Dog Licenses

[beaker]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

There seems to have been a lot of dog theft, cruelty, abandonment and attacks recently, :angry:

I was just wondering whether people think that in the light of some of our societies lack of responsibility or care towards animals that it might be time to bring in a licensing system.

 

[*Lesley*]

There seems to have been a lot of dog theft, cruelty, abandonment and attacks recently, :angry:
I was just wondering whether people think that in the light of some of our societies lack of responsibility or care towards animals that it might be time to bring in a licensing system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I definatley think there should be and I think there should be ID photos on too, and some sort of database scanning system so that a person can prove the dog is theirs, somewhat like a car log book where the dog must be transferred if the owner changes,( I know the pedigrees get transferred but I think it should be so for all dogs ped or not) that way wardens ect would be able to log if a dog had been mistreated/ abandoned/stolen/ ect. and maybe where from and who by

I think most responsible owners would be happy to have a license if necessary I know I would :thumbsup:

 

[bappit]

Dunno about the 'recently' beaker...always gone on unfortunately but I think there is greater media/public interest now in animal welfare, all to the good.

Dont know that the system we used to have worked that well re: licences, in that the folk that it would be targetting dont usually heed such things-think it was more to do with accounting for public liability anyway?

Only real way it would work i suppose was to have all dogs tattooed and or chipped so an irresponsible owner or one involved in cruelty or neglect could not deny that a particular dog was theirs, and the way this PC mad society now is it would probably turn out to be against their human rights to force owners to register :blink:

 

[lalena]

absolutely. if bringing in a licensing law prevents the suffering of even one animal, or secures at least one conviction (pref. jail term) then it'll have been worth it. its so sad and frustrating that the powers that be seem unable or unwilling to tackle this ever increasing problem. its to the benefit of all : bad owners would be found out, which in turn would mean fewer disturbed animals that attack people, which would do wonders for preventing anti dog legislation. dare i dream of a world where animal cruelty, at least the intentional kind, no longer exists? where people who have been cruel are imprisoned BEFORE they decide to murder the child theyve been asked to babysit?

 

[beaker]

Dunno about the 'recently' beaker...always gone on unfortunately but I think there is greater media/public interest now in animal welfare, all to the good.
Dont know that the system we used to have worked that well re: licences, in that the folk that it would be targetting dont usually heed such things-think it was more to do with accounting for public liability anyway?

Only real way it would work i suppose was to have all dogs tattooed and or chipped so an irresponsible owner or one involved in cruelty or neglect could not deny that a particular dog was theirs, and the way this PC mad society now is it would probably turn out to be against their human rights to force owners to register :blink:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

with the ever increasing knowledge of genetics in canines maybe sometime in the future all dogs could be profiled genetically, that way any dog could be traced back to it's breeder, wonder how the PC/human rights brigade would cope with that suggestion

dogs are being mutilated to remove identifying chips and tattoo's, they can't remove a genetic marker :thumbsup: isn't there already a study on the genetic origins of dogs underway, not sure where i heard that so probably wrong :b

 

[bappit]

Just thinking that although it would tag a dog to an owner...say in the case of that poor dalmation pup Beejay has posted - suppose it would give a start as to where to start investigating as there seems to be nothing to go as the report says no id on the dog found (maybe someone still going demented out there trying to find it ). But as to whether the owner in say that particular case has had anything to do with the fate of the pup strikes me as unlikely.

 

[lalena]

Dunno about the 'recently' beaker...always gone on unfortunately but I think there is greater media/public interest now in animal welfare, all to the good.
Dont know that the system we used to have worked that well re: licences, in that the folk that it would be targetting dont usually heed such things-think it was more to do with accounting for public liability anyway?

Only real way it would work i suppose was to have all dogs tattooed and or chipped so an irresponsible owner or one involved in cruelty or neglect could not deny that a particular dog was theirs, and the way this PC mad society now is it would probably turn out to be against their human rights to force owners to register :blink:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

with the ever increasing knowledge of genetics in canines maybe sometime in the future all dogs could be profiled genetically, that way any dog could be traced back to it's breeder, wonder how the PC/human rights brigade would cope with that suggestion

dna profiling IS now possible for k.c reg animals, and certainly within the next few years will become a requirement, as with having dogs tested for hereditary diseases. i've got a form i printed off for this very purpose, from a staffy website, but i'm sure you can get one direct from k.c website. costs around £30 - £40.

dogs are being mutilated to remove identifying chips and tattoo's, they can't remove a genetic marker :thumbsup: isn't there already a study on the genetic origins of dogs underway, not sure where i heard that so probably wrong :b

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

 

[beaker]

I'm unsure how the last system worked and why it was stopped. I'd like veiws and reasoning both for and against re-introduction of a license for dogs.

