First and foremost is the licensing procedure, itself. Who writes the
test and, subsequently, who decides if answers are correct or incorrect?
In a practical test, how can someone demonstrate he or she is competent
enough to properly raise a dog, without first having a dog long enough
to train it well enough to pass a test? Wouldn’t someone need a dog
first, and then get the license?

I always use myself as an example when considering the prospect of
licensing dog owners. As an experienced dog trainer and responsible dog
ownership advocate and educator, I spend a great deal of resources
debunking myths about dogs. (Many myths actually exacerbate common
problems, rather than solve them.) Some of those common myths might
find their way into a licensing exam, thereby causing an incorrect
answer for someone like me. Wouldn’t that be silly? If there’s a
stronger supporter for the highest levels of responsible dog ownership,
I haven’t met him/her.

The only way I can see making it fair and impartial, is limiting any
tests of knowledge to aspects of the law, just as we do for licensing
drivers. I.E. What are the dog owners’ legal responsibilities under the
law, and what are the penalties?

If administrators or those who merely repeat things they’ve heard or
read (or worse, those who are not particularly responsible dog owners,
themselves) develop the licensing procedure, some of the very best dog
owners might find themselves at odds with the test.

For instance, when an opening arose for a police officer to handle all
the dog complaints in a region, several dog enthusiasts from the police
force volunteered. Sadly, based on some minimal guidelines of
responsible dog ownership, not one was knowledgeable enough or credible
enough to head such a division. Some of the applicants kept their dogs
tethered or kennelled as their primary means of confinement. Others
felt physical punishment was an acceptable form of training. Some owned
dogs they admitted were dangerous. These are not the actions of
responsible dog owners.

I believe anyone writing the standard for responsible dog ownership must
be held to that standard, at the very least.

Still, we license drivers and accidents continue to happen, and people
still operate vehicles without a license.

Does licensing drivers ensure they’re knowlegdgeable, courteous, or even
safe? Does a license ever discourage people from behaving negligently?
Probably not.

It’s against the law to speed, yet how many people obey that law?
(Me…and maybe a handful of others, it seems.) There are adequate laws
in most regions to deal with those who behave negligently with their
dogs. They simply aren’t being enforced stringently enough. While that
tends to have more to do with limited municipal resources, licensing,
and the additional costs of administering and enforcing licenses, likely
wouldn’t improve the situation.

Everyone wants the easy fix; the ability to just look at a dog and
decide, based on its appearance, that it’s dangerous or not; to look at
a person and, based on his/her appearance, decide whether or not he/she
is a terrorist. But equity and ethics get in the way of these
superficial forms of profiling. We should be held accountable for what
we do, not what someone else thinks we might do.

I envision that, for the most part, the only people getting licensed
would be those who are already trying to be as responsible in the care
of their dogs as possible. I expect there will be many who won’t be
licensed, and only found out once their poorly-reared dogs misbehave.

On that note, I would like to point out there are successful dog control
strategies. While it doesn’t specifically address incidents of cruelty,
the city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada’s dog bite prevention strategy
reduced dog bites by 70%, while making the animal control department
financially self-sufficient. They accomplished this through a combined
effort of public education; strict by-law enforcement (Calgary boasts a
90% dog licensing rate), especially against habitually negligent dog
owners; ample access to off-leash parks for proper socialization and
exercise; and they pay for it all with revenue from licensing, increased
fines, and the increased enforcement that leads to more fines.

The idea of keeping dogs out of the hands of dangerously ignorant or
malevolent people is what most of us want. While I welcome the idea of
licensing the owners, I see serious pitfalls in the implementation of
such measures, and strong doubts it would achieve its intended goals.