# Should the dog license be reintroduced??



## Sam'n'Droo (May 31, 2008)

What are your thoughts? Do you think a license to own a dog would stop quite a few of the dog related problems we are faced with currently? Would you pay for the right to keep a dog? Do you think people that want to breed should pay extra? ( I dont mean responsible breeders, I aim that at byb and people that assume they have a right to breed a dog because it is 'nice' without first considering the welfare of the pups..) Would it put the 'wrong sort' of people off buying a dog in the first place knowing they would need a license before buying? What do you think?


----------



## freekygeeky (May 25, 2007)

Sam'n'Droo said:


> What are your thoughts? Do you think a license to own a dog would stop quite a few of the dog related problems we are faced with currently? Would you pay for the right to keep a dog? Do you think people that want to breed should pay extra? ( I dont mean responsible breeders, I aim that at byb and people that assume they have a right to breed a dog because it is 'nice' without first considering the welfare of the pups..) Would it put the 'wrong sort' of people off buying a dog in the first place knowing they would need a license before buying? What do you think?


if you have it with dogs, what about cats too
FAR to many being killed, and far to many in rescues and far to many being bred, just like dogs

I would definatly pay for a license to keep my cats, they are my babies.


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

Yes, we need a dog licence back.

Even if it was on a household basis and not per dog. And in conjunction with this that all new owners should have to pass an exam on at least basic care and training.
The monies raised from licencing should be used for dog parks with poo bins and local training clubs should be set up that all new puppy owners should have to sign up to as part of their licence unless they have proved that they can in fact train dogs.


----------



## quadrapop (Sep 20, 2008)

i believe it should be introduced, it would stop some of the people who buy a dog, abuse it, fight it, abandon it or let it get out of control because most wouldnt want to pay to keep a dog. The liscenses would start well but then would end up being given out to anyone and what would happen about the people without liscences who keep getting dogs, would they be removed from them? if so I think this would lead to even more dogs in centres or rescues because there are a lot of people it wont stop.


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

I would support licensing ONLY if a license could only be acheived through passing a competence test as Pimp said. 
If it was just a license fee then no - it wouldn't make an iota of difference.


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

Could go either way. How would everyone be sure others have a license? People quite blatantly do illegal things anyway, so what's stopping them not having the license?


----------



## linda.t (Sep 28, 2007)

Pimperella said:


> Yes, we need a dog licence back.
> 
> Even if it was on a household basis and not per dog. And in conjunction with this that all new owners should have to pass an exam on at least basic care and training.
> The monies raised from licencing should be used for dog parks with poo bins and local training clubs should be set up that all new puppy owners should have to sign up to as part of their licence unless they have proved that they can in fact train dogs.


i like the idea where u think the licence money should go but i somehow
can't see that happening, dog parks sound great.


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

quadrapop said:


> i believe it should be introduced, it would stop some of the people who buy a dog, abuse it, fight it, abandon it or let it get out of control


How? It's illegal to keep Pit Bull TYPE dogs, yet people still do, so how would whether it's the law or not affect them types of people?


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

LoveForLizards said:


> Could go either way. How would everyone be sure others have a license? People quite blatantly do illegal things anyway, so what's stopping them not having the license?


If people had to make a real effort to get a license, the number of dogs kept would decrease, and lets face it, the illegal ones would stand out like a sore thumb. It would also give the police a good excuse to stop and search if they saw a known criminal out with a dog. At the moment if you know someone who is an ill informed dog owner, what can you do about it? If this was implemented, you could ask who ever was policing the scheme to check that they were licensed.


----------



## lilworm (Aug 11, 2007)

Pimperella said:


> Yes, we need a dog licence back.
> 
> Even if it was on a household basis and not per dog. And in conjunction with this that all new owners should have to pass an exam on at least basic care and training.
> The monies raised from licencing should be used for dog parks with poo bins and local training clubs should be set up that all new puppy owners should have to sign up to as part of their licence unless they have proved that they can in fact train dogs.



agree and definitley would like to see the monies go towards parks bins and local training clubs....

As has been said enforcing it will be a bitch and probably not cost effective, irresponsible people will still be irresponsible and probably will not register the dog/s for a licence anyways, 

And i also think microchipping should be mandatory.


