License for Dog owners? What do you think

[Ilovemywhippet]

Hello all,

I have had a few discussions with my old local MP about the problem of dangerous Dogs, over breeding of Dogs and so on. A few points that we agreed on were along the lines of

- Licenses for all Dog owners. Licenses would be passed by your Vet, who would have to tick certain things to say; Your Dog is not known to be or shown any signs of aggression, has had all vaccinations and their professional opinion about walking the Dog off lead in public places.

- The license number would be put onto a Dog tag, that can be easily checked. There would be a fee to obtain the license and hefty fines for those who invade it to pay for such a service. In the long run it should save money, what with the cost on the Police and NHS for Dog related problems that the license could help to resolve.

- If a Dog has shown signs of aggression, it would need to be kept on a lead and muzzled at all times in public, until proof of rehabilitation can be shown and can then be reviewed.

- Age restrictions on certain breeds such as guarding Dogs and working breeds.

- Compulsory free work shop on responsible Dog ownership. This wouldn't be too hard to organise in the sense that there are an extremely high number of reputable pet businesses/ vets/ trainers that would offer these seminars free of charge on a regular basis.

I also think this would deter the not so responsible owners from getting Dogs so willy nilly and its usually the irresponsible ones that end up with dangerous Dogs.

What do you think? Anything to add or remove. Do you agree or disagree?

[first mate]

I'd worry slightly about what is meant by 'aggression'. Many dogs will show degrees of aggression in certain circumstances, especially to each other, but also as the result of poor ownership or handling. I'd also worry about handing the aggression assessment over to vets.

On another note, it is a shame that councils are not more proactive in working with canine trainers and behaviourists who have a real service to offer the community. Finding community centres or parks that will allow space for any dog training is almost impossible, I wish the councils would drop the blinkers on this.

[Ilovemywhippet]

By aggression, it would be anything that the vet has witnessed that the license would say i aggression. Who knows, maybe teeth bearing, aggression towards other Dogs. Yes it may very well be all down to poor handling but this is how you start to filter out the good from the bad owners. If you have a Dog that has shown aggression, it must be muzzled and kept on a lead.

Think about the category of people that have never taken their Dog to the vets, the people that either got them for the heck of it or as a trophy. Lets say these Dogs are not treated well, either by lack of socialisation or lack of training etc. When there told they must book a check up for their Dog and obtain the license, they are going to either have to tell the vet "my Dog doesn't like other Dogs" or its going to become apparent when they arrive. That form would then be ticked as unsafe to be off lead in public and in worse cases, must be muzzled in public.

I cannot tell you the number of large breads I have looked after on a one2one basis (as in not taken to my Day Care centre with other Dogs) that I refused to wlak without muzzles because I can tell that they are not suitable to be in public, in a situation where another Dog could pass them. Then they go back to the owner who believes their Dog is fine and never muzzles them. If these people were made to, they would have no choice. Yes it would be hard to monitor and enforce but a large number of people wouldn't want to risk a hefty fine if they are caught breaking the conditions of their license. Look how many more people now clean up after themselfs, or walk less Dogs in the park at one time because of NEW rules. People STILL break the rules all the time but its much less than before. How many less people do you now see smoking in the street or throwing their cigarette butts on the floor, much less then a few years back, through stigma and fear of fines etc.

[first mate]

I'm sorry but momentary showing of teeth to other dogs can be a perfectly normal part of canine beahviour and does not mean that the dog is 'aggressive'. After all, it is how some mothers teach their pups to back off the teat at weaning.

Some dogs may become more aggressive when muzzled- I have certainly seen this for myself.

With respect, I think finding a clear definition for aggression is difficult and once you begin to examine what we mean by 'aggression' the problem is clear.

[Marmora Man]

There used to be a need for a dog licence but it was discontinued as being irrelevant because those that were law abiding, good carers and careful dog owners bought the licence and those that were not, necessarily, good and careful dog owners didn't. Since the penalties for not owning a licence were limited non compliance was seldom prosecuted - making the whole concept of licensing pointless.

What exactly do you think a new licencing regime would achieve - that current legislation doesn't? We should all strice to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy.

[Otta]

If you punished every dog that has had a snap at another dog in the park at some point, you'd basically have to punish every dog.

[first mate]

Marmora Man, Agreed.

As you imply, licensing of cars and speed fines do not stop boy racers. However, existing legislation could do with tweaking (DDA etc.)

The good dog owner would more than likely muzzle a seriously aggressive dog right now. The type of person that deliberately breeds and /or owns seriously aggressive dogs is probably going to break a number of laws as well. The inherent problem is in policing/monitoring/enforcement. I do think councils might implement byelaws where a dog should be kept on a lead ( and therefore under a degree of control)on the street, though the ne'er do wells would probably ignore that too.

[rgutsell]

Hiya all

I rarely see GOOD dog owners. Most of the dogs we see are loose in the park, and in no way are under the effective control of the owners.

I would like to see licensing, rather like driving is licensed. Owners should be licensed, after passing dog control tests. Certain breeds should not be allowed at all, and their mere appearance should result in the use of dog control teams who remove them.

