Another thread has emerged about dogs and non dog owners ( guessing) calling for the day they bring in the dog licence, So would you pay for one? ( answer honestly please), Take into consideration that they may charge more for bigger dogs or dogs that are classed as dangerous, I for one would pay the license fee

I think we need to do something to stop just "anybody" owning a dog and maybe we might cut down on some of the dangerous dog problems.

I'd go for a dalmation...







I assume the black and white licence will be cheaper.

Hi,i pay £8.50 per month to help the rspca look after other peoples pets as i am a big pet lover and don,t like to see any pet suffer.For every £8.50 i pay the goverment pays £4.00.
Lets say the licence was £40 per year devided by 12 months makes £3.34 per month to own your dog,not alot to pay if your a pet lover and i would certainly pay it,IF,all of it went straight to the rspca.
How many dog lovers are there out there that would pay it,i would say thousands and lets say 50,000 owners pay it every month,thats £167.000 every month now wouldn,t that make the rspca,s life alot easier and all those poor animals that are abandoned,beaten and neglected would get the help they urgently need.

I think having a dog licence is good idea as long as it was upto councils gain the revinue to go directly into the council coffers to cover things like registration of the animals/chipping and towards things like street force or who' ever it is that does the dog bin collections.

There should be Govt guidlines on pricing but everything else should be down to the local authority. They should have the power to cieze dogs that are not registered with the authority and even have them put down as a last resort if the 'owners' don't want to have responcability for the pet.

It would stop a lot of trophy dog owners and tho's that keep them that are willing to neglect/abuse them, as their name will be and details would be stored on a data base and linked to the animal via its chip.

We are now linked to our viercles to such a degree that it has possitive effect on crime and has the conciquence of your viercle being ciezed/destroyed for not being legal for it.
I think apart from talking about living animals that have done no wrong to anyone other than simply be owned by a nutter (just thought id get that out the way before someone else), there would be simularities on how it would all work out.

Maybe its a good idea if affordable.

Dog licenses are a waste of time and unenforceable.

Hi,i pay £8.50 per month to help the rspca look after other peoples pets as i am a big pet lover and don,t like to see any pet suffer.For every £8.50 i pay the goverment pays £4.00.
Lets say the licence was £40 per year devided by 12 months makes £3.34 per month to own your dog,not alot to pay if your a pet lover and i would certainly pay it,IF,all of it went straight to the rspca.
How many dog lovers are there out there that would pay it,i would say thousands and lets say 50,000 owners pay it every month,thats £167.000 every month now wouldn,t that make the rspca,s life alot easier and all those poor animals that are abandoned,beaten and neglected would get the help they urgently need.

If any of MY money and numerous people within the rescue fraternity thought 1p was going to the RSPCA at national level. We wouldn't contribute anything.
Money for the RSPCA needs to be paid at local level which actually does aid the animals at grass root level.

Hi,i pay £8.50 per month to help the rspca look after other peoples pets as i am a big pet lover and don,t like to see any pet suffer.For every £8.50 i pay the goverment pays £4.00.
Lets say the licence was £40 per year devided by 12 months makes £3.34 per month to own your dog,not alot to pay if your a pet lover and i would certainly pay it,IF,all of it went straight to the rspca.
How many dog lovers are there out there that would pay it,i would say thousands and lets say 50,000 owners pay it every month,thats £167.000 every month now wouldn,t that make the rspca,s life alot easier and all those poor animals that are abandoned,beaten and neglected would get the help they urgently need.

Sorry to be a bit off topic but you do know that any money given to "the RSPCA" in general, doesn't get spent on the animals don't you? All RSPCA centres are independently funded and rely on money given directly to that particular shelter. They don't get a penny from the RSPCA as a national organisation.

Im sure that Dog licenses were required by law several years ago.

Maybe 20 years ago?

Im sure that Dog licenses were required by law several years ago.

Maybe 20 years ago?

I STR that dog licences had "gone out" by about 1989. I remember buying licences for my little dog up to about 1988/9 at least, but no later.

WRT the original post:-

It's all very well bringing licences in - the responsible owners, like myself, would get a license, just like we spay, worm, vaccinate and insure our pets.

But what about the dead-head idiot element?