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

Maybe if some of the onus was on sellers? If it was an offense to sell a dog to an unlicensed person, people might be more careful about selling dogs and puppies - it works reasonably well with cars. 

The other thing is that when there are incedents involving dogs, you have something concrete to prosecute them for rather than all the proving of negligence that has to happen at the moment.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

I don't believe reinroducing the dog licence would change anything. Essentially responsible owners would be the only ones paying. Dog licences will not stop morons, illegal dog ownership or dog fighting, these people don't follow the law now so why would they even consider buying a licence. Likewise with enforced microchipping sadly. Also who would enforce the licences legally? It's hard enough getting what the police consider to be more serious crime dealt with in court, so I doubt licencing would ever get enforced legally at all. Reminder letters from the council won't fix this country's dog problems sadly. It wouldn't ever live up to what we as good owners would hope for in a licence.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Evie said:


> If it was just a license fee then no - it wouldn't make an iota of difference.


Have to say that I agree with this.

The police haven't enough time to police violent crime, so they'd never have time to police dog licences. 

What would happen is the responsible people who look after their dogs properly would buy them and the irresponsible idiots who don't, wouldn't.

I'm old enough to remember dog licences and they didn't work then and they wouldn't work now without proper checking and policing.


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

Well, here in NI there are still dog licences and I have never seen so many stray dogs in all my life! Apparently there are as many dogs put to sleep each year in Ireland as in England, Scotland and Wales put together. 

I'm not sure about testing owners, but I do think breeding dogs should be heavily, and _properly_ regulated, so that those who want to breed have to show they have the competance to both cope if things don't go to plan, and advise puppy buyers should they need it. I also think they should be legally bound to be responsible for any puppies they breed for the life of that animal, unless exceptional circumstances mean they cannot be. That is never going to happen, but if it did, rescue centres would be virtually non existant.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Not really because there will still be people out there who don't neuter their pets and those who deliberately breed non-pedigree dogs, surely?


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

The only thing is wouldn't some councils take it up on there self to refuse you a licence if you getting a breed that they may concider dangerous.

So if you apply for a licence but you want a staffie,Mastiff,Rotty,Bull terrier,'etc'etc.I'm willing to bet that some councils may abuse there power and say no to such breeds.


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

feorag said:


> Not really because there will still be people out there who don't neuter their pets and those who deliberately breed non-pedigree dogs, surely?


 
I'm not saying it could be ruled out completely, but if people were heavily fined if they 'illegally' had a litter, then it would help stop a high proportion of people. 

I also think there should be a limit on how many litters can be bred in a year. (I am talking about via licencing laws, not KC regs) There is no reason at all for people to need to breed more than two litters per year under normal circumstances, at the absolute maximum. Most breeders I know only breed once every 3-5 years. If people had a genuine reason to breed more than that, they could apply under special circumstances. 

Sadly, our government sees dog breeding as a viable and legitimate business, so it's never gonna happen....


----------



## Daniel1 (Apr 13, 2009)

gazz said:


> The only thing is wouldn't some councils take it up on there self to refuse you a licence if you getting a breed that they may concider dangerous.
> 
> So if you apply for a licence but you want a staffie,Mastiff,Rotty,Bull terrier,'etc'etc.I'm willing to bet that some councils may abuse there power and say no to such breeds.


Good point and this happened here (ROI) Dublin city council would not allow certain breeds to be kept on their property and its discrimination big time because where you live does not determine how competent of a Dog owner you are. Just last night the Garda came to my door twice because of him being the breed he is and they keep insisting he is an English Bull Terrier, and they are on the restricted breeds list, but he is a Bull Terrier and even the sargent agreed with myself and my brother and the original Garda who is insisting he is an EBT was not happy :Na_Na_Na_Na: and I will not being muzzling Tyson again. He was not on the restricted breeds list in the first place and all the trouble we have been put through because people in my estate are afraid of him because of the way he looks. I have even been asked by someone in my estate to muzzle him because he apparently intimidates people and what about the other dogs roaming loose, sure they are not dangerous because they don't look dangerous :bash:.

Dog licences in ROI are just basically for the government wanting money and don't have other purpose, I would like to see money from DL's being used to fund rescues and provide neutering/ spaying and lets face it there are far too many dogs being bred of all breeds and rescues are jammed.
Dogs in Distress will have their first center opening up here on the 12th and I might volunteer there.

