The petition has now closed. Thank you to all of those who signed, or who participated in any of the various discussions about the ideas (those who agreed and those who disagreed - all opinions and input were a valuable part of the debate). I personally found this a useful and rewarding excercise in raising awareness and promoting debate about the issues surrounding BSL and Dog Owner Licensing, and will be continuing to support those who are persuing ideas along similar lines so that we can see the end of BSL as a concept.

Another proposal has now been put forward for Dog Owner Licensing (by Ryan O'Meara, of K9 Magazine). For those who are interested, it can be viewed here:

http://dogownershiptest.co.uk/

(Note: I have no connection or involvement with the above idea or webpage, or its originators, but have provided the link here for anybody who wants to continue to explore the general concepts).

I will be leaving the information on this page accessible.

=================================================================

About The Petition to the UK Prime Minister:

Scrap Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) for Dogs in favour of a license scheme for owners.

Any dog is capable of biting. Banning breeds means that irresponsible owners will buy other breeds and be equally irresponsible. Dog owners should be educated and licensed (like car drivers).

A car can be a dangerous weapon if not controlled properly, and so can a dog of ANY breed. A poodle could badly maul a child. A Labrador could cause considerable damage. You wouldn’t expect to be able to drive a car without the proper training in how to control it safely, and passing a test to prove that you are able to do this. It should be the same for owning a dog. There are too many ignorant owners who are simply not aware of how their dog’s mind works, and how they need to work with it to produce a happy, well adjusted and safe individual. Car licenses can be endorsed or removed if drivers prove themselves to be irresponsible or dangerous. Dog ownership licenses could be removed in the same way. If you do not behave responsibly when owning a dog, you would no longer be permitted to have one.

Many of the sad cases that hit the papers are of ‘normal’ family dogs who suddenly ‘turn’ – most of these are probably a result of poor understanding, and therefore poor training, of the dog by the owners. Often issues such as pack dominance are ignored through simple ignorance, creating a dog that appears happy and friendly but, for example, regards itself as the head of the household ‘pack’ and reacts accordingly when challenged in some way. This situation can be easily avoided by proper training, but how can an owner train a dog when it doesn’t understand it? Other issues such as proper early socialisation are also important, and owners must understand this. The key to reducing such dog attacks is to educate owners.

Breed Specific Legislation was an understandable quick reaction to the perceived growing problem of dog attacks, in the wake of some high profile cases involving certain breeds. However, it is now time to realise that a long-term solution is required for a long-term problem, and that legislation of this type will simply be nowhere near as effective in protecting the public as a proper system of education and licensing.

The only advantage of BSL is in recognising that some breeds are harder to handle correctly, and should be kept only by competent people. Different license levels could reflect this (you cannot drive a lorry on a car license). No owner should object to proving they have the knowledge to look after their dog.

Some breeds have more aggressive or dominant tendencies than others, or are simply larger – a poorly trained Rottweiler will be harder to deal with than a poorly trained Jack Russell, and, in the event of an attack, is likely to do far more damage. Some breeds have specific behavioural traits (due to the specific nature of the purpose for which they were originally bred) that need to be understood by owners. Although many people who own such breeds do so having researched them thoroughly and learned how to train them effectively, some do not. This situation can cause dogs who could be excellent family members to become a danger to their owners, other dogs and the public. They require a greater level of expertise to look after, and a higher level of license should reflect this.

Many owners and breeders of breeds that need additional expertise would welcome such a system, and fully support it. A requirement for all owners of their beloved breed to be proved competent would help reduce problems such as:

Casual or inappropriate purchases of dogs that are then dumped as owners discover they are too much for them.

Attacks by these breeds because inappropriate owners keep them and do not know how to handle them correctly.

Public animosity towards these breeds as they are perceived as nasty or dangerous due to some high profile attacks being reported (perfectly responsible owners of well trained dogs are sometimes subjected to unwarranted abuse after a dog of that breed (and it can be any breed) has been reported in the news for an attack – the same person who fussed the dog last week will shout across the street that it should be destroyed. This kind of ignorance needs to be addressed, which can only be done by promoting responsible ownership, reducing attacks and thereby changing public perceptions).

