|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
14-02-2010, 11:53 AM
Originally Posted by fluffymummy 
I have to say I somewhat agree with this.
And me!!
|
|
Location: Australia
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,032
|
14-02-2010, 11:56 AM
Originally Posted by johnderondon
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.
http://www.petparliament.com/viewart...sid=115&aid=21
it would hopefully do what it sets out to acheive, I guess I am sceptical as the good dog owners will comply and the 'problematic (or potentially)' will evade the new scheme. Just as fools, drive cars, with no licence, registration, insurance and other circumstances.
What impact do you think it will do to BYB's or puppy farms? I read what it proposes to do but not sure it will alter the numbers. Puppy farmers seem not to have a conscience anyway, and would just breed anyway and not just breed reponsibly anyway and find puppy farms with twice as many dogs (if DOT does have the desired effect).
I guess there is no silver bullet but it would be an improvement on what is in place now. As long as there are enough people to follow up the practical side persay (out on the streets).
Originally Posted by johnderondon
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.
where didd you see that ?
|
|
|
|
Location: uk
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,283
|
14-02-2010, 07:30 PM
Originally Posted by Emrad
What impact do you think it will do to BYB's or puppy farms?
The regular BYB will also have to comply or give up as he relies on advertising to make his sales. The casual BYB and one-litter brigade will be the hardest to oversee but, hopefully, the eductional aspect of the DOT will deter some of these, too. Eventually all puppy buyers will expect their pup to be registered and offering unregistered dogs at a discount will not be enough to offset the risk that the new owner would be buying into - a ten to fifteen years long risk.
where didd you see that ?
|
|
|
|
Location: Australia
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,032
|
15-02-2010, 08:37 AM
Originally Posted by johnderondon
Puppyfarmers, pet shops, etc would have to fall in line straight away as they are simply too visible to avoid it. They would comply because they rely on breeding for their living and so will rely on their supplier-DOT (SDOT). Any sale to an unDOT'ed owner could endanger their SDOT if discovered. If that owner came to the attention of the authorities at any time during that dog's life the supplier could face sanction and loss of his livelihood. Just not worth his risk. The compulsory identification element (which is likely to come soon anyway) will make overbreeding easier to spot. Unlicensed puppyfarms would not be able to continue.
The regular BYB will also have to comply or give up as he relies on advertising to make his sales. The casual BYB and one-litter brigade will be the hardest to oversee but, hopefully, the eductional aspect of the DOT will deter some of these, too. Eventually all puppy buyers will expect their pup to be registered and offering unregistered dogs at a discount will not be enough to offset the risk that the new owner would be buying into - a ten to fifteen years long risk.
It was in a presentation given at the National Dog Wardens Assoc.'s AGM (I'm not a dog warden but I was there anyway).
Not sure if that is true about seizing cars, never heard of it as a law or it being implemented
again it could be a state law, we have a law for squishing car hoons cars 
(I know OT)
|
|
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|