This article is from the K9 Magazine archives, subscribe to our newsletter & get our best dog news, tips and articles ---->In what appears to be a battle of the ‘my idea is better than your idea’, The Dogs Trust have hit out at the RSPCA’s call for the reintroduction of a national dog licence for English dog owners. The charity has issued a statement claiming, without a hint of irony, that the take up for the licence in Northern Ireland is poor and so the ‘better’ approach would be compulsory microchipping. The charity doesn’t explain (as it hasn’t to date) how or why it believes that their compulsory microchipping idea would be taken up by the dog owners who they claim would not take up other compulsory measures but they do go on to mention that you can pay the Dogs Trust £10 to get a microchip for your dog.The Dog Trust’s response reads as follows:
Dogs Trust, the UK’s largest dog welfare charity, does not believe that a return to the dog licence would provide the suggested welfare benefit for dogs. The charity is very surprised that the RSPCA believes that this could be beneficial to animal welfare when the dog licence is simply a tax on dog ownership. This view is extremely naïve; responsible owners might struggle to pay what is likely to be a punitive annual licence.
The dog licence has also been shown to be an ineffective measure in the UK. In Northern Ireland, where the dog licence is still a requirement, only an estimated one-third of all dog owners currently have their dogs licensed. Northern Ireland still has the highest number of stray dogs per head of population of any region in the UK and the number of dogs put to sleep in the region represents a staggering 34% of the total UK figure.
Dogs Trust recommends compulsory microchipping as the most effective means of registration as well as identification of a dog. Unlike the dog licence, which involves an annual fee, microchipping involves just a small one-off fee (Dogs Trust offers microchipping at its centres for £10). The benefit to responsible owners and their dogs is therefore relatively cheap and effective.
Microchipping a dog should infer legal ownership and reinforces the responsibilities of the owner under the Animal Welfare Act. The introduction of compulsory microchipping would allow stray dogs to be quickly returned to their owners, make easier the identification of owners who persistently allow their dogs to stray or cause nuisance, and make all puppies traceable to their breeder, helping to reduce the widespread problem of battery farming of dogs.
You will note the Dogs Trust do not explain:
- How they will achieve FULL take up of this compulsory microchipping scheme whilst arguing that other compulsory schemes would be ignored by certain dog owners
- How or why irresponsible breeders (puppy farmers) would be any more likely to chip their puppies
- How their scheme would be paid for in terms of the extra revenue required for enforcement (at least the dog licence proposal – as BAD as it is – would drive revenue to the dog wardens and local authorities responsible for overseeing the extra enforcement rather than a microchipping scheme which would, on its own, not drive anywhere near enough money for proper enforcement (and if it did, it would have to priced high enough – which would totally destroy the idea that it was not a ‘tax’ on dog ownership, something The Dogs Trust is at pains to complain about regarding other proposals (microchipping is not free and if it is compulsory for ALL dog owners, then it’s a tax – any way you want to dress it up)
- Does NOT mention that microchipping is not the ONLY form of permanent identification that dog owners could choose to adopt – many responsible dog owners do not chip their dogs, they opt for other methods of permanent ID
- Does not explain how microchipping alone would present significant welfare benefits to dogs OTHER than in the case of straying – it certain would have zero preventative or educational merits in the case of irresponsible owners or dogs who attack/kill.
Yet again, the major animal organisations appear to be at odds, simply backing their own agendas on an issue which has not seen any real leadership from the organisations who were all in place when the original Dangerous Dogs Act was brought to law.
They got it wrong then and they’re getting it wrong again.
Highly Recommended: As summer approaches, your dog will thank you for – clicking this link…!
Related posts:
March 31, 2010 at 5:32 pm
There is one advantage that a microchip or tattoo has over the licence, it actually identifies the dog itself. A licence wouldn’t do this, unless it’s going to be made compulsory to put their photos and description on a licence, and that will drive up the cost considerably.
There is no way backstreet breeders and puppy farmers will either chip or licence, so in that respect it doesn’t matter which is adopted. HOWEVER, a dog that is chipped, and gets lost or stolen has a better chance of being found and returned than a dog whose owner just has a bit of paper to say the dog is his!
Why are the RSPCA suddenly so keen to have the licence, will they be getting the revenue from it? Or is it to exert more pressure on the councils? Please remember they are a charity, like the Dogs Trust, they’re not any kind of enforcement agency, no matter what they’d like us to believe.
Reply
June 25, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Either of them is prepared to go as far as needed. We need a complete overall not an add on.
In my opinion, we should have a national database, a doggy DVLA as some people called it.
