Dog Owners

thefreckle

rolo1 wrote: »

Yes I have one - If you are a responsible dog owner you should have one as well.

Out of interest, why should having a dog licence define me as a responsible dog owner?

My pup is 5 months old - microchipped at 8 weeks and insured from 9 weeks on a lifetime policy. He wears a collar and has a tag with my mobile number and address on it. We've even been to 5 weeks of pupply school!

I walk him twice a day - I let him off the lead as much as possible in the local park but he's still a bit overfriendly with kids and other dogs so when I see someone coming I put him back on the lead. Whilst walking I always carry a few bags incase they're needed.

To me those are things, along with how I treat my dog, that define me as a responsible dog owner. There's the legal aspect of having a licence but to me it is simply a ridiculous tax - it's not something I would ever use to define someone as a responsible dog owner. On the NI Direct website under dog licencing (link below), the first section is to tell me that it is an offence not to have a dog licence for a dog (except in specific circumstances). Why not tell me what the benefits are? There is no mention of any benefit on that page - why is that? If identification or proving ownership of the dog the only benefit then surely the licence is outdated as the microchip does a better job of that.

Am I missing something?

http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/dog-licensing

rolo1_2

thefreckle wrote: »

Am I missing something?

http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/dog-licensing

Yes you are missing something. The dog licensing system serves dog owners and the wider public by providing a dog identification function and provides a crucial source of funding for the Dog Warden service. It also provides an annual point of contact between dog owners and enforcers.

The Dogs (Amendment) Act 2011 amended the Dogs Order 1983 to:
(i) protect the public;

(ii) promote responsible dog ownership and penalises irresponsible owners;

(iii) reduce the number of stray dogs by making it easier for dog wardens to identify stray dogs; and

(iv) allow dog wardens to respond more flexibly to problems with a dog’s behaviour.

thefreckle

rolo1 wrote: »

Yes you are missing something. The dog licensing system serves dog owners and the wider public by providing a dog identification function and provides a crucial source of funding for the Dog Warden service. It also provides an annual point of contact between dog owners and enforcers.

The Dogs (Amendment) Act 2011 amended the Dogs Order 1983 to:
(i) protect the public;

(ii) promote responsible dog ownership and penalises irresponsible owners;

(iii) reduce the number of stray dogs by making it easier for dog wardens to identify stray dogs; and

(iv) allow dog wardens to respond more flexibly to problems with a dog’s behaviour.

I'm new to dog ownership so thanks for replying - I'm genuinely interested in this. I still don't see what I'm missing - the microchip and the tags on his collar provide the ID service - I don't see the need for the point of contact between dog owners and enforcers but I see your point about funding - how to other jurisdictions fund a dog warden service? The funding point kind of builds on my initial point that it is simply a tax - why tax everyone to deal with the minority? Why not fund the service by fining the irresponsible dog owners?

So, point by point:

(i) I'm not too sure how a dog licence protects the public. A lead, a muzzle where appropriate and a few bags to clean up after the dog protects the public - how does a licence?

(ii) How does having a licence promote responsible dog ownership? I've listed in my initial post what I think defines a responsible dog owner - I can't see how a licence does that. Give me one unique benefit that having a licence gives.

(iii) Forgive my ignorance on this one, but I'm clueless to how a licence would help to identify my dog. He looks similar to many other dogs so how could they tell he was mine? On the other hand, my phone number and address on his dog tag and the mircochip under his coat would be a sure way to identify him.

(iv) I'm not certain about what you mean here but I can see how the fee could help to fund dog wardens. However, as a responsible dog owner (without a licence thus far), why should I fund a service for dogs causing problems? My dog is responsibly owned and looked after. Why not fine the irresponsible owners?

rolo1_2

thefreckle wrote: »

(iv) . However, as a responsible dog owner (without a licence thus far), why should I fund a service for dogs causing problems?

Well just don't bother paying for it then if you feel so strongly, sure just leave the wardens bill etc etc to others like me who do pay.

thefreckle

rolo1 wrote: »

thefreckle wrote: »

(iv) . However, as a responsible dog owner (without a licence thus far), why should I fund a service for dogs causing problems?

Well just don't bother paying for it then if you feel so strongly, sure just leave the wardens bill etc etc to others like me who do pay.

Haha, no need to throw the toys out of the pram. I haven't said I'm not getting one - I'm waiting on a reason to get one which you haven't provided.

I would fund the wardens through fines instead of licences - I've seen numerous dog owners letting their dogs do their business on the roads or in the park I go to - plenty of examples within yards of the £80 fine signs.

Proper enforcement would initially increase revenue which would pay for the service. However proper enforcement would also reduce that type of behaviour and reduce the need for dog wardens - what's that saying about chickens and Christmas??

I mentioned other jurisdictions in my previous post - I did a bit of research* andhave found something stating that dog licencing was abolished in GB in 1987 - is that still the case?

* Can wikipedia be classified as research??

rolo1_2

Toys in the pram secured and safe.

Yes more enforcement will help, so will the licence fee to pay for it.
At the end of the day it's the law, adhere or not adhere up to you.

If you decide (on moral grounds or whatever) not to bother yourself paying, sure just explain all this to council/courts and I am sure you, as a responsible dog owner, will be grand

thefreckle

rolo1 wrote: »

Toys in the pram secured and safe.

Yes more enforcement will help, so will the licence fee to pay for it.
At the end of the day it's the law, adhere or not adhere up to you.

If you decide (on moral grounds or whatever) not to bother yourself paying, sure just explain all this to council/courts and I am sure you, as a responsible dog owner, will be grand

I'm sure I will. Over and out