Return Of The Dog Licence?

[Steve]

http://www.dreamdogs.co.uk/return-of-the-dog-licence-3839.html

by Lianne Wilkinson on September 8, 2010

Most dog owners of a certain age can remember having to buy dog licences for each of their pets, or pay the ‘dog tax’ as it was also known. The original dog licence cost just 37p and was abolished way back in 1987, largely due to the fact that only around 50% of dog owners actually bought one.

However, in these days of financial hardship and tough talking budgets, the notion of taxing a whole new sector of society could prove too tempting to ignore. The dog licence could be about to return, and it won’t be the nominal 37p of the mid eighties either. Backed by the RSPCA, motions are underway to reintroduce a dog licence to the UK at a proposed cost of between £20 and £30 per year. The RSPCA believes that by introducing a dog licence it would help to raise over £100 million each year and would stop irresponsible dog owners from using their dogs as weapons of status.

The RSPCA has already conducted research into bringing back the dog licence and it claims that two thirds of dog owners are more than happy to pay a fee of over £30 per year for their dog… per dog! Although the RSPCA adds that this cost is roughly between 3% and 4% of the cost of owning a dog for a year, so doesn’t represent much of an expense.

The RSPCA added that if a dog licence were re-introduced at a cost of £21.50, and if only half of the dog owners in the UK paid for one, the licence would raise an additional £107.4 million that could be used to help the welfare of dogs. The RSPCA’s report suggests that a new scheme be started by the government that would help strays, disease prevention and treating people bitten by dogs. Dog control laws could also be enforced with the added funds created by a dog licence.

The UK has a reported 10 million dogs at present, and all would require licences under these new proposals.

The RSPCA also suggests that pensioners receive a discount on their dog licence, that discounts are offered for selected dogs (presumably smaller dogs) and discounts for dogs that have been neutered. Some of the money should also help pay for a nationwide database of dogs, with every dog being microchipped.

David Bowles, from the RSPCA, commented:

“A dog licence would raise money which could be targeted into improving enforcement of laws at a local level, improve the welfare of dogs and reverse the use of certain breeds of dog as a status symbol or weapon.”

“The dog licence would achieve three important goals. It would raise money for dog welfare, increase the numbers of responsible dog owners by getting people to think before they get a dog and start to reverse the surplus of dogs on the market by providing incentives such as reduced fees for neutering dogs.”

Of course the big worry is simple. If families are ordered to pay for a dog licence costing upwards of £30 per year, how many dogs would simply be cast out onto the street due to their owners being unwilling, or unable, to pay for the licence?

[~*Shell*~]

The RSPCA added that if a dog licence were re-introduced at a cost of £21.50, and if only half of the dog owners in the UK paid for one, the licence would raise an additional £107.4 million that could be used to help the welfare of dogs. The RSPCA’s report suggests that a new scheme be started by the government that would help strays, disease prevention and treating people bitten by dogs. Dog control laws could also be enforced with the added funds created by a dog licence.

This is the part that gets me - they're openly acknowledging that a lot of people won't get dog licences. Essentially, you would be taxing the responsible dog owners to deal with the problem of the irresponsible ones. Nothing is stopping those irresponsible owners from aquiring a dog off a friend with unwanted puppies or from an unscrupulous pet shop without a licence, the same way we still see unmicrochipped and unregistered dogs in pounds here.

In a world where everyone who had a dog paid for a dog licence, it would be a good idea IMO so that there would be more money for dog-related schemes, law enforcement and activities but I don't think it will work that way.

[Steve]

Me either. After all its not rocket science to know irresponsible people do what ever they can to duck this kind of thing.

I know a hell of a lot of people who are battling poverty and worried about where the money is coming from to feed their dogs who just couldnt afford another expense.

Hell MDBA Pacers feeds dozens of dogs each week while their owners struggle to get back to a point where they can afford to feed them again. These people love their animals and having to surrender them is horrible for them but given the choice of feeding your kids or your dog the kids have to win. Many would not be able to cope with this.

