I think you could be arguing with yourself yourself here: my point about 'your' stats is they do not define the severity of 'hospitalised' or 'dog attack' and I argued that it could be for something trivial, but then you are implying that it would have to be for something more serious. So thats fine, we will accept them as true.

I provided 2 links, the second one was pro BSL and included stats as well. In my opinion the methodology in defining breeds involved was bad; I read American news reports all the time and would not applaud them for their knowledge of dogs but the basic facts are usually correct: the people were killed by dogs. As a statistic being dead is fairly significant as there are no degrees of being dead.

The author of the proposal has estimated that a test fee of £40 would generate £240 million of new income with which to administer the test and boost resources for dog wardens. It is worth noting that this proposal is intended to replace our current Sec 1, DDA which would, in itself, release thousands of police man hours and millions of pounds to be more profitably spent. (The MET police alone spend about £1.5 million in just kenneling dogs seized as 'type'.

Whilst that is true there are many different cause of death and I wouldn't trust media or internet sites (from which these stats are gathered) to be reliable or authorative. I suspect that, if Jim Rehill had lived in America, he too would be in those stats.

No argument a mere question, you only want to know the number of people killed by dogs, that is fine, you found a site that makes you feel is of merit that is good

Is that enough due to the short fall that is already impacting on the viability of the current laws, poop patrols seem to be unable to maintain a decent standard, let alone wardens patrolling and intervening when dogs are 'at risk' of offending (or owners being numpties) testing, licencing, call outs to incidences, do you think it should be a standard test or depending on the size of dog getting, or number of dogs, of rural or urban environment, years of experience with dogs, age, or anything else......
What do you do with all the people with dogs now do you put out a recall on all dogs until they have a licence?

I have just had a quick flit through this subject and so what I will say may have already been said, but it is too late to ban the deed when the deed has already taken place, i.e. serious injury sustained from a dog whatever breed - I do not think you can ban the deed. I believe all breeds have the potential to bite and be aggressive, it is just the extent of the damage created when it happens. Tosas and other large dogs are capable of great harm and before anyone gets a dog (whatever breed it is) I would hope they will thoroughly research the breed they like the look of and question why they would want to keep the dog. If purely for a companion or a pet - would a Tosa (or other large fighting dog) be suitable for sharing a house with children. I could go on further, but the whole thought of sharing my home with such a dog scares me. Perhaps I am a wimp.

So long as the administrators don't use the money to buy themselves new duck islands for their moats it should do fine.

The driving licence theory test (which the DOT resembles in some ways) is administered for about £30 iirc.

£240 milion should be more than enough to administer the test and leave a surplus.

The test would be applied only to new purchases. Existing owners would not need to sit a test until they wanted a new dog.

I have to say I somewhat agree with this.

but it is not just about sitting a test, afterwards there are people who are going to have to monitor that people have them, police are under resourced anyway, so are dog wardens (here anyway) so it is about administration incl a data base, testing, monitoring, where the dogs go if the owner is unlicenced, and the concequences of that (court or a fine?). I am just not sure it is enforceable to a point where it is going to make a difference. (I do like the idea though)
How are they going to be able to tell new owners from old (no not one with a pup either) say a five year old dog they got off a friend who didnt want it anymore and then says well I have had the dog for almost five years now?

Certain breeds of dogs need certain types of owners. I had my first litter of Ambullneo Mastiffs(Bandogs) a few weeks ago. They are a very protective breed, and need an owner that is into training, and knows how to handle and correct such a breed CORRECTLY. The people who have called or shown interest have ALL been into training dogs for protection work. These are the type of people that should own these types of dogs, and not just someone who likes the looks of the animals. Dogs get banned because of terrible owners, not terrible dogs, or breeds. Its nonsense that any 1 breed gets so much bad publicity. I was reading an article about the testing of temperment in different breeds of dogs the other day. And I read that the Pitbulls tested passed at a higher rate than a GOLDEN RETREIVER, go figure.

To answer your points in turn:

The test will require the establishment of a database but this is not a new challenge. The DVLA already run a similar (and much larger) database. All the principles and technologies that the DOT requires are already tried and tested (and successful) in other fields.

Nobody will have their dog taken becuse they haven't passed the test - they will face ongoing and increasing fines until they do, though.

Old (exempt) dogs can be discerned from new by scanning them but this is only a temporary complexity. Within one dog generation all owners would be DOT'able.

I agree that enforcement of our dogs laws is sporadic and insufficient. This proposal brings in new money and releases existing resources, that are wasted on trying to enforce the flawed DDA, and that can be focused on minority non-compliance but, in the main, it is self-enforcing through market pressure and this is its great strength. Buyers are checked by suppliers who are checked by advertising media who are checked by buyers. The DOT sets up a situation where it is in everyone's best interests to ensure the other guy is legit. The mainstream dog buying public will have to comply leaving minority non-compliance to be dealt with either with the new resources available or when the owner comes to the attention of the authorities on other matters.

In your hypothetical case it wouldn't matter how long the owner had had the dog (providing DOT was in force when he did get it). Fine for not having a DOT, fine for supplier for supplying an unDot'ed owner.

Emrad

Totally off-topic (sorry) - have you ever heard of anyone in your country having their vehicle seized by animal control? I only recently discovered that your dog wardens have the power to do that.