Such an approach to legislation would be far easier to bring in and enforce, as it would be likely to have the support of the majority of breeders and owners of breeds listed. Currently, Breed Specific Legislation suggests the banning of breeds. Obviously this causes a huge amount of resentment among enthusiasts of the listed breeds, and enthusiasts of any other breeds that feel they may in the future be listed. It also causes huge resentment among large section of the dog owning population who feel that such draconian measures are unfair and do not address the main problem: BAD OWNERS, NOT BAD DOGS. Indeed, it is entirely probable that, under such a scheme, breeders of more difficult breeds would call for their breed to be added to the list of those that require greater knowledge to own (responsible breeders currently check suitability of their puppy purchasers to ensure that they have the knowledge and expertise to own one of their pups. However, they currently do not have any certificated indication of their depth of knowledge – a license scheme such as this would give them this). This would allow the net to be cast far wider in terms of breeds than the current measures (where any threat to spread the net wider will always be met by severe and impassioned opposition) to include breeds such as the German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Japanese Akita, etc., which should be kept by more knowledgeable owners, but can make superb and safe family pets.

Breeders should check that pup purchasers have the relevant license. This would reduce the number of people casually buying pups without being prepared to look after them–if they needed to pass a test, they would be less likely to bother.

As has already been stated, reputable breeders already check the suitability of puppy purchasers. However, if ALL breeders had a legal responsibility to do this by checking they have the correct level of license for that breed, this would go a long way to ensuring that pups do not fall into the hands of people who cannot or will not look after and train them properly.

There should also be a license for people working with dogs. Poor trainers and irresponsible breeders make the problem worse.

Following on from the point above, responsible breeders understand the ramifications of breeding from specific dogs and their responsibility to produce healthy pups with good temperaments and ensure they go to suitable homes. There are, however, huge numbers of home breeders, puppy farmers and irresponsible people who do not know or care about these things. It is time that the breeding of dogs was regulated, and breeders educated and licensed. This does not mean an end to crossbreeds, of course. The license is not intended to force people only to breed pedigree dogs, but simply to ensure that any breeder of dogs is educated to the point that they understand what they are doing. It also will not mean a complete end to unwanted dog pregnancy. It should, however, mean a reduction in people casually producing pups because they fancy them, think they can make a little cash, etc., without regard for what they are producing and what will happen to them afterwards. It would mean that all publications advertising pups would have to check that they are from licensed breeders. It would also mean that any unlicensed pups would have to be passed on to welfare organisations for proper and responsible re-homing. It will also therefore help to reduce the number of dumped and stray dogs on our streets.

There are a number of types of effective training techniques available for dog owners, and many trainers with their own effective methods. There are, however, some trainers running classes who have little or no real understanding of dog behaviour and training. Sometimes these are volunteers who run classes and clubs with the best of intentions, but simply do not realise that they are teaching owners bad practises and creating potential problems. Again, such people need to be assisted by education, and should have no objection to having a certificate to show that they do know what they are doing.

Also, security dog handlers, boarding kennel owners, hunting pack keepers, racing dog owners and other dog ‘professionals’ should be subject to higher licensing to ensure that they are properly aware of both training and welfare issues to do with their dogs.

Dog legislation should protect the public, owners and dogs. Owner education and licensing will be more effective at this than breed specific measures.

Breed specific legislation does nothing educate dog owners or promote responsible dog ownership.

Breed specific legislation does nothing to ensure or encourage responsible breeding.

Breed specific legislation penalises responsible owners of certain breeds because of the actions of a few irresponsible owners - certain breeds of dog are not just ‘nasty’ or ‘bad’, they just require a greater level of knowledge and expertise to train effectively. However, certain owners are incompetent and/or irresponsible and should be stopped from keeping dogs if they are not prepared to keep them properly and responsibly.

Breed specific legislation does nothing to ensure dog attacks do not occur unless every single breed of dog is banned.

