Interesting the amount of response and debate to this topic to one that shows what responsibility goes with owning and what good they can do. RIP Little one. X
It would actually be really simple and mostly automated to license and register every single dog in the country.
If a dog warden/police officer challenges someone to show the license for the dog and they do not they are given 28 days to prove he animal is registered or it is confiscated and potentially destroyed.
May have to draw a line in the sand and say every animal born after a certain date but it needs to happen.
Why did the Thatcher government get rid of dog licences in the first place?
No idea but I imagine at some point people moaned that the elderly couldn't afford it
If memory serves me correctly it cost something like 17 1/2 pence, which was such a low price because it had been unchanged since it was first introduced many years before. Surely if the cost had moved with inflation it would have covered the administration costs. Either way I think it should be reintroduced so not every tom, dick and harry can have a dog. I'm sure there are flaws in my thinking, but I agree with the sentiment that something has to change. Poor child. RIP.
There are no bad dogs, only bad owners. You treat and train any dog properly, with love and respect, to behave and not become vicious, and it will not be a threat to anyone - there's thousands of years of breeding to create this specific reaction. That said, leaving a dog alone with a small child is also irresponsible on the part of an owner. As Sadie says, they can get jealous, and quite apart from which, seeing something small, fleshy and vulnerable might trigger innate instincts. I would still put the onus on the owners to make sure this does not happen though.
Haven't you just contradicted yourself.
You appear to be saying they dogs can't control their innate instincts to attack a small baby. In which case why are these inherently dangerous creatures allowed out in public.
some dogs are vicious and there are a lot of bad owners. Just as we try to licence and insure people who drive ("there are no bad cars, only bad drivers") because they are potentially dangerous we need to control and licence all dogs.
RIP to the little girl. How many more?
If you're going to licence anyone then it should be owners rather than dogs.
If you were to licence a dog (which would presumably amount to passing it off as safe) and then let the wrong person take ownership of it then that person could quite easily spend the next few months training it into a snarling brute that tries to attack everyone it sees.
No dog is born aggressive or evil or vicious, they end up that way by being poorly treated or by owners deliberately training them to be that way. I have lost count of the amount of times I've seen idiotic wannabe hardmen in Mountsfield Park getting their Staffies to hang from tree branches in order to strengthen their jaws. That's not the dog's fault.
Whilst the consequences are obviously much more severe, it is really no different from seeing a badly behaved child. If you see a 5 year old boy punching all the other kids at school then you think he's been badly brought up, you don't think he was born aggressive and violent. It's exactly the same with dogs.
It's very unfortunate, and quite unfair, that the overwhelming majority of responsible dog owners have to defend themselves (and their dogs) against generalised criticism because of the actions of people like those responsible for the latest tragic story.
Dogs can't buy a licence so it has to be the owners who pay but the licence should be for each dog and anyone found to be abusing dogs or not controlling them should be banned from buying a licence
Sorry, but dogs ARE born aggressive. Dog owners have been saying just that ie that they have innate instincts to attack small babies. That can be trained OUT of them but they are born aggressive.
There is no comparison with human children. None whatsoever.
It's not unfair at all that "responsible owners" have to defend themselves as they choose to own a potentially dangerous animal and allow it to mix with humans. If they are "responsible" then they will take responsibility for their animals rather than, as is my personal experience saying "He's only playing", or "he's never bitten anyone before".
It would actually be really simple and mostly automated to license and register every single dog in the country.
If a dog warden/police officer challenges someone to show the license for the dog and they do not they are given 28 days to prove he animal is registered or it is confiscated and potentially destroyed.
May have to draw a line in the sand and say every animal born after a certain date but it needs to happen.
Interesting but how would be enforced? the owners on the other hand could be licensed, some sort of test over say six weeks, that like the motorbike one you are charged a fee, £250 as some dogs are bought on a whim it would make you think about it a little more and a little more difficult to buy one than looking in the free papers then popping out to a block of flats and parting with a bullseye. Most on here know what I do with my dogs and the work that it involves, it's constant even the 12 months he was ill he still visiting the Upbeats to keep him involved in what he does best. But when we leave Sparrows lane I'm fecking exhausted watching Baileys every emotion all his body movements especially his eyes which tell me what is going through his mind. He is still an animal and a powerful one at that, most of the Upbeats don't understand that his tail is not there to be pulled they just see him as Bailey the dog I can cuddle, so I do the worrying for them. No dog should be trusted, especially with children and certainly never leave them alone, ever. Interestingly Bailey got the hump with a JR at the weekend which ran up to him and barked continuously at him, Bailey just fecked him off out of it, but as I said to the owner, if my dog had done that to him we'd probably by talking to the police by now. I can't do nothing about people or their dogs, I can't do nothing about people's attitude towards dogs. But what I can do is try and train my dogs to an acceptable standard and continue to do what I do. Which is why the invite to Sparrows Lane is an open one, come down and see that not everything dogs do gets printed in the paper.