Sorry that was a bit of a rant:whistling2:


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

we have them here in the states as you probably know... but it's about the rabies thing... you all don't have rabies there right?


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

No, thank goodness, we don't have rabies here!

Some good points being made on this thread though!


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

midori said:


> Well, here in NI there are still dog licences and I have never seen so many stray dogs in all my life! Apparently there are as many dogs put to sleep each year in Ireland as in England, Scotland and Wales put together.
> 
> I'm not sure about testing owners, but I do think breeding dogs should be heavily, and _properly_ regulated, so that those who want to breed have to show they have the competance to both cope if things don't go to plan, and advise puppy buyers should they need it. I also think they should be legally bound to be responsible for any puppies they breed for the life of that animal, unless exceptional circumstances mean they cannot be. That is never going to happen, but if it did, rescue centres would be virtually non existant.



I know when I started helping to move dogs from Southern Ireland some 30,000 dogs and puppies were being distroyed a year. Even though that has been reduced its still higher than England, Wales and Scotland put together : ( So a licence hasnt helped them.

I totally agree with the Breeding regulations. Every problem has a root, over breeding is the reason why we have so many strays, regulate breeding, solve the problem from the route. And surely this would be the easiest and cheapest way forward.


----------



## Fixx (May 6, 2006)

midori said:


> Well, here in NI there are still dog licences and I have never seen so many stray dogs in all my life! Apparently there are as many dogs put to sleep each year in Ireland as in England, Scotland and Wales put together.
> 
> I*'m not sure about testing owners, but I do think breeding dogs should be heavily, and properly regulated, so that those who want to breed have to show they have the competance to both cope if things don't go to plan, and advise puppy buyers should they need it. I also think they should be legally bound to be responsible for any puppies they breed for the life of that animal, unless exceptional circumstances mean they cannot be. That is never going to happen, but if it did, rescue centres would be virtually non existant.*


And how will this be implemented? Who decided if you are competent enough to breed dogs? What about other species of animals? I for one think there is going to be problems with unwanted reptiles in the future, especially with the easier to keep and breed species such as corn snakes and bearded dragons before long as the market is being flooded with them.


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

Fixx said:


> And how will this be implemented? Who decided if you are competent enough to breed dogs? What about other species of animals? I for one think there is going to be problems with unwanted reptiles in the future, especially with the easier to keep and breed species such as corn snakes and bearded dragons before long as the market is being flooded with them.


 
I have no idea as to how, I haven't really thought about it that much, but it is obviously possible to regulate the breeding/sale of certain animals, as it is already done with some, such as CITES restricted species, so why not dogs? 

As for other species of animals, this thread isn't about them, it's about dogs/dog licences. 

As for who decided I was competant to breed dogs, no-one did, and that's the point. Anyone can decide they want to breed their pet dogs and sell the puppies without giving them a second thought once the cash in handed over and they are out the door. I would be happy to go through some sort of inspection/assessment in order to have the privaledge to breed dogs, and I am sure most peopel who have the right intentions would aswell. 

There is already a problem with unwanted reptiles.


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

midori said:


> I'm not saying it could be ruled out completely, but if people were heavily fined if they 'illegally' had a litter, then it would help stop a high proportion of people.
> 
> I also think there should be a limit on how many litters can be bred in a year. (I am talking about via licencing laws, not KC regs) There is no reason at all for people to need to breed more than two litters per year .


Where there's money to be made there will always be exploitation.I don't think a dog license will deter those sort of people.Limiting the amount of litters on the surface is a good idea.In reality people merge litters and register them to one bitch,it already goes on.I just think the usual decent people will be penalised.The rest will carry on.I wonder if a T.V ad campaign showing all the dead dogs piled high and screened during prime time tv would have more of an impact.The dogs trust has just released figures stating that every hour of every day a stray dog is put to sleep in the uk.Those figures only include dogs handled by the councils.