Some who see their dogs as livestock may not want to be licensed, but even cattle have to be identified so why should dogs be any different, ok in this country we don't tend to look at our dogs as a food source, farm animals are which is the main reason their controls are so strict, however a lot of dogs are simply used for financial gain through breeding etc so apart from possibly denting profits why would someone object to their dogs details and the details of all progeny being recorded?

surely a licensing system (properly run) would have a positive impact on animal welfare,

it would make it harder to produce unidentifiable dogs that can be used for breeding , fighting and sadistic amusement.

some local councils are using DNA in cases of simple fouling of pavements by dogs, which Doo Doo belongs to which Pooch etc, can this not be extented to other types of animal related offences (apart from the ones that will bring in nice revenue for the council in fines), there is already a dog warden system in place that if extended could police a license scheme, would their jobs not be made simpler and more effective if ALL dogs could be traced.?

I can't see any reason why licensing your dog should be a major financial problem, there is already means testing for neutering, chipping etc,

could there not be a simple small fee to register your dog , similar to the microchip fee where it is covered for life. could the coffers not be bolstered with fines for unlicensed, unchipped dogs?

i'm just trying to get differing veiws (no matter what they are) in the hope of finding some way foward.

 

[lalena]

i'd think a continuous fee could be the key. just a simple charge of £1 per month, whether by debit, or a payment card similar to that used by the t.v licence for the less well off. £12 a year certainly wouldnt break the bank for even the poorest of pensioners.

if each owner carries a card, each pet should have a corresponding marker that also states the original owner/breeder

plus points of reintroducing:

*tracing lost/stolen pets (less would end up pts, saving animal rescue money)

*a step closer to getting rid of puppy farmers and back door breeders (poorly bred pups that need to be pts can be traced to their source, enabling police to shut down these vile schemes whether pups bought direct or via pet stores)

*prevention of cruelty and death (cannot harm an animal for fear of being traced via chip, cannot kill for same reason) which will also prevent cruelty from escalating to human abuse

*beside the point, but it would bring money into government coffers, and given the amount of animals in britain, could help lower taxes across the board, if only a little.

*could help trace genetic diseases in animals, meaning affected or carrying animals arent bred from, leading to healthy pets, less suffering alround, and a drop in pet insurance charges.

*if a pet is made homeless for whatever reason, the breeder stands a chance of having it returned (if any pup i sold falls on hard times, i want them back with me)

another idea is to price non conformists out of the market. pay £1 a month, or prices for vet treatment doubles, and this 'surplus' can be used to pay for rejected animals. of couse, certain people would rather dump their pets than treat them, but again this isnt so bad. it means they'll be given to rescue, chipped etc and found homes WORTHY of them

 

[slimfast]

what if you have lots of dogs . i know some one with twenty whips would you have some put down because they could not afford to pay £12 each for them every year. my dogs are chipped thats should be OK.

 

[beaker]

what if you have lots of dogs . i know some one with twenty whips would you have some put down because they could not afford to pay £12 each  for them every year. my dogs are chipped thats should be OK.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

do they put some down when it comes to vaccinating them?

 

[beaker]

i was thinking maybe a small registration fee say a tenner to cover admin etc, and just get the doccument stamped annually at the wardens for a nominal charge say £2.50 or so, the emphasis should be to make it expensive NOT to register with fines/penalties

 

[lalena]

i was thinking maybe a small registration fee say a tenner to cover admin etc, and just get the doccument stamped annually at the wardens for a nominal charge say £2.50 or so, the emphasis should be to make it expensive NOT to register with fines/penalties

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

exactly. i dont mean pts healthy dogs because the owners cant pay, but with full respect if you, or whoever, can afford to feed, pay for insurance etc for 20 dogs surely such a minor charge, given that insurance etc could be reduced with a well organised scheme, can easily be borne. the whole idea isnt to inconvenience a few people, but to improve animal welfare across the board. something like that would need much imput from many sources and a great deal of thought. i'm not trying to put noses out of joint, i just care very much about animals. everyone on k9 does. just imagine if your pet was stolen, brutalised and thrown away for dead. its every true owners worst nightmare. now imagine if your baby was found by a kind soul, given to rescue, nursed back to health, put up for adoption but no one wants them. and your pet is then pts because there is simply not enough money or space to keep searching for the old or a new owner.

this is what happens to 1000's of animals EVERY WEEK. how can anyone, in good conscience, find this acceptable? not a day goes by that i'm not reduced to tears by a case of animal cruelty printed in the paper. how many cases arent published?

