Should dog ownership be legally regulated?

Ravenwood

Ravenwood

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 November 2005
Messages
11,196
Location
Devon
Visit site
Just thought of a topic we could get our teeth into :D

There are many thousands of dog owners in the UK. Most are family pets, single living dogs in surburbia.

As a generalisation, these dogs are very much loved family members who are given a quick run in the park when its not raining and left all day whilst everyone else is at work/school. As a general rule of thumb these dogs are perfectly content with this lifestyle and routine. There are many very happy suburbia dog owners :)

Unfortunately it is spoilen by the few - the fashionable dog owner, the look hard dog owner, the completely ignorant and ruin a dog owner, I haven't got a bloody clue but would love a dog owner. I am pretty sure we all know one of these!

So how could we go about preventing such people from owning a dog? When I was little you had to have a license from the Post Office if you owned a dog - LOL, very tame.

Actually - a little factoid here - not so long ago you had to have a license from the post office to kill game - ie all shooting peeps that work their dogs should have had that license to knock a shot but not dead pheasant on the head - but that has gone by the wayside now :)

It would seem to me that a lot of the dogs that fall into the minority ownership (as above) often end up at rescue centres and lets face it, charity dog homes abound now compared to 20/30 years ago - everyone is getting on the bandwagon of self righteousness and I am sure we can agree from many posts on here that they do themselves no favours considering their strict rehoming policies.

So exactly how would you create a world where dog ownership goes only to the knowledgeable, safe and secure world where dogs do not become the attention of media focus?

PS: this is not an opening for BY breeding or fashionable dog names for mega bucks - it is about responsible dog ownership :D
 
Great post :)

We still do pay a license but it is laughable and unregulated (unless the dog is a bullbreed cross, then some councils will come and incarcerate your dog for almost two years even though he is responsibly owned by a nice family and has never harmed another dog or human being, ho hum...) and a new 'breeders license' has just gone out for consultation - however only people who had more than two females licensed to one address got the letter asking for opinions *sigh* so what happens to the people who are already flouting the law by not having their breeding bitches licensed??!

In the RoI some councils have banned breeds on the dangerous list (Rotts, GSDs etc) from local authority-owned housing, which is a good idea on paper, but then you get the story of the old lady and her old GSD, her only friend in the world, with one or both of them facing being made homeless?

It's a tough one, I do think there should be some sort of test or something before people can own dogs, and the overbreeding needs to be seriously tackled (forgot to mention on the other thread, but all the rescues I support are full. In November. Before Christmas chuck-out time. There is going to be a proper shitstorm by Feb and March :()
 
Unfortunatly until someone comes up with a moron detector, you cant actually regulate it. I know two "responsible" suburbia dog owners who have two of the most dangerous dogs I know. One took her puppy to training classes to be told she should'nt let it have contact with other dogs until it had learnt recall, she thought she was doing the right thing and took the trainer at her word. It's now unsocialised and fear agressive to other dogs because she spent the first few months tuging it away from any other dog in the vacinity. The other is an overweight chocolate lab who is also fear agressive because the owner never sought to rectify its reaction to anything when it was a puppy and simply say's "isnt she soft" when it goes into full - come within ten feet of me and I'll have your arm off mode.
 
The selling of and ownership of should be regulated.
Maybe like your car.....if you cannot produce paper work/ownership details its removed, charge a fee for ownership and charge breeders the tax they should be paying or fees for breeding and use it to employ dog ownership/breeding regulators/wardens:D
All dogs should certainly be chipped and a regulator could then scan them randomly, and fine if no chip and remove dog. Make chipping them b4 they leave the breeder legal and then if the dog lands in a bad situation, both breeder and owner to be questioned/held responsible and make it illegal to pass the dog/sell it to anyone other than breeder if it cannot be kept, and paper work to be filled and charge like when u reg a new car/tax/ins.