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

sarahc said:


> Where there's money to be made there will always be exploitation.I don't think a dog license will deter those sort of people.Limiting the amount of litters on the surface is a good idea.In reality people merge litters and register them to one bitch,it already goes on.I just think the usual decent people will be penalised.The rest will carry on.I wonder if a T.V ad campaign showing all the dead dogs piled high and screened during prime time tv would have more of an impact.The dogs trust has just released figures stating that every hour of every day a stray dog is put to sleep in the uk.Those figures only include dogs handled by the councils.


It would at the very least help to stop puppy farmers who already have to be licenced with local councils. However, the licences are purely for people who breed more than five litters per year. (This differs between local authorities though) 

The whole practice of puppy farming could be stopped if the government wanted to. They could also make it illegal to sell dogs or puppies in pet shops. However, they chose not to. 

I think it would also go a long way towards stopping a lot of pet litters being bred. The fact is, most people who breed pet litters really don't think there is anything wrong with it, and we know that these types of litter, along with puppy farmed ones, are those that contribute most to rescue statistics. These aren't people with no morals or ethics, they simply don't see the harm. If some sort of licence had to be obtained to even breed one litter, I do think people would consider it more seriously, especially if it meant they were morelikely to lose money by breeding.


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*indescriminate breeding*

I can see your point.How much would a license have to cost to put people off though when you consider the price of even cross bred puppies?Surely most people are aware of puppy farms?If they want a particular breed no questions asked they don't care.I have a friend who to my dismay met up with an unknown person on the motorway to get their chihuahua pup.They are fully aware that this pup must be the product of unscrupulous practices.They just wanted,so must have and I would say that they are just average people/consumers.I don't object to a license.I would want the revenue to benefit dogs though.How about a free neutering scheme?Not something just to fill the purses of councils to spend on dog wardens who I don't generally rate(appologies to any wardens who are dedicated to dogs) or setting traps to catch poopers to fine and rake in more money.Can councils be trusted?I wouldn't trust them,they won't be interested unless there is a revenue for them.Just look at the balls up of the dangerous dog act.Along with all the criminals countless innocent people have had their equally innocent pooches confiscated and condemned to years on death row whilst the legal wrangles go on.Who could police it or would police it.Unless it's some organisation with the canine at heart I wouldn't go for it.The previous license was simply a hand over of money at the post office,that was the only official interest ,money.....


----------



## Nebbz (Jan 27, 2008)

Sam'n'Droo said:


> What are your thoughts? Do you think a license to own a dog would stop quite a few of the dog related problems we are faced with currently? Would you pay for the right to keep a dog? Do you think people that want to breed should pay extra? ( I dont mean responsible breeders, I aim that at byb and people that assume they have a right to breed a dog because it is 'nice' without first considering the welfare of the pups..) Would it put the 'wrong sort' of people off buying a dog in the first place knowing they would need a license before buying? What do you think?


as a staffy owner i completly agree with this idea! i also think its the same if you want kids you should do tests to see if your capable of dealing with them as some people really ARE NOT some will be against the idea, but the way sociaty is now it needs to be done!

just some breeds are being over breed for one reason and one reason only, money! and for the sake of it, its not fair and the breeds are getting the blame resulting in them being banned!


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

I vote no to a dog licence. The reason being that it will cause great hardship. For instance me. I have 25. Some are my own pets, bought or bred by myself. But half of mine are unwanted throw outs from other people. So if a licenced was introduced at say £25 per dog, I'd find the money but it'd mean I wouldn't be able to spay or vaccinate one or more of them. Then, just as with the last dog licence, I pay, Pimps pays, honest people pay, but the chavs and wasters who never paid last time, won't pay this time either and they are the ones who's dogs cause the problems, not mine. You know the sort of people. The ones who have no TV licence, drive their clapped out old banger with no tax or insurance etc. Why should responsible dog owners, be forced to pay for the dog owners who cause the problems.


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

linda.t said:


> i like the idea where u think the licence money should go but i somehow
> can't see that happening, dog parks sound great.


 Why should I have to subsidise townie dog owners? No need for a park here. I have land. I've already paid for it. There are also miles of open spaces along the ***** and drains an on the wash for the dogs around here. So every single dog owner who lives in a rural area has to pay for townies to have dog parks? great idea batman <not>


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

marthaMoo said:


> I know when I started helping to move dogs from Southern Ireland some 30,000 dogs and puppies were being distroyed a year. Even though that has been reduced its still higher than England, Wales and Scotland put together : ( So a licence hasnt helped them.
> 
> I totally agree with the Breeding regulations. Every problem has a root, over breeding is the reason why we have so many strays, regulate breeding, solve the problem from the route. And surely this would be the easiest and cheapest way forward.



