Clodagh
Well-Known Member
But that’s societal need. There’s no societal need in dog ownership.
Another fatal dog attack
- Thread starter SilverLinings
- Start date
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
So that insurance would have to go in house contents? As that’s all the insurance I have for my dogs, unless I’m training or working them. Again, why should someone without a dog pay extra?
Errin Paddywack
Well-Known Member
Dogs in England are still required to have a tag with owners name, address and a contact number on it. Microchipping doesn't replace this.
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
In Oz the tags were like thick cable ties and colour coded to the year, so the dog wardens could see at a glance if you were current.
Errin Paddywack
Well-Known Member
Good idea.
Cortez
Tough but Fair
Sadken, I am struggling to empathise with your relentlessly downbeat take on this (your name might be an insight...). Your scenarios are certainly not borne out by my experiences in several jurisdictions that have dog licensing up and running. You seem to be fixated on the police, but that's the whole function of a warden, taking the dog stuff away from the police, allowing them to concentrate on the bad guys, while delivering a bespoke, dog-centered service.
The license isn't a piece of paper (nowadays we do it mostly online), it's essentially a receipt that shows that you've complied with the things that mean you can be prevented from doing all those things you've listed above.
The license isn't a piece of paper (nowadays we do it mostly online), it's essentially a receipt that shows that you've complied with the things that mean you can be prevented from doing all those things you've listed above.
Last edited:
conniegirl
Well-Known Member
9000 dogs were PtS in council pounds last year. It already goes on.
You have 7 days in which to get that paper and pay that tax. If you are not willing to do that then you probably are not the type to collect the animals from the pound anyway and sad as it is the dog will pay the consequence.
It will only take a very short amount of time for all reasonable owners to get the papers and pay the fee.
CorvusCorax
'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
This already happens in a few places. ETA see others have explained this.
twiggy2
Well-Known Member
It's a worry that ots doesn't appear to be widely known that unclaimed dogs are often PTS.
Dogs trust do PTS dogs of banned breeds, not reliably (their policies are shockingly flexible, I have good friends who are or have been employees over the years) but they do.
They also home dogs qith significant bite histories into the most obviously wrong homes. Eg autistic man in 60's who has mental health issues and a crisis team, was offered a med/large young male dog with a significant bite history after 3 people had had hospital treatment about the dog had bitten them over a span of a few months. This man knew the manager at this home too so no excuse for not knowing the issues faced.
Dogs trust do PTS dogs of banned breeds, not reliably (their policies are shockingly flexible, I have good friends who are or have been employees over the years) but they do.
They also home dogs qith significant bite histories into the most obviously wrong homes. Eg autistic man in 60's who has mental health issues and a crisis team, was offered a med/large young male dog with a significant bite history after 3 people had had hospital treatment about the dog had bitten them over a span of a few months. This man knew the manager at this home too so no excuse for not knowing the issues faced.
CorvusCorax
'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
Yep but in addition, in NI they used to have a colour coded disc issued every year to denote that the dog had a licence.
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
Someone asked before how many dogs should be pts unnecessarily to prevent the death of a single child. I wonder if now that it seems an increasingly regular thing they still think it shouldn’t be done.
Cortez
Tough but Fair
Let's face it, there are so many more unwanted dogs than there are good homes for that putting dogs down (and severely limiting breeding and sale) is a solution that should be considered. There are a number of countries that do not allow breeding until the pounds are empty, and have achieved this on a regular basis (off the top of my head I think it's the Netherlands, and maybe....Finland?).
SadKen
Well-Known Member
But in all cases referenced above, the dog is roaming. It is already our unsupervised, doesn’t have an owner to be returned to and that’s why it is pts. There is no comparison to actively removing a dog from an owner that isn’t roaming and has done absolutely nothing wrong because it’s owner doesn’t have a bit of paper. None of you have addressed the comments I made re proof of a crime and miscarriage of justice, which would apply to dog licences.
Again, and again, and again - how is a dog licence going to prevent dog attacks?
Asking this question is not ‘downbeat’. It’s a basic logical requirement: if you propose dog licences (cost, legislation, policing and enforcement, and criminalisation of citizens) as a solution to the problem of dog attacks, you need to explain how that will solve the problem. None of you have.
I did say what I thought would work better, and that means effective enforcement of existing legislation which means the police.
