Dog Licences

[Marmora Man]

It has been reported that DEFRA is considering requiring all dog owners to complete a "dog owner's competency" test and registration - that would include compulsory microchipping of the dog, registration of owner's address, knowledge of how to control the dog, dog diet and more. The aim being to ensure more responsible dog ownership.

Estimated cost ?60.00 in the planning stages.

To me this seems totally unnecessary, bureaucratic and, to add insult, almost certainly completely unworkable.

Can anyone persuade me otherwise?

[Brendan]

Nope. I can?t see how it could be enforced.

Forcing entry into every home in the country to check if they have a dog?

Unless they could prove that it would eliminate the problem of strays and will be cheaper to the tax payer than the current cost of dealing with the problem.

I doubt that they could do either of those.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I think a chip and a licence and compulsory leash on public roads are reasonable, the rest would be hard to enforce.

It was never a big deal to have a dog licence in the past.

[ruffers]

Why did dog licences stop?

[david_carnell]

I would imagine it would work much like a driving license.

There is nothing to stop you buying or even driving a car without one but it is illegal.

If someone were not to have a dog-license and the police/PCSO noted their dog mis-behaving it could be taken away from the owner (but not sent to the crusher in case anyone was still on the car analogy).

As PGC says, they were common in the past and the number of irresponsible dog owners is high. I question what else could be done?

[Jeremy]

I think it sounds quite reasonable.

I wouldn't expect the police to visit every home to check whether they have a dog, but it could allow them to take potentially dangerous dogs away from irresponsible owners.

[PeckhamRose]

It's a bit like the apparent 'fact' that 10% of drivers of cars on the roads in London have no licence or MOT or some such. How can you tell unless they are in an accident or you spot check (and there were LOADS caught on the Vauxhall Bridge Road Sunday that I saw). People will continue to walk their dogs and just hope they don't get caught.

I think it is unreasonable and another example of how a few people abuse a system and we all have to pay.

Elderly folks living on their pensions and little else can't afford - and nor is it necessary to - chip their dog and have a licence for it.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Chipping is carried out for free by places like Celia Hammond and Blue Cross, and TJMP regularly advises on this forum when free chipping events occur.

[Marmora Man]

A further thought - the gov't is proposing licensing people to own a dog, checking that will be competent pet owners. No one has proposed licensing people to have children, but arguably more harm is wrought by irresponsible parents (Victori Climbie, Baby P, and literally thousands of other cases). However, this would certainly be seen as improper gov't interference.

[bonniebird]

The money from the Dog licences could provide proper Dog wardens and trainers for a start. My dog has passed her Kennel Club bronze good citizen thingy, she got bored at training and gave up, otherwise we would have gone on to pass silver and gold, of that I have no doubt :))

[SteveT]

MM wrote :- arguably more harm is wrought by irresponsible parents Victori Climbie, Baby P,

Often the people who beat the children are not the parent but a local rent-a-thug boyfriend, and given how many children are around very few end up in this situation.

The dangerous dog problem is very much on the increase and is a much greater danger to the general public.

Anyway of stemming the tide of these macho bruiser dog owners is fine by me.

They are a completely different species to the normal 'pet dog' owner, who actually cares for and protects their animals as a member of their family, rather than pitting it to the death against a rival in an illegal fight where money is to be made.

[Spartacus]

Where is WoofMarkTheDog when yu need him on a subject ?

also

I was in wandsworth over the weekend, and they have a compulsary 'Dog chipping' policy for residents, which begs teh questions of

1) How do they know if you are a resident or a visitor ?

2) what happens if you visit, and your dog isn't chipped ?

3_ hopw will they check, some sort of doggy scanner like the new heathrow body scanners, positioned at every park gate ?

[SteveT]

Spartacus wrote:- will they check, some sort of doggy scanner like the new heathrow body scanners, positioned at every park gate ?

I doubt that, but they will have to go more underground with their 'killer pets' in the foreseeable future.

[Siduhe]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> I was in wandsworth over the weekend, and they

> have a compulsary 'Dog chipping' policy for

> residents, which begs teh questions of

> 1) How do they know if you are a resident or a

> visitor ?

> 2) what happens if you visit, and your dog isn't

> chipped ?

> 3_ hopw will they check, some sort of doggy

> scanner like the new heathrow body scanners,

> positioned at every park gate ?

The new chipping scheme only applies to council tenants and leaseholders, not visitors to the borough. They must get their animals chipped and registered on a borough-wide database. Any failure to do so means they will be in breach of their tenancy and lease agreements and in an extreme case they could be evicted from their homes if they do not comply.

[Loz]

SteveT Wrote:

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

> MM wrote :- arguably more harm is wrought by > irresponsible parents Victori Climbie, Baby P,

>

> Often the people who beat the children are not the

> parent but a local rent-a-thug boyfriend, and

> given how many children are around very few end up

> in this situation.

(Wandering off-topic) Actually Steve, according to the NSPCC, the person responsible for physical violence during childhood was 'most often the mother (49%) or father (40%)'. Violence was reported as being carried out by some stepfathers (5%) or stepmothers (3%), grandparents (3%), and other relatives (1%).

Don't believe everything The Guardian prints...

And, sadly, the NSPCC also reports that 7% of children experienced serious physical abuse at the hands of their parents or carers during childhood.

[Huguenot]

This would be great regulation if it was used to target slack-jawed thugs out walking their weapons.

My cyncical bet is that once it was enacted it would become a P&L with targets, and they'd end up tormenting grannies.

[SteveT]

wotsa P&L?

[Huguenot]

P&L - Profit and Loss.

Short hand to say it would become a self-funding commercial endeavour, rather than a public service against thugs.

[DrDom]

I think this should be extended to people who want to have children too.

[SteveT]

Huguenot wrote:- Short hand to say it would become a self-funding commercial endeavour, rather than a public service against thugs.

I agree absolutely,

but we hope the by-product is that the 'thug and mutt' are discouraged out of the public parks and off the streets.

[Muley]

All dogs should be required to have bar codes on their arses.

No actual reason, just for the comedy value, really.

W**F

Yes indeed...

Grrr

Etc.

[SteveT]

Which should be tattooed on their tongues!