Dog Licensing ( Is It Time ? )

[PRADA68]

Given that the majority of these dogs in the wrong hands are from the lower socio economic groups etc, I would like to see the govennment ban anyone who lives in council and/or govt housing not allowed to have a dog or particular breeds of dogs. I will probably get flamed for this, but you don't see these issues in Mosman, Toorak etc - if anyone in those suburbs had these dogs, I bet they are reasonably trained, responsible owners etc. Whenever I see these things in the media, the backgrounds from where these dogs come from and the people that own them, you really have to wonder if they are capable of owning a dog.

Your kidding right I grew up in public housing and awaiting on a public housing unit to not be able to take my small dog would devastate me. Your a snob dogs running free happens anywhere, cruelty happens in all levels of living conditons and suburbs, owning a bull breed happens in all suburbs. Get the real facts before jumping to conclusions this could have happened anywhere.

Edited August 21, 2011 by PRADA68

[WoofnHoof]

No I don't think this is a good idea. We already live in a Nanny State and we don't need any more rules and regulations.

Pam

Yeah but don't you think that it's a problem that at the moment you can buy an animal without knowing anything about them? Without knowing anything about their nutrition or exercise requirements or even their obligations under the law? I think that's a really signficant problem which not only contributes to things like dog attacks but to significant animal welfare issues as well. I know people who know nothing about worming, parvo etc until their dog gets sick, if the dog doesn't get sick they remain in blissful ignorance. They don't learn until they have to learn, and sometimes it's too late.

You can say exactly the same things about people becoming parents! IMO the most important decision any person can make. Maybe if we start back there then a lot of our problems as a society would go away.

The fact is we as dog owners/breeders are over legislated now and those laws already in place are not policed. Adding more laws to make the pollies, law makers and emotional public feel good will do jack shit.

Lol not even going there on the human breeding issue

However the current system of laws assumes that people know the law and yet there is no compulsion for them to learn it. There are little to no education programs which provide a basic concise guidelines for responsible pet ownership and there are no incentives for people to do them even if they did exist.

A licensing system provides the dual purpose of educating people so they know the rules as well as an identification and tracking system for owners.

[Steve]

No more laws, no more laws, no more laws, no more laws, no more laws.

[WoofnHoof]

No more laws, no more laws, no more laws, no more laws, no more laws.

So you don't have a problem with continuing the status quo where anyone can buy an animal without any kind of requirement to know or learn anything about the species they are becoming responsible for?

You need a license to keep certain native animals as pets I see no reason something similar couldn't be implemented for domestic animals, this site details the regulations and requirements for keeping wildlife, I see no reason a simlar system couldn't be implemented for domestic animal owners. (And before anyone gets nit picky I'm referring to the general concept not the specifics!)

Everyone knows you need a license to keep certain exotic and wildlife species so why should it be different for domestic animals? The regulations are there to provide guidance, education and to protect owners, the public and the animals.

[raz]

A lot of owners dont obey the current Companion Animals Act so what makes you think they'll suddenly become law abiding citizens if new regulations are brought in? I suppose we're all going to find out after the meeting tomorrow anyway.

[Steve]

No more laws, no more laws, no more laws, no more laws, no more laws.

So you don't have a problem with continuing the status quo where anyone can buy an animal without any kind of requirement to know or learn anything about the species they are becoming responsible for?

You need a license to keep certain native animals as pets I see no reason something similar couldn't be implemented for domestic animals, this site details the regulations and requirements for keeping wildlife, I see no reason a simlar system couldn't be implemented for domestic animal owners. (And before anyone gets nit picky I'm referring to the general concept not the specifics!)

Everyone knows you need a license to keep certain exotic and wildlife species so why should it be different for domestic animals? The regulations are there to provide guidance, education and to protect owners, the public and the animals.

Thats right. Current laws are scoff laws and any new ones will be also . Dogs are supposed to be registered , in NSW dogs have supposed to be chipped before they leave the breeders yard for over a decade and still thousands turn up in pounds not chipped, still breeders dont chip puppies. Dogs are supposed to be walked on leads, and even people who visit this forum who know better think they are able to make their own laws because their dogs are special and well trained blah blah blah.

Big deal new laws on the gold coast for breeders - have to put a licence number in an ad to sell puppies - open up a local paper and its easy to see few are doing so. When the council are asked why they arent policing the new laws - they havent got the money, man power blah blah blah.

Laws in NSW say no electric fences near dogs but how many NSW people on this forum still have electric fences. I explained to a puppy buyer last week about how electric fences near dogs in NSW is illegal and got a call 4 days later the dog was killed because it got caught in an electric fence.

