Bring Back the Dog Licence?

The rise in fatal dog attacks over the last couple of years has resulted in calls to bring back the dog licence. As someone who vaguely remembers it, I don’t recommend it.  It was pointless.

When microchipping dogs became compulsory in 2016 it was hailed by the government as one method to control dangerous dogs and strays.  It has done nothing of the kind.

Microchips are not proof of ownership.   Therefore if a dog causes a problem and the dog warden or vet or someone else scans it and approaches the registered owner, they can just say “not my dog, gave it to a man in a pub” and that does happen.

Make sure your dog is chipped and the details are up to date.  

The license as it was did nothing. We do surely though need something introduced to encourage and educate dog owners?  I am an expert witness, assessing dogs that have been involved in incidents and giving evidence in court. I have spent years trying to get various measures introduced via NPCC, MP’s and more and several years ago George Eustice MP replied to my letter saying that the “coroner can identify the reasons a dog has killed” and further investigations are not necessary.  This is nonsense.

I have suggested over and over some new measures as owners do not identify with the sad and tragic serious and fatal attacks. They do not see their dog as the next problem.  I believe this is due to the lack of a full investigation.  We do not know what was happening in the moment, whether the dog was provoked, what the living arrangements were.  Have any of these dogs been treated badly or trained inappropriately?  Has the dog been displaying signs that were missed or misunderstood? Was the history prior to ownership known?  Were there underlying health issues? 

How do we prevent the next one if we do not understand the previous ones?

I have asked government and others several times for the following and been ignored or dismissed

• the setting up of a national task force of expert witnesses, police and vets.  They would be called immediately there is a serious or fatal incident.  The dog would be retained alive where possible and fully assessed.  The whole history of the dog’s life, living circumstances and training history would be collected.   All fatal incident data would be collated by the task force to look for triggers, common issues and an education program created to move forward with.

I have today sent a letter to the latest DEFRA Minister, Dr Therese Coffey to again ask for this. Without a full, holistic investigation, nothing will change.

I have serious concerns about the state of UK rescue.  Dogs are often rehomed with no disclosure of history, no professional assessment, poor or non existent paperwork, no back up and more. Whilst there are some really good rescues out there, the numbers of bad ones is increasing.  Some look great on social media but the reality is very different. 

Regardless of where someone gets their dog from, the lack of need for education prior to ownership is a cause of bad decisions later. I have done several radio and TV interviews in the last 2 weeks in the wake of 2 awful fatal attacks.  People must take responsibility, they must stop letting their dogs off lead when they have poor or no recall.  It is an offence for your dog to cause “reasonable apprehension of injury”, stop letting them run up to people and animals.

If a licence system is to work, I believe only the following will make any difference :

1. owners have to complete a “responsible owners course” prior to dog ownership.  This must cover law, basic behaviour and nutrition and exercise.  Only after this can they be given a licence.
2. A national register of licenses with photo ID integrated must be created and the licence must be shown to anyone selling or rehoming a dog to an individual.   The details (like with microchips) must be kept updated and legislation created for all of this.
3. It needs to be an offence to sell or rehome a dog to someone who does not supply a copy of their licence. 

I realise this needs work.  What level of education and what recommended courses can be accepted?  Who will pay for this?  Who will enforce it?  I do believe this needs to be addressed.  We do not need more “university studies” that the government fund, ignore and when the results are created, fund another one to look at that.  We need action.