Murphy Jnr Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 ...and more dogs will be owned illegally having neither tax or dog licence, meanwhile a rise in stray dogs will be observed as people cannot afford the licence. Of course the only people affected will be the responsible owners the druggies and gangs won't care. bloomin stupid plan:hihi: It's called pandering which is why the dangerous dogs Act came about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Most people doing illegla things won't care about breaking another licenceing law will they... What we need in addition to chipping, is compulsary insurance. This would mean that everyone would not face a £200 license, but low rish pensioners might be ok with paying £50 for their pouch insurance, and a alsation/staffie for a younger person might cost much more. A dog can be just as dangerous as a car, extra training would bring down the cost of the insurance. This is why I dont class myself as a Liberal !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bypassblade Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 I welcome the micro chipping of dogs, but live in hope that this is a preliminary step to re introducing the dog licence. Once they have you on record as owning an animal it would be quite easy to obtain a licence fee off you. The old system was unworkable as owners couldn't be traced. Maybe the introduction of a £200 yearly dog licence, with a fine of £500 for not having one could fund a workforce going round removing the blue bags full of dog sh*t hanging from the trees in our parks and woodland ... ughhh!!! Oh yes micro chipping in dogs is a great idea, ours has one implanted, £200 for a licence, how do you justify that please, when they were 7s 6d when abolished. I agree it's filthy that owners don't pick up their dogs mess, but more do than don't, what about all those who just lob litter on the floor. We also pay over £200.00 a year in insurance for him so you want us to have a licence also, will you bring 2 in one for black & white dogs, and one for colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 We also pay over £200.00 a year in insurance for him so you want us to have a licence also, will you bring 2 in one for black & white dogs, and one for colour. I dont mean pet health insurance, I mean liability insurance. So if your pooch is likely to bite someone, your insurance may double. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bypassblade Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 I dont mean pet health insurance, I mean liability insurance. So if your pooch is likely to bite someone, your insurance may double. There's more chance of our dog licking you to death, I wasn't getting at your post anyway fella I know what you mean. The vicious dogs that are kept should not be allowed, and you'd think by now they'd have totally outlawed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 What we need in addition to chipping, is compulsary insurance. This would mean that everyone would not face a £200 license, but low rish pensioners might be ok with paying £50 for their pouch insurance, and a alsation/staffie for a younger person might cost much more. A dog can be just as dangerous as a car, extra training would bring down the cost of the insurance. This is why I dont class myself as a Liberal !! I disagree - it'll only hurt those that obey the law and wont target those causing the problem. What would be better is that if you have a dog chipped, at whatever the cost is (last time my cat was done it was £25 I think, can't see a dog will differ much).. you get the dog chipped and if it strays then you get it housed by the council for free for a couple of days whilst you collect it. If it's not chipped, then after a week the dog is shot. Like a car being crushed for no insurance. The only problem is it's rather unfair on the dog :-( So you need a method of persuading people that's not going to be adversely reflected on the dog. Suggestions welcome... ---------- Post added 15-04-2013 at 18:42 ---------- I dont mean pet health insurance, I mean liability insurance. So if your pooch is likely to bite someone, your insurance may double. I've got that cover on my house insurance, as long as the dog isnt bred for aggression (which includes Jack russels used for ratting etc... as well as ex guard dog alsatians) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 I disagree - it'll only hurt those that obey the law and wont target those causing the problem. The insurance will cost more, if they are not trained and if they are a breed that has caused injuries before. So it will target those "causing the problem". ---------- Post added 15-04-2013 at 18:45 ---------- I've got that cover on my house insurance, as long as the dog isnt bred for aggression (which includes Jack russels used for ratting etc... as well as ex guard dog alsatians) That is you sorted then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarissa Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 I dont mean pet health insurance, I mean liability insurance. So if your pooch is likely to bite someone, your insurance may double. Many pet insurance plans now include third party liability cover. We have 3 dogs and all are microchipped and insured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 The insurance will cost more, if they are not trained and if they are a breed that has caused injuries before. So it will target those "causing the problem". But it won't. These are people who don't care if the dog is dangerous and aggressive. They won't therefore care if they don't have insurance. You won't prove it's their dog because they wont microchip it because they don't care what the law says. That's the problem. You cannot legislate and expect lawbreakers to follow the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 I'd pay a fair price for a licence if the proceeds went towards paying for neutering and spaying/sanitation/education on responsible ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.