Ruff justice?
The iPM Listeners' Opinion Poll competition has gone to the dogs, partly. We've a number of entries about the control of canines.
"Should we consider the re-introduction of the Dog Licence?"
"Should dogs in a public space be muzzled?"
We've also heard from another listener who has been hounded (sorry) from her local park by an unruly dog and its irresponsible owner. She took the case to the police, but they failed to follow up on any leads (I'll stop).
The government is currently looking at how existing dog laws are being used, and hopes to encourage police and local authorities to tackle the issue with greater vigour. Northern Ireland has retained the dog licence.
Do you know something about dogs behaving badly? Share what you know in an email or leave a comment on our blog.
Email us
Our Twitter
Join our Facebook group
Listen to iPM
Technorati
Google
Ice Rocket
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~19~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Derry City Council in Northern Ireland has dog licensing. £5 per year and a discount if you have more than 3 dogs. I have never seen a dog warden or any implementation of existing by-laws - such as fouling, dogs off leash in the streets etc. We do have poo bins - lots of them. People are happy to pick their noses in public and scratch their privates, but they find picking up dog poo disgusting. My personal view is that education of owners will solve most dog problems. The people I meet walking dogs off lead know their dogs and know when and where trouble could start. I trust them, they trust me. Happy days, as we say here.
Complain about this comment
The question should be asked:
What is the cost to local authorities and ultImately the tax-payer in providing dog wardens, providing dog litter bins, Daily collection of the dog litter. Administration in the running of these services and handling the increasing daily dog fouling and stray dog complaints.
WHAT IS THIS COST TO THE TAX PAYER
Complain about this comment
Should dogs be licensed? Certainly, as an ex dog owner myself I have long felt that some form of legal protection should be in place to ensure the welfare of dogs and to control the behaviour of dog owners. I, for example, know of a family who, over a period of eight years have had nine dogs, obtained as pups they have been replaced more or less annually by new pups and, totally untrained, left outside for long periods in a narrow concrete run which is cleaned less than monthly.
In my opinion a proper strategy for dog ownership should be produced, perhaps by the RSPCA, and considered for introduction as law. My own suggestion would be for an annual licence fee of sufficient cost to deter casual ownership of dogs, say, £150 per annum, waived or reduced in mitigating circumstances such as guide dog ownership. To obtain the licence a prospective owner should be required to sit a test to prove their knowledge and abilities are sufficient for responsible dog ownership. The licence should be registered and controlled similarly to a vehicle licence. Sellers and Breeders of dogs should be required to microchip the dog and sell only to persons in possession of a licence. This, of course, will never happen but perhaps, just perhaps, some of my suggestion will reach the right ears?
Complain about this comment
I like dogs, but I admit they are a nuisance in towns and housing estates: fouling on pavements; fouling on grassed play areas; off-lead roaming. There are few areas in towns and cities where owners can take their dogs for exercise without a lead. Fouling in parks is just as obnoxious as it is when you find it on your front lawn.
What would a licensing system achieve? Raise a little revenue - but presumably much of that, if not all, would be off set by the cost of administering the system. Does a licensing system make owners more responsible? Does a licensing system eliminate, or even reduce, any of the problems I've listed? Unlikely.
Reluctantly, I believe the only solution is to ban dogs from being owned by addresses in built-up areas. This would be harsh on existing dog owners, so there would need to be a notice period. So I suggest the Government passes legislation now, with plenty of publicity, banning dogs from built up areas with effect from January 2020, eleven years time. That gives plenty of time for the vast majority of dogs to live out their natural lives or plenty of time for committed dog owners to move house.
In summary, legislate now to ban dogs from built up areas from 2020.
Complain about this comment
Radio 4 has left me feeling distressed
as I learn Pig Headed Home Secretary Smith is pressing ahead wasting my tax money on identity cards. Which cannot be verified until long after she is no
longer responsible for the fiasco.That the idea to use local shops means more money on supplying the equipment to
thousands of outlooks and paying the
staff ,rather than the orginal idea
Now is the time not to waste money.
on mantra
I am further distressed
by the news the American use of
air power has killed many innocent
woman and children with indiscriminate Bombing as the Army lacks the courage to fight mano to mano.That this will
never win hearts or minds and is of
greater benefit to the Taliban. As I
visualise the pain of their deaths ,
and the distress of relatives I feel so
sad. This morning was not a good time
to wake up to radio 4 news
Complain about this comment
I am a dog person, they are my friends and family, I have two. I act responsibly as do the majority of dog people, so we are talking about the minority who don't. The problem is these people, not the dogs (they are mostly chavs who like to pose with a tough looking dog thinking that it in some way makes them look less rat-like, they're wrong).
The previous dog license was abandoned due to it being merely a means of taxing people, had no regulations attached and was largely ignored.
I have for some time thought it should be reintroduced. But with some restrictions:
1. Control of dog breeders by licensing, and make it a legal requirement that they must keep books of sales including identity and address of buyers.
2. Microchipping of all dogs.
3. A vet's home visit before a license is issued to ascertain that the home is suitable, and the potential dog owner knows how to care for a dog, and their responsibilities to the dog and the public. This should include questioning by the vet, registration with the vet and dog insurance.
4. Scrapping of the dangerous dogs act which vilifies certain breeds, while doing nothing about their human owners. No breed is dangerous per se, the dogs are ill treated and made aggressive through abuse.