Breed specific legislation will not protect the public.

Further Notes:

Implementation:

Obviously this is a long-term solution to the problem, and its implementation would have to reflect this. The scheme is a large one, and would take time to bring in in its entirety. Also, the problem of large-scale dog dumping would have to be avoided by a staged process, possible starting with a voluntary scheme, followed by mandatory implementation for trainers, breeders and new puppy or dog purchasers, before bringing in the compulsory license for all dog owners.

Paying for the system:

As this is a license for the owner not the dog, the system could be paid for by a one-off payment at the initial testing and licensing stage, possibly together with a system of fines for infringements (for example, allowing your dog to roam (or foul) the streets could result in a fine plus points on your license, like a speeding fine for cars). Also, higher-level licenses for breeders, trainers, etc. could be renewable (every 5 years perhaps) to ensure that their education is kept up to date, with a fee payable each time. Responsible dog owners, breeders, trainers, etc. should have no problem with paying a reasonable fee for such a beneficial system.

Drawing up a detailed scheme:

Clearly this is just a brief outline of the way such a scheme could work, and its potential benefits. In drawing up a detailed proposal, a number of organisations should be involved, including welfare organisations and dog charities, associations of dog trainers and behaviourists, the police, etc., etc. The scheme should include education in issues such as dog behaviour, training techniques and socialisation, general welfare requirements, different breed types and their behavioural tendencies, and the legal and social responsibilities of owning a dog.

Why a compulsory scheme?

Because a voluntary scheme would achieve nothing. Those who need it least (good, responsible owners) would have it, those who need it most (bad, irresponsible owners) would not bother. Can you imagine the state on the roads if driving licenses weren't compulsory?!!

A brief personal note:

I am in no way connected with any political, animal or dog organisation or publication. I am simply a responsible dog owner who wishes to continue to enjoy being so. I have nothing to gain from this campaign, other than the knowledge that dog owners are to be educated and held responsible for their actions, and that as a result my dog, children, family and friends and the general public will be, and feel, safer from dog attacks.

A word about this petition:

This petition and campaign is not associated in any way with any organisation or publicaton. Its purpose is to enable individuals or organisations to show their support for the idea of this type of legislation without having to demonstrate support for any political or other organisation or publication. By signing to support this petition, you are not in any way associating yourself with any other idea or ideal held by other individuals or organisations (including myself). The hope is that it can unite people who feel that this is the correct way to proceed, whatever their other political (or other) views.

Dog License Scheme FAQ’s

Following discussions I have had with several people about my ideas, I thought it would be useful to add a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section to hopefully answer or clarify a few points and clear up a few issues which have been raised.

1. Is this a return to the old dog license?

No, this is a license scheme for dog owners. You take the relevant course(s), pass the test and gain a license for life (assuming your license isn’t revoke for displaying irresponsible behaviour as a dog owner).

2. Would I have to get a license immediately or lose my dog?

No, it would initially apply to people purchasing/obtaining a new dog or puppy. It would not effect current dog owners. The unfortunate lifespan of dogs will naturally mean that over a period of years all dog owners will be licensed.

3. Wouldn’t it just mean more dumped dogs and strays?

Hopefully not – by staging the introduction of the scheme for new purchasers only, that should minimise any problems of dumping dogs.

4. Would it be expensive?

There will of course be a cost implication, but it is not intended that this should in any way be prohibitively high. The sort of costs involved should be something like this 9these are just ball-park estimates for illustration:

A book giving course material: £10

A set of 5 instructional seminars: £5 each

Final test/registration fee: £25

Total: £60

This would be a one-off fee, not annually renewable, spread over a couple of months. For a higher license or breeder license, this would be followed by another similar course/test/charges.

There would possibly be an administrative cost for the scheme, which the above fees would not cover. As this is a measure for public protection as well as dog ownership, this any shortfall should be made up by the government. However, in these days of computer technology, the need for small armies of people to create paper trails have largely gone, and such a system should not be a huge burden on the nation’s finances.