When was the last time a council ranger walked the streets to check regos and chips and to ensure fences were adequate etc - never. Not enough money and it looses votes . What on earth makes you think introducing a licence will make any difference ?

Hello - people tell lies to get what they want - people agree to anything you make compulsory to be able to get it and then it goes out the window or they ignore it and carry on as usual - More scoff laws which take away people's rights and make life hard because a handful of idiots do the wrong thing - people think they are special or their dogs are special and therefore they dont need to follow laws. Get inthe car and go for a drive around the block any block and see how many are walking their special dogs because they are special trainers without a lead.

The ONLY system that will work is to develop opt in groups which are rewarded for doing the right thing which generate education and interest in their own community and where the current laws are policed to punish those who are not doing the right thing before their dogs bite someone or terrorise the neighbourhood.

There are many potential answers but this one is the worst and as eveidenced in other places where a licence system has been in existence it doesnt work anyway.

[WoofnHoof]

Steve of course it takes money and resources to enforce but it's far better to push for something that educates people than it is to roll over and wait for people to just not be allowed to have animals at all because they can't be trusted to do the right thing. Enforced education is still education at the end of the day.

But I suppose that's the difference between you and me you see animal ownership as a right I see it as a privilege.

Raz the reason people don't abide by the companion animal act is because there is no obligation for them to even read it, people for the most part know the road rules because they have to if they want to get a license and pass the test.

[Steve]

Steve of course it takes money and resources to enforce but it's far better to push for something that educates people than it is to roll over and wait for people to just not be allowed to have animals at all because they can't be trusted to do the right thing. Enforced education is still education at the end of the day.

But I suppose that's the difference between you and me you see animal ownership as a right I see it as a privilege.

Raz the reason people don't abide by the companion animal act is because there is no obligation for them to even read it, people for the most part know the road rules because they have to if they want to get a license and pass the test.

No I dont agree - I also see animal ownership as a privilege - however I am not prepared to forego people's basic rights because there are some idiots around - and if there is no money and no resources to police current laws then why would we anticipate any differences with any other laws ?

There isnt any point in comparing drivers licences with dog owners licences and ignorance has never been a defence in any situation anyway.

[WoofnHoof]

Steve of course it takes money and resources to enforce but it's far better to push for something that educates people than it is to roll over and wait for people to just not be allowed to have animals at all because they can't be trusted to do the right thing. Enforced education is still education at the end of the day.

But I suppose that's the difference between you and me you see animal ownership as a right I see it as a privilege.

Raz the reason people don't abide by the companion animal act is because there is no obligation for them to even read it, people for the most part know the road rules because they have to if they want to get a license and pass the test.

No I dont agree - I also see animal ownership as a privilege - however I am not prepared to forego people's basic rights because there are some idiots around - and if there is no money and no resources to police current laws then why would we anticipate any differences with any other laws ?

There isnt any point in comparing drivers licences with dog owners licences and ignorance has never been a defence in any situation anyway.

What basic rights would you be forgoing under a licensing system that you don't already forgo under any other system anyway? If it were structured in a similar way to the wildlife license all you have to do is put your address, provide a reference or two (depending on the species) and provide a certificate of completion for safe handling etc in the case of snakes. Sounds pretty similar to getting a driver's license if you ask me.

I'm not talking about ignorance as a defence I'm talking about ignorance as the prevailing state at the moment among animal owners where there is no obligation to change. People only learn what they have to learn. At the moment there are no obligations for anyone to have to learn anything at all when they get an animal, this IMO is a huge part of the myriad of problems associated with domestic animal ownership from welfare to effective containment.

Of course resources for enforcement are needed and that will come, but first and foremost I think we need a mandatory education system in place to minimise the occurance of problems in the first instance and provide a simple framework for the general public to follow. At the moment if they are even motivated to learn (rare) they need to wallow through legislation that is not designed for reading by lay people. Far better for this information to be dissemated in the form of workbooks, handbooks etc, and integrated together so that welfare laws, management laws, containment laws etc are all there together in a concise simple to understand format, similar to that of the learner driver's handbook.

[Purdie]

.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Purdie

[Steve]

Steve of course it takes money and resources to enforce but it's far better to push for something that educates people than it is to roll over and wait for people to just not be allowed to have animals at all because they can't be trusted to do the right thing. Enforced education is still education at the end of the day.

But I suppose that's the difference between you and me you see animal ownership as a right I see it as a privilege.

