Should dog ownership be licensed?

When I was a little girl you had to have a license to own a dog. I only know this because I remember my parents worrying over it - maybe they hadn't renewed? I don't know or remember.

But having read a recent thread about loose dogs causing untold misery don't you think that dog ownership should be licensed?

I find it hard to digest that absolutely anyone can own a dog (or have a baby for that matter - but thats a whole other discussion )

There are no restrictions on age, environment or knowledge, etc.

Would it be plausible or infact could it even be policed - for anyone going out to buy a dog to produce a license first?

Could we start at grass routes and make it legitimate for every breeder to have a license to breed? Could a penalty be installed for anyone who allows their bitch to whelp?

I am suprised that the Government haven't seized the opportunity to tax dog ownership - like they planned to (but scrapped) tax on horse ownership. Imagine the revenue they would bring in

If a Dog License were to be brought in - would it make dog owners more responsible? Would it reduce the numbers of numpty owners that we see today?

Without doubt some unscrupulous people would fall below the radar just as they do in benefit fraud now but do you think it would, in some way, help to prevent unsuitable people owning dogs? Would it reduce the number of puppies born? Would this in the long run relieve the rescue homes that are overflowing?

All horses have to be passported now and all foals have to be microchipped - so I see no reason why the same cannot be applied to dogs. Obviously this would cost the Gov an awful lot of money to implement and they only did this for horses because they were going to tax ownership (but scrapped that as I said earlier and simply used the excuse of EIA which wasn't even in this country at the time!) - so why not for dogs?

All food for thought........... what do you think?

The last dog licence i bought was 37 and half pence..

I think all Dogs should be Licensed.

It will not, in itself, solve all the problems out there, but should reduce them.

I see it like Driving. There are still lots of unlicensed drivers out there but the consequences of being caught help to prevent accidents, but do not eliminate them by any means.

And, like driving, I would also be in favour of compulsory third party insurance.

If these things were in place and someone got caught dog fighting, there are more offences they can be charged with and therefore more consequences.

There is no magic solution to solve the irresponsbility of some dog owners, however any additional legislation should be able to control and give some degree of protection to everyone else.

In short, I am in favour of licensing and think it should be appropriate for the dog, e.g. working dogs should have a discount, dogs with competition qualifications should get a discount, "dangerous" breeds should cost more...

PS, we also must bear in mind that the short term consequences of the introduction of such legislation would mean a massive (short term) problem with strays and rescues, so meausres would need to be in place to cope with this

I have 3 dogs and a limited income. My dogs are insured, chipped, trained and well looked after.
Next door have 3 working adults and one small dog that never goes out and is downright nasty - even they won`t handle it because it bites them.
Now -
1. who would have problems affording the licence?
2. what effect on animal welfare would a licence make with these two households?

Licencing is a red herring. It was stopped because it was pointless. Why was it pointless? Because the people who uphold animal welfare laws are unaccountable self-elected members of a charity - not public servants.
The RSPCA should not be the only prosecuting body in animal cruelty cases - that is a ridiculous situation.
If there is money to spend - appoint animal welfare officers in each police district and give them the job of upholding the laws we already have.

That says it all----I would certainly have to stop having old dogs for the last year or so of their lives.

Responsible owners would take the brunt and the rest would just risk it.

rune

http://www.dogownershiptest.co.uk/

its not perfect, but something along the lines of a dog ownership test would ( I think ) eliminate some morons

Dog licenses are a tax on responsible owners because they will be the only ones to buy them.

My thoughts exactly.

I used to work for the Post Office when we issued dog licences and they were 37 and a half pence. We used to get the same old joke from the customers every time "black and white or colour licence?"!

Don't agree with this bit! Why should I be penalised into paying more because I don't have a working dog, or compete with my dog? What makes those dogs 'worthy' of a discount, when your common-or-garden dog isn't?

I think the problem with licensing is that the responsible owners and breeders would go out and get a licence; and the numpties, chavs and BYB wouldn't.

Lets face it, people drive around in half-ton-metal-death machines (cars!) with no licence, or insurance (or tax, MOT etc) and think that it is completely fine to do so. Why would a scrote with a 'status dog' feel compelled to go and get a licence if he hasn't got one for the car etc?

With the way official things are these days (price of a passport anyone? Heck even a CRB check costs me £35 a time) - couldn't see this coming in at anything less than about £50 or so... would force a heck of a lot of good dog owners who are on a limited income out of owning them (thinking of a couple of elderly ladies around here with two dogs they dote on, who are walked twice daily with such regularity you can set your watch by them - good, good owners with rescue dogs - but without the money to spare in the budget for an additional chunk of cash to buy a licence).

There's no way they'd bring one back in at 37p or whatever - they'd make money out of it!