If they won't keep their dogs under control:- if they won't spay/ neuter their animals, etc, what possible incentive would they have to comply if this legislation was brought in?

I STR that dog licences had "gone out" by about 1989. I remember buying licences for my little dog up to about 1988/9 at least, but no later.

WRT the original post:-

It's all very well bringing licences in - the responsible owners, like myself, would get a license, just like we spay, worm, vaccinate and insure our pets.

But what about the dead-head idiot element?

If they won't keep their dogs under control:- if they won't spay/ neuter their animals, etc, what possible incentive would they have to comply if this legislation was brought in?


^^^What she said.

It's not the responsible owners' fault that the irresponsible owners are irresponsible, so why make the responsible owners pay for problems caused by irresponsible owners?

I STR that dog licences had "gone out" by about 1989. I remember buying licences for my little dog up to about 1988/9 at least, but no later.

WRT the original post:-

It's all very well bringing licences in - the responsible owners, like myself, would get a license, just like we spay, worm, vaccinate and insure our pets.

But what about the dead-head idiot element?

If they won't keep their dogs under control:- if they won't spay/ neuter their animals, etc, what possible incentive would they have to comply if this legislation was brought in?I remember Dog licences also and there were far fewer dogs, the Pedigree market was thriving and there was little of the (as you call them) dead-head idiot element owning dogs.

Sounds like we dropped the tax and it left us worse off.

Don't own a dog so............. no.

What would the licence actually be? and why?
If it's just a fee owners have to pay then it would seem a waste of time all round. If there was a "test" as part of the licence then the issue of irresponsible owners just not bothering rears its head. And then we'd have folks complaining that there's a lot of time/money being wasted in enforcing such a scheme.

I STR that dog licences had "gone out" by about 1989. I remember buying licences for my little dog up to about 1988/9 at least, but no later.

WRT the original post:-

It's all very well bringing licences in - the responsible owners, like myself, would get a license, just like we spay, worm, vaccinate and insure our pets.

But what about the dead-head idiot element?

If they won't keep their dogs under control:- if they won't spay/ neuter their animals, etc, what possible incentive would they have to comply if this legislation was brought in?

You need to be careful who your classifying as a dead head idiot. I homecheck for loads of normal every day people in nice posh homes and some not so nice. The number of people who don't agree with speying or who have complete dogs in the home is amazing. These people aren't back yard breeders or chavs. It doesn't make them an irresponsible dog owner - just an uneducated one.(they'd also probably license the dog)

I think aswell that the license would be over priced and all of it would go straight to the goverment! And like I and many on here have said, the scum who are the problem with there nasty dogs wouldnt bother buying one, Its like when someone gets a court order saying they not allowed to own another dog ( due to past abuse) I dont get how they police that? You can get a dog out of the ad mag for small amounts, sometimes free, Something needs to be done, but what, Im not sure

I think the license should be a nominal fee payable annually over the counter at the post office on presentation of a valid insurance document.

The license will confirm that the owner has fully insured their dog for both personal injury and ill health.

I think the license should be a nominal fee payable annually over the counter at the post office on presentation of a valid insurance document.

The license will confirm that the owner has fully insured their dog for both personal injury and ill health.

But what about Mr Chav with his pitbull cross? Only time hes going to the post office is for his giro!
The point is yes a license is a good idea aslong as its policed properly, Maybe somehow through the vets? At some point in every dogs life it has to go the vets, How though i dont know

Easy, the license can be an ID tag or something which is worn by the dog. If the police/officials see a dog with no tag bring it in. Owners have the choice to either insure their dog and get it back or give it up for rehoming.

You need to be careful who your classifying as a dead head idiot. I homecheck for loads of normal every day people in nice posh homes and some not so nice. The number of people who don't agree with speying or who have complete dogs in the home is amazing. These people aren't back yard breeders or chavs. It doesn't make them an irresponsible dog owner - just an uneducated one.(they'd also probably license the dog)

I have to disagree with some aspects of your response, willman...

If you have taken an animal on, without giving thought to educating yourself on the responsibilities and the needs of your pet, such as spaying, the costs of injections, insurance, feeding, housetraining, and other aspects of the pet's welfare, I'd say that ticks both boxes, - ill-education, and irresponsibility.

