Being a former dog owner I have these comments.

The previous license scheme was a farce and cost more to administer than it brought in in revenue, it was rightly scrapped.

I speak as a former responsible dog owner (I will re-start ownership when myself and mrs dog arent working all day).

1. Most responsible dog owners already have the sense to insure their dogs against illness and by default 3rd party damages, nobody wants to be hit with potentially massive vets bills, and not be able to provide the necessary healthcare for what is a close member of the family.

2. A large number of dogs are now being routinely chipped by their responsible owners.

3. I have experience of the dog ownership schemes in Holland and Germany where dogs are registered annually and fees are paid per dog, on a sliding scale (2nd dog is twice the cost of the first dog in Holland). This scheme pays for active dog warden patrols, not relying on the RSPCA or local animal charities. Dogs are compulsorily chipped and the corresponding license has to be attached to the dogs collar. I understand, but cannot confirm, that certain breeds of dog are not licensable or ownable in Holland (pit bull etc).

4. It has long been an issue in this country where certain breeds of dog have been legislated against, but the law is vague as is its enforcement. We have an awful history of dog attacks on Children and Adults alike, and it nearly always involves the breeds that are "Trophy Dogs". It is the clearest sign that we havent got things right in respect to the welfare of these "pets".

If a scheme were to be introduced similar to those enforced in Holland and Germany and probably many other European mainland countries, where proper enforcement and routine checks were to take place, and additionally checks on the environment where a dog will be kept are made I have no objection.

I have a suspicion however, that the scheme as being outlined in Parliament will be nothing of the above, and just be the Government raising yet another tax on legitimate dog owners, who will and already do, in the most part, take the steps of responsible ownership (Health/3rd Party insurance, chipping, ID tagging, properly trained dogs) while those who own "Trophy Dogs" will simply ignore the law, with little to no chance of anyone checking on their legitimacy.

Compulsory insurance?

My weimaraner is fully comp as I have had to take him in to the vets after being attacked by dogs off the lead. My dog is quite a big dog and boisterous but not aggressive, so I only let him off the lead when I know that it is safe to do so. Thats retponsible ownership and yes I do clear his shyte up.

My dog was repeatedly attacked by a boxer owned by a "problem" family and they had no control over it. It would sometimes run onto my drive, not being called back and try to attack my dog until I got sick of it and hit the boxer with a hammer. I make no excuses as I was trying to kill the bloody thing but missed its head. In the ensuing hoo ha I was accused of trying to kill a harmless family pet. The fact that it had run about 75 yards from its home and tried to get at me and my dog in my own back garden wasnt really appeciated by the problem family. I explained to the police that the reason why I had the hammer was that I expected the dog to come on to my property and either attack me or my dog as it had happened on at least 4 occasions previously. I remain convinced that the reason why there have not been further instances of that dog being let loose are that I may have a better aim next time and crack its skull with a ball pein.

From now on I take the Roosevelt approach. I talk softly and carry a big stick on my walks with my dog.

Cuddles is right, the ones who have the most temperamentally aggressive dogs wont insure them in the same way as they dont insure their cars.

Originally Posted by pacestick

What concerns me is Johnsons intention to broaden the list of "dangerous" dogs - where would that leave everybody with what naive people already think are dangerous – Rotties, Alsatians, Dobermans etc????

But potentially all dogs are domesticated hounds, and can be dangerous. An ex girlfriends Jack Russel nearly had my left knacker off when he took exception to the attention I was giving his owner in her bedroom. All breeds of dog have a mind and emotions of their own. They are all capable of irrational anger and violence given the right triggers.

Humans legislating about the behaviour of animals? Nonsense

Originally Posted by walt_of_the_walts

Originally Posted by pacestick

What concerns me is Johnsons intention to broaden the list of "dangerous" dogs - where would that leave everybody with what naive people already think are dangerous – Rotties, Alsatians, Dobermans etc????

But potentially all dogs are domesticated hounds, and can be dangerous. An ex girlfriends Jack Russel nearly had my left knacker off when he took exception to the attention I was giving his owner in her bedroom. All breeds of dog have a mind and emotions of their own. They are all capable of irrational anger and violence given the right triggers.

Humans legislating about the behaviour of animals? Nonsense

Nothing at all like humans then...

Originally Posted by Chef

Whilst I'm not a dog owner myself

As a wise man said, warning us of the dangers of such authoritarian politicians:

First they came for the dog owners, and I did not speak out—because I was not a dog owner;
Then they came for the cat owners, and I did not speak out—because I was not a cat owner;
Then they came for the budgie owners, and I did not speak out—because I was not a budgie owner;
Then they came for the gold fish owners — and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Originally Posted by jagman

Originally Posted by ugly

As per usual politicians havent the means to ensure that the law breakers are punished and wont force the plod to do this so they introduce new laws without any real thought about how it will affect the law abiding. feckem!

But you'll pay of course......
Just the same as every other honest person.
The oik's won't of course and nobody will make them.