Raz the reason people don't abide by the companion animal act is because there is no obligation for them to even read it, people for the most part know the road rules because they have to if they want to get a license and pass the test.

No I dont agree - I also see animal ownership as a privilege - however I am not prepared to forego people's basic rights because there are some idiots around - and if there is no money and no resources to police current laws then why would we anticipate any differences with any other laws ?

There isnt any point in comparing drivers licences with dog owners licences and ignorance has never been a defence in any situation anyway.

What basic rights would you be forgoing under a licensing system that you don't already forgo under any other system anyway? If it were structured in a similar way to the wildlife license all you have to do is put your address, provide a reference or two (depending on the species) and provide a certificate of completion for safe handling etc in the case of snakes. Sounds pretty similar to getting a driver's license if you ask me.

I'm not talking about ignorance as a defence I'm talking about ignorance as the prevailing state at the moment among animal owners where there is no obligation to change. People only learn what they have to learn. At the moment there are no obligations for anyone to have to learn anything at all when they get an animal, this IMO is a huge part of the myriad of problems associated with domestic animal ownership from welfare to effective containment.

Of course resources for enforcement are needed and that will come, but first and foremost I think we need a mandatory education system in place to minimise the occurance of problems in the first instance and provide a simple framework for the general public to follow. At the moment if they are even motivated to learn (rare) they need to wallow through legislation that is not designed for reading by lay people. Far better for this information to be dissemated in the form of workbooks, handbooks etc, and integrated together so that welfare laws, management laws, containment laws etc are all there together in a concise simple to understand format, similar to that of the learner driver's handbook.

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.

[raz]

Raz the reason people don't abide by the companion animal act is because there is no obligation for them to even read it, people for the most part know the road rules because they have to if they want to get a license and pass the test.

Even if they had to read it when buying Fluffy or Adolf, I dont think it would make a scrap of difference, Woof. If someone wants a dog, they'll get one regardless. The dog that killed the little girl last week wasnt registered. Why? We dont know if the owner just wasnt aware that his dog had to be or if he didnt get him registered because he simply didnt feel like abiding by restricted dog registration. How many times do we see people come on this forum and say - well I know dogs arent allowed on certain beaches but stuff that - I'll take him to that beach anyway. Just this morning I saw several dogs offleash in the local oval and the kiddy playground that have big signs up prohibiting dogs. Now I know these people can read a sign but they just dont care and think they're above the law.

I think your idea is a good one but simply unenforceable. I was talking to an ACO this morning - they're understaffed and underpaid for the hours they put in so who is going to enforce even more legislation. Same old shit - some people will do the right thing and those who dont, wont, regardless of how many laws are brought in

[Purdie]

.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Purdie

[WoofnHoof]

The more attacks that happen the more laws that will come in and the more enforcement will happen regardless of whether we want it or not, they certainly found the manpower and resourcecs to seize and destroy pitbulls in Queensland a few years ago so don't think of it as a matter of if but when.

That is why I think a mandatory education system must be put in place, yeah people will try to flout the laws but the more people who are educated the better it will become and community attitudes will change in order to assist with that enforcement.

Steve there are already laws which exist which have the power to seize animals so the rights you speak of are tenuous anyway. A licensing system offers a more concrete guideline for the rights you have within those guidelines. Everyone has the right to get a driver's license, their ability to keep that license depends on their ability and willingness to continue to exercise their rights within the law, the grounds for taking away a license are very clear and on the whole extremely fair. There is no reason a similar principle couldn't be applied in this situation.

You may disagree with the issue of licensing on those grounds but my focus is on the mandatory education aspect, which can be easily verified with the use of a licensing system, the system can be as broad or as narrow as you want it to be but I would rather that true animal people be involved in setting up such a system. Because if we wait until have it imposed on us by others, which will happen sooner or later, by then we will have no power to say anything about rights or otherwise.

[raz]

Steve there are already laws which exist which have the power to seize animals so the rights you speak of are tenuous anyway. A licensing system offers a more concrete guideline for the rights you have within those guidelines. Everyone has the right to get a driver's license, their ability to keep that license depends on their ability and willingness to continue to exercise their rights within the law, the grounds for taking away a license are very clear and on the whole extremely fair. There is no reason a similar principle couldn't be applied in this situation.

No it isnt. Steve is right on the money. The ACO I spoke to today said your idea is just council registration with a different name. As for a drivers license - it doesnt automatically make people a better driver. Filling in a dodgey RTA test to get a learner's permit does not stop road rage, speeding, drunk drivers, disregard for seatbelts etc.

[Steve]

If you want to beat a drum about education Ill back you all the way but I will not back in any new laws which affect dog ownership.

