Pet Liscense

[Emm]

I posted this in the thread about moggies and breeding them but I really would like to hear peoples view about it. Its something I've thought about on and off. Maybe as a collected community we could try and help to come up with a solution - instead of just talking about something why don't we try to achieve something. If we could come up with something that is practicle we could lobby our MPs - you never know it could make a difference. I would love to hear the pros and cons from every-one and also solutions to the cons.


I have always wanted them to bring back having a liscence to own an animal. The money raised by the liscences would go into animal welfare and raising awareness of being a responsible pet owner.


The same would be for breeders where you would have to apply for a liscence to be a breeder and you would not be able to breed unless there was a demand for the off spring - homes already waiting.


I know it sounds fanciful but in my head it would be the way to stop so many unwanted animals.

[Fran]

In principle, licences would be a good idea .. I do not think it would stop back yard breeders and to be honest I think it might even make the problem of backyard breeding worse

[Emm]

How about if you were a BYB then you could face jail sentence


I don't think it would stop it overnight - but I do think something has to be done

[Fran]

The threat of Prison sentence could work but only if it were 'policed' and action was actually seen to be taken. I think licences for pet ownership is a good thing. What was the reason they did away with the old dog licence?

[Het]

In principle it is a good idea...but extremely difficult to police. To be honest I think giving the RSPCA more powers to track down and prosecute cruelty and neglect cases, with much stiffer punishments is a more practical idea. They must feel sometimes that they are trying to fight spaceships with sticks (not a very good metaphor but I hope you get what I mean:? )
The fact that someone has a license or not is sadly not going to make them treat an animal any better or worse, much tougher and more direct action needs to be taken.
It is a brilliant idea in an ideal world...but the admin would be horrendous and it would just be open to abuse. I just think the money it would cost could be better spent elsewhere.....sorry Emm:?

[Hreow]

Hmmm. Wouldn't one of the problems be that you then equate cats with dogs, so you would be (legally) responsible for the actions of your cat. which would mean that it would be a lot more difficult to let your cat out on its own. I my be off a country or two with this... :-)

[bobbie3917]

i think its a good thing but i dont think it woud work to stop BYB
people would just see it as another tax this time a tax on keeping pets most woulnt agree with it at all and would do anything to get around it.

if it was just for breeders then yes maybe it would work but if it was for pet owners as well it wouldnt

and i also think it would put pups/kittens out of reach for some people if they had to pay it every year

[Emm]

originally posted by Het

The fact that someone has a license or not is sadly not going to make them treat an animal any better or worse, much tougher and more direct action needs to be taken.
It is a brilliant idea in an ideal world...but the admin would be horrendous and it would just be open to abuse.

This is very true - I'm not saying its the perfect solution - but - it would help to stop impulse buys on animals and it might help people think if an animal is right for them. If each council was responsible for their own area that would help with the admin situation?


originally posted by Hreow
Hmmm. Wouldn't one of the problems be that you then equate cats with dogs, so you would be (legally) responsible for the actions of your cat. which would mean that it would be a lot more difficult to let your cat out on its own. I my be off a country or two with this...


I can't see why this would be the case - it just means that a record of animals is kept and who has them.


originally posted by Bobbie3917
i think its a good thing but i dont think it woud work to stop BYB
people would just see it as another tax this time a tax on keeping pets most woulnt agree with it at all and would do anything to get around it.



but if the money was going back into animal welfare and and raising awareness of pet ownership and what it entails - surely people won't mind this - after all if its for the greater good?

originally posted by Bobbie3917
and i also think it would put pups/kittens out of reach for some people if they had to pay it every year

but wouldn't that be a good thing? If you don't have the money to look after an animal then you shouldn't have one. I'm not talking about a massive amount of money to pay - but animals do cost a lot to keep in food, vet bills, vaccinations etc if you don't have the finance for this then you really shouldn't have them.

[Emm]

origianlly posted by Fran
What was the reason they did away with the old dog licence?

I have no idea why it was stopped. But I remember reading a small article about how the Scottish Parlaiment were maybe going to be reconsidering bringing back a licence because they were quite excited about the amount of money they could raise each year from it. I'm totally against this - I would only be for it if the money went back into animal welfare. Never heard anything more about it though.

[PurpleJackdaw]

I think anything to help make people care for their animals would be a good idea ,but what would be the rules on getting a licence ? not to mention that if people are more scared of being prosecuted it might lead to worse ways of getting rid of unwanted animals :(
Maybe their should be a short course on animal care ,welfare ,how to be responsible for a pet etc. before anyone is able to own one ,this way the message about responsible pet ownership could be taught to people before they get into difficulty ,and people who buy animals on a whim with no real idea to how to care for them would be stopped
there should also be more powers to prosecute people who effectivly start feral colonies by turfing thier intact cats out and leaving them to breed ,these people should be forced to pay all the rescue costs ,some people think its fine to let their cat live in the shed and only offer them some food on the doorstep now and again ,then of course breeding happens and its the begining of a colony of feral cats due to 1 stupid person :(

[Hreow]

Gun-laws hasn't stopped people from owning one illegally, only law-abiding people. Olympic pistol-team, for instance... A lot of time and effort goes into trying to keep that law. I really don't think a law would do anything, and that the maintenance, byrocratic structure etc. would cost a lot more money than the scheme would bring in.
Only thing I can think of that might work is to educate children at an early age. Husbandry-classes at primary school? Ok, with O157 that's too young to be around cows - maybe have the parents who keep pets have a short talk on how to pet, care for and feed various pets. Or the kids themselves, if old enough.

[bobbie3917]

but if the money was going back into animal welfare and and raising awareness of pet ownership and what it entails - surely people won't mind this - after all if its for the greater good?

i still dont think that would work as its the same with road tax and speed cam's the money was ment to go back in to the roads ppl hate it, we know most of the money would get lost in the gav soewhere it always does


but wouldn't that be a good thing? If you don't have the money to look after an animal then you shouldn't have one. I'm not talking about a massive amount of money to pay - but animals do cost a lot to keep in food, vet bills, vaccinations etc if you don't have the finance for this then you really shouldn't have them.

yes pets do cost a lot of money to keep, but as a breeder i would rather my pup/kitten go to some1 that had to save the money for the pet and will love it 100% than the person that see them as a states symbol, and maybe they feed it the best food then have pet insurance but the pet licences is just 1 step to far, what happens if 1 year they don't have th money for it will the pet be taken away from them?

[Snoof]

yes pets do cost a lot of money to keep, but as a breeder i would rather my pup/kitten go to some1 that had to save the money for the pet and will love it 100% than the person that see them as a states symbol, and maybe they feed it the best food then have pet insurance but the pet licences is just 1 step to far, what happens if 1 year they don't have th money for it will the pet be taken away from them?

Agreed - without the option of pet insurance I would not be able to justify having more than one or two cats. Add in an annual lump sum and I would never be able to do it on my own (although with Matt I could). And to be honest, I would much rather see a rescue cat get a loving home that can afford to feed it than know so many are denied even the chance to live in a rescue...

That said, I have thought it might be a good idea to set up charities that will spay/neuter/vax for free if given proof of income (which would have to be below a specified limit) in an ongoing effort to get all cats taken care of as well as possible. It strikes me as a strange discrepancy that we have nationalised healthcare for people, but not for pets, but obviously you can't make people pay taxes for other people's pets when they might not have any themselves.