Dog Licensing ( Is It Time ? )

[GeckoTree]

They do an owner license in NZ, I think its only for reduction in rego fees? Don't know how well it works like if many problem dogs are about from owners doing the test etc but it's an incentive non the less.

http://www.animal-control.co.nz/education.htm

[WoofnHoof]

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?

I think it's a perfectly good analogy, there are a lot of similarities with driving a vehicle on the road and owning an animal, both can be dangerous, both require a basic knowledge of local laws etc. I would like to make it illegal to own a dog without having completed any training or assessment, people should not be allowed to own an animal unless they understand the basics of caring for them. I don't understand why the issue of ownership is important in the analogy, cars are inanimate if you own one without a license it's not hurting anyone, if you own an animal without any knowledge about it then you can hurt both the animal and others.

As for how many dogs I see no reason why the current regulations with respect to numbers would change, your license would state x amount of dogs according to local regs and if you want more you apply for a permit (or different class of license if that came about) same as you do now.

Whether it would work remains to be seen and of course requires a strong authority behind it but most people agree that education is the key, I just believe that only the minority tends to educate themselves, mass education only occurs under compulsion.

[WoofnHoof]

They do an owner license in NZ, I think its only for reduction in rego fees? Don't know how well it works like if many problem dogs are about from owners doing the test etc but it's an incentive non the less.

http://www.animal-control.co.nz/education.htm

Thanks for the link GT, NZ seem to be quite proactive in a lot of animal welfare aspects.

[WreckitWhippet]

NSW can't even police the chip and leash laws, so there's no point adding extra work to the rangers workloads.

It's not going to make a blind bit of difference to owner knowledge or dog welfare in my neighbourhood. The idiot across the road still won't shut his gate, two doors down aren't going to magically shut their dogs up after 7 years, the guy over the back isn't going to take his out of the yard and give them some exercise and the poor old dog next door isn't going to find himself a nice warm bed and the vet care he needs in old age.

I'm the sucker who chips , registers and does the right thing, so I'll be the neighbourhood sucker who applies for the licence and hands over the $$$$. Tell me what kind of education the ranger or anyone else is going to offer me ? I know more about the CAA than the ranger does, my dogs have never roamed and I'd suspect that my knowledge of animal husbandry is beyond that of anyone they'd send to educate me or sets the test to pass.

[klink]

I think that is is very pleasing to see such a vibrant discussion re the subject of "dog licensing " Every proposal has problems that need to be overcome and one of the most important is the policing of the current laws regarding the keeping and care of our dogs. However as we all know not every person that obtains a dog or any other pet for that matter really has a great lot of concern for any regulations that are placed upon us in relation to keeping of dogs and I feel that the fact that they are so easily obtainable with hardly no effort is in my opionion detrimental to the dog. Policing MUST be strong and enforced, maybe it needs to be taken out of local council hands and put under the control of a totally separate body ? ( not canine councils ) We have to address the continuing breeding by uninformed people such as Mr smith down the road who does' not know when his bitch is even in season, let alone her cycle etc. EDUCATION is a way to help . It is not only children that need to be taught adults need it too. Nobody wants' any of our personal rights taken away from us ,but maybe some adjustments wont' hurt anyone, and might just make a difference.

[WoofnHoof]

RSG the test wouldn't be designed to educate *you* it's designed to educate the people who don't know, thereby increasing the proportion of people in the community who *do* know the basics.

The thing is the current state of affairs will not continue, sooner or later they will start cracking down on leash laws and chipping but before they do that they will start cracking down on restricted breeds, that is what the public want and that is the current focus of the decision makers. It would be much better to direct that focus to a more effective community education strategy.

It may not change anything in your street but then again it might, there is plenty of evidence of changes in attitude following the completion of animal behaviour courses in livestock handlers results in better welfare outcomes. As the handlers learn about basic animal behaviour and cognition they begin to have more respect for the animal and treat it better. This has been verified in trials, I see no reason why this principle couldn't be applied to the wider community.

[WreckitWhippet]

It's not going to make any difference as I can bet they won't even bother to apply for a licence.

[WoofnHoof]

It's not going to make any difference as I can bet they won't even bother to apply for a licence.

Someone asked about policing it in the other thread, one idea I thought was that it could be like a meter reader job, someone goes around the houses checking off the ones with obvious signs of dogs, database is checked to see if the resident has a license. If they don't they get a letter in the mail 'please update your license or apply for one you have x amount of days/months to inform the office of your license number'. If they fail to comply they can have a show cause type of meeting with a person from whatever department is handling it, if they can provide a reasonable justification as to why they haven't done the course then that can be taken into consideration. Pretty similar to having a wildlife license I would think.

In the case of your neighbours you could then report them to the relevant authority, and they need to show cause as to why they have breached the terms of their license (ie adherence to CAA and local laws), if they don't have one they can be ordered to get one, if they don't comply their animals can be seized until such time as they comply, if they don't comply by a set time frame the animals can be rehomed. Anyone who has shown a breach of license terms can be immediately red flagged on a database so that they will come up in any further checks on that address. Obviously the policy makers etc who already set up these kinds of systems will have a better idea of how it should go but that is something I thought would be simple and effective in most cases.

