Pit bull terriers

bugslet

I have five....spending £2500.00 a year on dog licenses:eek:. TBH, i could probably afford it but it would make me think about 'replacing' any as they shuffle off to the big kennel in the sky. I don't think it would stop the irresponsible dog owners, plenty of the nutters keep dogs in terrible conditions, no walks, chained in a back yard blah blah, they would still exist and potentially the lives of the dogs they own could worsen as they hide them from the authorities.

dizziblonde

£500 a year. I have two dogs, we're about to go down to one income - while the ongoing dog running costs (food, toys, insurance, worming and vacs etc) fit into our revised budget - £1000 a year wouldn't and we would be having to let our dogs go (and that would probably kill me to be honest).

Would love to live on the world where pulling multiple £500s out of the air would be possible for everyone - must be nice up there in cloud cuckoo land.

The ones who don't walk their dogs, who leave them in the back yard in all weathers - well they're not going to be the ones picked up by dog wardens doing spot-licence checks (and ours would - they do spot ID tag checks as it is... and also hassle the living daylights out of me for owning something different to an obese labrador - no, my dog's not malnourished, the vet's fine with her weight and condition considering her past, it's just you're so used to seeing overstuffed underexercised labs that you think she looks like a bag of bones)... it'll be the ones who DO take their dogs out, who DO do things properly who'd be hammered - as per flipping usual.

vax2002

The only sensible way is to ban fighting breeds and "part of" or "likely to be part of" dogs.
A few of the experts in pitbuls would also do well to research the video on the net of the "expert" mauled to death by one when he cuts his arm on its enclosure.

krlyr

I read it and assumed a dog license would apply to the owner, not the dogs though - you don't have one driving license for every car you own, and be a one-off like a driving license (or renewed every decade or so)
However, for a license system to work then you need to be checked on it. People only get caught driving without a license by getting stopped in a car and then being found to have no license. So the only way to catch a dog owner without a license would be for someone to be going around physically checking who has a dog and who has a license. If that's the case then does a £500 fee really need to be put in place, why not have a "dog test" like a driving test, and giving licenses to those deemed suitable? A fee may have to be applied to cover the cost of running these test centres and staff to check the licenses but I think £500 is a bit excessive. My dogs cost about £500 each a year in food, flea treatment, etc. so having to stump that money up for the license would wipe my dog budget out for a year! Yes, I could put that money aside for a year before I got a dog but I think a lower value would be just as efficient if the license wasn't as easy to obtain as just handing over a wad of cash - having to sit and do a multi-choice test and maybe even having to volunteer at a dog rescue for a day as the practical side of things would make people think twice (if they struggle to pick up poo after a dog they're in charge of for a day, how will they manage on a daily basis with their own?)

D&DD

This has been a really interesting thread thankyou so much to everyone for posting your thoughts.

I don't know either wether a licensing system would work nowadays as other posters have mentioned its not your average dog owner that needs to be targetted..the type of person who has a certain type of dog is hardly likely to get one even if it was a law.

I think maybe some sort of a breeder registration system would be the way to go and to have all litters registered this could also cut out puppyfarmers (if they added a limit on registrations per year.)
They would also be able to trace an accountable person for each animal by rights too..or would that be impossible to do?

Cyril

The BBC should balance this with a documentary on the rise in dog attacks mirroring the rise in degenerative sectors of society.

The more lowlife owners you have and scum breeders you have wanting a fast buck to supplement their benefits the more the rise in dog attacks and unfortunately bull x's are their dog of choice.

con1888

I think there should also be harsher punishment/sentences for animal cruelty and being caught using dogs for fighting. This wont stop it but would perhaps reduce it.

Croatoan

Jay_Tee wrote: »

A dog licence is a annual thing so it'll be £500 a year not an insignificant sum.

My little dog was £750, I already pay £250 a year in pet insurance plus food and all the things that aren't covered by insurance, inoculations flea and worm treatment. Plus we go to two obedience clubs a week, another cost of £500 a year would make it difficult financially for me (I'm retired) and how would that be a good thing?

Plus the owners that you're trying to target would just not bother.

I think your proposals would make thing a lot worse, with a huge increase in dogs in rescue.

Answering a few comments in one post here:
Who said it had to be an annual thing? Certainly not me. The idea is to deter impulse buying and if you do that you automatically reduce demand hence less BYB and puppy farms. Of course it would only apply to new dogs bought after any licence was brought in, it would be ridiculous to suggest it should be backdated and that people who already own dogs need buy one.
As for owners not bothering, that's why I said it needed to be enforced. Money made from the licence could be put into dog welfare.
As to being too expensive, again I disagree. If I buy a car I need to start saving for the next one the moment I get it otherwise I'll not be able to afford another one when the current car dies on me; if I go on a holiday this year, then I start saving for the holiday next year once I get home. If you buy a pup, saving a pound a week would pay for the licence for the next one if the dog lives ten years.

Everyone says there are too many dogs in rescues, too many bad owners, too many vicious dogs on the streets, too many bybs, too many people who buy a puppy because it's cute or it's Christmas or their little angel asked for one and yet have no idea how to look after it or how much it's going to cost.
Yet even with all this handwringing nothing is ever going to change unless something quite radical is done about it. I'm not suggesting setting a licence fee is the only answer or any answer at all, what I am saying is that if just about everyone agrees there is a problem with too many dogs and too many bad owners then what else can we do about the situation.
Please don't say "education", that won't work.

orlao

TBH, I don't think that a large licence fee is fair or that it will be particularly effective.

IMHO what would probably work better would be a set of regs and a 'two strikes and you lose the dog' form of enforcement.

If I ran the world

Microchipping would be compulsory and linked to an annual licence (£25 - 50 pa with a discount for multiple dog owners) A tag would be issued when the licence was bought and would become the dogs ID tag to be worn in public (easy for Dog Wardens/Police/PCSO to check)

Public Liability insurance at least also compulsory with substantial discounts available as the dog passes Kennel Club type Gold, Silver and Bronze tests. Another tag to prove that the dog is insured to be worn in public for the same reasons as above.

The huge advantage to the above is that it is easy to spot the dog that isn't licensed and insured and owners could have one chance to comply before the dog is seized. There would no doubt be some very hard luck stories heard if this came in and there would also be a rise in dogs being handed in to DW/rescues. Also it is inevitable that the amount of dogs being PTS due to these extra numbers which is tragic but hopefully it would only be short term as responsible dog ownership would increase over time...the numpties would start to give up after a few fines and seizures of their dogs. No kudos for them with their well ard dogs if the can't take them anywhere is there?

Ok, both of those incur a cost but not a crippling one and the other effect is that owners start being a bit more educated by going to training (as it saves them money) and once people start training hopefully they will continue with it as they see results. As a result, over a number of years there will be a generally better behaved canine population. TBF while the status/weapon type dog is a problem what most non dog owners (and many dog owners too) complain about is the bouncy, ill mannered dog charging around the local park with the owner shouting helplessly 200 yards away - that is an untrained dog and technically breaking the law. Training can only improve relations IMO.

Person_one

Honestly, rather than punishing ordinary good dog owners, which is actually what a dog licence would do, the most effective way to stem the tide of unregistered, unhealthy pups would be to crack down on puppy farms.

There are hundreds and hundreds of dogs coming out of dark sheds in Wales that the authorities are well aware of and allow to exist.

Adding costs for the sake of it very rarely changes anything, and punishes the wrong people. Look at the government's attempts to charge parents for using the CSA.