Canine Excuses and Licences
Posted: Tue 26 August, 2008 Filed under: Animals, News, Thoughts 2 Comments »There’s a story on the BBC news site today about an inquest into the death of a toddler who was killed by a Rottweiler. I don’t want to use terms like “attacked”, because it seems that dog grabbed the child because it saw the child as a new toy.
The dog had apparently been kept in a yard, and hadn’t been walked or exercised once in more than five months. Now, I can’t envisage keeping a dog un-exercised for five days, let alone five months- even a small lap-dog, let alone a lopping great Rottweiler.
The coroner called for “stricter controls” on the breeding and sale of dangerous dogs – but to me, this isn’t about a dangerous dog, it’s about a bored dog. The coroner should be recommending stricter controls on the owners of dogs – dangerous or not – rather than on the breeders. (And yes, in this case the dog was bought “in a pub” from an unregistered breeder. Personally, though, I don’t believe that every dog in a similar situation is a dangerous dog – a lot of it depends on how that dog is then trained and brought up, rather than its initial situation)
And you know what would make that control of dog owners easier? Simple, the return of the dog licence. I’d be happy to see it administered by a non-governmental organisation, such as Dogs Trust or RSPCA – and you can’t/don’t get a licence until you’ve been visited by a registered inspector from [administrating authority] who fills out the licence there and then. And you can’t buy a dog without showing your licence, your approval to be a dog owner.
Yes, you would still end up with deals done ‘in a pub’ – but you could also have the offence of having a dog without a licence, and make it a very expensive proposition. For example, a £1,000 default fine per unlicensed dog with higher penalties if that dog is also mis-treated. Even, perhaps, a fine that is 50% discounted if you get a licence within 14 or 28 days of being discovered – which still leaves a significant amount to be paid.
Even when you’ve got the licence, you’d be liable to be checked on at random, in order that the inspectors could check your dog was still being well looked after, exercised etc.
To me that just all makes sense. So why isn’t it happening? Have I missed something that makes this harder to do?
I don’t know how it used to be when dog licences were around the first time, but how do you police it? You would mostly have to rely on annoyed neighbours turning snitch, and even if you do know that someone has an unlicenced dog, how do you gain access to the house to prove it? Or do the inspectors have to spend all day sat outside the house?
Not against the idea, just don’t know how it would be implemented.
(And the next question… when do we bring in something similar for children?)
It would cost millions to implement. The last scheme was scrapped for just that reason. But 37.5p was always far too little for a dog licence even in 1987.
Having a dog licence costing, say £100 per year, for all new dogs obtained after a certain date, would make people realise the true costs of keeping dogs, and stop those who buy them from puppy farms or from a man in a pub on a whim.
But, given the governmint’s record on enforcing car tax laws, don’t hold your breath…
I agree with Clair about licences for kids too. Why is it that those with the worst behaved kids always breed like rabbits?