shel Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 IMAGINE having to get a licence to keep a dog, much like we do to drive a car.That’s the law which veterinary surgeon and adviser to Dogs NSW Peter Higgins wants the State Government to adopt. His call followed the release of a government dog attack report in which Blacktown Local Government Area recorded 100 reported attacks in three months. Rest of article: http://mt-druitt-standard.whereilive.com.a...te-dog-licence/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 I fully support the idea of owner licensing - targets the right end of the lead and ends the idea that anyone should have the right to own one. Don't agree that 6 weeks training is sufficient for any dog but that's a whole 'nuther issue. Sure beats none at all though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shel Posted November 3, 2010 Author Share Posted November 3, 2010 It definitely sounds like a good idea. And targeting owners who are doing the wrong thing on purpose, or supporting those who are doing the wrong thing through ignorance is vital to improving dog ownership outcomes. It just isn't feasible in all reality. Car licencing, training and enforcement cost BILLIONS each year. A pet ownership licence couldn't provide anything close to that, so as to make the two systems incomparable. And for what outcome? To protect people from pets? Australia has a canine population of about 4 million and over 40% of homes have a dog. However, fatalities are rare (less than one a year nationally) and just 1,400 people have injuries that are serious enough to send them to hospital. I say ‘just’ because the number of people hospitalised each year from 'tripping over' – 18,970. While 1,439 people are hospitalised from ‘trampoline’ related incidents. (ref) What it DOES do is give authorities much more power to take short cuts (which they will, given the lack of funding truly available to animal control); dog breed profiling, owner profiling, the ability for authorities to deem some owners as unworthy of pet ownership... based not on their behaviour, or any problems they may be experiencing, but a set of undetermined arbitrary rules set by a government agency under advice by national animal welfare groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tapferhund Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 What it DOES do is give authorities much more power to take short cuts (which they will, given the lack of funding truly available to animal control); dog breed profiling, owner profiling, the ability for authorities to deem some owners as unworthy of pet ownership... based not on their behaviour, or any problems they may be experiencing, but a set of undetermined arbitrary rules set by a government agency under advice by national animal welfare groups. This is what worries me . IMO Councils will abuse their powers by saying 'no' to everybody within their municipalities. It will end up that no one will be allowed to have a dog ..ridding dogs from all areas. So be careful in what you support. In theory licencing sounds great but in reality it would sign the death warrant in dog ownership for us all . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 I am now offering fortune telling at a very reasonable $$. Contact me to find out if your future is dogless 5 years from now! Yea more NANNY STATE laws! Is there a law and guideline on how to wipe your arse yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Once again the responsible will pay and get one, the others will go on their merry way and naturally the registered breeders will have no choice, as the CC's know where we live and pretty soon the RSPCA will too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 I am now offering fortune telling at a very reasonable $$. Contact me to find out if your future is dogless 5 years from now! Yea more NANNY STATE laws! Is there a law and guideline on how to wipe your arse yet? It's coming...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 So no to any more laws. Enforce the ones we have. Bloody hell the reason they give now for not enforcing whats there is that they dont have the money or the man power. If they did a house check of who has a dog what kind of dog it is and tell them what they need to do to ensure its safe and people are safe from it then thats prevention and the bloody fines they would pick up would fund it all. World wide its a known fact that licencing doesnt work and this would enable them to be sure the need for fencing and all the rest are in place regardless of what breed it is. What on earth is Peter Higgins on about? ANKC and Dogs NSW stood against licences for breeders and push for microchipping to do the job but now they are asking for them for pet owners ????? - Arent they capable of seeing the consequences - Its just gets worse and worse every bloody day. So no to more laws, say no to more laws, say no to more laws, say no to more laws, say no to more laws ,say no to more laws. Say no to more laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 I am now offering fortune telling at a very reasonable $$. Contact me to find out if your future is dogless 5 years from now! Yea more NANNY STATE laws! Is there a law and guideline on how to wipe your arse yet? perfect response. Just more bloody paperwork & $'s to pay out uselessly. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 What on earth is Peter Higgins on about? ANKC and Dogs NSW stood against licences for breeders and push for microchipping to do the job but now they are asking for them for pet owners ????? - Arent they capable of seeing the consequences - Its just gets worse and worse every bloody day. It is so beyond belief. Maybe they changed who they are representing but for got to tell the membership? What is the economic status of Blacktown? Is it really the only way to help the folks in Blacktown get control of their dogs to license all pet owners in the whole state? If the government was held accountable like a business they would never be allowed to take off in this sort of wild direction of massive costs without a hint of evidence this will improve things in Blacktown, never mind the rest of the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 What on earth is Peter Higgins on about? ANKC and Dogs NSW stood against licences for breeders and push for microchipping to do the job but now they are asking for them for pet owners ????? - Arent they capable of seeing the consequences - Its just gets worse and worse every bloody day. And what the hell is it going to do to stop dog attack stats anyway, apart from what was pointed out earlier in the thread, they'll just say no to anyone wanting a licence. Mind boggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 What on earth is Peter Higgins on about? ANKC and Dogs NSW stood against licences for breeders and push for microchipping to do the job but now they are asking for them for pet owners ????? - Arent they capable of seeing the consequences - Its just gets worse and worse every bloody day. It is so beyond belief. Maybe they changed who they are representing but for got to tell the membership? What is the economic