5. Isn’t this just going to be another way of the Government getting money from people?

Absolutely not! It is highly unlikely that it would be profitable, and there would be far easier ways of taxing dog owners, such as higher purchase tax on dog food and other items – it simply wouldn’t be cost effective to use this scheme to make money out of dog owners.

6. Isn’t it just going to create a huge and expensive beaurocratic burden on society?

It shouldn’t do. The days of horse messengers and vast paper mountains are long gone in this computer age! Yes, there may be some cost, particularly in the initial set up phase of the system, but there shouldn’t be a huge recurrent cost.

7. I am on a low income – would I get help to pay for my license?

The system should recognise that those on low incomes may need some help. This is probably best achieved by a system of discounts on the course and license fees (perhaps 50%), meaning (using the costs above) a total cost overall of £35, spread over a couple of months (and perhaps repeated in the next couple of months for a higher license). If I could not afford that level of cost, I would question whether I could afford to keep a dog!

8. Would it mean compulsory training classed that I have to take my dog to?

No, this is education for the owner, not the dog. Nobody is going to make you attend training classes or test your handling of your dog. The intention is that you should be given the knowledge tools to equip you to look after and train a dog effectively, as well as information on where you can find help, training classes, etc.

9. Would it mean that some beaurocrat is deciding whether I am fit to be a dog owner?

No, no more than it is a beaurocrat who decides whether you have passed your driving test. It would be a trained examiner who will be marking according to set criteria. You will be tested to demonstrate that you have understood the course material, that is all.

10. Would the test be hard?

The intention is to give you education to help become a responsible dog owner, not to give you a hard test so that you can’t get a dog. It is about helping people do things the right way. The test will be to ensure you have understood the basics of what you have learned, what your responsibilities are and how you can go about fulfilling them effectively. For many dog owners, it will be mostly stuff they know already, with perhaps a few new idea, but in any case, it is to help not prevent, so shouldn’t be a hugely demanding exam.

11. Would it totally eradicate the problem of irresponsible dog owners and those who train their dogs to fight?

As there are those who ignore the laws on driving, drugs, guns and other issues, there will obviously be those who ignore the rules on dog ownership. This is a wider social issue which cannot be solved by improving dog ownership laws, but new laws should hopefully help to dissuade some from going down that route, and help law enforcement agencies, by having a clearly defined set of rules to be broken or ignored, deal with those who ignore these rules more easily and effectively.

12. Is this a threat to my civil liberties?

People who drive are used to having to have a license that they may need to produce occasionally, and I believe that dog owners would soon get used to the same. I don’t see it as an infringement of civil liberties at all – the government will have no noew information on you at all, other than the knowledge that you have been educated to look after a dog properly should you wish to have one.

13. My dog has bitten someone – would this scheme mean they have to be put to sleep?

All dogs are capable of biting if not properly trained, and all dogs (of any breed) are capable of being properly trained so that they generally don’t. Having said that, there are various reasons where a bite may occur, for example if a dog is or feels threatened by a person’s behaviour towards it, and a warning or defensive nip is not the same as a sustained and vicious attack (remember, dogs can’t politely ask a person to leave them alone if they are not happy with the way in which they are being treated!). It is hoped that by raising awareness of dog behaviour through this educational approach, people will have a greater understanding of why a dog has reacted in the way that it has, and what can be done to avoid this in the future. The greater awareness of behaviour and training that would result from this idea should ultimately reduce the number of dogs that need to be put to sleep.

14. Would any dog breeds be banned?

Absolutely not! All dogs, with the right socialising, training and control by understanding and responsible owners, can be good pets that cause no problems or danger. The current system of banning certain breeds is based on bigotry and misunderstanding bred from sensationalist media coverage, which has no place in a civilised society.

