Given recent events, is it about time that the UK re-introduced the Dog Licence and had some sort of "Free" test to prove that the "Would be" owner is responsible enough to own one.
2006-09-28 06:38:01 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Pets ➔ Dogs
Security dog handlers have to be licensed, and the license has to be renewed every year. The licence is for the handler, not the dog.
Children under 16 cannot be held legally responsible for a dog and so cannot own one. The parents own the dog and are responsible for food, everyday and veterinary care.
In Belgium there is the Good Dog scheme, you cannot take your dog into the city without a temperament and training certificate. Its not free to take the test.
Responsible owners already vaccinate, worm, clean up after, neuter and microchip their pets; irresponsible owners don't.
The reason why the licence hasn't been reintroduced is because there would be a sudden rush of dogs being dumped and the resources aren't there to deal with this, plus it would be expensive to put the system into place.
There was a suggestion a few years back to have a sliding scale of fees, with micro chipped and neutered pets being the cheapest to licence. I think this is the best idea.
2006-09-28 08:59:20 · answer #1 · answered by sarah c 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wouldnt be happy if the money went to the government. If the money used was given to the PDSA I would be happy to pay for one. Also, who would decide on the test? At the moment I live in a flat with no garden but there is plenty of land all around me for me to take my chocolate Lab Saffy out on. I recently bought her from a breeder as a puppy and love her very much as she does me, however I was unable to re-house a dog from the local animal shelters as I do not have a garden with a 6ft fence perimeter. If that was a condition of the license then I would not be able to give my time and love to her legally and there would be one more homeless dog in the world.
2006-09-30 08:08:06 · answer #2 · answered by MGN2006 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I could not agree more about the re-introduction if licences. It would make people stop and think about getting a dog if they had to pay. Responsible breeders and rescue centres do a free home check before they allow you to have a dog, to make sure you have enough room, the right attitude to dog ownership etc
2006-10-02 03:53:16 · answer #3 · answered by Linda H 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And who decides who is good enough? When the AR groups think ALL pet ownership is wrong, how many would pass? What kinds of criteria would be used?
-Do you believe in breeding dogs?
Yes? Sorry you do not qualify to have a 'companion'
-Do you feed only ultra high premium food?
No? Sorry you do not qualify to have a 'companion'
-Do you believe in PP training techniques only?
No? sorry...
-Do have $3000 in savings in case of a medical emergency?
No? Sorry....
Besides, why do you think the irresponsible owners and the thugs would be trotting on in to comply? WE would be the ones to comply. The irresponsible just plain don't care and the thugs do not care if they are breaking any laws.
The answer is ENFORCED leash laws. It would drop the numbers of dog attacks and also much of the unwanted breeding if 'rover' weren't allowed to roam the streets.
If you do not think the Ar groups would hijack something like this, you are being very naive. It WOULD get like this. Remember, HSUS, PeTA, DDAL and the rest want to END ALL PET OWNERSHIP and laws like these are the best tools they have!
2006-09-28 09:21:01 · answer #4 · answered by whpptwmn 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the money from the dog licence went to the RSPCA then i would be happy to pay. But it's never going to happen, way to many back yard breeders out there to be able to police all dog owners.
2006-09-28 07:27:07 · answer #5 · answered by yeahbutnobut 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Knee jerk reaction comes to mind,but in saying that all dogs should be kept directly under control and their owners be responsible for all hospital bills and restitution if their dog attacks without good reason,its the same old argument its not the dogs fault,or its not the car or the gun its the person in charge.I also presume that from her answer Jess k is a dog breeder who makes a packet out of breeding,How about the dog being chip ed and the breeder being held responsible for allowing such dogs to be bought as pets.And yes I am a responsible dog owner.
2006-09-28 07:13:15 · answer #6 · answered by Francis7 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
some kind of test and licence would be a great idea I think so also would a leash law with penalties if you break it. I'm sick of having to change direction when a dog without a lead on heads my way when I'm out with my dog. I never take her out unless she has a collar and lead on. Why are there so many idiots that don't use them.
2006-09-28 07:04:56 · answer #7 · answered by MADMOM 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Lets not revert back in time. However maybe the government should implement some kind of training package where people can learn to train their dogs, or maybe only have to buy a license for dogs that are bought for guard dogs or who will live in public places.
2006-09-28 06:51:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
no,a dog licence wont change a dog owner.a dog owner is a person and they are either responsible or they are not.if their dog is agresive or injures someone they shouldnt be allowed to own another.simpe as that.
2006-09-28 06:51:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a responsible dog owner, You should have to sit a written exam to prove your knowledge, a physical exam to prove your ability to handle a dog and you should also have to prove financial ability to provide for the dog, and unless you are a registered breeder, your dog should be neutered/spayed. (That would stop a lot of irrisponsible breeding.
2006-09-28 06:56:08 · answer #10 · answered by jess k 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