The woman who I rescued my little girlie from, had only had her 6 weeks when the novelty wore off.

"I want the puppy, want the puppy, want the pup[py, gimmie gimmie gimmie!" rapidly morphed into

"Had enough of the puppy! Puppies need attention... Puppies need house-training, puppies need walks, feeding, vaccinations, spaying... "

That sort of thing really makes me furious! Grrrrr!:rant::rant:

If you don't plan to breed your pet, then the kindest thing to do is to have them spayed or neutered. It's also miles better for the dog/ cat's health.

I would definately purchase a licence for my dog.

AFAIR, when the dog licence was scrapped in the UK it was only a couple of bob and the cost of collecting it and registering the animals was probably more than the licence fee. - A dog licence wascheaper than a marriage licence. ;)

The rate of Dog tax varies in Germany. Where I live, it's €60 for the first dog, €110 for each additional dog. (For some reason they don't want people to have too many dogs.) The rate is set by the District Council and the licence fee is payable to the Parish council (who administer the record.) I live in a rural area, so the tax rate is low. - In cities it's often much higher (I understand €300 per dog per annum is the 'going rate' in some cities.)

The money goes to fund animal shelters, pay for dog wardens and for canine 'amenities' (there is no shortage of stainless- steel poop bins with dispensers which provide bio-degradable poop bags.) Dog owners are expected to pick up dog poop and the council provided the means for them to do so. Somebody has to pay for the services and those 'somebodies' are the people who use them.

The dog tax is both enforceable and enforced. All dogs are required to be micro-chipped (or tattoed), to be vaccinated against rabies and to have a collar tag showing that they have been vaccinated. You get the rabies tag by producing the vaccination certificate when you register the dog. (Rabies shots are now valid for 3 years, so it's not an annual event, but the council do have your address and if you don't pay your dog tax, they'll come after you.)

Dog owners are required to have indemnity insurance for damage their animals might cause. - If your dog runs out into the street, causing a car to swerve, there is an accident and somebody is injured then you are responsible. If you do not have insurance then - unless you are rich enough to pay all the damages out of your pocket - you will be treated as if you were an uninsured driver who had caused the accident.

The indemnity insurance is not cheap! - I have 2 dogs and I pay about €250 per annum for the pair. - Mine are smallish dogs and are not of a breed noted for being aggressive; if I had potentially more dangerous dogs, then the insurance premium could be in the range of €750 per dog. There is a list of dogs which are assumed to be dangerous, but you can have your dog's temperament tested and if it passes the test, restrictions on keeping it are reduced.

I don't agree with a dog licence.

I spend a lot of time, effort and money on my dog: chipped, insured, regular vet checks, attends agility once a week, training classes three times a week, walked for 2 hours plus a day.

Having a licence will not make me a more responsible owner, nor will it make the irresponsible owner more responsible (thats if they bother to buy one). It is just another thing to pay out for responsible owners.

The only way I would pay a tax for a licence is if they used to money for things like more doggy bins with regular collections and compulsory free training lessons for puppies. How they would police it is another matter....no doubt they would waste the money on the irresponsible owners instead.

I like the dalmation option,might see more action watching the dog than the tv.

I have to disagree with some aspects of your response, willman...

If you have taken an animal on, without giving thought to educating yourself on the responsibilities and the needs of your pet, such as spaying, the costs of injections, insurance, feeding, housetraining, and other aspects of the pet's welfare, I'd say that ticks both boxes, - ill-education, and irresponsibility.

The woman who I rescued my little girlie from, had only had her 6 weeks when the novelty wore off.

"I want the puppy, want the puppy, want the pup[py, gimmie gimmie gimmie!" rapidly morphed into

"Had enough of the puppy! Puppies need attention... Puppies need house-training, puppies need walks, feeding, vaccinations, spaying... "

That sort of thing really makes me furious! Grrrrr!:rant::rant:

If you don't plan to breed your pet, then the kindest thing to do is to have them spayed or neutered. It's also miles better for the dog/ cat's health.

BUT not all people think speying and neutering is a necessity or irresponsible if not done. I'm all in favour of it - and insist on it for a rescue dog and will refuse to rehome to homes with complete dogs present.
Similarly i know loads of people who adopt dogs, spey them,vet them etc and they still know sod all about dogs. Which is why everytime they see a staffie or boxer they pick their dog up.
We all have different opinions on what we think is right.

maybe not a dog license but maybe a license to breed and not to be able to breed without one.