I have always said that if a law was brought in that every puppy bred, had to be microchipped to the breeder permanently and if it became unwanted at any stage of it's life, the breeder had to take it back to rehome it, then a lot of people would stop breeding. I'm always amazed when someone phones me asking me to take a pedigree dog and I ask whether they've contacted the breeder first, only to hear that the breeder says that they haven't the room to take it back. Well pardon me. If you have the room to have a litter, you have the room to take one of your dogs back when it gets into problems.:bash:


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

I live in a town but I open my back gate and its Parkland and I can follow a woodland path or I can walk 5 minutes and reach wide open spaces and
woods with a waterfall .We also have a River and a Country Park. Its excellent for dog walking but I so wish we could get rid of the scum that dump trolleys and rubbish in these beautiful places and ruin it for others:bash:


----------



## cordylidae (Nov 2, 2008)

havent read the full post but it would be pretty much impossible to inforce people manage t get hold of dwa with liecenses so a dog would b easy surely?


----------



## Fixx (May 6, 2006)

Pimperella said:


> Yes, we need a dog licence back.
> 
> Even if it was on a household basis and not per dog. And in conjunction with this that all new owners should have to pass an exam on at least basic care and training.
> *The monies raised from licencing should be used for dog parks with poo bins* and local training clubs should be set up that all new puppy owners should have to sign up to as part of their licence unless they have proved that they can in fact train dogs.


This is actually a good idea, and not justfor dogs and dog owners. The generation of green spaces in urban environments can help bring about social change and help to lift communities out of the doldrums.


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

Shell195 said:


> I live in a town but I open my back gate and its Parkland and I can follow a woodland path or I can walk 5 minutes and reach wide open spaces and
> woods with a waterfall .We also have a River and a Country Park. Its excellent for dog walking but I so wish we could get rid of the scum that dump trolleys and rubbish in these beautiful places and ruin it for others:bash:


 Sounds really nice Shell. My place inWarrington was like that. Just out the back and cross one road and I was in a country park which was the liverpool to manchester canal.
I never understood why anyone would dump rubbish and spoil something nice. Purely selfish I reckon.


----------



## vonnie (Aug 20, 2007)

fenwoman said:


> I vote no to a dog licence. The reason being that it will cause great hardship. For instance me. I have 25. Some are my own pets, bought or bred by myself. But half of mine are unwanted throw outs from other people. So if a licenced was introduced at say £25 per dog, I'd find the money but it'd mean I wouldn't be able to spay or vaccinate one or more of them. Then, just as with the last dog licence, I pay, Pimps pays, honest people pay, but the chavs and wasters who never paid last time, won't pay this time either and they are the ones who's dogs cause the problems, not mine. You know the sort of people. The ones who have no TV licence, drive their clapped out old banger with no tax or insurance etc. Why should responsible dog owners, be forced to pay for the dog owners who cause the problems.


Although my gut reaction is to say yes, bring back the dog licence, Fenny's post says it all.

I only have two dogs. Both rescues. Both costing a rehoming fee of £100 (to enable the shelter to continue it's essential work, and which I have no problem paying ) and vets fees for check-ups, vaccinations and neutering. I also have further expense to come in training as the puppy is dog agressive and I am happy to pay for professional help to hopefully improve his behaviour.

I have already paid for other peoples mistakes, or more likely for the fact they got a cute pup and then couldn't be bothered. And I would do it a hundred times over if I had the time and the space.

But the problem people are the people who won't pay. We already pay to pick up the pieces. Fenny far more than me.

I really can't see a solution that doesn't just penalise the law-abiding, animal-loving dog owner.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Totally agree with everything Fenny has said. I said in my earlier post that it didn't work when it was an active scheme years ago and I see no way that it will work this time. There aren't enough resources to police it, plain and simple.

Again the responsible owners would do it and the idiots wouldn't!!