 

[Pennymeadow Whippets]

I was just wondering whether people think that in the light of some of our societies lack of responsibility or care towards animals that it might be time to bring in a licensing system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

There was a licencing for dog ownership untill the 80s it stopped nothing!!

Most cases of abuse/cruelty/ are not carried out by dog lovers they are done by morons/junkies/social missfits & BAD OWNERS badly trained dogs are the product of BAD OWNERS

The only people who benefit from licences would be the goverment it would just end up another form of tax

The kennel club registration is to tie breeder & puppy together & when that puppy is sold if the new owner cant be bothered to change the ownership the whole system falls down

Society has gone the way it has through no respect handed down by parents to their offspring & to many do gooders stopping punishments for crimes eg no caining at school no smacking & teaching children their rights before they know the wrongs

 

[beaker]

it's not the owners that do chip, tattoo and look after their dogs that i have a problem with, good on em, well done you, give yourselves a pat on the back etc, it's the ones that don't that need sorting. You could make it illegal to have a dog that isn't chipped but what happens if the dogs chip for some reason fails and how would it be enforced, surely a simple, verified ID card for your dog would be a very quick and simple point of reference for any official making a query.

i am mainly curious as to why someone would be against the idea of a license for their dog,

is it really the expence they object to or is it actually because they feel that by having their dog licenced it somehow restricts their rights to do with their dog as they like whether right or wrong.they might not agree with stringing a dog up to a tree but they object to being told not to by some official

i am not trying to provoke an argument just trying to find out why someone objects to their dog being licenced as i feel claiming £10 being too expensive for dog ownership a feeble excuse when they are happy to fork out for fancy coats, collars , expensive science diets, pills, potions,show/race entries, toy's and chew etc.

 

[beaker]

I was just wondering whether people think that in the light of some of our societies lack of responsibility or care towards animals that it might be time to bring in a licensing system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

There was a licencing for dog ownership untill the 80s it stopped nothing!!

Most cases of abuse/cruelty/ are not carried out by dog lovers they are done by morons/junkies/social missfits & BAD OWNERS badly trained dogs are the product of BAD OWNERS

The only people who benefit from licences would be the goverment it would just end up another form of tax

The kennel club registration is to tie breeder & puppy together & when that puppy is sold if the new owner cant be bothered to change the ownership the whole system falls down

Society has gone the way it has through no respect handed down by parents to their offspring & to many do gooders stopping punishments for crimes eg no caining at school no smacking & teaching children their rights before they know the wrongs

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I absolutely agree, but tackling the WHOLE of societies failings all at once may just be a bit of a big task for our current self serving politicians.

to me a simple license as said before PROPERLY ENFORCED would be a good start

 

[bappit]

Still dont know that it would tackle the problem of the 'owners' who are the problem - it would take some enforcing :blink: Would it warrent 'special officers' being appointed? Because i cant see police or local councils having the spare resources to welcome it. If the registration costs paid for new appointments of personel how would it work?

I say this because i know of some characters who have a high turnover of dogs, and all manner of peculiar values, who manage to evade capture or prosecution due to a number of factors (geographical/itinerant/they do not exist on any council tax register/have various 'names', etc., etc.) and largely live lives unconcerned of any laws...and I'm not talking of gypsies/travellers/tinkers here, just what might be termed politely 'chancers'.

