It is distressing but if you consider it logically you will realise that this sort of law with penalties that worked would mean that a large number of dogs would be PTS or abandoned. If it cost about £100 to own one dog I would be in trouble and some of mine would have to go as I would be unable to find the extra costs, one can't insure against licence fees.

Imagine the cost of the extra policing and computer data records that would have to be kept to say nothing of the cost of snatching and kennelling every dog until it’s owner had been through the courts (High Court if a custodial sentence may be enforced) that takes months and then having to dispose of the dog. How do you prove a certain dog is owned by a certain individual, you can’t there must be more excuses for having a dog on your premises than any law abiding citizen can think off. No it would not work it would lead to thousands of dogs being PTS or worse abandoned and the rescue centres would not be able to rehome them because of the cost involved in taking on a dog that may not suit ones requirements.

I agree 100% with Jackies post. remember as much as there are dogs that are having miserable lives, there are far more having lovely contented ones, and the ones in good home it will be their owners that will get the brunt of any laws, as those that dont care will always find a way round the system.

Mo

I voted yes we should, i think it is an excerllent idea. but i have to disagree with your statement of , dogs only being bad because of the way they have been handled by their owners......i own a dog aggressive dog, and I have done everything in my power to be a responsible owner, sometimes it can be other factors that makes a dog have issues, breeding can play a part in the dogs temperement... that takes me on to another subject. I thinkall breeders of all breeds, should have their stock temperment tested (by an unbiased body) as well as health screening before they are bred from.

I think a lot a people, who couldnt afford, or didn't want to pay the £600 to £1000 to get a pedigree dog, go to an animal rescue. Surely, if dog owners had to pay another £100 or so for a licence, this would reduce the amount of dogs getting rehomed.

(I am not suggesting that folk only get rescue dogs due to lack of funds. I know there are many people who look on it as a chance to help a homeless dog, and it is commendable that they do so)

Also, if one owner has several dogs, they would have to pay a big chunk of money every year. Would this be fair?

And what about cats? If dogs were licensed, cats should be as well. I think it better to leave things as they are, possibly giving dog wardens more power.

Dog licensing still exists where I live and it is 100% ineffective as the statistics for dogs PTS each year clearly show. Only the responsible owners bother to get a licence even though it only costs £5 per year and they aren't the ones that need to be checked up on as their dogs are unlikely to be neglected or found straying. It is only a means of bringing in extra revenue for the Council as the dog warden service is worse than useless anyway!

I completely agree, but as has been said, there would be that minority that wouldn't.

Personally I think people should have to get children licences before they can have kids, but thats a whole other thread.......

I would be more than happy to buy a dog licence if it meant that EVERYONE who owned a dog had to buy one and not just if they felt like it. It would probably be the people that get a dog and just throw it out on the street that don't bother buying a licence - but if they were MADE to get one or be put in prison or something then I would be all for it. Sadly I don't think this would ever happen so I don't see why the caring owners should have to pay because I know that the bad owners wouldn't bother.

OT, sorry - Jackie, I don't think anybody here thinks you're irresponsible Having a dog-aggressive dog doesn't make you a bad owner, allowing your dog free-rein of its aggressive tendencies might do! I don't believe anyone who cares as much about their pets as members here would do that

Back to the point. Having seen dog (or rather owner) licensing effectively instituted I have to disagree with tose of you who believe it can't be done. Where I grew up, and my where my mum lives, dogs have to wear coloured license tags, with fines implemented on owners whose pets do not have them. This is particularly important in Northern Ireland, a part of the UK where a poor culture of animal welfare has deep historical roots.

There may well be dog wardens there who fail to live up to their role, but that's not the rule, unfortunately there are people in all professions who take money for a poorly executed job. I think responsible dog owners this side of the Irish sea would be only too happy to pay for the kind of service I and my parents have experienced from our local dog wardens.

Finally, to say that it would be a waste of time due to license-fee evaders shows an unwarranted lack of faith in human nature. Of course it would take time to reinstitute the programme, and during that time some people would slip through the net, but this needn't be a long-term issue. Would anybody really suggest we scrap driver-licensing because a tiny minority of drivers are unlicensed? Seriously..?!?

In short, I vote YES for licensing dog owners, it needn't cost a lot, and could be subsidised for people rehoming animals from licensed shelters. It's not about penalising the innocent, it's about finding a way to make people think more carefully about their responsibilities, and a practical method to make sure banned owners find it more difficult to keep a dog.

Have to say I am depressed by this poll as it stands at the moment, if our government thought the same way it would lead to thousands of dogs being PTS and yet more thousands being turned out/lost and the rescue centres would be overwhelmed with dogs that no one would want to rehome. The cost of the licence would have to be about the same as a car licence and there are a large number of people who have rescue dogs or dogs they bought on a whim who would be unable or unwilling to buy a licence every year, they would just give up their dogs.

Please don’t think this would lead to improved ownership and less dogs in rescue, it would not. Initially it would lead to loads of dogs rejected as their owners would not register them, only those who owned KC registered dogs could be traced and taken to court, and there would loads of people who would think they were safe until someone shopped them & then their dog(s) will be destroyed. It would penalise the law abiding and those who ignore rules would in all probability get away with doing whatever they wished breeding as many litters as they wished because the only check would be through those who do it through the channels of the KC. As I have said this if it became law would be the death sentence to thousands of dog owned by law-abiding citizens, just what do people think they would do with the dogs of people who are taken to court for not taking out a licence.

I also voted Yes to licencing.. I think it would be great if all breeders were licenced and all puppies were registered & chipped at birth and had to have a licence that was renewed every year.. sooner or later people would just add that expense in to owning a dog, dogs without the correct colour tag/scan info would have all their "regstration" details checked and if neccasary updated... then given 28 days to pay the fee before they are rehomed or PTS at the owners expense...initially there probably would be more abandoned dogs but that would peter out when the " i'm above the law lot " had repeated dogs seized and continued to be hit where it hurts.. their pocket!! if every time an unlicensed dog was seized the owner was faced with a bill for its ongoing care (and that bill was enforced)I think if you make it more expensive to aviod the law then poeple will comply eventually.. ie £100 tv licence ... £1000 fine for not having one.. if the care fees were paid to the rehoming centres they in turn could cover some of their costs and reduce the prices they charge for the dog, thus not causing new prospective owners any huge increase in costs..
Any change of ownership could use a form like the car change of owner form, which would also help with lost or stolen dogs..
In know it's an ideal world scenario and that the lack of interest by the government would mean that it would never happen..
I think it would be great if some people found it harder/more expensive to own/breed dogs and were properly accountable for their actions in law

Rachel