Reply to: From a proper news source (mumsnet)- what would you ban?

[WTFH]

If you take an unchipped dog to the vet, are the legally obligated to check and to report it/you if there's not one?

If you find a stray dog and take it to a vet, they will scan for the chip(s) and if one is found they will try to contact the owner. If none is found, they will contact the local dog warden, which may result in the dog being put down.

[vetran]

The chip could replace the dog license, in the same way that cars no longer display tax discs

yeah because that worked so well

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c...sion-f0rpbxf8p

I agree the chip could be on a register which is indexed by the chip with suitable scanner being carried by police. Seems a £50 device that could be used in parks.

If the PC can't find a chip then off to the vet.

But a card with a barcode and picture of the dog could be read by a phone which all Police have. Any suspicions call an expert with an RFID reader.

[d000hg]

If you take an unchipped dog to the vet, are the legally obligated to check and to report it/you if there's not one?

Given that the same rule doesn't apply to cats, it rather sounds like chipping IS fulfilling a similar purpose to the old license, to help keep track of owners as much as the animals?

[WTFH]

Gibbon mentioned PETA but I suspect the RSPCA would be delighted to assist, they have a long history of prosecuting abuse.

The presence of a dog license allows Police etc to check the owner is not banned, the animal is chipped and is like a 7 day wonder.

The chip could replace the dog license, in the same way that cars no longer display tax discs

[vetran]

Gibbon mentioned PETA but I suspect the RSPCA would be delighted to assist, they have a long history of prosecuting abuse.

The presence of a dog license allows Police etc to check the owner is not banned, the animal is chipped and is like a 7 day wonder.

[d000hg]

Each dog used to have an individual license - multiple dogs, multiple licenses.

Can't be arsed to check if anyone else has posted this link to a research paper from the House of Commons Library...

Give us the cliff-notes

[WTFH]

Each dog used to have an individual license - multiple dogs, multiple licenses.

Each OWNER had to have a license for each dog. The license linked a specific owner to a specific dog. If the dog was sold or given away, the new owner had to get a new license.

d00hg, one license per owner per dog. It’s a 1:1 relationship. 2 dogs, 2 licenses for one owner.
Owner sells one dog, that license is no longer valid and the new owner has to have their own license for that dog.

[Zigenare]

Not quite.
The license was not “for the dog”, it didn’t stay with the dog if the dog was sold or given away. Each owner had to have a license. The license linked the owner to the dog, so it wasn’t just “for the dog, not the owner”

Each dog used to have an individual license - multiple dogs, multiple licenses.

Can't be arsed to check if anyone else has posted this link to a research paper from the House of Commons Library...

[d000hg]

Not quite.
The license was not “for the dog”, it didn’t stay with the dog if the dog was sold or given away. Each owner had to have a license. The license linked the owner to the dog, so it wasn’t just “for the dog, not the owner”

They tried a license for the dog itself, but they were awful at doing the paperwork... whenever anyone came round to chec they were told "sorry the dog ate the form".

But seriously, was the license for the owner and a specific dog or a license to own dogs - did you need to amend it each time you got a new dog?

[WTFH]

The license was for the dog, not the owner.

Not quite.
The license was not “for the dog”, it didn’t stay with the dog if the dog was sold or given away. Each owner had to have a license. The license linked the owner to the dog, so it wasn’t just “for the dog, not the owner”

[Zigenare]

So again I ask, what does the data show about how removing the license changed the number of deaths and serious injuries, and the number of dogs who had to be put down for that matter?

I remember a ruckus in the news when I was quite young about rottweilers and a couple of other types of dogs being banned/unbanned but not sure when that was.

The people who are really likely to have properly nasty dogs will probably do so without a license, in the same way a lot of RTAs are caused by unlicensed drivers in untaxed/uninsured vehicles? Certainly round here I know a lot of people who aren't going to stop having dogs if they required a license, many would simply get dogs without bothering to get a license out of laziness.
And presumably for anyone else, getting a license is not going to be very onerous so will it stop deaths?

How would having a license stop a dog from attacking someone? The license was for the dog, not the owner.

[Gibbon]

So again I ask, what does the data show about how removing the license changed the number of deaths and serious injuries, and the number of dogs who had to be put down for that matter?

I remember a ruckus in the news when I was quite young about rottweilers and a couple of other types of dogs being banned/unbanned but not sure when that was.

The people who are really likely to have properly nasty dogs will probably do so without a license, in the same way a lot of RTAs are caused by unlicensed drivers in untaxed/uninsured vehicles? Certainly round here I know a lot of people who aren't going to stop having dogs if they required a license, many would simply get dogs without bothering to get a license out of laziness.
And presumably for anyone else, getting a license is not going to be very onerous so will it stop deaths?

Around the late eighties with the pit bulls making an appearance, I'd just got a brindle Boxer which was mistaken by some.


Let PETA police who has a licence, that'll keep two lots of nutters happy.

[d000hg]

the licence part may have more worth keeping nutters away from animals.

So again I ask, what does the data show about how removing the license changed the number of deaths and serious injuries, and the number of dogs who had to be put down for that matter?

I remember a ruckus in the news when I was quite young about rottweilers and a couple of other types of dogs being banned/unbanned but not sure when that was.

The people who are really likely to have properly nasty dogs will probably do so without a license, in the same way a lot of RTAs are caused by unlicensed drivers in untaxed/uninsured vehicles? Certainly round here I know a lot of people who aren't going to stop having dogs if they required a license, many would simply get dogs without bothering to get a license out of laziness.
And presumably for anyone else, getting a license is not going to be very onerous so will it stop deaths?

[NotAllThere]

I'd ban activists and group hugs.

[vetran]

So 9 deaths annually without licenses. How many was it when there were licenses?
You get a license, get a dog, it kills someone, you lose your license.

the licence part may have more worth keeping nutters away from animals.