I also agree with the microchipping suggestion so that breeders have to be responsible for the puppies they sell throughout their entire life, instead of breeding, getting the dosh and then disclaiming the animal.


----------



## Kerriebaby (May 12, 2009)

The Pet Owners Parliament, a Positive Voice for Pets and their Owners

The Dog Owner Suitability Test Proposal - Official Consultation#

is what is needed


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

Kerriebaby said:


> The Pet Owners Parliament, a Positive Voice for Pets and their Owners
> 
> The Dog Owner Suitability Test Proposal - Official Consultation#
> 
> is what is needed


It's pretty goods but I don't think there should be a fee per dog. If someone is passed as competent, then they are competent if they have one dog or more than one. 
Once you have passed the test there could be a small annual charge to maintain your name on the database, but no way would it be fair to charge for every dog.


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

feorag said:


> Totally agree with everything Fenny has said. I said in my earlier post that it didn't work when it was an active scheme years ago and I see no way that it will work this time. There aren't enough resources to police it, plain and simple.
> 
> Again the responsible owners would do it and the idiots wouldn't!!
> 
> I also agree with the microchipping suggestion so that breeders have to be responsible for the puppies they sell throughout their entire life, instead of breeding, getting the dosh and then disclaiming the animal.


 I really do believe lifelong responsibility would go a long way to making people think twice about breeding. I have to permanently mark by tag or microchip, my pigs and goats and a log kept of whenever they change hands. If it can be done with livestock, why not dogs? I'd welcome such legislation too as it'd mean that I could be 100% sure that my pups would come back to me instead of simply hoping that the buyer honours the agreement they signed. It could be easily policed too with spot checks made on anyone advertising a litter. And let's face it, irresponsible breeders have to advertise in order to get their money. Not sure what penalty could be levied for non compliance. Perhaps the compulsory neutering of every dog in the household with the owner being made to pay for it by handing over money made from puppy sales or deducted from their wages or dole money? I really do think that a law like this can only be to the benefit of dogs in general.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

fenwoman said:


> I vote no to a dog licence. The reason being that it will cause great hardship. For instance me. I have 25. Some are my own pets, bought or bred by myself. But half of mine are unwanted throw outs from other people. So if a licenced was introduced at say £25 per dog, I'd find the money but it'd mean I wouldn't be able to spay or vaccinate one or more of them. .


Completely agree with the rest of your post (the bit about the people who just wouldn't pay). However, I did wonder how much the last dog licences were? Were they only £25? I doubt £25 would be a great hardship to the average dog owners, given most people don't have 25. To be honest these minimal costs are what people would have to factor into decisions such as "Can I afford 25 dogs" (for most people that answer would be no), and if they couldn't afford it, much like other routine costs, they shouldn't have a dog. If it was £150 each dog I could take your point, but most people can afford £25 a year if they can afford a dog. And if they couldn't afford 25 x £25, or 25 x spaying, they wouldn't get 25 dogs surely. :lol2:


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

I certainly wouldn't want to persecute anyone for having multiple dogs. The issue is preventing irresponsible idiots from having dogs, and making sure that owners are informed and have to jump through a few hoops before being allowed a dog. You don't have to be an amazing dog trainer to own a dog, and you shouldn't have to be wealthy, but the fact that a person made the effort to go and gain the license shows they have a sense of responsibility and really do want a dog. As it is at the moment, getting a dog is easier than buying a new telly.


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*cost of a dog license*



KathyM said:


> However, I did wonder how much the last dog licences were? :lol2:


last time I bought one it cost thirty seven and a half pence and even back then it was a laughable amount. It was absolutely pointless,the authorities simply pocketed the money .It meant nothing.


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

Evie said:


> I certainly wouldn't want to persecute anyone for having multiple dogs. The issue is preventing irresponsible idiots from having dogs, and making sure that owners are informed and have to jump through a few hoops before being allowed a dog. You don't have to be an amazing dog trainer to own a dog, and you shouldn't have to be wealthy, but the fact that a person made the effort to go and gain the license shows they have a sense of responsibility and really do want a dog. As it is at the moment, getting a dog is easier than buying a new telly.