Well if it was the law I'd buy one yes of course. But then my dog is chipped, wormed, vac'd, will be neutered when she's old enough, and always on her lead around other people so I would say I'm responsible enough.

I don't really see what it would achieve though to be honest, or how it would be enforced.

It would be great if microchipping was compulsory, and if intact dogs could only be owned by those with a specialist breeder's licence (that would need thorough checks to obtain, so Mr Benefits with his staffy would not qualify) but of course it'd never happen because it's basically impossible.

It would be great if microchipping was compulsory, and if intact dogs could only be owned by those with a specialist breeder's licence (that would need thorough checks to obtain, so Mr Benefits with his staffy would not qualify) but of course it'd never happen because it's basically impossible.

And neither should it -why should only people who want to make a living and get rich profiting from dogs be allowed to breed them.
Reistered breeders are no better in some cases than back yard breeders - they're just part of a clique thats registered.

maybe not a dog license but maybe a license to breed and not to be able to breed without one.

Off topic. This thread is about dogs, isn't it?

How would you stop chavs from breeding? - Do you think the lack of a licence would deter them?

Off topic. This thread is about dogs, isn't it?

How would you stop chavs from breeding? - Do you think the lack of a licence would deter them?
well without the great unwashed who would you send to be killed in Afghanistan and the like?


sorry just off topic :roll:

But they don't send the great unwashed ... Those people stay in the UK.

But they don't send the great unwashed ... Those people stay in the UK.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the+great+unwashed





,

I think the British Military are a rung or two above that ... (even Pongo's ;))
Well, I would say that, wouldn't I?

I have a beautiful 6 yr old male golden labrador, he means the world to me. He is so well trained and behaved I forget I have him sometimes. He is my own dog nd was trained well when I got him but I took him assistance lessons and he has learnt a whole lot more.

He has been trained to become a disabled assistance dog, so he is not only my best friend for life. But he is my homehelp when I am alone as I am wheelchair bound.

My friend was amazed the other day when phone rang and I could not get to it and Buster fetched it. He really is my hero and I would pay every penny I had if it ment he was here with me.

And neither should it -why should only people who want to make a living and get rich profiting from dogs be allowed to breed them.
Reistered breeders are no better in some cases than back yard breeders - they're just part of a clique thats registered.

Huh? I never said only KC registered breeders should be allowed to breed or anything like that. What I meant was people should have to demonstrate that they have the relevant knowledge and understanding; their own financial means of looking after the dogs and puppies (not people on benefits, why should the PDSA have to pay out for people who have chosen to breed when they could have neutered); suitable accommodation etc etc.

In the hopes of reducing the sheer number of 'staffy pups 4 sale' posters you see in the windows of council houses.

maybe not a dog license but maybe a license to breed and not to be able to breed without one.

This is the route that I would prefer to take along with a massive education campaign, it should more easily enforceable I would think as people get to know about puppies and often vets are involved.
Accidental litters should have a small fine attached to them so that there is no profit attached but more than one litter and it will come under the breeders license rule.
Do not allow people to KC reg the pups without license or to sell them on, it's the breeding that needs to be regulated rather than owning in my opinion.

Huh? I never said only KC registered breeders should be allowed to breed or anything like that. What I meant was people should have to demonstrate that they have the relevant knowledge and understanding; their own financial means of looking after the dogs and puppies (not people on benefits, why should the PDSA have to pay out for people who have chosen to breed when they could have neutered); suitable accommodation etc etc.

In the hopes of reducing the sheer number of 'staffy pups 4 sale' posters you see in the windows of council houses.

Neither did i - i said professional registered breeders(with the license you mentioned).I know people on benefits with more dog knowledge than some dog owners i know.
What about people who have the means and then fall on hard times - should they have to stop their hobby or passion.

Why shouldn't the PDSA provide support and assistance, thats what its for.

I personally think that every dog/cat that is taken to a vet is compulsorily microchipped and scanned on every visit. It would be illegal for a vet not to comply(then again tail dockings illegal but still goes on).
Upon first activation the dog owner at that point pays £100 (for a puppy) with a decrease for older dogs and rescue dogs to £50.
Everytime the dog is rehomed or goes to a new vet, its scanned etc then when its new owner visits any vet they'll be liable to the £50 or whatever fee.