Well you did ask for input

 

[Whippetman]

it's not the owners that do chip, tattoo and look after their dogs that i have a problem with, good on em, well done you, give yourselves a pat on the back etc, it's the ones that don't that need sorting. You could make it illegal to have a dog that isn't chipped but what happens if the dogs chip for some reason fails and how would it be enforced, surely a simple, verified ID card for your dog would be a very quick and simple point of reference for any official making a query.
i am mainly curious as to why someone would be against the idea of a license for their dog,

is it really the expence they object to or is it actually because they feel that by having their dog licenced it somehow restricts their rights to do with their dog as they like whether right or wrong.they might not agree with stringing a dog up to a tree but they object to being told not to by some official

i am not trying to provoke an argument  just trying to find out why someone objects to their dog being licenced as i feel claiming £10 being too expensive for dog ownership a feeble excuse when they are happy to fork out for fancy coats, collars , expensive science diets, pills, potions,show/race entries, toy's and chew etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If you take the example that the whippet racing fraternity are showing in this then would you make them pay twice for the passport system that they already run. All pedigree whippets that race at any open races have to have a verified passport with photos and hand drawing of markings this is not exactly cheep but would this then wexcuse the racers from having to pay a licence (if run by the goverment i think not) when it was run by thegoverment it was done solely to make money and did nothing for the welfare of the dogs. I think that if this was again done by the goverment then that is all it would amount to again. I have a rescued whippet and am now caring as a fosterer for a chi well cant spell the name lol and she is an adorable little thing maybe a lot to big for her breed standard but as a pet she will make someone a lovely friend. I havrestricted myself to the amount of dogs because of being on benifits (Disability) and think that i have worked out that i can pay for the injections and vets fees but keep piling on the amount for licence fees will make it hard for the likes of me and will not make me care for the animals any better. The ones who do noit look after the welfare of their charges will not pay the licence anyway so it will not help. If anything i think a small amount added to the price of animal food could then be paid to the animal charitys and rescue societys etc.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Have to agree with Whippetman.

A liscence sceame wont stop animal cruelty in anyway. the sick people who abuse animals often steal the animal 1st then abuse it as with the Dalmation on another thread?.

what it would do if run like the car registration we have now is hold the last registerd keeper responsible should an animal end up in a shelter/rescue, if the last registerd owner was either unwilling or unable to look after that animal then they could be held financialy responsible for it's upkeep till a new home was found and the ownership detailsd transfered over to the new registerd keeper.

if the previous owner could not be traced for some reason then the responsibility could then fall on the breeder to rehome it.

Not sure how all that would be paid for ?

 

[beaker]

it's not the owners that do chip, tattoo and look after their dogs that i have a problem with, good on em, well done you, give yourselves a pat on the back etc, it's the ones that don't that need sorting. You could make it illegal to have a dog that isn't chipped but what happens if the dogs chip for some reason fails and how would it be enforced, surely a simple, verified ID card for your dog would be a very quick and simple point of reference for any official making a query.
i am mainly curious as to why someone would be against the idea of a license for their dog,

is it really the expence they object to or is it actually because they feel that by having their dog licenced it somehow restricts their rights to do with their dog as they like whether right or wrong.they might not agree with stringing a dog up to a tree but they object to being told not to by some official

i am not trying to provoke an argument  just trying to find out why someone objects to their dog being licenced as i feel claiming £10 being too expensive for dog ownership a feeble excuse when they are happy to fork out for fancy coats, collars , expensive science diets, pills, potions,show/race entries, toy's and chew etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If you take the example that the whippet racing fraternity are showing in this then would you make them pay twice for the passport system that they already run. All pedigree whippets that race at any open races have to have a verified passport with photos and hand drawing of markings this is not exactly cheep but would this then wexcuse the racers from having to pay a licence (if run by the goverment i think not) when it was run by thegoverment it was done solely to make money and did nothing for the welfare of the dogs. I think that if this was again done by the goverment then that is all it would amount to again. I have a rescued whippet and am now caring as a fosterer for a chi well cant spell the name lol and she is an adorable little thing maybe a lot to big for her breed standard but as a pet she will make someone a lovely friend. I havrestricted myself to the amount of dogs because of being on benifits (Disability) and think that i have worked out that i can pay for the injections and vets fees but keep piling on the amount for licence fees will make it hard for the likes of me and will not make me care for the animals any better. The ones who do noit look after the welfare of their charges will not pay the licence anyway so it will not help. If anything i think a small amount added to the price of animal food could then be paid to the animal charitys and rescue societys etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I thought you had your dog racing passport so you could race your dogs at opens, apart from the photo in it it doesn't definatively prove that the dog is yours, don't know what your passport say's but mine doesn't hold any microchip or tattoo details only the KC number,

surely with being on benefits the fee wouldn't be a concern to you if it was means tested,

your right a licence won't make someone look after their dogs any better but they might have second thoughts about breeding pointless mongral litters.

a lot of feed companies already contribute to charity and have you ever seen the profits the RSPCA make, but they just treat the symptoms not the problem.