Dogs Trust has come out firmly against RSPCA-supported proposals to re-introduce the dog licence.
The dog welfare charity says it does not believe re-introducing the dog licence would provide a welfare benefit for dogs. It has also expressed surprise at the RSPCA position, which is that: "a licence would be hugely beneficial in addressing many animal welfare concerns stemming from overbreeding of dogs to a lack of traceable ownership." Dogs Trust has said this view is extremely naïve, that responsible owners might struggle to pay what is likely to be a punitive annual licence, and that a licence is simply a tax on dog ownership.
Meanwhile, the RSPCA has announced the results of a survey in which 2 out of 3 pet owners said they would be in favour of a licence scheme. 76% said that a dog licence should be enforced in England to help curb problems such as 'puppy farms', stray dogs, stolen dogs and animal abandonments.
The RSPCA also says that research carried out on its behalf by Reading University clearly shows that an affordable and well-enforced dog licensing scheme could provide funding for a range of issues, most of which are currently funded poorly by central and local government. Professor Emeritus Martin Upton from Reading University's school of agriculture, policy and development, said: "Our study into the potential costs and benefits of dog licencing and registration found that such a scheme could greatly contribute to responsible dog ownership and animal welfare."
Dogs Trust says the dog licence has 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.
The charity 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.
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
I don't see why the license necessarially has to be expensive - although it should ideally cover the cost of enforcing it. Rather like a driving license, it should cost little year upon year but should be revokable (I think I would actually use a points system) - and if revoked it should be difficult to restore.
To make this useful, there would have to be a means of identifying whether any other members of the household had had licenses revoked.
Enforcement is potentially simpler than people make out. If police/wardens have the authority to scan dogs, the chip should be pretty obvious. In cases where there is no chip detectable but the owner insists that a chip is present a conscious xray will quickly reveal the truth. Unchipped dogs could be dealt with by fining the owner and chipping the dog or by confiscation of the animal.
I find it perplexing enough when people try to use "the principle of the thing" to argue against increased security - it is at least their own security that they are jeopardising. I think truly responsible animal owners would try to see the bigger picture and recognise that, while their own animal may indeed not be at risk of wandering etc, if everybody is able to use that excuse some animals will suffer as a result.
</rant>