15. Is this a way of targeting ‘bull’ breeds?

Again, absolutely not! Different breeds were bred with different tendencies by man for different uses. Some of these breed require a greater level of understanding to train effectively, and this doesn’t just mean ‘bull’ breeds. For example, the prey drive and running instincts of some northern sled dog breeds means that they have to be understood and looked after in a particular way. This is already recognised by breed clubs and responsible breeders, who will only sell pups to people they feel have researched the breed and understand the special nature of the responsibility that they are taking on. The ‘higher level’ license idea is intended simply to reflect this, for the benefit of the dog (who will be properly looked after), the owner (who will have the wonderful pet they potentially can), the breeders (who will know that the person taking on a pup from them will know what the implications are) and ultimately the breed (which will be less likely to have bad press caused by the actions of a few irresponsible owners).

16. Are there any benefits for dog welfare?

There are no specific welfare measures included in this scheme – animal welfare is dealt with by separate laws. However, the benefits for a dog that is in the hands of a responsible and well-educated owner should be fairly obvious.

17. Does the scheme include stiffer penalties for people mistreating dogs?

The issue of penalties for mistreatment of dogs or causing a public nuisance or danger through irresponsible ownership is not specifically dealt with by this scheme (other than the possibility of license removal). However, clearly those who mistreat animals or cause danger should be dealt with in an appropriate way. Although this is a different issue to the license scheme, I, like many others, feel that penalties should be increased from current levels. The important thing is that the owner is responsible for the actions of the dog, and in the event of a problem it is the owner who should be punished for transgressions, not the dog. If a dog attack does occur, just blaming the dog and having it destroyed is not enough, and not right – the owner must be punished as it is they who have failed in their duty of care towards the dog and the public.

18. How would the scheme help with enforcement, and does the scheme include new measures for enforcement?

Again, enforcement is a slightly separate issue, and its inclusion would, I felt, have muddied the waters somewhat. I do feel that a new enforcement agency, with expertise in animals, is generally requires, with or without the dog owner license scheme – relying on charities or untrained police officers is not sufficient, but that is not the issue dealt with by the petition.

Having said all that, it will clearly be easier to enforce rules about irresponsible dog ownership if there is a clear and structured approach such as this petition proposes – you can’t effectively enforce rules which are pretty much non-existent as they are now! You cannot currently deal with a potential problem, only the aftermath of an attack, by which time it is obviously far to late to prevent an attack from occurring. Under this scheme, rules of ownership responsibility will be set out clearly, and transgressions can be dealt with before an actual serious incident occurs.

19. Would the scheme include any element of licensing for individual dogs or compulsory micro-chip identification?

This is also a slightly different issue. What this petition and scheme aims to do is educate owners and make them responsible, not license or identify dogs. There may be a case for compulsory micro-chipping, and for keeping a record of dogs owned, but this is for a separate discussion.

20. Would this mean eventually I would need a license for other pets such as cats?

No. There is a fundamental difference between dogs and other domestic animals. Dogs are the only widely kept domestic animals with the capacity to cause serious injury or death, particularly to children, if not kept responsibly (other animals capable of this, such as poisonous snakes, lions, etc., would already require the owner to have a license). Dogs can be kept responsibly and safely without great difficulty (they are truly domestic animals, not wild animals kept in houses), as long as you understand how to do this, so education is the key to a successful reduction in dog-related problems and incidents..

21. Wouldn’t it be better to have a petition against BSL full stop?

I want to see an end to BSL – it is wrong and unjust. However, I did not want to fall into the trap of a purely negative petition. The obvious question would be ‘scrap BSL and replace it with what?’ I felt it would be more constructive to propose a better and fairer alternative to BSL, which is what I believe this scheme is.

22. How would ‘higher level’ licenses for different breeds work?

After taking the basic level education and test, if you decide that you want a dog of a specific breed covered by a higher level license, you would take a similar, but more advanced course and test. This would probably be specific to the ‘type’ of breed involved, for example a license to keep Northern Breeds (such as the Siberian Husky or Alaskan Malamute), or a license to keep Mastiff Breeds. The details of this, and what breeds would require it, are not part of this general conceptual description, and need to be worked out through discussions with various organisations at the appropriate time.