It is an offence to own an unlicensed dog, unless the dog is: a puppy under six months old and kept by the person who was also the keeper of the bitch that gave birth to the puppy an assistance dog used by a disabled person a dog kept, and on offer for sale, in a licensed petshop a police dog a dog kept under a block licence, on the premises to which the block licence relates Domestic pet dogs must be licensed individually.
A licence for a pet dog costs £12.50. There are reduced licence fees for some dog owners.
In case you're wondering that's the current law in Northern Ireland, part of the UK. You must also have your dog microchipped before applying for a licence; and it must have "dog tags" on its collar which give the owner's name and address plus a coloured licence tag. (The colour changes each year.) The fine is £1000. You can't get a dog before obtaining a licence (both buyer and seller can be fined) and you can't get a licence unless you are 16 years old.
It is an offence to own an unlicensed dog, unless the dog is: a puppy under six months old and kept by the person who was also the keeper of the bitch that gave birth to the puppy an assistance dog used by a disabled person a dog kept, and on offer for sale, in a licensed petshop a police dog a dog kept under a block licence, on the premises to which the block licence relates Domestic pet dogs must be licensed individually.
A licence for a pet dog costs £12.50. There are reduced licence fees for some dog owners.
In case you're wondering that's the current law in Northern Ireland, part of the UK. You must also have your dog microchipped before applying for a licence; and it must have "dog tags" on its collar which give the owner's name and address plus a coloured licence tag. (The colour changes each year.) The fine is £1000. You can't get a dog before obtaining a licence (both buyer and seller can be fined) and you can't get a licence unless you are 16 years old.
If it works in NI then why not here?
Never buy a dog from a pet shop! If your going have a licence make it worth having £100-£500 Stop freeads/papers advertising animals for sale/swop, A decent breeder doesn't need to advertise. Any breeder worth their salt will want to see you at least twice before they agree to sell you a puppy. The KC has a list of registered breeders for all to see. Designer breeding needs to be stopped. At the end of the day it needs to be policed somehow..........
Why did the Thatcher government get rid of dog licences in the first place?
No idea but I imagine at some point people moaned that the elderly couldn't afford it
If memory serves me correctly it cost something like 17 1/2 pence, which was such a low price because it had been unchanged since it was first introduced many years before. Surely if the cost had moved with inflation it would have covered the administration costs. Either way I think it should be reintroduced so not every tom, dick and harry can have a dog. I'm sure there are flaws in my thinking, but I agree with the sentiment that something has to change. Poor child. RIP.
It was 37 1/2 pence, which as you say hadn't changed for years. In old money that was 7s 6d hence the term in golf when you beat someone in Matchplay 7&6 it's known as a Dog License. When the Halfpenny was phased out in the mid 80's it went down to 37p.
There are no bad dogs, only bad owners. You treat and train any dog properly, with love and respect, to behave and not become vicious, and it will not be a threat to anyone - there's thousands of years of breeding to create this specific reaction. That said, leaving a dog alone with a small child is also irresponsible on the part of an owner. As Sadie says, they can get jealous, and quite apart from which, seeing something small, fleshy and vulnerable might trigger innate instincts. I would still put the onus on the owners to make sure this does not happen though.
Haven't you just contradicted yourself.
You appear to be saying they dogs can't control their innate instincts to attack a small baby. In which case why are these inherently dangerous creatures allowed out in public.
some dogs are vicious and there are a lot of bad owners. Just as we try to licence and insure people who drive ("there are no bad cars, only bad drivers") because they are potentially dangerous we need to control and licence all dogs.
RIP to the little girl. How many more?
If you're going to licence anyone then it should be owners rather than dogs.
If you were to licence a dog (which would presumably amount to passing it off as safe) and then let the wrong person take ownership of it then that person could quite easily spend the next few months training it into a snarling brute that tries to attack everyone it sees.
No dog is born aggressive or evil or vicious, they end up that way by being poorly treated or by owners deliberately training them to be that way. I have lost count of the amount of times I've seen idiotic wannabe hardmen in Mountsfield Park getting their Staffies to hang from tree branches in order to strengthen their jaws. That's not the dog's fault.
Whilst the consequences are obviously much more severe, it is really no different from seeing a badly behaved child. If you see a 5 year old boy punching all the other kids at school then you think he's been badly brought up, you don't think he was born aggressive and violent. It's exactly the same with dogs.