I also have several examples where the warden would likely need police backup to come and take a dog away. And again: dog warden does not have to be funded by a licence. The dog warden could certainly enforce not having a bit of paper like the telly licence people do, and look how successful that is, but if they try to take people’s dogs away, they will need the police in a lot of cases. See examples above. And again, how is removing a dog that has done nothing wrong from an owner without a bit of paper going to stop dog attacks? All it is doing is enforcing paying of the dog licence tax!
Again, and again, and again - how is a dog licence going to prevent dog attacks?
Asking this question is not ‘downbeat’. It’s a basic logical requirement: if you propose dog licences (cost, legislation, policing and enforcement, and criminalisation of citizens) as a solution to the problem of dog attacks, you need to explain how that will solve the problem. None of you have.
I did say what I thought would work better, and that means effective enforcement of existing legislation which means the police.
I also have several examples where the warden would likely need police backup to come and take a dog away. And again: dog warden does not have to be funded by a licence. The dog warden could certainly enforce not having a bit of paper like the telly licence people do, and look how successful that is, but if they try to take people’s dogs away, they will need the police in a lot of cases. See examples above. And again, how is removing a dog that has done nothing wrong from an owner without a bit of paper going to stop dog attacks? All it is doing is enforcing paying of the dog licence tax!
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
I don’t agree with that as, like horses, you end up losing really good well bred animals too. I wouldn’t be able to have a working breed for instance.
I don’t however have a problem with dogs being pts if they are in any way unsuitable for rehoming.
Cortez
Tough but Fair
Once again, Sadken, having a license is not being proposed as a prevention of dog attacks, it is being put forward as part of a method to identify ALL dogs, or more pertinently all dog OWNERS, which is the very first step in trying to get people to take some frickin' responsibility for their dogs. Just as a driving license doesn't prevent car accidents, but does at least make it possible to identify those who cause them. I take it you're OK with that?But in all cases referenced above, the dog is roaming. It is already our unsupervised, doesn’t have an owner to be returned to and that’s why it is pts. There is no comparison to actively removing a dog from an owner that isn’t roaming and has done absolutely nothing wrong because it’s owner doesn’t have a bit of paper. None of you have addressed the comments I made re proof of a crime and miscarriage of justice, which would apply to dog licences.
Again, and again, and again - how is a dog licence going to prevent dog attacks?
Asking this question is not ‘downbeat’. It’s a basic logical requirement: if you propose dog licences (cost, legislation, policing and enforcement, and criminalisation of citizens) as a solution to the problem of dog attacks, you need to explain how that will solve the problem. None of you have.
I did say what I thought would work better, and that means effective enforcement of existing legislation which means the police.
DirectorFury
Well-Known Member
I'd argue that there's societal need in identifying and dealing with irresponsible dog ownership. Whether that's owners who allow their dogs to roam (like the ones TP has posted about), owners who can't or won't control their dogs, or those who abandon dogs for whatever reason.
Of course we could now go from "dog licenses and funding for dog wardens could be a good idea" to "ban all dogs because they're not a societal need"
. If we're going in that direction I'd also like to add gambling, alcohol, and bellends with obnoxious car exhausts to the banned list .
Last edited:
paddy555
Well-Known Member
what do you mean by complied with?
are you having conditions for obtaining dog licence? if so then excellent idea.
Paying your 7/6 at the post office (as we did in the past) and getting a piece of paper is pointless.
if you have conditions to get a licence then great. Similar perhaps to a firearms licence.
You have to have a lockable gun cabinet. So for a dog you would need to demonstrate garden/yard etc fenced to an appropriate height and of suitable size for the breed. Double gated to prevent accidents. More than 1 dog then larger area. Would need to be complied with on moving house.
Somewhere to shoot ie somewhere to exercise the dog
a medical report which is supposed to weed out MH, criminal record examined etc
2 references
then the application would be considered and granted if all suitable. Problem solved. Dogs with responsible owners incidence of dogs eating people probably a whole lot less.
If this is what you are advocating for a licence then good idea, I can see where you are coming from.
otherwise we are back to a piece of paper, sorry, an online piece of paper that anyone can get for a fee.
paddy555
Well-Known Member
do you mean a workable suggestions to dogs attacking people and other dogs (bully or any other breed)?
then yes. A suitable muzzle would be more effective in controlling the teeth than a piece of paper (even a online one)
a lead in public would not be a bad place to start.