All potential dog owners should have to pass a test to prove they are cable of looking after one. Once they’ve passed the must register each dog they buy or adopted, with a description of the dog, the breed/mix, the date of birth, the micro chip/tattoo number and their address. Once they done that, they should receive a register tag (not a small disc tag, something large and noticeable) to prove the dogs been registered. That way its easy to tell what dogs aren’t registered and to target them.
If the dog has or gets a control order on it, the register tag should be a colour that shows what restriction that the have on it. Example red, for dogs that must be muzzled and leased in public, neutered or orange for dogs that have to be on a lead and so forth.
All dog breeders should be registered, whether they have 5 dogs (that’s what I would make the legal maximum a breeder can have) or 1. Each dog they want to breed from should have to pass genetic testing and a temperament test. Once they’ve passed they should be registered on a breeding register and each dog should have a unique register number. When puppies are born each puppy should be registered with the register number of both the mother and the father on their details. At 8 weeks, just before being transferred to their news owners, they should be micro chipped or tattooed (at the new owners choice), the number of the micro chip/tattoo should be given to the register along with the names and addresses of the buyers. After sale the new owners should have to confirm the sale and the details of their new dog.
If someone tries to register a new puppy that hasn’t got the register number of the parents than a dog warden should be sent to collect a statement about the breeder, their address, wear the puppies were advertised, so the breeder can be tract down and punished for breaking the law. As for the people that brought the puppy, the puppy should be registered; the owners should be advised about the breeding laws so they don’t get ripped off again.
If the dog has come form a shelter or aboard, the owner could provide the adoption/import details to prove the dog hasn’t come from an illegal breeder.
Reply
September 1, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarggghhhhh! Here we go again, same old same old! Both of these ‘charities’ have got a vested interest in being seen as the number one in the world of dog welfare (yes I know the RSPCA cover all animals) but it is sadly the same old manouevering for the ‘me, me, me, listen to my idea!’
The Dogs Trust were a major force in calling for the government to transfer responsibility for stray dogs away from the police and leave it solely for councils to deal with. Has there been any improvement in the level of service provision, far from it, the standards have slipped even more and a lot of councils are as is the norm, cutting back on the easy target that is a local authority dog warden service during hard times.
How the Dogs Trust can mither on about dog licensing in Northern Ireland and point out how poor the take up has been and that 34% of dogs are put to sleep completely misses the socio-economic, sectarian make up of the province of Ulster where you can be ‘put to sleep’ merely on account of your religion or the fact that you are a police officer by some people over there of whatever religious belief. A total lack of respect for any kind of authority from some quarters must make it extremely difficult to get more dogs registered.
The RSPCA has raised the issue of dog licences which is a fair point as something does need to be done but the RSPCA’s Mr Bowles is (pardon the pun) quite literally barking up the wrong tree if he thinks that making any money for dog licensing ‘ring fenced’ is going to work.
When section 68 of the clean neighbourhoods & environment act 2005 was enacted on 6th april 2008, where did all the ‘ring fenced’ money for the paltry amount of money doled out to each council go………..straight into most councils general funds!
Those councils who provide a text book out of hours dog warden service must surely only run into ’10′s’ and not hundred’s in England as many have followed the DEFRA guidance to the letter of the law and stated that it is NOT practicable for them to have ab out of hours service running, nice one DEFRA your get out of prison card works against you!
Who would enforce any dog licence, DO NOT think for one minute that council dog warden services can do so, many are now being ‘dual roled’ into having to do pest control work, or they are making pest control officers start to deal with dogs. The police would not as they are cutting back on serving some types of fixed penalties and they are facing hard times like the rest of us.
As the pest controllers can bring in income to councils, you can bet that any stray dogs are going to be far down the food chain when it comes to calling a pest control officer away from a wasp nest or other treatment that rakes in money for the council.
Dogs are not the pests, irresponsible dog owners are the pests and therefore dog control should not be given to those who apart from not being very up to date on dog related issues may not even want to deal with dogs.
Something does need to be done to address the problem of dog control in England but it needs to be dealt with by those who know what they are doing and not by sound bite hungry ‘charities’ who have already been responsible for the introduction of some appalling legislation over the years who can simply walk away onto the next sound-bite and leave others to deal with poor legislation.
The call for compulsory microchipping sounds like it is little more than a money making opportunity for charities and the microchip companies. Is not a senior person from the Dogs Trust in charge of the microchip advisory group.
The Kennel Club also seem to be against dog licences but as they run Petlog they would be in favour of compulsory microchipping, look at all those millions of changes of ownership and address that could be charged to dog owners if they were to have the sole data-base in the UK.
Truly it is a dog eat dog world at the moment in the world of dog related organisations. Instead of all the in fighting, they should meet and carve up the areas of concern that they can lead on rather than the present one upmanship that does not really address a serious issue such as is dog control in England in 2010.
Reply