Insurance to be made compulsary not necc for illness but for liability, again, proof to be produced randomly when asked, if none then dog removed.


prob not enforceable but its what we need to head towards.
 
There are always exceptions to the rules. I have no doubt that each and every one of us can come up with a story of someone we know who owns dogs.

But if we think out of the box, go more widespread and try to encompass the whole of the UK dog ownership - what policies would you put in place to prevent the situations where media frenzy takes place and dog ownership could be regulated?

CC - you are obviously bringing up the Lennox case and very clearly here we can see an example of a local authority trying to do right by prohibiting dangerous breeds but getting it hideously wrong by picking on a family pet.

What strikes me though (as a Mum) is how much time we can invest on responsible dog ownership, costly court cases, employment of dog wardens etc when actually absolutely anyone in the world can reproduce a child - however that is a whole other debate! :p
 
I also agree about al dogs being microchipped and every breeder licenced even if only breeding one litter. A public awareness campaign about only buying dogs that have been microchipped and it to be funded by a licence for every dog.

I was advised when I adopted my dogs to add public liability to my Insurance which I have done but I think for any dog in this day and age is advisable.

Much as I like the idea of every dog owner under going some sort of test its never going to happen, in fact I think everyone who has kids should undergo a test but thats for another forum.:D
 
Ravenwood said:
What strikes me though (as a Mum) is how much time we can invest on responsible dog ownership, costly court cases, employment of dog wardens etc when actually absolutely anyone in the world can reproduce a child - however that is a whole other debate! :p
Click to expand...

Careful now ;)

I'm watching a prog about Al Capone right now.
One of Elliot Ness' techniques was making his alcohol production facilities unsustainable, hitting him in the pocket.
Shysters like to make money. They hate not making money.

I am not talking about pricing people out of dog ownership, but heavier fines if and when things go wrong, sanctions against industrial dog breeders (if any forum readers known anyone coining it in from less-than-reputable puppy sales, there would be no harm in giving the taxman or benefits office a call ;))
I know of a lot of people who have 'gone out of dogs' because it is no longer profitable and I wish a lot of other people would follow them.

If the Government do this *right* it could be a revenue-earner for them, which is all they really care about at the moment :p but it has to be done right and not target responsible owners - so many policies and so much legislation punishes the law-abiding and the lawbreakers or law-shirkers carry on doing what they are doing....
 
Cayla - I hear you, good points but almost certainly never, ever will they be instigated. Far too costly for the Government.

For example - sheep, OMG you have no idea what hoops you have to go through with RPA, Animal Health and Trading Standards to buy some sheep - it is a total nightmare. Its no wonder that all farmers hate DEFRA and I cannot see dog ownership, being as multiple as it is, being regulated by DEFRA or any other Gov side kick. Again it would be far too costly.

So if regulating dog ownership is too costly for the Gov (no doubt about that considering the state we are in) then what?

In my mind it is all about education from grass routes.

Lets consider the media hype about SBT's - there really has to be just one or two stories in the Sunday paper for everyone to get talking about it.

Just perhaps we could get Sunday papers on our side, not to publish sensationlist stories about dog attacks but stories about numpty owners whose dogs end up in rescue. Maybe pull on the heartstrings a bit (although I will openly admit right here that any rescue centre that publishes any sob story about a dog that has been taken in without means to keep it or the medical care it needs is disgraceful and very unprofessoinal) Gah! its its a nightmare, trying to wade through it all!
 
Well, without naming names, a big paper recently highlighted some dogs needing rehoming, there was no, and I mean NO questioning of why the dogs were being given up, and one member of this forum who had the grace to want to stay anonymous about it and not come on the open forum and name and shame, was treated incredibly rudely by the rescue organisation for making an innocent inquiry.
As you say, you get other papers printing stories about 'we have this really broken dog, please send us money - not, we have HUNDREDS of well dogs, please give them homes'
Cynical I know but cute pics of dawgies sells papers.
Scare stories of children getting hurt sells papers.
Pictures of dead dogs, doesn't.

