That is very proactive of them; I suspect they (and other dog rescues) are terrified that they are going to be inundated with un-rehomeable dumped XL Bullys once the ban kicks in. Hopefully people take them up on the offer.
Anyone on FB, it would be good to share it around.
They're not going to be inundated because the ban will require every single one of those dogs be PTS after arriving at the rescue, regardless of rehomeability. Hundreds of pit-types PTS each year for the same reason.
It's the people who try to dump them as the ban approaches that will cause a problem, and doesn't the Dogs' Trust say that they will 'never put a healthy dog down'? Although once the breed is banned they won't have a choice, but it won't be pleasant if they've just had a large number of dogs abandoned on their doorstep.
So people dump them before the ban; there is a brief period of needing more foster homes than usual (probably only for dogs not of type); and then they all get PTS and it's life back to normal. It's not pleasant, no, which is why all the major animal welfare charities have been campaigning against BSL for decades, including Dogs Trust.
I think that what I was trying to say (badly!) is that yet again some owners will negate their responsibilities and instead of taking the time to muzzle train etc their dog a charity will end up being the 'bad guy' for having the dog PTS.
As far as I understand it you also won't be able to sell, give away or re-home them, so rescues would have to PTS. I presume this is to stop people finding a way around the ban (e.g. "I didn't buy an XL Bully, my friend gave it to me and the £500 I gave them is unrelated...").
Forgive me please, I’ve had a long day, but I don’t understand the aversion to dog licensing. I don’t have a dog but if I did I would have no issue whatsoever with compliance. Keepers of equines here have an equine premises and herd number. We have an equine census every November. We can’t purchase certain medicines/herbicides without a herd number. I don’t find it overbearing or intrusive. If DAFM want to gather data on the population and distribution of equines for the purposes of disease control as they state I think that’s good but then horse breeding is pretty huge here both in terms of employment, contribution to the exchequer and global prestige.
I have an aversion to any new legislation that isn’t of proven benefit. I don’t like the idea of criminalising ordinary people who don’t have a licence for whatever reason when they have done nothing wrong in a real sense besides not have a licence ‘you didn’t give us all your personal info and you haven’t paid your tax, you bad person’ - so what, who cares? Having a bit of paper does nothing to control dangerous dogs or teach owners anything, help victims, NOTHING. Current legislation re dangerous dogs already exists to try and control the actual problem of dogs out of control, and that isn’t enforced, as we keep seeing. Without proven benefit of having a licence it’s just a tax, and we pay enough of those anyway. Look at the criminalisation of people who don’t pay a telly licence or their council tax.
What if there were millions of dogs with no license? Who is going to go round impounding them, keeping them and making sure the owners pay to get them back ?
It doesn’t happen for long. They’d have to be pts. You need a pound system. Yes it would be hard to start from scratch, my experience of it is in Australia where it was standard practice. The fact something is ‘too hard’ all the time is why society is up
creek.
Having the dog PTS after 7 days if no owner turns up to claim them might concentrate some people's minds.
But it does work, it works fairly well here (I live in Ireland), and in other countries too, by providing a means to fund dog wardens, who do a decent job of collecting strays and helping to contact owners, amongst other things. I cannot think of a negative. As for collecting your information, there isn’t a person alive in a western nation whose details aren’t already available to some government agency. Are you afraid that “they” will use your dog to do something nefarious? What, precisely?
.
The British public won’t stand for that. Look at Dogs Trust. Look at dogs kept in police kennels for years. And even if they would you’d need a serious amount of police time and money - a MASSIVE amount - to manage it at all. And that’s assuming that people meekly hand over their dog - after they have been PROVEN not to have a licence - which they won’t. Or the dog will disappear.
Or they wouldn’t pay itPeople like me would instantly toddle off and license my dogs. Heck I’d even buy them collars to put the tags on
People who are against controlling legislation would probably have to pay a fine and decide how much they liked their dog.
People who don’t care would lose their dog.
They already do. Current council pounds will only hold a dog for 7 days and after that if no rescue will take them the dog is PTS.
Now do that in massive volumes where the dog hasn’t done anything, is not roaming - it’s just the owner doesn’t have a bit of paper and hasn’t paid their tax. No comparison.
You could extend this argument to many things that people don't use but that their general taxation funds:
The general tax take pays for policing, which dangerous dogs are part of.
