- Messages
- 5,175
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
i recieved this email today in response to signing the petition to ring back a dog licence
The former dog licence was repealed by the Local Government Act 1988 because it cost more to administer than the revenue it generated and because it was estimated that only 44% of dog owners bought a licence - mainly the more responsible owners.
The problem with re-introducing licences is that it is not clear how the weaknesses inherent in the previous system could be overcome. For example, if dog wardens were paid using the income generated by the sale of licences, then the cost of a licence might be disproportionately high. If the charge was set too high, then it could encourage non-payment, which would undermine the effectiveness of the system. It could turn out to be unfair on the majority of owners that act responsibly if they face a significant increase in the cost of keeping a dog as a pet. Responsible dog owners would willingly comply with any licensing requirement, and dutifully pay the associated charges, but the risk would remain that the irresponsible owners who cause problems would evade it.
It is a serious issue, and the Government encourage local authorities and the police to work together to make good use of the powers available to them to tackle dangerous dogs. Defra also continues to support voluntary identification, where dog owners can have their pets permanently identified and registered on nationwide databases.
For example, the Dog Identification Group (DIG) recommended in its 2000 report that a voluntary scheme for the permanent identification of dogs be introduced. Since the DIG report, there has been an increase in voluntary dog registration. At the forefront of this is Petlog, which is the largest pet reunification service in the UK. It manages a database of over 3,500,000 records. This is on hand 24 hours a day to authorised bodies such as animal wardens or animal welfare centres, who can scan the chips in found animals and trace their owners via the Petlog database. Today up to 50% of dogs are registered on the Petlog system. This alone is similar, if not greater, than the number of people that purchased the former dog licence, and suggests that voluntary measures can be equally, if not more, effective.
Local authorities and parish councils can already control dog fouling by making a Dog Control Order. A Dog Control Order can also be made for other anti-social activities of irresponsible dog owners. Local authorities can also continue enforcing the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 if they designated land prior to the repeal of that Act. Local authorities and parish councils can authorise officers to issue fixed penalty notices to anyone suspected of committing an offence; they can also set the fixed penalty amount within a prescribed range. Where it is appropriate, for example where the penalty goes unpaid or there is a repeat offence, prosecution can be taken where the perpetrator can face a much larger fine as well as a criminal record.
The former dog licence was repealed by the Local Government Act 1988 because it cost more to administer than the revenue it generated and because it was estimated that only 44% of dog owners bought a licence - mainly the more responsible owners.
The problem with re-introducing licences is that it is not clear how the weaknesses inherent in the previous system could be overcome. For example, if dog wardens were paid using the income generated by the sale of licences, then the cost of a licence might be disproportionately high. If the charge was set too high, then it could encourage non-payment, which would undermine the effectiveness of the system. It could turn out to be unfair on the majority of owners that act responsibly if they face a significant increase in the cost of keeping a dog as a pet. Responsible dog owners would willingly comply with any licensing requirement, and dutifully pay the associated charges, but the risk would remain that the irresponsible owners who cause problems would evade it.
It is a serious issue, and the Government encourage local authorities and the police to work together to make good use of the powers available to them to tackle dangerous dogs. Defra also continues to support voluntary identification, where dog owners can have their pets permanently identified and registered on nationwide databases.
For example, the Dog Identification Group (DIG) recommended in its 2000 report that a voluntary scheme for the permanent identification of dogs be introduced. Since the DIG report, there has been an increase in voluntary dog registration. At the forefront of this is Petlog, which is the largest pet reunification service in the UK. It manages a database of over 3,500,000 records. This is on hand 24 hours a day to authorised bodies such as animal wardens or animal welfare centres, who can scan the chips in found animals and trace their owners via the Petlog database. Today up to 50% of dogs are registered on the Petlog system. This alone is similar, if not greater, than the number of people that purchased the former dog licence, and suggests that voluntary measures can be equally, if not more, effective.
Local authorities and parish councils can already control dog fouling by making a Dog Control Order. A Dog Control Order can also be made for other anti-social activities of irresponsible dog owners. Local authorities can also continue enforcing the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 if they designated land prior to the repeal of that Act. Local authorities and parish councils can authorise officers to issue fixed penalty notices to anyone suspected of committing an offence; they can also set the fixed penalty amount within a prescribed range. Where it is appropriate, for example where the penalty goes unpaid or there is a repeat offence, prosecution can be taken where the perpetrator can face a much larger fine as well as a criminal record.
