Pit bull terriers

Jay_Tee

Croatoan wrote: »

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.

I was going by the fact that dog licences were in this country a annual one (at 7/6d). I don't think it would just put off BYB and puppy farms it could well put off everyone.

Croatoan wrote: »

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.

Pit Bulls the dogs mentioned in the OP are an illegal breed, how much success has that had? There are more of them now then before the ban. The people you are targeting this at know how effective the enforcement will be.

Croatoan wrote: »

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.

I'm sorry but you seem to think that everyone has the same amount of money, all you are doing is discriminating against people because they have little money.

When I buy a car I don't expect to have to pay an additional 67% on top of the purchase price for a one off "licence".

Croatoan wrote: »

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.

Again how are you going to police all of this, all that's going to happen is price people like me out of having a pet, and most of the people you mention won't take a blind bit of notice.

Croatoan wrote: »

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.

Having a licence system based on a heavy price as a deterrent just isn't going to work, I thing your own words above sum this up.

Croatoan wrote: »

Please don't say "education", that won't work.

The only thing that is going to work is to make people fully responsible for the actions of their animals. If your dog kills someone you personally are charged with manslaughter with all the repercussions. The same for lesser injuries or attacks on other animals - it's the owner who is responsible in law.

Croatoan

Person_one wrote: »

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.

I agree. But clearly this has been happening for years and nothing has been done about it so presumably it is lawful. The problem is where there is a demand there will always be suppliers, genuine or decidedly dodgy. I think the problem lies in the demand for puppies and the key would be to find a way to reduce that demand.

If licensing isn't the answer, and banning breeds isn't the answer then I wonder what is?

Croatoan

Jay_Tee wrote: »

The only thing that is going to work is to make people fully responsible for the actions of their animals. If your dog kills someone you personally are charged with manslaughter with all the repercussions. The same for lesser injuries or attacks on other animals - it's the owner who is responsible in law.

Well that's not going to happen and will do nothing to reduce the amount of dogs on the street. Only the small amount of dogs that attack and injure or kill.

So there's nothing to be done then. Fair enough.

Person_one

Croatoan wrote: »

If licensing isn't the answer, and banning breeds isn't the answer then I wonder what is?

Well as I said, closing down puppy farms and regulating breeding...

Yes, the puppy farms are legal but they shouldn't be, that's the point.

You're quite dismissive of every idea apart from your own!

Jay_Tee

Here's a report from 2010 about possible dog laws (sorry it's the Daily Mail) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256565/Plan-force-dogs-insured-penalise-responsible-owners.html

Jay_Tee

I also see that from 23rd February 2012 the law regarding dogs in Scotland is changed by Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010

Guidance note below:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/254430/0114020.pdf

Paradigm

Person_one wrote: »

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.

That's a fair enough comment but I do think Croatoan is getting a bit of an unfair kicking here.

I agree that an introduction of a dog licence is likely to only affect the responsible owner, the idiots will ignore it like they have done the ban but it's an alternative to the system we have now. It may not be feasible or even workable but it's a debating point... something we desperately need to come up with something better.

I applaud the crack down on puppy farms but in the case of pitbulls etc I don't think they are the issue... the real problem are the "gangstas" living on inner city estates where the Police rarely ever (daren't?) visit. These are the hardcore, the people who actually dogfight/breed & will never be "grassed" because of fear of reprisals.

Until we have a way of dealing with these people then we are peeing in the wind & ill thought, kneejerk acts such as we have now are pretty much pointless. In particular the "no rehoming" clause which led to the needless death of Tyson for no other reason than the law says so!

Croatoan

Person_one wrote: »

Well as I said, closing down puppy farms and regulating breeding...

Yes, the puppy farms are legal but they shouldn't be, that's the point.

You're quite dismissive of every idea apart from your own!

Tell you what, I can't be arsed getting into an argument so I'll not respond to the dig.
Ban puppy farms and they will go underground. Prohibition doesn't work when the demand remains great because people will find ways to supply. I also think it's going to be very difficult if not impossible to ban the thousands of individual owners who decide to breed their dogs to their mates' dogs.
The real problem is how to reduce the demand for dogs in the first place.

Person_one

Croatoan wrote: »

Tell you what, I can't be arsed getting into an argument so I'll not respond to the dig.

It was a fair criticism, rather than a dig. How is a comment like "So there's nothing to be done then. Fair enough." remotely constructive rather than completely dismissive?

Nobody is suggesting that this is an easy problem to solve, but your solution creates an awful lot of collateral damage of ordinary, law abiding, responsible but not well off dog lovers without actually solving the problem.

Croatoan

Person_one wrote: »

It was a fair criticism, rather than a dig. How is a comment like "So there's nothing to be done then. Fair enough." remotely constructive rather than completely dismissive?

Nobody is suggesting that this is an easy problem to solve, but your solution creates an awful lot of collateral damage of ordinary, law abiding, responsible but not well off dog lovers without actually solving the problem.

Because there was no alternative offered in the post. You offered an alternative which I believe won't work for the reasons I outlined.