

I think the original licence failed because it wasn't enforced properly..

So why would it be different this time. Why aren't the laws enforced now? Bringing in a license doesn't solve that.

Animal welfare has made progress in recent years, but the abolition of a dog licence is hardly to blame?

Ummm that statement is a bit odd. Welfare has increased but don't blame the removal of a license?? Welfare has improved because dog owners that are responsible have access to more tools and information so can make better choices.

Your entitled to disagree with the petitions sentiment..

Absolutely. You asked what people thought and I am responding.

Do you have much experience in pricing government licencing schemes? You must have a pretty unique set of skills..

So we agree that the removal of the original licence isn't to blame for the awareness of animal welfare? Atleast we agree on something..

Bringing in a properly organised and enforced licencing system DOES solve the previous system not being enforced?

As for your right to not agree with the proposal, we live in a free society.. I am just surprised by your hostile and self righteous statements..

It seems you know more than the rpsca and the costs involved in proposed scheme.. Your wasted sitting on mumsnet, you should head the office for national statistics or something

As for your right to not agree with the proposal, we live in a free society.. I am just surprised by your hostile and self righteous statements..

I think you are mistaking hostility with disagreement and self righteous with giving my own personal opinion on your arguments for this petition.

Buying a puppy is easy because it's an easy way for people who don't give a shit about dogs and/or have any understanding of breeding to make money out of Muppets who want a cute puppy right now.

Getting a well bred puppy (as in care wise, breeder practices and ethics, good early socialisation, consideration of conformation, fully health tested parents, etc) or a dog from a good rescue centre isn't as easy and you have to demonstrate good knowledge of dogs welfare needs and how to manage the dog with children in the home, etc.

So a licence would not do anything to change to how easy / hard it is to get a puppy. Those who want one right now will continue to do so from the scum of the breeding world or one of the "rescues" who don't really care.

I used to live in a place that had dog licensing for both owning and breeding; the responsible / rule - abiding owners and breeders complied, many others didn't. The place in question has a huge problem with stray dogs and no better welfare standards than mainland UK. I'd not support bringing back licensing simply because it didn't seem to make any difference at all to the welfare or responsible ownership of dogs.

OP, your typos and spelling seem to match those on the petition and your offence at having it criticised seems personal, to me. I suggest this petition did not catch your eye. I suggest you started it.

Bringing in a properly organised and enforced licencing system DOES solve the previous system not being enforced?

It doesn't. Understanding why it was properly enforced in the first place and addressing those gaps is what would help. But then so would properly enforcing the existing laws.

Oh, and fwiw, I wouldn't trust the RSPCA's judgement as far as I could throw it. £330,000 says they need to focus on getting their own house in order. Of course, a licensing scheme that funnelled money to them would be a nice steady stream of income....

So if dog breeders or rescue centres who didn't comply with regulation got fined or something that wouldn't promote responsibe dog ownership?

Eventually the majority of dog owners would possess the licence and it would help squeeze out problems like dog fighting and puppy farms

In a No licence, no dog ownership approach

Eventually the majority of dog owners would possess the licence and it would help squeeze out problems like dog fighting

How? All you keep repeating is that it will help but I remain unclear why bringing in a law to require licenses is going to effect Bob Jones down the pup, buying a staffie off a bloke he knows for £50 and fighting it in a barn at midnight. How is the law ever going to catch anyone involved there? There is no paper trail and everyone involved will deny the dog was ever sold.

Dog fighting is already illegal. Breeding puppies with low welfare standards is already illegal and breeding dogs for money already requires a license. If the law cannot catch the people involved now then why does adding more paperwork make any difference?

Because breeders would be required to see a licence before selling a puppy to the new owner?

Sorry for not outlining that point well enough..

So people who have had a dog removed from their care and licence revoked would be unable to buy a puppy?