23. Would ‘higher level’ licenses mean that some breeds are considered more dangerous than others?

Absolutely not – no breed is inherently more ‘dangerous’ than any other. It just recognises that some breeds can be more challenging to train and keep responsibly, for various reasons.

24. Do you yourself own a dog that would be covered by a ‘higher level’ license?

I currently own an Alaskan Malamute, a breed that is generally regarded as requiring a special understanding because of it’s breeding for sled pulling work, and would expect to need a higher license, appropriate for Northern Breeds. Ultimately it is a benefit to me to know that I have been educated to look after him responsibly, and to know that other owners of the same breed also have that knowledge. This should mean that the likelihood of this wonderful breed having its public image scarred by sensationalist reporting of a few incidents caused by the actions of a few irresponsible idiots (as is currently happening to other wonderful breeds, such as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier) would be much reduced. I don’t want people to be frightened of my dog, just because of some idiots who mistreated other dogs who happened to be of the same breed!

25. How would this scheme help with negative public perception of certain breeds?

Public perception will be improved if incidents due to irresponsible ownership reduce and the public feel that all dogs of any breed are in the hands of responsible and knowledgeable owners. Also, the idea that BSL promotes, that some breeds are just ‘nasty’, is wrong, and the removal of BSL and implementation of this scheme will help the public realise that it is wrong.

26. How would the scheme help rescue organisations?

Like breeders, rescue organisations are trying to establish the suitability of prospective new owners of their dogs. This job will be made easier by having an owner education and license scheme – they will know straight away if a person has the required level of knowledge to do the job properly.

27. Would I need a different license for an adult rescue dog, as these can sometimes be more challenging to train?

No, that shouldn’t be needed. Although they can sometimes be more of a challenge, an appropriate license for the dog would be sufficient, as it would give you the basic knowledge of how to go about things and also give you information about what other places you can go for additional help and support. Ultimately, of course, and reputable rescue organisation will be able and more than willing to help you as much as they can when rehoming one of their dogs, so you should have additional support over and above that of a ‘normal’ dog owner.

28. Would it stop puppy farming?

Not on it’s own, but measures for educating and licensing breeders may well help as part of a number of measures which are needed to stamp out this practise.

29. Isn’t this more about public protection than helping dogs and owners?

Of course there is an element of public protection here, and rightly so in my opinion. The measures would also be a help to dogs and owners through the education involved, and by helping to modify public perception of dogs, certain breeds, and dog owners. If the public feel more protected they will feel less scared!

30. Would the education include a section on children and how they should behave with dogs?

Yes, absolutely it should! Interaction with dogs is an important aspect that dog owners must understand, and teaching their children how to treat the dog is a part of this.

31. How would the scheme help me if I were having problems with my dog?

As well as the education itself being a help, part of the education would include where do go for help if you are having problems.

32. What are your motives for starting the petition?

I just want to see a sensible approach to dog ownership laws, and an end to BSL. I want to feel that my family, children and dog are protected from the results of bad dog ownership. I want the public to feel that dogs aren’t a threat to their safety – to not be scared of dogs, mine or anyone else’s.

33. By signing the petition, what exactly am I saying that I agree with?

This page is meant as a further explaination to help people understand what sort of system I think could work in practise. By signing the petition, all you agree to is the actual text contained on the petition page, nothing more.

34. How can I help with the campaign?

I am a private individual, not part of any organisation. I have no financial or other backing, no clever website and no publicity machine. To be honest, I don’t really want to be part of any such things – I think it is better for it to remain something not connected to any organisation. If you want to help, the best thing you can do is spread the word about the petition to people you know (both dog owners and non-dog owners) so that the size of the petition continues to grow as much as possible – the more people who sign, the more pressure

SIGN THE PETITION TO THE PRIME MINISTER HERE:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/dogowners

Other Sites Linking to here:
NB: This does not indicate the support of that site or its owners for the petition or its aims, only that they have created a link to this page.


Dog Club - Internet Dog Directory

Our Dogs Newspaper - Best in Show for dogshow coverage.

Top Pet Sites