There are many many ways councils and interests groups could educate people without it needing to be mandatory. When ever if ever they have a go at doing that and it doesnt make a difference Ill listen but until then if some of the resources spent on the campaigns run by the RSPCA needs to go that way instead of where it goes now.

[WoofnHoof]

Steve there are already laws which exist which have the power to seize animals so the rights you speak of are tenuous anyway. A licensing system offers a more concrete guideline for the rights you have within those guidelines. Everyone has the right to get a driver's license, their ability to keep that license depends on their ability and willingness to continue to exercise their rights within the law, the grounds for taking away a license are very clear and on the whole extremely fair. There is no reason a similar principle couldn't be applied in this situation.

No it isnt. Steve is right on the money. The ACO I spoke to today said your idea is just council registration with a different name. As for a drivers license - it doesnt automatically make people a better driver. Filling in a dodgey RTA test to get a learner's permit does not stop road rage, speeding, drunk drivers, disregard for seatbelts etc.

Doesn't stop it but it certainly limits it, look at the huge numbers of people on the roads who get it right compared to the huge numbers of dog owners who can't contain their dogs or dump them in a pound because they lack the basic understanding of animal care and responsibility?

The licensing system I'm talking about is nothing like council registration, all that involves is paying for a dog tag, I'm talking about licensing of owners as part of a mandatory education system. You don't have to know anything about animal care and management to register the animal with council.

[WoofnHoof]

If you want to beat a drum about education Ill back you all the way but I will not back in any new laws which affect dog ownership.

There are many many ways councils and interests groups could educate people without it needing to be mandatory. When ever if ever they have a go at doing that and it doesnt make a difference Ill listen but until then if some of the resources spent on the campaigns run by the RSPCA needs to go that way instead of where it goes now.

If education isn't mandatory it won't be widely taken up, it has to be mandatory in order to be effective at a community level. Think of all the people who think that driving is easy they wouldn't learn the road rules or take the test if they didn't have to.

[raz]

The licensing system I'm talking about is nothing like council registration, all that involves is paying for a dog tag, I'm talking about licensing of owners as part of a mandatory education system. You don't have to know anything about animal care and management to register the animal with council.

I know what you're talking about - I just cant see it working. Joe Blow who wants a dog will get one regardless. You see it on this forum all the time - I called a registered breeder and she gave me the third degree to make sure she was selling a puppy to a responsible owner and I got the shits and bought one from a byber selling in the local pub instead, or Joe Blow comes on here and says the laws restricting dogs are ridiculous so I'll go out of my way to flaunt the law simply because I dont like it.

You cant tell me that people who buy a dog are so bloody dumb that they dont know that they have to register their dog, pick up shit, stop their dogs barking non stop and not be in restricted areas where there is a big bloody sign on it to say dogs are prohibited - and in a pretty clear picture...not even in text. People who go out of their way to give the bird to a law they dont like will do so regardless of any new legislation

eta and if we had so many people behind the wheel getting it right we wouldnt have to listen to so many whingers complaining that speeding fines are just revenue collecting

Edited August 21, 2011 by raz

[Steve]

Steve there are already laws which exist which have the power to seize animals so the rights you speak of are tenuous anyway. A licensing system offers a more concrete guideline for the rights you have within those guidelines. Everyone has the right to get a driver's license, their ability to keep that license depends on their ability and willingness to continue to exercise their rights within the law, the grounds for taking away a license are very clear and on the whole extremely fair. There is no reason a similar principle couldn't be applied in this situation.

No it isnt. Steve is right on the money. The ACO I spoke to today said your idea is just council registration with a different name. As for a drivers license - it doesnt automatically make people a better driver. Filling in a dodgey RTA test to get a learner's permit does not stop road rage, speeding, drunk drivers, disregard for seatbelts etc.

Doesn't stop it but it certainly limits it, look at the huge numbers of people on the roads who get it right compared to the huge numbers of dog owners who can't contain their dogs or dump them in a pound because they lack the basic understanding of animal care and responsibility?

The licensing system I'm talking about is nothing like council registration, all that involves is paying for a dog tag, I'm talking about licensing of owners as part of a mandatory education system. You don't have to know anything about animal care and management to register the animal with council.

You cannnot compare driving and dog ownership.

I can own a car but I am not able to drive it without a licence - owning a car is not illegal. You want to make it so that it is illegal to own a dog without a licence - cant you see the difference? Then what do we give someone an approval to own a dog or two dogs or 10 dogs etc and how do we know how many are stacked up in their bedrooms etc?