Bring in new laws and give the people who have pushed for them more money to police them. Then listen to them tell us they cant police them because they dont have enough money to employ more.

[becks]

And the reasons they stopped the license last time were due to only some of the responcible owners buying a licence. it's bad enough we get taxed just to own a TV!

[Dory the Doted One]

I struggle with the fact that they believe....or rather, promote to the public their 'nice' belief, because it sounds nicer than the reality they are problably hiding....that the money will help promote responsible pet ownership, education etc.

I'm such a cynic, I think they just want the cash to push their own agenda that has nothing truly to do with education, but eradication.

Where are the education programs now? I don't seem them going into schools to educate kids or putting together education packages. I see them doing plenty of TV programs that only tell half of the story, the half that makes them look good.

I see plenty of individuals and other organisations actively educating children who don't spruik for public donations to fund their efforts and are often self funded.

[LizT]

So do they not have Council Pet registration in the UK as we do here? That's basically a "Pet Licence".

[Sandra777]

So do they not have Council Pet registration in the UK as we do here? That's basically a "Pet Licence".

No they don't - as it says in the article, this was abolished because only about 50% of owners ever bothered to pay it.

I'd be interested to know the % in Australia - in NZ it used to be estimated about 40% of dogs were unregistered, not sure if they've changed their thinking on that, & I don't think it'd be much different here.

Yet another tax for the responsible to pay and the irresponsible to avoid.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

And the reasons they stopped the license last time were due to only some of the responcible owners buying a licence. it's bad enough we get taxed just to own a TV!

yep and how many people dont pay that either. i remember people quickly turning off tv's when the vans came round

[Steve]

So do they not have Council Pet registration in the UK as we do here? That's basically a "Pet Licence".

No they don't - as it says in the article, this was abolished because only about 50% of owners ever bothered to pay it.

I'd be interested to know the % in Australia - in NZ it used to be estimated about 40% of dogs were unregistered, not sure if they've changed their thinking on that, & I don't think it'd be much different here.

Yet another tax for the responsible to pay and the irresponsible to avoid.

Last time I checked about 4 years ago the figures were estimated at a nearby shire that it was about 12% of dog owners register them.

[Steve]

Id like to take bets on how many people who own entire dogs in the Gold coast shire intend paying their $379 licence fees. I already know of 8 who have decided not to.

[GeckoTree]

You'd be lucky to get 25% of dogs regoed in my area. Mind you regos free if the dogs microchpped and desexed, I don't know if that has bumped up registrations or not. I doubt it.

[Sasha (Alexander)]

Id like to take bets on how many people who own entire dogs in the Gold coast shire intend paying their $379 licence fees. I already know of 8 who have decided not to.

wow that is heaps. No wonder no one would want to buy the license.

It's about $90 in Blacktown council.

[Staranais]

I'd be interested to know the % in Australia - in NZ it used to be estimated about 40% of dogs were unregistered, not sure if they've changed their thinking on that, & I don't think it'd be much different here.

I could believe that! It's bloody expensive too, between about $80 and $180 a year, & a responsible owner will get absolutely nothing for it.

[WreckitWhippet]

Id like to take bets on how many people who own entire dogs in the Gold coast shire intend paying their $379 licence fees. I already know of 8 who have decided not to.

wow that is heaps. No wonder no one would want to buy the license.

It's about $90 in Blacktown council.

$90 for what ?

[LizT]

So do they not have Council Pet registration in the UK as we do here? That's basically a "Pet Licence".

No they don't - as it says in the article, this was abolished because only about 50% of owners ever bothered to pay it.

I'd be interested to know the % in Australia - in NZ it used to be estimated about 40% of dogs were unregistered, not sure if they've changed their thinking on that, & I don't think it'd be much different here.

Yet another tax for the responsible to pay and the irresponsible to avoid.

Hmmm, well given the amount of people I personally know in just my neighbourhood with multiple Pet Only dogs and none registered. I would think the percentage rather high??