It's very unfortunate, and quite unfair, that the overwhelming majority of responsible dog owners have to defend themselves (and their dogs) against generalised criticism because of the actions of people like those responsible for the latest tragic story.
Dogs can't buy a licence so it has to be the owners who pay but the licence should be for each dog and anyone found to be abusing dogs or not controlling them should be banned from buying a licence
Sorry, but dogs ARE born aggressive. Dog owners have been saying just that ie that they have innate instincts to attack small babies. That can be trained OUT of them but they are born aggressive.
There is no comparison with human children. None whatsoever.
It's not unfair at all that "responsible owners" have to defend themselves as they choose to own a potentially dangerous animal and allow it to mix with humans. If they are "responsible" then they will take responsibility for their animals rather than, as is my personal experience saying "He's only playing", or "he's never bitten anyone before".
"Born aggressive" do you mean as "They will bite from the day they are born?" Then there would be no disputing that at all, that's how they defend theirselves we have to teach them that the fighting they do with their litter mates when sorting out the pack order is not acceptable in our world, letting a puppy hang off your finger because it amuses your visitors is merely endorsing the bite and will continue as they grow and challenge every decision you make that they disagree with (there's my similarity with children) give a puppy a chair to sit on don't be surprised if he has a go when you want your favourite chair back, give it an old slipper to chew on don't be surprised if it rips lumps out off you new addidas gazelles, a dog wants you as a leader but if you don't lead it the dog will take over.
Nothing wrong with veg for dogs, with exception to onions which will kill a dog. Both my dogs love carrots, they have a clove of garlic a week to stay clear of fleas two in the summer. Any left over veg after Sunday dinner but never from the plate. Fresh herring/mackerel complete with head and guts for the oils and white fish fillets. So I suppose mine are veggies but then they spoil it the next day by eating a chicken carcass!
So buying a £12.50 for a licensed will ensure that a dog will not maul a child don't think so some how.
But it's not the actual cost of the licence that really matters is it? (As long as it covers administration costs). First it means that so-called dangerous breeds will be unlicencable (is that a word?) so will not have the tags and will be readily identifiable as unmicrochipped (a requirement and a cost too) and unlicensed and can be seized. Second a dog will be able to be matched up with its owner so that the state can take appropriate retribution for any wrong-doing by the dog. Third, maybe, just maybe scroats in Sports Direct hoodies won't risk the hefty fine for not having a licence or bother getting a dog as it's all too much trouble - they'll buy a maet cleaver instead.
(Anyway, I still think humans are more trouble than dogs!)
Why did the Thatcher government get rid of dog licences in the first place?
No idea but I imagine at some point people moaned that the elderly couldn't afford it
If memory serves me correctly it cost something like 17 1/2 pence, which was such a low price because it had been unchanged since it was first introduced many years before. Surely if the cost had moved with inflation it would have covered the administration costs. Either way I think it should be reintroduced so not every tom, dick and harry can have a dog. I'm sure there are flaws in my thinking, but I agree with the sentiment that something has to change. Poor child. RIP.
It was 37 1/2 pence, which as you say hadn't changed for years. In old money that was 7s 6d hence the term in golf when you beat someone in Matchplay 7&6 it's known as a Dog License. When the Halfpenny was phased out in the mid 80's it went down to 37p.
Yes, 37 1/2 pence. I remembered that shortly after my post! I didn't know about the golf thing. The half penny was phased out at the end of 1984 I think. Incidentally 17 1/2 pence was what I paid for my first portion of chips! But slightly off topic...
banning the breed of dog is a ludicrous argument. I've known a mate to have his face ripped to shreds by a Labrador. would you class that as a dangerous breed? certainly an issue but the 'dangerous breed' argument is similar to making offensive stereotypes based on someones race. there's no place for it.
Why did the Thatcher government get rid of dog licences in the first place?
No idea but I imagine at some point people moaned that the elderly couldn't afford it
If memory serves me correctly it cost something like 17 1/2 pence, which was such a low price because it had been unchanged since it was first introduced many years before. Surely if the cost had moved with inflation it would have covered the administration costs. Either way I think it should be reintroduced so not every tom, dick and harry can have a dog. I'm sure there are flaws in my thinking, but I agree with the sentiment that something has to change. Poor child. RIP.
It was 37 1/2 pence, which as you say hadn't changed for years. In old money that was 7s 6d hence the term in golf when you beat someone in Matchplay 7&6 it's known as a Dog License. When the Halfpenny was phased out in the mid 80's it went down to 37p.
Yes, 37 1/2 pence. I remembered that shortly after my post! I didn't know about the golf thing. The half penny was phased out at the end of 1984 I think. Incidentally 17 1/2 pence was what I paid for my first portion of chips! But slightly off topic...