I am friends with a couple of rescues on FB. One local one, the messages they get from the public, would make you want to weep, despite lots of patient explanation and reply from the rescue in question.
'I want a pug, have you got any pugs, I want a pug puppy as a Christmas present for my wee boy, how much do they cost, when can I come and get one'
'We don't have any pugs, here are the dogs we have, please don't get a pup as a Christmas present for a baby, you cannot just come and get a dog, you need to read our terms and conditions and undergo a homecheck' - maybe it's a societal thing, I want one of those things NOW, maybe that is what we have to tackle....
 
Whata was that CC, I never saw it:confused: re the dog and rehoming thing?

I do get you re re stories and asking for money, same with horses/kids anything that looks cute and has a sob story, suppose some need the funds and this is a better way. They should indeed maybe say "we would appreciate any support to treat this dog and feed the other thousand we have "

Suppose the shameless BYB's are the same though, just be upfront and say, "selling pups cos bitch has a vagina, next doors dog has balls and we have no job or intention of getting one and this is a good and easy money maker":rolleyes: rather than just "pups for sale":D


I see this post leaving it's original route:D

I think possibly it can be a money maker for the government and could create more jobs, we have enough animals in this country to make money from regulating the ownership of them.

I agree also, maybe less scarey stories and more programmes of "pound dogs being pts" don't hide it share it, give people the shock factor and the "this is reality factor".
 
OK - so lets set aside the rehoming policies of some of the rescue homes for the moment.

Because actually I could apply to a rescue centre and ask them for a springer spaniel as a Christmas present for my daughter (for example) because I know I have experience of the breed, can offer it the right home but actually on face value, should I fill in the forms, I would probably be laughed off the rictor scale :o

But lets get back to basics - how can we as a nation in the UK, prevent the unsuitable ownership of unsuitable dogs to unsuitable homes? Considering that at this present moment in time absolutely anyone can buy a dog from the local paper?
 
I think the two go hand-in-hand to a certain extent.
If you let people know the reality, have it pushed in their face - you buy a dog, you take it to the pound, the dog does not actually get a nice loving home in most cases, it gets...to be dead...and that's YOUR fault - would that put them off buying it in the first place? Or think harder about giving it another go and making that dog a nicer 'person'?
Hmm, maybe I am being too idealistic.

I would love to see the sales of animals on online free websites and newspaper ads curtailed, or at least jack the price up. That's another 'stopping it at source' solution. But incredibly hard to regulate, hmm, none of my ideas are very good :o :o :o

But I have no doubt that the issues we are currently facing are not being helped if not being prolonged by the fact that you can buy and sell dogs online for no extra cost, like commodities. I could go and buy a Cane Corso tomorrow of the interweb tomorrow. Should I? HELL NO!
 
We def need to crate a register for breeders and they pay an initial (charge) to register and yearly fees then tax when puppies are sold, and people wanting to see the register to pay a one off fee when they register, reg expired after a year.
No breeding to be advertised anywhere but regulated/stipulated sites, no more ad papers for live animals. Just registered sites. If you don't use the sites then a tel number supplied in the newspaper/118118 lol to contact the registration sites and get the lists/names of the breeders of types of dog you require and call them.

Again private ad's should be via a register and the seller should pay a (fee) to list their dog and it should be proven to be chipped, and liability papers/chip transferred when sold. (fee charged)

Charge more liability for larger dogs if out of control that can cause more damage like cars, 4x4's are surely more expensive to insure:p

Obs not do-able but it would certainly make it harder to get a dog, than the way it is now.
 
When I'm PM :D

All dogs will have to be chipped and licensed - the fee would need to be affordable (under £50pa and to start with there would be hefty discounts for multiple dog owners or the facility to buy a 'bulk' license). The license fee should be ring fenced to provide more dog wardens to police the scheme.