Neither did i - i said professional registered breeders(with the license you mentioned).I know people on benefits with more dog knowledge than some dog owners i know.
What about people who have the means and then fall on hard times - should they have to stop their hobby or passion.

Why shouldn't the PDSA provide support and assistance, thats what its for.

Yes they should, to be honest. I wouldn't expect to keep up my expensive hobby (my car) if I lost my job and for someone else to foot the bill. They could easily get their pets neutered by the PDSA for a small amount and not breed any further dogs.

Anyway in the system I was suggesting (which I have already acknowledged isn't possible in reality) anyone could breed providing they had demonstrated the means and the knowledge to do so. I'm not talking about a license you just buy from the government I mean an actual test/homecheck.

I personally think that every dog/cat that is taken to a vet is compulsorily microchipped and scanned on every visit. ...

The animal could end up studded with microchips.:hihi:

It would be illegal for a vet not to comply

And there's the first major flaw. Why should vets be held responsible if an animal is not chipped?

It's illegal to ride a bicycle without a bell on it. It happens. Should Halfords be fined for selling bikes without bells on? - No chance.

Upon first activation the dog owner at that point pays £100 (for a puppy) with a decrease for older dogs and rescue dogs to £50.

Treasure Island prices. It shouldn't cost more than about £50 and if all animals were chipped, the price should fall even further.

Everytime the dog is rehomed or goes to a new vet, its scanned etc then when its new owner visits any vet they'll be liable to the £50 or whatever fee.

More Treasure Island prices! - All I have to do is notify the people who hold the register detailing my dogs' chips of my change of address. Doesn't cost me a thing. (When I bought the chips, I bought a lifetime registration.)

My dogs have Pet Passports and they each have 2 chips. - Most of the World uses the ISO chip, but the US uses AVID and HomeAgain microchips, so they're fitted with an ISO and a HomeAgain.

I bought a microchip scanner (Sod's law says that sooner or later I will encounter somebody at a port of entry who has a defective chip scanner - and it will probably be the guy with a chip of his very own.)

I agree that microchipping pets should be compulsory, but there is no need for inflated prices.

The animal could end up studded with microchips.:hihi:



And there's the first major flaw. Why should vets be held responsible if an animal is not chipped?

It's illegal to ride a bicycle without a bell on it. It happens. Should Halfords be fined for selling bikes without bells on? - No chance.



Treasure Island prices. It shouldn't cost more than about £50 and if all animals were chipped, the price should fall even further.



More Treasure Island prices! - All I have to do is notify the people who hold the register detailing my dogs' chips of my change of address. Doesn't cost me a thing. (When I bought the chips, I bought a lifetime registration.)

My dogs have Pet Passports and they each have 2 chips. - Most of the World uses the ISO chip, but the US uses AVID and HomeAgain microchips, so they're fitted with an ISO and a HomeAgain.

I bought a microchip scanner (Sod's law says that sooner or later I will encounter somebody at a port of entry who has a defective chip scanner - and it will probably be the guy with a chip of his very own.)

I agree that microchipping pets should be compulsory, but there is no need for inflated prices.

I don't think i explained it adequately. The £100 etc is a fee to be paid upon the initial vist to the vet upon compulsory microchip. The dog isn't microchipped on every visit. The fee is to replace a licence.
The £100 or £50 - is paid to a "department" to monitor and administer, with a percentage payable to the vet for his professional help.
The idea of it being compulsory and that every vet being legally obliged to check(for which they get paid initially) is so that people who sell on dogs must pay when its chipped, if they change vets it can be checked and then they can be charged,if its a rescue or rehome it can be traced and the new owner charged the current "registration" fee.
The chipping is just a way to monitor which dog is where , the fee pays for control and monitoring. Don't forget the idea is to control the dogs not registered chipped etc, not the ones where people already do it.

So in essence you pay £10 for chipping and a fee of £100 for instance to be the registered dog owner.Ideally the breeder should pay for microchipping imho. Then the owner pays the £100(or whatever) when they take the dog to the vets for his jabs etc.