The trouble is though that the sorts of people who should not own a dog, simply won't buy the licence either. They didn't do so last time either so a licence will only affect those people who are already concientious dog owners who don't have problem dogs. Yes it shows that people who buy a licence are responsible folks who make the effort, but other than that, what will it actually do to help dogs? It won't solve the stray problem, it won't stop certain 'problem' breeds being bred, it won't make 'certain' owners more enlightened and caring, it won't stop dogs being cruelly treated. It will only be yet another tax to end up in the government's pocket and I for one think there are already too many taxes.


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

fenwoman said:


> It will only be yet another tax to end up in the government's pocket and I for one think there are already too many taxes.


This would be my suspicion.I don't want much out of life,my animals and a beer.It seems that the binge drinkers and antisocial dog owners may ruin both:bash:


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

fenwoman said:


> The trouble is though that the sorts of people who should not own a dog, simply won't buy the licence either. They didn't do so last time either so a licence will only affect those people who are already concientious dog owners who don't have problem dogs. Yes it shows that people who buy a licence are responsible folks who make the effort, but other than that, what will it actually do to help dogs? It won't solve the stray problem, it won't stop certain 'problem' breeds being bred, it won't make 'certain' owners more enlightened and caring, it won't stop dogs being cruelly treated. It will only be yet another tax to end up in the government's pocket and I for one think there are already too many taxes.


I know where you're coming from and to a degree I agree with you, however the point would be the effort put into getting the license, not the cost. There would of course have to be a cost to fund the scheme but the legislation we have in place at the moment is unfair and completely ineffective since it requires knowledge of dogs from the police :lol2:
Even some dog 'experts' have to look very carefully at dogs to be able to establish a pit from a staff cross - the average copper doesn't have a hope really.
With a scheme like this, all the police would have to be able to do is read someones name on a license - much easier to enforce than current legislation.

Scenario: Gang of yobs with a dog outside the local spar: All the officer has to do is ask to see the license. They either have it or they don't. No lengthy and expensive court battles, no need to prove what breed, neglect or anything else. Either they have made the effort to gain the license, or they haven't, end of.

The old license scheme involved going to the Post Office and spending 37 and a half pence - no wonder nobody bothered!


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

sarahc said:


> last time I bought one it cost thirty seven and a half pence and even back then it was a laughable amount. It was absolutely pointless,the authorities simply pocketed the money .It meant nothing.


That's right - it was 7s 6d pre-decimal, which was when I bought my first dog, which is now 37½p! :lol2:

It was a small amount even back then, if the truth be known, but it still didn't encourage irresponsible owners to go and buy one!!


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

feorag said:


> That's right - it was 7s 6d pre-decimal, which was when I bought my first dog, which is now 37½p! :lol2:
> 
> It was a small amount even back then, if the truth be known, but it still didn't encourage irresponsible owners to go and buy one!!


I've still got the first one I bought for my first, very own dog! I wsa very proud when I got it :blush:


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

:lol2: I don't think I kept my licences, but I've still got every pedigree, vaccination certificate and registration certificate for every dog and cat I've ever bought!! :roll:


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

feorag said:


> :lol2: I don't think I kept my licences, but I've still got every pedigree, vaccination certificate and registration certificate for every dog and cat I've ever bought!! :roll:


Me too - I think I've even got Joshuas puppy teeth in a box somewhere :lol2:


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

feorag said:


> That's right - it was 7s 6d pre-decimal, which was when I bought my first dog, which is now 37½p! :lol2:


Does that mean we are getting old:gasp:


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

sarahc said:


> Does that mean we are getting old:gasp:


Don't know about you, but I certainly am! :lol2:


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*dog licence fee*

This is the front page headline of the current dog world


'Irish plan £50 licence ,could a uk government follow suit?The cost of a dog licence in Northern Ireland is set to increase ten fold(its a big article so I'll just pick out a few bits)'
'new measures are also to be proposed to tackle the growing problem of strays and attacks on other people and animals.Forcing owners to micro chip and dogs on leads in public places.Currently the dog license costs £5.Protesters claim puppy farmers are the root of the problem and that these and also the irresponsible owners who do not pay now will get away with not paying whilst the law abiding pick up the cost.'

In another article it is revealed that the dogs trust supported by the RSPCA are campaigning for compulsery micro chipping for all dogs.


Its food for thought,fifty quid per dog.


