10-03-2010, 11:06 AM
1
Stricter dog controls
No doubt you've seen this on the news, . . I saw a clip of two gangs of youths with staffies, they were all hoodies and were setting up the dogs aggressively, . . all this could be avoided if, as I suggested 10 years ago, they introduced licences which the public would have to apply for prior to owning a dog.Every council would be responsible for issuing the licence and it would be self funding so the cost wouldn't be on the public purse.
Anyone who wished to keep a dog would have to satisfy the council they lived in appropriate houses, no one living in flats should be considered, if they wanted a dog they should move, there should also be a minimum age, if these licences were to go ahead it would be compulsory to carry them at all times and produce them on demand to whoever asked to see them, . . this would stop the yob culture that's sprung up, they're using dogs as weapons.
Compulsory insurance is another good step, if you can't afford insurance, you can't afford a dog, people should be means tested also, to see if they can afford to keep a dog, an average sized dog from birth to death based on a 10 year life span costs £20,000 this would help stop poor dogs in rescue centres being PTS.
10-03-2010, 06:57 PM
2
Re: Stricter dog controls
I have insurance for my two youngsters - but not for the other two. One is very old (he`d cost about £50 a month to insure) , and one is too traumatised to go out. I`m eligible for the PDSA anyway.You see, all these bright ideas are fine for the `average` person with one small dog. But not for people with a fixed income who rescue.
10-03-2010, 07:21 PM
3
Re: Stricter dog controls
And unfortunately this is where the problem lies with any legislation. I would be glad to see all dogs microchipped, and yes, it might be a good idea to insure dogs for Public Liability. However, does this mean that people with little money will get help with the cost of microchipping, and will Insurance Companies be forced to keep the cost of insurance down to a bare minimum. Will extremely elderly dogs be exempt? Will dogs who because of age or dental disease have lost all their teeth be exempt? I know that sounds silly, but my little Yorkie, Minnie, who died last October, was 14.5 yrs old and had no teeth - she couldn't have bitten anyone. And when I took her on from Rescue, she was 12 yrs old and had all sorts wrong with her. There is no way I could have insured her. So does that mean that there will be different types of insurance?It sll sounds so simple, until you really think about it.
On the other hand, I do applaud the effort to stop yobs from using these poor dogs as weapons. I do wish we could have legislation to impose very, very harsh penalties on thse people, but, of course, that won't be on the schedule.
10-03-2010, 08:44 PM
4
Re: Stricter dog controls
Sounds like a generally good idea to me, but as others have pointed out, the devil is in the details. Low income people/senors who would have trouble with insurance premiums, people who foster dogs, breeders? We have trouble with hoodlum types here who train their dogs to be aggressive/attack, mostly pit bull or pit bull crosses. They've been outlawed in many jurisdictions but that hasn't stopped people from keeping them anyway.Do you have leash laws?
|
|
