Add Your Idea

End Dangerous Dogs Act/Licenses instead

Comment 1st July 2010

Dog licences should never have been dropped. They would be a means for enforcing standards and controlling breed populations, thereby also reducing the number of dangerous dogs (currently an underground trade) since the police would be able to demand a licence on the spot from any owner. Dangerous breeds would not quality for a licence. The income from licences and fines would allow abandoned dogs to be treated humanely and re-homed. The Kennel Club could be paid to administer the scheme, with their agreement, and it would also allow them to improve their breed statistics, registration, breed improvement, and training programs as well. The licence fee would act as a deterrent to reckless ownership and reduce abandoned dog numbers (after an initial surge no doubt). It should be modest but sufficient to deter, and be annually renewable, say £50. Kennel Club accredited breeders would not pay the fee. The fee would apply to any non-accredited owner they sold a dog to.

Why does this matter?

The Dangerous dogs act is not enforced and not enforceable, except at unreasonable cost in police time. There is currently no deterrent to reckless ownership of any dog. There is no means of controlling breed standards and numbers without better statistics and a stronger Kennel Club. Licensing would bring a greater sense of responsibility in dog ownership and a more positive social attitude and perception of that ownership. The income would fund council and police time spent dealing with abandoned dogs. The accredited breeder program would be strengthened.


Highlighted posts


Add Your Idea

Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Back to top
Add Your Idea