klink Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I am putting this out there for your comments. Please think this subject through before you comment. In light of all the discussion not just recently but ever increasingly over the past few years regarding everything from puppy farming, dog control, dog health problems, banned breeds ,and probably another thousand arguements regarding canines is it about time the state governments implemented compulsory dog licensing?. Now before you all get up in arms,let me just suggest my ideas. 1. 14 day cooling off period prior to puppy puchase. Object. to stop impulse buying of puppies from pet shops/ markets etc. 2. mandatory council ranger inspection of proposed home of future puppy e.g. containment issues/ safety for both dog and owner. prior to license issue. 3.A very nominal licence fee which by law must go back into the dog world e.g. education, health, research,rescue etc. 4. Compulsory State register of all dogs in that state ( not easy but could be done ) 5. A compulsory requirement to de-sex all dogs not being used for breeding by registered breeders. 6. limiting the number of litters by those breeders on a annual basis. Whilst some of you may think these comments are way off, just look past the comments and focus on the intent of the ideas'. To help to protect us all from all the anti dog lobby who rightly or wrongly see dogs generally as an unwanted and an annoyance to their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Nope because put simply, local government cannot enforce the most basic laws that we already have. When councils can get people to comply with chipping, rego, leash laws and owners picking up their dog shit, then come and talk to me about a dog licence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonecutter Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 6. limiting the number of litters by those breeders on a annual basis. There has just been a huge discussion on this matter here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purdie Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 (edited) . Edited September 17, 2011 by Purdie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PL_ Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 (edited) The commitment needs to come from govt first. Instead of putting in road blocks to pet ownership: more education and support so that people make the right choice of dog to start with. More funding for responsible pet ownership issues like chipping days, well publicised and promoted subsidised desexing for those who seek it, free regular puppy classes, funding for school based pet programs.... I have a whole wish list. But licensing to own a dog: technically there is already a system in place which as RSG has pointed out, relies on people complying. Limiting registered breeders unfairly penalises those who are the most obvious by simple fact that they are traceable and accountable to a regulatory body already. There would be zero impact on BYB or oodle farms. Edited August 19, 2011 by Powerlegs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilly Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 (edited) No ... because there is already laws and regulations in place and currently they are not following up or enforcing the existing rules. No point bringing in new regulations/laws as it is always the people who do the right thing that will follow them and they are already doing the right thing. I have always thought a person should be made to apply for a license and pass an exam before having a child or a pet ... Edited August 19, 2011 by Tilly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dxenion Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 1. 14 day cooling off period prior to puppy puchase. Object. to stop impulse buying of puppies from pet shops/ markets etc. Perhaps you could submit an Intention to Purchase form to local council which will set off a chain of checks, including Dog Owner Licence, property inspection and offence history. Similar process to that required for the purchase of a firearm. No matter what the size of the dog, it's temperament or it's training, they all have 42 teeth and can bite. 2. mandatory council ranger inspection of proposed home of future puppy e.g. containment issues/ safety for both dog and owner. prior to license issue. Yes, together with something that proves you do actually live at the nominated address (perhaps 2 forms of ID that list your address). 3.A very nominal licence fee which by law must go back into the dog world e.g. education, health, research,rescue etc. Yes - I think that both the dog and owner need to be licenced. 4. Compulsory State register of all dogs in that state ( not easy but could be done ) AKA NSW statewide register. 5. A compulsory requirement to de-sex all dogs not being used for breeding by registered breeders. Not sure about this as not all show dogs will be used for breeding but do need to be entire to show. Perhaps dogs can only be entire if registered with the ANKC. This raises further questions as there is at least one other club which has it's own registration system that is not recognised by the ANKC. Would dogs registered with these sorts of organisations be allowed to be entire as they do participate in their own non-ANKC shows? 6. limiting the number of litters by those breeders on a annual basis. No comment on this - not a breeder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gayle. Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Two of my dogs are entire and staying that way. I am not a breeder and have no intention of breeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiesha09 Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Great in theory but who enforces all these laws and controls? Councils are already under resourced and cannot even enforce the current dog laws so not sure how they would enforce a whole new set. I completely understand and agree with your reasoning behind the idea and think it would be fanastic. But unfortunately I just don't think it is realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakway Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I am already govened by Dogs Queensland why would you want more. We already have laws that govern these things, again why would you want more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 No. We're already regulated enough and that isnt even enforced. All something like this does is get the honest people to sign up - the dishonest continue on the way they already are...dishonestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 (edited) The driver's licensing system doesn't work and this has millions of dollars spent on it every year, what on earth would it cost the honest dog owner if state or federal government tried to enforce a system of dog owner licensing? ETA: If there was a nationwide "amnesty" type situation where you could apply for a dog owner license for LIFE for say $150 or some such figure. The license would give