Insurance most definitely.
My horse was attacked by a staffie (lovely sweet family pet to the kids who were present) who hung onto his hind leg and no one could get it off. It is difficult to strangle a dog (which I was prepared to do) when half a ton of horse is kicking out everywhere.
Not sure a piece of paper would have helped but a muzzle and lead sure would have done.
The dog was running free (at Hound Tor car park which you probably know) If it had been leaded then the owners would have had to take more care
stangs
Well-Known Member
I suspect that was me, in which case I plead the fifth.
Nasicus
Well-Known Member
Must admit I'm leaning more and more towards compulsory muzzling of dogs in public. A baskerville wouldn't inhibit breathing, panting and drinking, although those with extremely brachy dogs might struggle (And hey, maybe that would lead to less demand and less breeding of extreme brachy dogs?). A license doesn't stop a dog biting, but a muzzle will. Easy to see at a glance which dogs/owners to avoid given the dog wouldn't be muzzled. On the spot fines and possible removal of the dog for repeat offenders. Doesn't solve the issue of attacks in private residences/places mind, but that's a different kettle of fish. I'd personally have no issues with muzzling my 5kg fuzzball if it meant an overall reduction in attacks on innocent members of the public/dogs.
Of course, this is all pie in the sky without enough wardens/police to actually enforce and be present, which I think will always be the crux of the issue no matter which approach is chosen.
Of course, this is all pie in the sky without enough wardens/police to actually enforce and be present, which I think will always be the crux of the issue no matter which approach is chosen.
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
I completely agree with you, but that’s what all the bully owners will say too!
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
No legislation will stop all attacks. But if licensing financed effective dog wardens you could immediately call the council and have someone that could help. Except from Hound Tor where there’s no signal
TPO
🤠🏴
The problem is that you can't legislate for stupidity.
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
That would be a fabulous idea, but I suspect a bit excessive to start with.what do you mean by complied with?
are you having conditions for obtaining dog licence? if so then excellent idea.
Paying your 7/6 at the post office (as we did in the past) and getting a piece of paper is pointless.
if you have conditions to get a licence then great. Similar perhaps to a firearms licence.
You have to have a lockable gun cabinet. So for a dog you would need to demonstrate garden/yard etc fenced to an appropriate height and of suitable size for the breed. Double gated to prevent accidents. More than 1 dog then larger area. Would need to be complied with on moving house.
Somewhere to shoot ie somewhere to exercise the dog
a medical report which is supposed to weed out MH, criminal record examined etc
2 references
then the application would be considered and granted if all suitable. Problem solved. Dogs with responsible owners incidence of dogs eating people probably a whole lot less.
If this is what you are advocating for a licence then good idea, I can see where you are coming from.
otherwise we are back to a piece of paper, sorry, an online piece of paper that anyone can get for a fee.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
This, it's because of all the dangerous dogs out there terrorising people.
All dogs to be on a lead in public places is a less draconian alternative which I'm fully up for.
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
Yes, that’s sensible really. Although I’m still opposed to leashing my dogs on the beach (I don’t go in summer).
YorksG
Over the hill and far awa
A dog warden who could be proactive would be excellent. Ours have been quite good about the idiots who allowed their dogs off lead on the 40 mph road (with no pavement) and turned up a few mornings to issue warnings. What they can't/ won't deal with are dogs on private land, that is still a police issue, the police are not interested, at all, understandably.
AmyMay
Situation normal
TPO
🤠🏴
I get what you are saying (& agree from the perspective of my dog) but... during our lunchtime walk there was an off the lead tiny JR x Chihuahua type thing running up to dogs and people yapping it's head off and I reckon it would have went anything that had a go back.
I stayed out of it's way and put B on a lead and moved when anyone came into "our" area but I watched it run up to a nervous KCC that was on it's lead and tried to hide behind it's owner, an off the lead std poodle that was staying close to it's owner, a passer by and it had a look at the muzzled/on a short lead/attentive owner/walking to heel GSD.
So yeah, all dogs on leads when anyone/any other dogs around would be a start but I'd have signed something for that little h3ll dog to be muzzled!