Lizzie Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Dog Logbook Scheme Dog Logbook Scheme - Aims and Objectives To produce a Registration scheme that is simple to operate but will move towards accountability and responsibility in dog owners. Also to gradually discourage back street breeding Perceived Advantages of the Scheme • Registration of all dogs on a central Database • Compulsory Microchipping, (strayed dog returnable to owner rather than Pounds, saving public money) • Microchip recorded on Logbook • Traceability of owners reducing the numbers of abandoned dogs • Legal requirement to register change of ownership (as with vehicles) • Fine payable if seller/buyer does not notify central authority of change of ownership • Annual registration fee, discounted or FOC once dog is neutered/spayed • Encouragement of neutering could help with behavioural issues • Yearly check to ascertain correct details (possibly done by vet in conjunction with booster) • Breeders to pay for special licence to breed, then all pups to be registered by law before sale. • Dogs not neutered by the age of 18 months will be classified as breeding candidates and licensed accordingly with an additional premium • Non compliance to result in hefty fine and confiscation of dog, only returnable upon payment of fine and purchase of log book etc. Otherwise dog to be rehomed through Dogs Trust • No, logbook, no dog policy to try to address gangs using dogs for fighting/intimidation • Dog Logbooks combined with compulsory microchipping could aid police in dog theft with a probable reduction in this due to traceability • Over time should reduce the number of unwanted puppies produced • Free registration for old age pensioners (as with TV Licence) Would like your opinions and thoughts on this please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Like all these schemes, I suspect it will fall over on the cost of administration/enforcement. Car registration works because cars are large, relatively expensive objects that generally live on the street and have unique ID that can be recorded even in a fleeting glance at a distance. Cars don't wander away on their own, people can't make new ones in their sheds, and any kind of accident involving one is likely to result in official checkups on insurance status, MOT, tax... Despite all this, there are people who don't register, tax or insure their cars. Dogs are smallish, cheap animals that live inconspicuously inside people's houses, and sometimes move around on their own. They are easy to reproduce, to the point where this often happens accidentally, and it's not really feasible to make them carry ID that can be checked remotely. Some may have medical or behavioural conditions which make neutering inadvisable, or may mean that they cannot be neutered at the official time. They carry an emotional investment which, however irrationally, discourages many owners from wishing to neuter. I think that makes dogs more difficult and expensive to log and track reliably than cars (or horses, or televisions or what have you). OK, you could licence them anyway, but I honestly think that the net result would be that the population of dogs that rarely cause problems would be licensed, the population of dogs that are most likely to cause them would not be. Further, I think you'd drive the less able and responsible owners away from the rest, and create a ghetto-ized situation like that of the 'pit bull type' dogs where people would be worried about exercising or socialising their unlicensed dogs, and therefore the unlicensed ones would be likely to become problem dogs. I'd rather see the money used on cracking down hard on puppy farms, banning pet shops from selling dogs, and perhaps also increasing the budget for dog wardens and pounds so that the wardens can do more education work, and the pounds aren't such awful places for dogs to be held. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fee Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Agree absolutely with Victoria, I've seen proposals for variations of this scheme or similar discussed many times, but enforcement would be hugely expensive (and unworkable for all the reasons above). I'd rather see any (mythical) additional resources go to provide education for owners and free or cheap neutering services in problem areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zico's mum Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Totally unworkable.It ould be massively expensive to implement most of the single ideas let alone all of them.Sorry this is just too far removed from reality to even consider imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) I'd basically call it a "DVLA for dogs" - something I've posted in favour of before. If breeders had to register & chip the dog in puppy hood, changes of ownership had to be notified, vets required to query / notify any anomoiles when treatment was given etc I believe many of the above possible problems would be eased. Yes some dogs may not see a vet for a long time but the owner would likely ultimately be caught & punished (just as uninsured drivers are in the end) I don't believe neutering should be compulsory, nor related to the cost of registration being reduced. Cheap neutering schemes may help prevent unwanted litters but don't get dogs out of the pound, affect owners who don't want to neuter at any costs etc. It's dogs straying or bought & sold at will not dogs bred & cared for throughout their lives responsibly that leads to the ultimate problems we see so often in my opinion Edited February 3, 2011 by Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yes some dogs may not see a vet for a long time but the owner would likely ultimately be caught & punished (just as uninsured drivers are in the end) Why do you think this? Who would catch them? Where would they be reported to? How would the person the dog was reported to know where to go to follow up (and who will pay them)? What if people who were caught decided they couldn't be bothered and had the dog put to sleep or gave it to a friend, then disclaimed all knowledge? I think they would not be caught and the system would simply be ignored by those who wished to behave irresponsibly. It would be nice to think that making a law would prevent people from doing something, but in fact, uninforced laws are widely disobeyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts