People receiving trained assistance dogs are well educated by the organisations providing the dogs so they have to `pass tests` or achieve a certain level of learned competence` as such already so I would think they could be exempt from a general scheme as the education already in place seems to work pretty well as it is, plus the aftercare available throughout enables smooth going on the whole I would think. There will always be a waiting list though because the dogs have such a long process of training and not all dogs turn out suitable, so I doubt the status quo there would ever change at all, realistically ?

This is a good point it (when you think it over ) would be very very hard to do. If you licenced the person and not the dog then would a family member be breaking the law if they walked the dog?? what happens when they go on holls if another member of the family takes the dog ?? would they also have to be licenced???

I just think it's all a bit too complicated. Very difficult, and expensive to enforce and a lot less straight forward than it appears. And even if all the difficulties that have already been mentioned in this thread are overcome, you would still find that the very people who need the liscence would just not bother.
I've used the driving test/liscence as an example of this elsewhere but I'll use it again. Already we have laws in place for car/motorbike users... but still people are being killed everyday by drivers with no liscences or who are banned, no insurance etc etc.

Sounds absolutely marvellous in theory - but it would be almost impossible to enforce in practice ... more's the pity!

Have a look at this link ... I think some of our opinions need to be voiced on here, as the dog hating public are out in force

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...20060926163610

I totally understand what you are saying, and I think the problem with such law breakers is two fold.

Cost of driving lessons, tests, insurance, fuel, and road tax are extortionate so some people rationalise not doing things properly based on cost. If the government stopped being so greedy and took the time to realise that cutting taxes would mean cheaper lessons [ as the costs to the instructors / schools would be less ], cutting costs of tests, insurance etc significantly would be an encouragement.

The same would relate to pre-pet `courses / tests - the more affordable it could be, the more people will do it.

The second main factor [ probably the most significant one ] is that punishments simply do not fit the crimes in this country. A bad driver [ and illegal drivers ] can get off with a paltry fine even when they kill someone, and drunk drivers get off with a ban [ should be prison for a very long time automatically imo ].


When the consequences of wrong doing are so pathetic, its no wonder crimes are so rife.

If there was a law on doing pre-pet classes / tests / compulsory microchipping or tattoing etc and failure to comply meant, say, a five year prison sentence with no time off for good behaviour, how many people do you think would risk it ? Those which did, when caught, good, no problem as they will be off the streets and well away from animals for many years, and those are the types a law could concentrate on because the rest who are decent would probably participate voluntarily anyway.

Hypotheticals about it are a wonderful thing for discussion though, it brings out so many lines of thought, finds possible loopholes and has us looking at viable ways to seal them if we had our say on such law making so to speak - the government should be made to read such threads so they can get an understanding of the real world !

well i have just put my say up think it woul dbe good for all to read.

Hi patch, your spot on the only way it could possibly work is the person holding a license not every dog, If the gov were to push insurance companys to give a discount to all licence holders it could also be an insentive for people to do it,
would also possibly incourage more people to get insured.

Not really impossible to police random stops of people with no dogs by the community support officers to check on owner permits/licences call them what you will no permit then off to training school to get one & a computer record of the stop made
caught again & taken no action a fine & if the dog is mistreated the licence revoked & dog taken away to a better home-more homes available as there would be less dogs going into the wrong homes

breedersd/multi dog owners wouldn't need a special licence but dog trainers/responsible experienced peeps could have an "advanced"permit/licence