Jump to content

Dog tags?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

By any chance is there a general election near?

Is the Government short of money?

Is this a popular topic for concern for the public?

Would this agenda push Labour up the poll popularity stakes?

 

I am not sure about implementing a dog license but having insurance could be a solution? The law abiding dog owners, would no doubt, go to the expense of having a insurance policy, but can not see the criminal type going to that expense?

 

As for having dogs muzzled, is a good idea, but only in public spaces, especially the dogs that seem fashionable by thugs that like to intimidate the public with. (pit bull terrier and the Japanese tosa or similar looking ones)

 

Either way, not sure about the cost to local government and would be difficult to enforce/finance and I?m sure the police have better things to do (and would rather chase after people who go 2 mph over the speed limit) than chase after dog owners who have no dog licence or insurance policy?

:roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think it's a move towards having less dogs on the street, and having less irresponsible owners. You know the type I mean, buy a cute cuddly pup, then get bored with it six months later. I for one wouldn't consider having a dog without insurance cover.

Equal rights for dogs and humans on medical grounds would make a good campaign. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't see your average pitbull owning chav buying dog insurance....most of them don't bother getting it for their cars.

 

Exactly Paul and just what I was about to say.

 

Pit bulls are a banned breed Paul so no one owns them now.... :wink:

 

Although I agree that something needs to be done about dangerous dogs and also irresponsible owners/breeders etc what I've read so far about the new so called 'laws' only leads me to believe that it has not been thought through properly and the people that it is aimed at will find a way round it in one way or another and yet again it is only the law abiding and responsible dog owners who will comply.

 

My dog is already chipped and insured and as ours is a mongrel insurance is cheap.

 

Having just checked my dog insurance I was suprised to realise that I am actually already covered for upto ?2million Third Party Public Liability if my dog kills or injures someone or damages their property and I am found legally responsible (unless the claimant is a member of my family/household or someone looking after her). :?

 

........... but any responsible owner who has a pedigree dog could be facing in excess of ?70 a month for similar insurance depending on breed.

 

Guess we may see a lot of well adjusted family pedigree dogs up for rehoming at the dogs home soon if the plans go ahead... :cry::?

 

Tricky one and I don't know what the solution is... but I don't think this is it :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an after thought.......

 

Doesn't being forced into having insurance mean that you are actually protected against all liability and fault if your dog does attack someone..... apart form having to pay an excess fee of course. :?

 

Maybe the low life idiots will all just start owning/breeding mongrels for cheap insuarance and 'training' them them to be agressive as a new type of 'status symobol'.

 

Any dog can be dangerous in the wrong hands :evil::shock:

 

Notice the Conservatives are quite rightly asking questions about the new Labour proposals and saying that something needs to be done 'but not this' blah blah... but what the conservatives haven't actualy added is what proposals THEY actually suggest instead. :roll:

 

There's definately an election looming :roll::lol:

 

Anyway after all the press hype today and usual scaremongering tactics having just had a quick look it seems that the governments consultation process has only started this week so maybe at the end of it they may have some better ideas about how to manage and implement the changes needed. I guess that at least they are now looking into the problem but again probably only as there is an election looming :wink:

 

Perhaps any proposals and decision should be made by a collaboration of people like Vets, The Kennel Club, RSPCA etc , dog trainers, Police and maybe other dog owners rather than politicains. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem we've got. is a Gov that has brought in life style legislation by the ton - more laws than any previous Gov ever. BUT, the legislation tends to reflect the trivial dogmas of the champagne luvvies, usually has more holes than a cullender, fails to think through consequentional social reaction, and is normally impossible to enforce - through lack of resources or priority by the enforcement agencies. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an after thought.......

 

Maybe the low life idiots will all just start owning/breeding mongrels for cheap insuarance and 'training' them them to be agressive as a new type of 'status symobol'.

 

Dismayed, it would not surprise me, there will be some one out there will deliberately take there dog to a public place to see it attack some innocent member of the public.

 

I too have a antique porcelain dog, that is chipped too! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to work out, how chipping a dog solves the problem of it attacking anyone. :?

 

This could be a money raising effort to reduce the national debt? mind you it will take alot of dogs to licence, how about using the same rules for cat, gerbals and other animals kept in the home?

 

I think that all this news about dangerous dogs etc, is a diversion tactic by the Government, what are they trying to stop you from knowing, what are they hiding? :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to work out, how chipping a dog solves the problem of it attacking anyone. :?

 

It wont Peter but what it would (or should) do is place the responsibility on the registered dog owner should the dog be found wandering around or even worse if it attacks someone or another dog etc.... which like you say is a bit late then :evil:

 

It is also supposed to stop the scumbags denying all responsibility by saying the dog is nothing to do with them... of course the same people could always provided a false name/address for the microchip record :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key to responsible dog ownership is proper training: we can't expect some moronic chav, bent on using a dog as a weapon to comply with any such legislation - so if legislation doesn't include thorough enforcement and deterent penalties, it will be a complete waste of time. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key to responsible dog ownership is proper training: we can't expect some moronic chav, bent on using a dog as a weapon to comply with any such legislation - so if legislation doesn't include thorough enforcement and deterent penalties, it will be a complete waste of time. :roll:

 

I blame Fagin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we'll get is a flood of little old ladies who can't afford insurance having to give up their pets. Then we'll get a flood of ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers and a flood of liars claiming compensation. Every dog owner will get stung for money and the minority of lunatics responsible for weapon dogs will ignore the whole thing and carry on breaking the law. We may even have a few delightful specimens who deliberately get theri child or granny chewed up in order to claim....

 

We already know this idea will not work, because car insurance is already compulsory and there are registers and penalties and enforcement officers and it does not stop the lunatic fringe driving without insurance.

 

So let's just put 10% of the money we'd waste trying to set up this stupid legislation into a fund and use it to compensate those few cases where money helps to fix the damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good idea on paper, but like car insurance the idiots will avoid it.It would only work with a dedicated dog warden service stopping people in the street and confiscating any dog without a license.That would cxause as many problems as it may solve.Legislation is already in place to deal with dangerous dogs and even that doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...