you the right to own any number of dogs you chose without having to pay an annual registration fee (perhaps a one-off life time rego fee per dog of $30-$50???) - then I would sign up in a flash. THEN let authorities go after those who didn't comply, at no additional cost to those who have complied. How about that idea? Irreponsible dog owners are the responsibility of the whole community, why do responsible dog owners carry the cost of enforcing local dog laws (pounds, rangers etc) when it's not the ones paying the rego fees that (for the most part!) cause the problem Edited August 19, 2011 by Sandra777 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogsfevr Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 There are plenty who post on DOL about rules not applying to them regarding leash laws & control & sneaking into rooms/shops & the likes so why would any other rule be followed. Many dog owners are there worst enemy,we wouldn't need any rules if people used common sense & simple respect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarope Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 No, we have enough laws as it is. We already have compulsory microchipping and registration, Irresponsible owners don't do either so you think they are going to buy a license for their unregistered dogs. It's always the owners who do the right thing that suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanquin Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 No we have enough laws as it is do we really want more? Thy council has enough on it's plate as it and I'm sorry but this my view I would hate for someone to come to my property to inspect it just to see if it was suitable for a dog. What they need to do is focus on enforcing the laws they all ready have. It cost alot to own a dog and if a licensing policy came along I would expect tha cost to double if not triple for yearly registration. Also I don't think desexing should be made law all they dogs I have ever had have not been desexed no problem with temperament, and they have never gotten any bitch preggers because we made sure they didn't get to any no problem. I think we should focus on teach kids from a young age how to act around animals and how to treat them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulesP Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Laws don't stop people from being morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teandell Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Unfortunately laws only seem to work for the law abiding citizens. Limited resources for policing laws means the unlawful have no real restraints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRADA68 Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 NO absolutely not responsible dog owners are drowning in laws with regards to dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I think we need a licensing system, it need only be a basic one. The current system is flawed as currently there is no requirement to know anything about dogs or the existing laws pertaining to them in order to own one. That needs to change. Sandra777 I disagree that the current driver's license system doesn't work, it's not there to produce expert drivers it's there to ensure that most people getting behind the wheel know the basics of handling a vehicle and driving within the laws, which they generally do when you take into account the sheer volume of vehicles on roads. Of course without enforcement it means nothing but don't worry enforcement will come make no mistake about that, that is why the dog community needs to have a say in what exactly that enforcement will entail. I don't know whether I agree with home checks as I've noticed that many rescues etc require a 6 foot fence which I don't have even though I have no trouble keeping my dogs in. I think the desexing and breeding issues should also be left out of the equation at the moment, they could be a part of the study material in terms of education but should have no specific rules attached to them. I also think that a basic animal care and management course should be a part of the school cirriculum, it would be easy to implement in the primary school system where kids do a range of compulsory subjects before specialising in high school. Education will be the key factor in all these but the education should be compulsory before obtaining an animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarracully Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 5. A compulsory requirement to de-sex all dogs not being used for breeding by registered breeders. I have a bit of a problem with this particular point. With whom should the breeder be registered? If the intent is to registered with the local city council, what happens to those that live in unincorporated areas where there are no actual councils. If the intent is canine councils, you would be surprised how many members of the public are not even aware of the existence of state councils. Also if you desex all dogs not used for breeding by registered breeders what happens with registers of developing breeds. Having had a particular breed of dog from before breed recognition I can see an issue. Some state councils will not allow full rego of a breed if it is not a recognised breed. If you are involved with developing a breed to recognition how are you going to acheive the required number of generations if you have to desex the breeds foundation stock. An example, before our breed was recognised I wanted to compete in obedience trials with one of my dogs. Now the NSWCC required the dog be on limited register. Fair enough. But to put the dog on limited register required proof of desexing. So by wanting to use my dog in trials would mean removing him from the gene pool of a developing breed. Thus by following this process there won't be any opportunity to develop and obtain breed recognition for new breeds. NSW already has laws in place which are structured to encourage the desexing of non-breeding dogs through cheaper lifetime rego of the dogs. However this has had only limited success. In addition NSW law requires a percentage of dog registrations to be used by councils to provide education services and facilities. Some councils are providing the facilities (although not in our area) but I will bet you can count on the fingers of one hand how many councils are providing education on dog ownership. Furthermore if you legislate that a dog owned by a person, not a member of a particular organisation, must be desexed there is the potential for a discrimination case. The best that can be done is provide some form of encouragement to desex. Victoria also already has laws in place which if adhered to would have avoided the most recent situation. However the laws were either not followed or not enforced and as such have been rendered useless. Now if current laws can not be enforced then a thousand new laws are not going to be enforced either. 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