5. Closure of all puppy farms which are responsible for much animal suffering, bad breeding and lack of care.
6. Education on a dog's needs, training, diet and respect for the animal.
The issue of dog faeces is vastly exaggerated by the anti dog lobby, which is small but vociferous. I see few instances yet there are many dogs in my neighbourhood [many of whom I know]. There has never been a case of blindness caused by dog excrement in the UK, yet this is trotted out repeatedly as an excuse for increasing restrictions on dogs and where they can go; humans must clear it up, you can't blame the dog, they have no way of using a toilet.
As for Richard_SM's suggestion to 'ban dogs from being owned by addresses in built-up areas', This is such a ludicrous suggestion bordering on the fascistic that no one in their right mind would countenance it, since most people live in built up areas this would include almost all dogs, and he claims to like dogs!
Dogs taught man to hunt, and assisted in homo sapiens survival. They have been living with us since we first came out of the trees, they give so much yet ask for little in return except love and food. They are loyal, courageous and fun. We need to hunt down the lowlife who organise dog fights and lock them up, not kill the victims of their cruelty.
Recently, two dogs were fighting [how many times do we hear of men fighting?]. A man tried to interfere, was accidentally bitten and fell over, hitting his head on the ground, from which he later died. This was an accident, I have been bitten myself in similar circumstances, but I didn't blame the dogs. These two, we were reassured, were put down. Why? Humans can torture and kill children and society locks them up, dogs have a fight and society murders them. Some people want to kill a dog for just one bite no matter what the provocation. Their teeth are all they have for self defence.
So, yes to a license if it helps stop unsuitable humans from ill treating dogs, but not if it's to be used to further pick on dogs and make the lives of responsible owners difficult, enlist tinpot nazis at council tax payer's expense to wander the streets picking on dog owners, or in any way diminish the enormous good dogs bring to human lives. £50 should be the limit, which would cover the home visit and microchip.
Complain about this comment
Dogs have less control over where they do their ablutions than humans, but in my experience they are not totally helpless.
My mum has a yellow lab called Bessie, and when she needs to do a number 2 when on-lead, she will instinctively pull onto a verge or the edge of the path. It's a simple matter to pick up the deposits in a doggy bag (a surviving store starting with 'W' sells totally opaque, thick maroon coloured ones, which are ideal if the 'standard' semi-transparent thin black ones don't appeal), and while there aren't many doggy bins on the estate, there are plenty of conventional bins which accept dog waste (probably originally installed to try and combat the daily problem of secondary school pupils who find it impossible to carry human food waste more than 100 yards!)
Given that a dog will usually stop and kneel before releasing its payload, I'd find "I didn't know it was" a very feeble excuse, and I grate whenever I see a trail of deposits on the pavement, as it gives the impression the owner was dragging the dog along without caring to look behind them to see why their dog was reluctant to move.
It's similarly simple to pick up deposits from playing fields if you're watching where your dog is going (Mum's local one is bordered by a stream, so if Bessie isn't watched carefully, she'll return happy but with a very wet and black 'makeover'...then proceed to dry herself on your legs...). In fact, it's probably easier to wait until the dog has 'performed' before letting them off lead. That way, they'll also quickly learn the association and 'perform' quite quickly.
Perhaps, rather than reintroducing the license, the police / courts / RSPCA could be given more powers to clamp down on irresponsible owners - in mild cases compelling them to attend obedience classes (and obtain some form of proof), in more extreme cases make it easier to rehome dogs - preferably before their behaviour reaches such extreme levels that they go totally berserk and commit a capital offence. And finally, in cases where the owner has allowed the dog's behaviour to deteriote to the extent where it commits a capital offence, the owner should receive a stiff penalty as well.
There is existing legislation to deal with irresponsible owners, but from the tales I've heard, the police don't seem to regard it as worth their effort investigating.
Complain about this comment
Our local park allows dogs to run off the lead and sadly this means that even those self proclaimed "responsible owners" often lose sight of their dogs and have no idea where they are or what they are up to. You cannot clean up after your dog if you have not seen what it has done. You cannot stop it knocking over a toddler or getting into a fight with another dog if you cannot see where it is. And dogs can't read the signs on the designated "dog free" areas. It is fine to let dogs run free on Hampstead Heath (maybe) but how can it be acceptable to have gangs of ten or twenty dogs roaming around an urban park while their owners stand and chat oblivious to what their pets are doing? There are so many dogs in our park I have more or less given up going there with my children. And please could dog owners stop telling me and my children that their dogs are "friendly" and "won't hurt" them. How can they be so sure? And anyway, it is surely not unreasonable to be afraid of an animal whose head is higher up than yours and full of sharp teeth. Leads, tagging and enforcement are the answer. Or move to the country if your large dog really needs that much exercise off the lead.
Complain about this comment
I think that is morally questionable to charge a licence fee merely for possessing a dog or anything else, unless the fee is in payment for a service provided for the licence-holder's benefit. I am, however, in favour of charging each dog owner a caution fee, to be returnable when he or she no longer owns a dog. A proportion of the returnable fee could be forfeited every time that an offence (e.g. fouling a pavement) is recorded by a dog warden, using smart-card technology. If the balance falls below zero, a top-up fee would be payable. The forfeited sums could enable recovery of the full cost of the scheme.
Complain about this comment
Don't you think it's about time that smoking in public is banned? I know that it's banned indoors and am grateful for that, but as I walk down every street I am constantly breathing in acrid smoke; dodging lit cigarettes held out by smokers' sides; faced by disgusting fag ends on every pavement and as a result pay more for litter clearance. I think that if people wish to smoke, special booths should be strategically placed for this purpose, paid for and cleaned by cigarette companies. Could we have some clean air please?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS