Couldn't agree more... as I've said elsewhere... in an ideal world maybe it would work. But in this one.. it's those that need regulating that would avoid it and you and me would be left to pay their share.

This is such a difficult situation. I agree that there should be some form of dog license but alot of it is down to cost, who will impliment it and who will police it? Banning peolpe for thier dogs causing problems would be so open to interpretation, there would always be the genuine accidents from responsible owners.
I have heard it mentioned before about people having to prove they will be responsible dog owners before they are allowed a dog. I am a huge dog lover and would do anything to help improve their welfare but people can have children without proving they are responsible parents!!

Absolutely correct, nothing more to be said.

I agree something needs to be done but am thinking more along the lines of compulsory basic training before and after someone gets a dog. Suppose it could be linked with a license - you only get a license when you complete the training but agree with others on policing etc.

With respect, how can you be so naive ?
Will you take responsibility for all the dogs that will be abandoned or put down by people who won't get a license or can't be bothered to do a training couse or simply can't afford to comply with all this well meaning nonsense ?
The reintroduction of licenses is a death sentence to many thousands of dogs.
Think about that before you vote.

With respect, how can you be so rude when someone posts in good faith about possible ideas?

No, don't bother answering; I don't really care much for your opinions when put in such an unpleasant way.

How can you say that someone is naive with respect? This is a thread for concept and ideal world senario and I and many others would appreciate it if you would add your opinions with out knocking others.

I would expect that quite a few dogs would be put to sleep but after the initial overload of the system every dog would be regulated and therefore in the long run less dogs would be pts. If that makes sense Its a sacrifice to save the future, if nothing is done millions of dogs will be banned (DDA), uncared for, treated so badly they would rather be dead and so on. I have first hand experience in dogs who have been treated badly, the worst are the people who actually believe they are doing right by their dog when they couldn't be further from the truth, these people would never see it any differently unless they were trained, but as it is not compulsary I doubt thats gonna happen. License may not be the way to go but something must be done to save our breeds.

Paul G: No need to post a response, I believe everyone is clear on your stance in this debate.

Sorry, I had no wish to offend and my reference to naivety was not intended specifically for you.
However, I believe that the point which I am making is a vital one in that the introduction of legislation of the type you describe would undoubtedly result in suffering and death for a great many dogs.
For that reason alone perhaps I have been too forceful in my choice of words.

Because I respect the intention that gives rise to the proposal, even though the proposal itself is deeply flawed.
As I have already said, I am sorry to have upset anyone. However, this is political debate of a kind and as such is likely to bring forth strong argument.
If I have sacrificed popularity in some quarters then it is unfortunate, but I consider it a small price to pay for drawing attention to the potentially disaterous consequences of an apparently well meaning policy.
I make no apology for defending dogs, only for the choice of words.