ETA I also think this would be an effective way of checking for animal abusers, breeders could check if a potential puppy buyer has had their license revoked or suspended and they can check why before they decide to sell them a pup. Currently the only way to tell if a person has been in trouble with animals before is if they've had a conviction recorded (assuming you can access their records which you probably can't anyway).

Edited August 21, 2011 by WoofnHoof

[WreckitWhippet]

It's not going to make any difference as I can bet they won't even bother to apply for a licence.

Someone asked about policing it in the other thread, one idea I thought was that it could be like a meter reader job, someone goes around the houses checking off the ones with obvious signs of dogs, database is checked to see if the resident has a license. If they don't they get a letter in the mail 'please update your license or apply for one you have x amount of days/months to inform the office of your license number'. If they fail to comply they can have a show cause type of meeting with a person from whatever department is handling it, if they can provide a reasonable justification as to why they haven't done the course then that can be taken into consideration. Pretty similar to having a wildlife license I would think.

In the case of your neighbours you could then report them to the relevant authority, and they need to show cause as to why they have breached the terms of their license (ie adherence to CAA and local laws), if they don't have one they can be ordered to get one, if they don't comply their animals can be seized until such time as they comply, if they don't comply by a set time frame the animals can be rehomed. Anyone who has shown a breach of license terms can be immediately red flagged on a database so that they will come up in any further checks on that address. Obviously the policy makers etc who already set up these kinds of systems will have a better idea of how it should go but that is something I thought would be simple and effective in most cases.

and just what do you think councils are going to do with all of the dogs, from owners who fail to comply. People aren't worried now about their unchipped and unregistered dogs, they aren't going to care if council comes knocking about a licence. There won't be the manpower, there won't be the funding necessary and once again it will just be those who are honest and abide by the laws now, that will do the same later.

A licence isn't going to reduce dog attacks, it's just another piece of paper and some more red tape.

The guy down the corner, was told by council to shut his gate. That's gone on for nearly 7 years. The guy over the back knows he should walk his dogs, he was thinking about buying some harnesses 3 winters ago so he could do that, but they still sit in the yard 24/7. The people with the pitt bulls, that lived over the back, knew they shouldn't have PB's but they had them anyway. The neighbour with the barking dogs knows it's annoying and there have been complaints in the past and people who are calling for a licence think this is going to educate and solve the issues ?

ETA: the only one close to me that I'd call anywhere near responsible , has a little cross bred dog. She's now desexed and lives in the house but prior to that, she was used for BYBing to produce lovely designer dogs.

Edited August 21, 2011 by ReadySetGo

[Bjelkier]

All I can see happening is people who don't bother getting a lisence getting dog after dog after dog as the last one is taken away from them. I mean, what is going to stop them?

And that in turn is going to fill the pounds even more.

They can still buy a dog from a pet store, from a BYB, from a puppy farm and saying that the breeder needs to see the lisence before selling the dog wont do s***. The places these people would get a dog from are already dodgy so what do they care?

Sorry but I don't agree with the idea at all.

[WoofnHoof]

Obviously continuous breaches should be prosecuted, they can't keep buying dogs if they are in jail or paying large fines. It's no good setting up a system without serious penalties. People who drive without a license often get behind the wheel again but they'll only do it a few times before they end up in jail.

RSG just sounds like the council isn't interested in prosecuting any of those people for repeated breaches. When someone's dog kills a child in that area I'm sure they'll become a bit more interested in prosecution. However it would be better if there were a concerted push for effective education before that happened. I'd rather our tax dollars be spent on a mandatory education system than wait until another child dies, after which our tax dollars will be spent on hunting down and killing the type of dog that happened to be involved.

[tarope]

They do an owner license in NZ, I think its only for reduction in rego fees? Don't know how well it works like if many problem dogs are about from owners doing the test etc but it's an incentive non the less.

http://www.animal-control.co.nz/education.htm

No you are not correct as it is a printing mistake, please replace the word "Dog" with "Sheep" where ever applicable. :D

[mumtoshelley]

All I can say is to stop irresponable people owning dogs is to take away pet shops,byb and people giving away puppies. Also I wish people would learn about the breeds they want etc, But what I hate most is people that get animals and keep them locked up in the backyard 24/7. Europe I think is the state that I think is great they can take there dogs almost everywhere, There dogs are well socialized no attacks really happening there, Also no poo laying around everywhere either. We could really learn alot from that state.

[Steve]

All I can say is to stop irresponable people owning dogs is to take away pet shops,byb and people giving away puppies. Also I wish people would learn about the breeds they want etc, But what I hate most is people that get animals and keep them locked up in the backyard 24/7. Europe I think is the state that I think is great they can take there dogs almost everywhere, There dogs are well socialized no attacks really happening there, Also no poo laying around everywhere either. We could really learn alot from that state.

Look this is part of the huge problems associated with any form of dog ownership legislation. I have a friend who owns two little dogs,I dont have much idea of what breed or part thereof they are and they are 100% like their kids. They don't take em for walks they dont leave their back yard but they are the happiest, little dogs ever .my dogs dont leave their back yard but their back yard is 3 acres which is specifically designed to keep em busy and safe.