All dogs to have third party liability insurance, linked to their micro chip for easy checking but with the ability to reduce your premium substantially as your dog completes basic training ie KC bronze, silver or gold type courses.
Big discounts for neutered pets also. Competition for business would also bring down the cost of training and insurance.

An extra license required to keep your dog entire past 18 months old and of course tax needing to paid on any animal sales.

Any owner that doesn't comply gets one chance and then they lose the dog. Harsh I know and in the short term there would be more dogs going into pound/rescue situations which would be a terrible shame.

However carrying on as it is now just isn't sustainable - there are too many dogs owned by numpties, not just the 'well ard' types but by people who have no intention or knowledge of training their dog in basic manners so they are causing HUGE anti dog feeling in the non dog owning public which leads to even more restrictions by the back door (local by laws etc) for all dog owners.

If dog ownership was regulated (and enforced as far as possible) there would begin to be a culture of basic training and responsibility for all owners and a route to take to deal with the numpties rather than it being as it is now - a big stick but no carrots and the only option being the DDA/ Small Claims/ PTS when things go wrong rather than avoiding issues getting that bad. Responsible dog owners really wouldn't see much difference other than the license fee but on the upside they would have insurance to claim on if their dog was injured in an attack and vice versa. It would appear that it restricts our freedom but TBH, I can see that we will move towards the Irish style of dog regulation otherwise and as somebody who visits Dublin 2/3 times a year and sees it first hand I really don't want it to go that way.

FGS, I have dogs (and by no stretch of anybodies imagination are they perfect!) and I get annoyed with a lot of dog walkers mainly because there are often two types of reaction, either their totally out of control dog bounds around doing it's own thing as they are oblivious half a mile away or they are having hysterics as I walk past with a rottie that is going to savage poor fluffywuffy on sight...in fairness there are plenty of normal DW but it's hard to remember that sometimes - the extremes are always the ones remembered.
 
I would also like to see that people new to the world of dogs should have to have a mandatory training course. Fine for not not having this should be something like £5000 and loss of dogs if you can't provide this certificate. Individuals could do a course at say a rescue centre, pay X£ of which say 10% goes on
tax,the rest goes to the rescue. Bring in funds, cut down people buying on a whim and make them see the reality of the dogs placed or dumped in rescue.
 
As I have three delightful staffie boys in here,all have been taught "sit"@"stay" ...but not "heel"..that is coming!I would like to see an embargo right now on breeding these and their types ,at least for three years.These boys are snatched from deathrow,council strays from south London/Croydon/Merton...all of them are absolutely sweet and have no business being in the situation they were.They will be neutered /tattooed and vaxed before they go off to homes..no other male dogs/fenced garden and strictly as indoor dogs.Trouble is there are hundreds waiting to be saved in a queue.
It is up to the breeders to ask questions before selling any puppy,it is up to the breeder to be a life long safety net for each puppy they sell.If this were so,and all puppies were tattooed/chipped BEFORE sale there would be no enormous rescue problem that we have now,especially in bull breeds. Yes of course dog buyers should pass a test..one set by the breeder.
 
What do you mean by indoor dogs? Not being picky but how do you keep them exercised? Seeing as my 3 staffies just about hit the ceiling at having to wait till midday to go out today!
 
I think that licencing is pointless just like horse passports the only ones that will comply are those that are already responsible owners, any form of licence is a tax on those people as the others will not pay. If you think that all money from such a scheme will go to dog welfare you are probably in the middle of a dream this Gov't will not use the money for dog wardens it will go straight to paying off UK debt, anything that makes money will do so right now!!

The sensible approach is to hit those making a profit from breeding indiscriminately Tax the beggars on their profits every time they breed, insist they chip dogs and that they comply with Kennel Club welfare rules even if breeding outside that body, bring trading standards to bear when they advertise mongrels as pedigrees, it is easier to tax and police them than owners!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top