status of Blacktown? Is it really the only way to help the folks in Blacktown get control of their dogs to license all pet owners in the whole state? If the government was held accountable like a business they would never be allowed to take off in this sort of wild direction of massive costs without a hint of evidence this will improve things in Blacktown, never mind the rest of the state. Im a Blacktown girl and all of my family still live there. All they have to do is walk up and down the streets and call in to see if the dog barking at them as they approach the back yard is microchipped and registered - if not fine them.In fact they should already know that because they have been keeping a data base of chipped and dogs registered with council for ever. In one street they will collect enough in fines to pay their wages for a week .the type of people they are trying to pull into line wont get a licence and even if they do how is anyone going to know whether they have one dog or ten, one small white fluffy or a man eater? Idiots. Is that all of the states canine associations gone to hell? licences, registrations, memberships - thats looking after their members alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosmum Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 (edited) SAY NO TO MORE LAWS!! Do we acknowledge a partership with with animals in our future,or don't we? Do we have such a a god complex we think we can reject our history of interdependence? Is this going to help us to understand and live in the natural world? To manage it better than we have been doing? Do we reject the contribution made to our own advancement and development by other species?? can humanity afford to "Go it alone"? Is this a desirable out come for a species that hopes to one day comunicate with alien species? Sh*t,we are fast losing any ability to communicate with the ones we live amoung now!! If domestic animals are to have any part in the future of humanity,It should be recognised that laws targeting the ingorant will lead to greater isolation from domestic animals....Creating more ignorance. SAY NO TO MORE LAWS!! In the interests of a future that allows for a human/animal interdependence, education for all starting in our schools is essential. No more legislation.How 'bout some education? There are programs starting in our our schools,give this a chance before we drive animal ownership/partership underground. We have laws to ensure animal welfare and responsible ownership.Education will aid in their enforcement. Edited November 3, 2010 by moosmum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whippets Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Licencing System? You have got to be freakin kidding me. Why don't these dumb asses look at ways to enforce CURRENT laws instead of coming up with these pearlers. The bottom line is people who do the right thing will continue to do so and end up paying more $$$ as a result. The ones who do the wrong thing will continue to do so and flip the bird at any new law that comes along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Danni Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Peter Higgins should pull his head out of his derriere. What a disgrace our CC's are. :nahnah: Spend oodles of money hounding board members over some personal vendetta and then suggest this crap I think that it's about time that a member's revolt happened, chop off all their heads and start again with people that can see the wood AND the trees! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 The dog registration system in my council area, specifically says that registration is dependent on owners doing certain basic things. Wouldn't hurt to add only a couple of more well- considered 'basics'. Could readily be a Clayton's licence system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parkeyre Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 NO!! Don't support ANY more laws!! It will be the end of dog ownership before we know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 NO!! Don't support ANY more laws!!It will be the end of dog ownership before we know it. Yep When we agree to license our dogs we agree to give over our ownership right to the licensing agency, which can at any time revoke our use rights. We grant them absolute control over our animals. They can come onto our real property, and remove our transitory property (dogs) without due process of law. The places which require licensing can refuse to issue further licenses, and revoke the privilege of dog ownership. Mandatory dog licensing is the initial step in removing dogs from our ownership and or stopping us from doing certain activities with our dogs. A license is a temporary revocable permit that allows the licensee to have something or to do something that would be illegal to have, or to do without the license. It makes dog ownership illegal. It turns over all ownership, and use rights to the licensing agency which can at any time, inspect, confiscate, suspend, revoke, or halt issuance of the license. It’s a way of taking away your property without compensation and the same goes for the "permits " being introduced all over the place for people to be able to keep entire dogs. Say no to more laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shel Posted November 6, 2010 Author Share Posted November 6, 2010 Wow. I'd never thought about it like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 (edited) Wow. I'd never thought about it like that. For someone like Peter Higgins to be calling for this it just astounds me. Obviously its been said in response to BSL and dog attacks but think it through. At best with this in mind you see people who own the targeted breeds or who own dogs which look like the targeted breeds villified and made to look like crimminals not for what they do or dont do with their dogs or even for what their dogs do or dont do but so the public wont get upset about them just taking out the dogs. The owners become victims of hate crimes just as people who breed dogs have become and its initiated by people calling for more and more regulation and governments gone mad and not giving a hoot about our rights as property owners. Communities sit back and feel all warm and snuggly as they take out the dogs and bump them off under the belief that they will actually stop at just a few breeds ! If a government came out tomorrow and said - thats it no more dog ownership we're coming to get them and they are no longer able to live with you there would be a riot and every dog lover would kick and scream at the notion.It would straight away be seen to be an attack on our property and basic rights. But take away the breeds because they are killers and others because they are suffering because of their breed standards and the bad breeders who have in bred them and society says O.K. Its about governments criminalising ownership and breeding of dogs by breed and chuck in a bit of hate for people who breed more than a litter a year of any breed - worse if its a cross breed and we're on a roll. Say no to more laws. Edited November 6, 2010 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now