You cant make laws and have expectations on people based on what you have , your lifestyle or what some idiot doesnt do. There are people who visit this forum who didnt buy their dogs in a pet shop or from a BYB or form someone giving them away and they know the laws and what to answer to get a licence and pass their entrance exam and they choose not to do what they are supposed to do.They argue and cannot ever see they are inthe wrong , that they make us all look bad and they cause people to scream for more laws against us all.

Little old ladies who own a little dog and spoil it rotten dont need to be licensed and have rules and laws in place more suited to a mountain lion.

Bloody hell having to do compulsory education to own a dog? Seriously can anyone really imagine it ever flying?

[WoofnHoof]

Bloody hell having to do compulsory education to own a dog? Seriously can anyone really imagine it ever flying?

I have little doubt that the same thoughts were aired when driver's licenses were first introduced. I remember seeing a 'flashback' from the news when penalties were first introduced for not wearing a seatbelt, it was all very radical and there were many who scoffed at the idea but guess what the majority of us are now compliant and less likely to spread ourselves over the bitumen in the event of an accident.

No doubt the animal handlers who have participated in training courses thought they wouldn't learn anything and it would be a waste of time, turns out it wasn't and it is a concept being implemented in cattle and pig handling facilities with benefits being seen in welfare, safety and production.

[mumtoshelley]

I own a chihuahua and a female golden retriever and we have 3/4 acre so have plenty of room so does this mean I shouldn't walk my dogs. The way I see it people who keep there dogs in the yard 24/7 there dogs are the ones that are aggressive. Even if you have a large yard I still think its a good idea to take them out and about,that way they get socialized with people and other dogs. Not only that they get use to alot of noises and movements which all this builds up confidence and lack of fear aggression.

[WoofnHoof]

I own a chihuahua and a female golden retriever and we have 3/4 acre so have plenty of room so does this mean I shouldn't walk my dogs. The way I see it people who keep there dogs in the yard 24/7 there dogs are the ones that are aggressive. Even if you have a large yard I still think its a good idea to take them out and about,that way they get socialized with people and other dogs. Not only that they get use to alot of noises and movements which all this builds up confidence and lack of fear aggression.

That's the thing mandatory education doesn't mean you have to walk your dog x amount of times a week, it just means that you have to learn why exercise and socialisation are important. Not everyone knows that exercise and socialisation or lack thereof can play a part in many problem behaviours, just as not everyone realises that tinned dog food is comprised of an awful lot of water. If we can get this kind of information more widespread we can go a long way to addressing many of the problems we see. Sure you'll always get people who are non compliant but the more educated the community is as a whole the more socially unacceptable non compliance becomes.

[sandgrubber]

I'm among the skeptical.

But I'd guess there is some useful action that could be taken

1) understanding what rangers do and what pressures they face

2) supporting them in doing a better job enforcing existing laws

The brunt of any dog legislation is going to fall on local officials. Nothing will be done well if those people lack the resources, or the education, to carry out the needed work.

[raz]

Obviously continuous breaches should be prosecuted, they can't keep buying dogs if they are in jail or paying large fines.

So you think it's a good idea for someone repeatedly found without a dog licence to go to gaol? Which one - a purpose built prison complex for unlicensed dog owners or just shove them in any prison not already full to capacity, like what used to happen to people with overdue parking fines until one got his head bashed in and his brain left all over the floor at Long Bay. and what's going to happen to the already choked court system when all of your hypothetical breaches jam it even further? It would take the average person years to get a matter before the Local Court (who is going to pay months worth of impound fees while waiting for a court date - the tax payer because the dog owner wont be able to), or should we have a purpose built bad dog owner court as well? The Court of Canine Sessions?

Edited August 21, 2011 by raz

[WoofnHoof]

Obviously continuous breaches should be prosecuted, they can't keep buying dogs if they are in jail or paying large fines.

So you think it's a good idea for someone repeatedly found without a dog licence to go to gaol? Which one - a purpose built prison complex for unlicensed dog owners or just shove them in any prison not already full to capacity, like what used to happen to people with overdue parking fines until one got his head bashed in and his brain left all over the floor at Long Bay. and what's going to happen to the already choked court system when all of your hypothetical breaches jam it even further? It would take the average person years to get a matter before the Local Court (who is going to pay months worth of impound fees while waiting for a court date - the tax payer because the dog owner wont be able to), or should we have a purpose built bad dog owner court as well? The Court of Canine Sessions?

Yes people who cannot follow basic requirements should go to jail, that's what happens to people who repeatedly drive without a license. Maybe once a few end up in the slammer people might begin to take their animal care responsibilities seriously!

You talk about all these problems with prosecuting people and yet complain that existing laws aren't enforced? If existing laws were enforced you'd get the same result (ie repeat offenders paying fines or in jail) so what's the problem?

The way I see it if something like this were set up it would be the perfect avenue for animal welfare and management issues to be handled by a government agency, as they should have been from day one, as government is the only agency equipped to administer it.