Mmmmm...well I've not SORN'd my vehicle 4/5 times in the past five years, I've simply been abroad and the vehicle sits in a garage, I've certainly no cause to return within the territorial limits of the U.K just to inform them of that.. I get the 'pay or else' letters (from a debt collecting agency)..still to see the man..bit like the hunting ban where I am, hunt turns out, we get a embarrassed Plod/CSPO on the edge of the crowd, lots of dogs...interesting to see the enforcement strategy proposed for 'rural folk'..and 'f**k you I'm no 'oik' just a 'Polish' tradesman trying hard to cut rates, make use of your wonderful benefit system and expose(as if it is needed) the fantasy world of 'Sven/Parapuke 'et' al

Originally Posted by bobthedog

Being a former dog owner I have these comments.

The previous license scheme was a farce and cost more to administer than it brought in in revenue, it was rightly scrapped.

I speak as a former responsible dog owner (I will re-start ownership when myself and mrs dog arent working all day).

1. Most responsible dog owners already have the sense to insure their dogs against illness and by default 3rd party damages, nobody wants to be hit with potentially massive vets bills, and not be able to provide the necessary healthcare for what is a close member of the family.

2. A large number of dogs are now being routinely chipped by their responsible owners.

3. I have experience of the dog ownership schemes in Holland and Germany where dogs are registered annually and fees are paid per dog, on a sliding scale (2nd dog is twice the cost of the first dog in Holland). This scheme pays for active dog warden patrols, not relying on the RSPCA or local animal charities. Dogs are compulsorily chipped and the corresponding license has to be attached to the dogs collar. I understand, but cannot confirm, that certain breeds of dog are not licensable or ownable in Holland (pit bull etc).

4. It has long been an issue in this country where certain breeds of dog have been legislated against, but the law is vague as is its enforcement. We have an awful history of dog attacks on Children and Adults alike, and it nearly always involves the breeds that are "Trophy Dogs". It is the clearest sign that we havent got things right in respect to the welfare of these "pets".

If a scheme were to be introduced similar to those enforced in Holland and Germany and probably many other European mainland countries, where proper enforcement and routine checks were to take place, and additionally checks on the environment where a dog will be kept are made I have no objection.

I have a suspicion however, that the scheme as being outlined in Parliament will be nothing of the above, and just be the Government raising yet another tax on legitimate dog owners, who will and already do, in the most part, take the steps of responsible ownership (Health/3rd Party insurance, chipping, ID tagging, properly trained dogs) while those who own "Trophy Dogs" will simply ignore the law, with little to no chance of anyone checking on their legitimacy.

You see thats whats wrong, licensing is seen and accepted as a form of revenue, it shouldnt be that way, if it is it defeats the point of licensing.

Another faint hearted attempt by this government to address a problem in broken Britain and, as other posters point out, legislation that will financially punish the law abiding responsible dog owner.

I have said on another thread that I believe there should be strong legislation on dog ownership including compulsory dog licences at a sensible price, compulsory chipping, licenced breeding and neutering for all dogs not licenced for breeding. I also believe that new dog owners should be required to attend a course on dog care and obedience before ownership ... like a car, it's a potential weapon in inexperienced hands.

If the dog licence price was set at a sensible level then the whole legislation could be policed with wardens paid for from the licence fee. But you need wardens with real powers and not some doggy version of the laughable PCSO.

But no, the government pass the problem into the hands of insurers who right now are gleefully rubbing their sweaty palms together as they come up with ridiculously priced policies based on their own "research". I already pay for insurance for both my dogs based on breed, age and health. Add on a risk factor and what chance my policy staying at a reasonable level living in the SE of England and owning 2 SBT?

Fcuking sucks.

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Originally Posted by walt_of_the_walts

Originally Posted by pacestick

What concerns me is Johnsons intention to broaden the list of "dangerous" dogs - where would that leave everybody with what naive people already think are dangerous – Rotties, Alsatians, Dobermans etc????

But potentially all dogs are domesticated hounds, and can be dangerous. An ex girlfriends Jack Russel nearly had my left knacker off when he took exception to the attention I was giving his owner in her bedroom. All breeds of dog have a mind and emotions of their own. They are all capable of irrational anger and violence given the right triggers.

Humans legislating about the behaviour of animals? Nonsense

Nothing at all like humans then...

Err..No. Exactly like humans. So for safety's sake, lets stick to gun dog breeds. Much easier on the eye and very friendly.

If you want a pit bull or a staffie, you are probably a ghastly type, probably on benefits or a drug dealer with tattoos who wears a tracksuit and baseball cap all day. You should be shot, along with your inbred land shark.

I,ve got a 2 year old Jack Russell,he is chipped, insured and absolutely soft as shit....he obeys instantly and loves everybody.....He has also had his balls off for health reasons.....I WONT BE PAYING ANY DOG TAX UNTIL THE DAY ALL THE CHAVS HAVE STUMPED UP!
Me and the Wife have done enough....take me to court!!!!