I was born in Plumstead and my name is Michael. I reckon my first portion of chips was about a ha'penny, in old money. :-)
banning the breed of dog is a ludicrous argument. I've known a mate to have his face ripped to shreds by a Labrador. would you class that as a dangerous breed? certainly an issue but the 'dangerous breed' argument is similar to making offensive stereotypes based on someones race. there's no place for it.
Yeah you wait till the Society of Black Labradors see this
banning the breed of dog is a ludicrous argument. I've known a mate to have his face ripped to shreds by a Labrador. would you class that as a dangerous breed? certainly an issue but the 'dangerous breed' argument is similar to making offensive stereotypes based on someones race. there's no place for it.
Well done to. Mehmet hats off pal that quick string of 1 liners was some of your best pal
This poor little girl god bless little one another tiny angel to watch over our children RIP
I can't believe anyone would leave their dog alone with any child
I love my dog and know her and her moods and body language she is not an agressive dog she loves my kids as much as they love her
Her relationship with my 4yr old is a thing of great pleasure however never will they be alone together
I will have a new edition in a matter of weeks and I will be all over the reactions of lola to our new edition and be watching her like a hawk
Yet my lola is the kindest most loyal and amazing dog I have ever had but I love my kids more and wouldn't hesitate to remove her from my home if I thought there will be an issue
Comments
There was mass evasion by dog owners and the cost of enforcement was considered to exceed the benefits of a licence system.
RIP
Little one. X
If a dog warden/police officer challenges someone to show the license for the dog and they do not they are given 28 days to prove he animal is registered or it is confiscated and potentially destroyed.
May have to draw a line in the sand and say every animal born after a certain date but it needs to happen.
Wasn't the administration costlier than the income? And probably difficult to enforce.
Sorry, but dogs ARE born aggressive. Dog owners have been saying just that ie that they have innate instincts to attack small babies. That can be trained OUT of them but they are born aggressive.
There is no comparison with human children. None whatsoever.
It's not unfair at all that "responsible owners" have to defend themselves as they choose to own a potentially dangerous animal and allow it to mix with humans. If they are "responsible" then they will take responsibility for their animals rather than, as is my personal experience saying "He's only playing", or "he's never bitten anyone before".
It is an offence to own an unlicensed dog, unless the dog is:
a puppy under six months old and kept by the person who was also the keeper of the bitch that gave birth to the puppy
an assistance dog used by a disabled person
a dog kept, and on offer for sale, in a licensed petshop
a police dog
a dog kept under a block licence, on the premises to which the block licence relates
Domestic pet dogs must be licensed individually.
A licence for a pet dog costs £12.50. There are reduced licence fees for some dog owners.
In case you're wondering that's the current law in Northern Ireland, part of the UK.
You must also have your dog microchipped before applying for a licence; and it must have "dog tags" on its collar which give the owner's name and address plus a coloured licence tag. (The colour changes each year.)
The fine is £1000.
You can't get a dog before obtaining a licence (both buyer and seller can be fined) and you can't get a licence unless you are 16 years old.
If it works in NI then why not here?
If your going have a licence make it worth having £100-£500
Stop freeads/papers advertising animals for sale/swop,
A decent breeder doesn't need to advertise.
Any breeder worth their salt will want to see you at least twice before they agree to sell you a puppy.
The KC has a list of registered breeders for all to see.
Designer breeding needs to be stopped.
At the end of the day it needs to be policed somehow..........
When the Halfpenny was phased out in the mid 80's it went down to 37p.
do i not love my child?
Then there would be no disputing that at all, that's how they defend theirselves we have to teach them that the fighting they do with their litter mates when sorting out the pack order is not acceptable in our world, letting a puppy hang off your finger because it amuses your visitors is merely endorsing the bite and will continue as they grow and challenge every decision you make that they disagree with (there's my similarity with children)
My dog is a vegetarian.
(Anyway, I still think humans are more trouble than dogs!)
The half penny was phased out at the end of 1984 I think.
Incidentally 17 1/2 pence was what I paid for my first portion of chips! But slightly off topic...
This poor little girl god bless little one another tiny angel to watch over our children RIP
I can't believe anyone would leave their dog alone with any child
I love my dog and know her and her moods and body language she is not an agressive dog she loves my kids as much as they love her
Her relationship with my 4yr old is a thing of great pleasure however never will they be alone together
I will have a new edition in a matter of weeks and I will be all over the reactions of lola to our new edition and be watching her like a hawk
Yet my lola is the kindest most loyal and amazing dog I have ever had but I love my kids more and wouldn't hesitate to remove her from my home if I thought there will be an issue