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

How long will the license last, though? And if this does come into play will dogs be required to wear some form of collar so Jo public can spot people who don't have the license? Otherwise, it's quite pointless.


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

sarahc said:


> This is the front page headline of the current dog world
> 
> 
> 'Irish plan £50 licence ,could a uk government follow suit?The cost of a dog licence in Northern Ireland is set to increase ten fold(its a big article so I'll just pick out a few bits)'
> ...


 This is simply another tax gathering operation. The people who don't want to pay, won't pay, just like last time there was one in the UK. The people with problem dogs or dogs which are neglected and abused, who don't get neutered and vaccinated and wormed and deflead, will simply not have licences. Meanwhile caring concientious owners like myself, get penalised. If I had to pay £50 per dog, I would struggle enormously with my 25 dogs, half of which are other people's cast offs. I would lay good money on this new law bringing about the mass abandonement of dogs all over northern Ireland within weeks and months of it becoming law. Just you wait an see!


----------



## Schip (Mar 31, 2007)

Latest news on that headline is they've dropped it down to £12.50!


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*money spinner*

god knows how it will be policed or what will happen to the dogs who have owners that don't comply.The micro chipping looks very likely,so that will be an added cost for the Irish to find.However much it eventually costs you can't help feeling that it's a tax the ordinary decent dog owners will have to shoulder, with two fingers from the rest.I wonder where the current £5 fee gets spent.


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*yearly?*

it doesn't say how long it will last.


----------



## Fancy Mice (Oct 10, 2006)

I think everyone has made really good points about the issues here. I don't have a dog although I plan to get one within the next year and would happily sit an exam to prove I was fit to look after it and pay a license fee if it meant others who were not fit to own a dog were penalised and had their dogs confiscated. I think the fee without the exam has its pitfalls as mentioned - you just hand the money over and you're deemed suitable to have a dog? Clearly not. The problem with any exam is that it would probably be a very short multiple choice form - easy for someone to pass on the answers to so that anyone taking it could pass. You'd need something like the current driving theory test where there are hundreds of questions and you get random ones so no-one can cheat because they have to theoretically know all the possible answers. The centres for this involve lots of computers, invigilators and goodness knows what admin costs - I can't see them doing this for dogs. The driving theory test fee is currently £31 - therefore presumably a dog license would have to be at least this much if they were to use this system. The benefit would be that people like byb and puppy farmers probably wouldn't go to the effort and therefore would find it hard to operate and advertise - luckily there are always concerned people like those who have replied to this thread around to report them. All the police have to do is check if they have a license and if not they can fine them, take all the dogs and shut the operation down.

Did the dog license register a dog to a property? Perhaps this would help so people can't say - it's my sister's/cousin's/friend's dog and I'm looking after it. It also might highlight properties that shouldn't be granted a license if they keep records of who has been fined/had dogs confiscated in order to grant a license. Dodgy owners wouldn't want to move every time they got caught as it's too much effort. Not sure if this would have any effect - again I'm sure not everyone keeps their driving license etc address up-to-date, why would they bother with their dog license? Mind you it could be a fine if it's not accurate, again used to fund free neutering or microchipping.


----------



## Gemificus (Jan 26, 2007)

I don't think introducing a dog license would work, i know that if it came about that i had to pay to keep my dog i would get the correct paperwork as soon as possible and she would be licensed but many people would just open their doors and abandon their dogs, which i think would create a surge in unwanted pets, 

even if a fine was introduced like the TV license fine people would still avoid paying it much as they do with the TV licence now, 

you can't guarantee adoption centers will enforce licenses either as they are pretty useless by my count too, 

i know two people looking to adopt a dog 1 went to a shelter that did a home visit to make sure the home was suitable met all the family members ect, and that person would gladly pay a license for the dog she owns now and wouldn't think twice about paying a second license as for the second person she makes sure she visits shelters that will just hand a dog over and let you take it home the same way you can buy a hamster from a pet store and i doubt very much she would even be willing to pay for flea treatment let alone a license but it wouldnt stop her from owning a dog,

but i also think people should earn a license to own a computer


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

feorag said:


> Don't know about you, but I certainly am! :lol2:


 oh not at all. You are a mere spring chicken. I, on the other hand, am an old boiling fowl hehe.


----------