[bonniebird]

rgutsell you ain't met me then ;)

[DJKillaQueen]

gutshell is talking nonsense. Assuming that because a dog is off the lead and having fun in the park, it's owner is therefore bad is ridiculous. Most dogs will come to when called. They are walked to the parks specifically so that they can have a bit of a run (exercise is as important for the health of a dog as it is a human).

I'm old enough to remember when licensing was in place before. It made no difference to the bad owner. We already have laws that give police the power to seize aggresive dogs. We already have laws that allow the RSPCA to seize poorly treated animals.

I can't say I've seen many truly dangerous dogs in my life (if any at all). But I can say that I've seen many people unecessarily scared of dogs. But just because some people have a disproportionate fear is no reason to bring in unecessary and draconian laws that treat the majority of good owners like idiots.

[susiq]

dog licenses used to be law, it would require the dog owner to supply a description of the dog plus the owners contact details, it would be a good idea if the owners had to have the dog chipped and inoculated before a license was granted, this might go some way in deterring irresponsible people from getting a dog in the first place, you also had to be eighteen (far as I can remember) which does not mean young people cannot have a dog, parent oversee responsibility. In certain areas dogs are passed around from young person to young person, (apparently without the knowledge of the parents) causing suffering and bad/wrong behavior in dogs, it is the dogs who suffer ultimately in the end, its not just about police/RSPCA having powers to seize dogs its also about proper care of your pets and other people and their pets. If the draconian hat fits!

[Annette Curtain]

Wouldn't an IQ test for owners be simpler ?

Along with a course in cleaning up after "emptying" the animal in the local park.

[KidKruger]

susiq:

" it would be a good idea if the owners had to have the dog chipped and inoculated before a license was granted, this might go some way in deterring irresponsible people from getting a dog in the first place".

No this would not work.

To inoculate and chip a dog you probably need to own it.

Why would someone buy a dog, chip it, inoculate it, then apply for a licence ?

Shouldn't ownership of a licence be the starting event for this chain of follow-on chain of activities ?

[Lowlander]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What exactly do you think a new licencing regime

> would achieve - that current legislation doesn't?

> We should all strice to avoid unnecessary

> bureaucracy.

Well, licensing bouncers has been a success. TV Licensing on the other hand is a piece of cake to avoid. Bringing back radio licenses would be a farce.

I agree there is a need to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, but there's a very strong case for a new regime of dog licensing with appropriate penalties to weed out the trophy owners.

I prefer Annette's approach of an IQ test, but there's some concientious owners who would be caught out by that also...

[first mate]

Lowlander, Arf, arf, you are a wit.

On the subject of brains/IQ, and continuing the theme of your moniker, do you keep yours below the belt?

[KidKruger]

I think anti-social behavourial convictions should be considered before issuing a licence.

[susiq]

ok-condition of licence states dogs must be chipped etc. within weeks/months of getting dog? case of ironing out details but I do feel some sort of regulations/license should be put in place, note; there are also a lot of people/families/dog walkers who just let their dog/s of the leads and let them run out of sight, especially on Peckham Rye- (do they let their children do this), my concern here is they cant see if the dog fouls and so do not clear up, the dog could also be stolen/attacked or injured, we all want our pets and children to have some freedom but safety should always be paramount.

[Lowlander]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander, Arf, arf, you are a wit.

>

> On the subject of brains/IQ, and continuing the

> theme of your moniker, do you keep yours below the

> belt?

Hello sailor! I don't wear a belt...

[first mate]

Perhaps a sporran, or even trews? (BTW ooooh, you are awful...)

[Lowlander]

This thread is struggling at the leash...

[first mate]

Lead strugglers probably need a little correction. Ahem!!

Anyway, back on thread, I don't think that a dog license will cure all the problems of poor dog ownership but it is a start. Microchipping is also useful but all these things fall down where enforcement is necessary. There are simply not the personnel or resources to monitor those that break existing laws and Orders, let alone new ones. Southwark no longer have a proper dog warden, it's all managed by environmental officers who have little specialist knowledge or training. A number of the community wardens I have met in the park are absolutely terrified of dogs and don't want to go anywhere near them. Southwark will not help to provide premises or space in the park for dog training- something which could be offered at near zero cost to the borough and which would help to educate more people about repsonsible doig ownership. This is something that is done on many parts of the continent very successfully.

[polla2256]

no it should be like this

The Owner is not known to be or

shown any signs of aggression, has had all

vaccinations and is capable of

walking in public places.

The license number would be put onto a Gangsta tag,

that can be easily checked. These would be a fee

to obtain with hefty fines for those

who invade it to pay for such a service. In the

long run it should save money, what with the cost

on the Police and NHS for Gangsta related problems

that the license could help to resolve.

If a Gangsta has shown signs of aggression, it would

need to be kept on a lead and muzzled at all times

in public, until proof of rehabilitation can be

shown and can then be reviewed.

Age restrictions on certain breeds such as

chavs and working breeds.

Compulsory free work shop on responsible Gang

ownership. This wouldn't be too hard to organise

in the sense that there are an extremely high

number of reputable "business fronts"/ council workers/ trainers

that would offer these seminars free of charge (courtesy of the tax payer)on

a regular basis.