Time for dog licences again?

[ReggieK]

Hi all

I suggested this last October actually.
I was on the BBC Autumnwatch forum and there was a large discussion involving dangerous dogs.
I said that maybe it was time to think about bringing back the dog licence

The argument continued until Chris Packham himself interjected

He said how about an annual licence of £50-80 for a small dog, £150 for a medium dog and £300 for a large dog. Also a fee of £800 for a dog classed as dangerous, a new dangerous dogs act would have to be put into place setting out which dogs are classed as so

Another idea of his which if the new licences were put into place was the government introducing teams of "dog checkers"
These would have the powers of taking away dogs who's licenses weren't paid for, and to search homes and gardens to find any hidden dogs

Thoughts?
_________________
The coalition is waning and dying, the only option is to vote Labour in 2015~ Teacher Dave

[uh-hu]

seems very high the prices u have quoted.

i think 10-20 pound is enough for most dogs

maybe a make it more for 'dangerous' dogs with the option of getting this majorly reduced to 1/4 or something if you do a dog handling course or something similar to advanced driving course.


i dont like the idea of 'dog checkers' they might be slightly biased or have grudges against particular people (race/religion etc) which does happen.

[AKhater]

All this would do is to further cost the owners of 'normal' dogs. The owners of dangerous dogs would simply not register the dogs and would never pay the £800 or whatever per year to have it licensed. Their dole money wouldn't stretch to that and be able to pay for their fags and sky tv as well.

[ReggieK]

AKHater- This is where the dog checkers come in, if that owner can't produce his license then his dog would be taken away from him
_________________
The coalition is waning and dying, the only option is to vote Labour in 2015~ Teacher Dave

[PokerSensation]

What is the reason for a license?

[ReggieK]

The reason is to stop the people who own dangerous dogs, or to stop the type who lets their hound run amok
Chris Packham said about the young unemployed men roaming these estates with a pit bull
He said introducing a licence would make them think twice about owning that dog

He also said conditions of the licence would be to show the licence inspector that the dog isn't aggressive and is trained properly
He went on to say that anyone under 21 would be banned from owning a large or dangerous dog
_________________
The coalition is waning and dying, the only option is to vote Labour in 2015~ Teacher Dave

[peterH]

Good in theory, but I suspect it'd just end up as an army of public sector non-jobs, who have very little effect on the real problem, who just look for soft targets to justify their existance.
_________________
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

[ReggieK]

They couldn't look for 'soft targets', as they'd have to take round a 'dog checking manager' who'd have to report directly to the relevant area supervisor.
These are Chris Packhams words not mine, he was saying it would cut down the amount of maulings from these evil dogs.
Also he said about other animals, he was saying maybe a cat licence and small animal licences would be needed for the likes of rabbits, hamsters, gerbils etc
_________________
The coalition is waning and dying, the only option is to vote Labour in 2015~ Teacher Dave

[peterH]

I still reckon they'd end up like the CSA, instead of going for the shaven headed, football shirt wearing thug with a couple of Pitbulls, they'd hang around the old peoples bungalows, hoping to catch a chihuahua whose licence expired a few days ago, and the old dear hasn't been able to get to the post office yet.

I'm all for some form of control though.
_________________
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

[Leus]

We know that system is ineffective and expensive, because it's been tried. I prefer compulsory ID chipping combined with registering all transfers of ownership. This is reasonably cheap and intelligence-based. I would make chipping free - dog ownership should not just be the preserve of the middle classes, they just mess their dogs up in different ways and regularly abandon them when they become inconvenient.

With chipping and tracing, someone is always responsible for a dog, and if any dog is weaponised it can also be traced back to its irresponsible breeder through ownership transfers. Anyone who sells weaponised dogs but doesn't register sales will end up being legally responsible for them. Breeders will be traceable in any event through the paper trail. Dogs with no chips either get chipped or get confiscated (ie probably destroyed). It only takes a second to check for a chip, with a portable scanner.

Another thing that would help a lot is more neutering.

[Jon MW]

[Leus]

Current chipping systems already log a new chip to the present owner, so that data is in the system anyway - I assumed this would be true for any compulsory system. It would provide the same full audit trail, which is why I think licences are redundant, unless they are used purely as a financial barrier to ownership (which I would not agree with).

It would be illegal, and punished, to buy, sell or transfer ownership of a dog without logging it.

The whole point is to create a full audit trail in a database. Then you can easily attack problem networks which stem from irresponsible breeders.