Sounds hugely expensive to administer though, Lucy.

Yes but charging people will also be a deterant . Dog ownership comes with expense and responsibilty .

Naughty naughty Cracer! I'm 27 so wouldn't be affected by a hypothetical age ban, but have had a dog of my own since 15. Also agree with Josh in that I know many many 40+ dog owners who are shockingly irresponsible and inconsiderate to others with how they manage their dogs.
My parents are a prime example, one of their dogs has no recall, according to them there is nothing they can do about this, a lead is not an option because the dog pulls. Or my landlord who's last dog died after being run over by a car in the lane lets his dog run wild all over my property and never shuts the gate, the new one has gone down to the road more than once already. But there are probably far more responsible older dog owners, it's just the bad ones tend to stick in the mind.

There are already plenty of laws covering dogs being off lead on roads, being out of control etc., what they need are more dog wardens or time/money to enforce them. Could not asbos be used for unruly youngsters who misuse their dog? You can get them banning people from areas why not prohibiting them from having a dog?

> You can have one but only under a certain size/ breed etc and then if you go for an upgrade to a bigger / different breed then you gave to have a test to see if you are competent to own one.

Or a person must hold a license to own a dog unless it is an exempt breed. By making the softer & smaller breeds exempt (rather than select dogs the target - allthough it works to the same effect), it may be less likely to make make some breeds desirible because they are seen as more dangerous (if you see what I mean).
So if you are seen with a dog (including a cross breed) that is not a chi, spaniel, CKC etc, then if you can't produce a license YOU are arrested. The onus needs to be on the people not the dogs.
People that don't care about society and use thier dogs for intimidation/weapons don't care about thier dogs behaviour are really not that bothered if thier dogs are taken, but if THEY were nabbbed, they would start taking notice.

The simple answer to the solution is to simply enforce the laws already in place! No amount of new legislation is ever going to deter anyone from breeding/buying these illegal breeds and cross breeds unless they have swift consequences for those who do. Perhaps a re-shape of the DDA is in order.

I am with Stooge on this one, in that any move is a good move and identification is as good as any means to be able to prosecute people in the quickest and most cost/time effective manner. There will be no disputes over ownership.

The law as it stands does not work though.

The laws around dog ownership and restrictions criteria of different type of dogs and ownership is the answer. They have laws about owning dangerous wild animals in place so this is just an extension although not as strict as that law.

I still go back to the subject of chipping and that alone will not make a difference at all.

> There will be no disputes over ownership

Ownership dispustes should be irrelevent anyway, whoever is in charge of a dog that is dangerously out of control is currently responsible for it's actions. If the legal owner were only responsible, the only thing chipping dogs will do is increase theft of dogs as the thief wouldn't be held responsible for the dogs actions - the owner would.

> whoever is in charge of a dog that is dangerously out of control is currently responsible for it's actions.

A identification system will also also make it the responsibility of the person that bought it, and therefore contributed to it being bred in the first place.
The aim has to be to deter rather than wait for something to happen.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The law as it stands does not work though.<br /><br />The laws around dog ownership and restrictions criteria of different type of dogs and ownership is the answer.

Is it?

We already HAVE laws restricting the ownership of certain types of dog - there are now more pitbulls in the uk than there EVER were in 1991 - and the increase of people owning 'status' dogs is astronomical too.

The laws we have label certain breeds and types as dangerous and that very label MAKES these breeds attractive to the wrong people - it hasn't worked so far and I don't see how further legislation will improve that situation.

Tursula I have sent you a private message have you had chance to look at it yet?

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Why not treat dogs like motor bikes ? You can have one but only under a certain size/ breed etc and then if you go for an upgrade to a bigger / different breed then you gave to have a test to see if you are competent to own one. There could also be age restrictions or have a responsible adult be your guaranntor to take full responsibilty for the dog whilst it is under the ownership<br />of the under age owner. <br />

It would all depend on the dog though Lucy - my very large Harley is a far easier dog to manage than my very small Cooper. H weighs in at 31kg and Coops weighs in at just 6kg but is my "demon dog" lol. Harley is mister dependable and Cooper is mister unpredictable. Harley being a Golden Retriever would probably be a "recommended" breed under such a scheme but I have also met some very unpredictable GRs and as always it comes down to the individual dog and the individual owner. I have a friend with a rescue SBT who had a very poor start in life but Daisy has the most amazing temperament of any dog I know and is a wonderful ambassador for her breed - again it's down to the individual dog and having a great owner.

Polly where do i pick that up from.

That would be me who mentioned that. When I approached my circle of friends virtually all said they did not want the RSPCA and any other lacky of theirs having access to our data.

Perhaps it is because I asked among others working gun dog owners, who would be prime targets for the RSPCA as the RSPCA does not support shooting. Having said that there were a lot of show breeders who also were concerned about the data protection act being ignored and data being used or dispersed illegally.

Most of the general public would probably not be concerned about the data protection act and many would not think of this being a piece of a data gathering exercise, which could give nameless people information about them. Big Brother? possibly. How long would it be before some twit lost a computer with all these details on it? It has happened with benefits data, tax data and bank details. Suppose a dog thief found this computer? They'd not have to watch for dogs they would know exactly where they are.

> Why not treat dogs like motor bikes ? You can have one but only under a certain size/ breed etc and then if you go for an upgrade to a bigger / different breed then you gave to have a test to see if you are competent to own one. There could also be age restrictions or have a responsible adult be your guaranntor to take full responsibilty for the dog whilst it is under the ownership
> of the under age owner

My sister has staffordshire bull terriers, a favourite with the yobs searching for a status dog, I have flatcoated retrievers who are much larger. I can't see a yob wanting a retriever or for that matter a yorkshire terrier. So what ever happens they will still get their hands on a staffy or staffy type cross. Also we all know that there is no real idea of size that a crossbred or heinz 57 can grow to. How do measure by height or weight? Thinking here of a basset cross who used to live in my village, he had inherited his hindquarters from his much taller parent and his forequarters from his dam, so he always walked in a crazy side stepping motion as his bum was much higher than his head.

Look for a heading labelled messages on my screen it reads

Champdogs Information Exchange - Welcome, Polly
Forum Board Index Breeders Active Topics Help Search Messages Options Logout

>Suppose a dog thief found this computer? They'd not have to watch for dogs they would know exactly where they are.

I really think that's stretching things a bit too far; seeing that there are all the photos and articles about top winning dogs in the dog press, giving owners' names, I don't think a dog thief is going to need a hacked computer to find them.

Working gundogs are the most targeted type of dog for thieves they do not post they details anywhere. A small minority will get a mention in the shooting press if they win a competition but mostly this does not happen. Only breed and club newsletters tend to cover these wins. Many gamekeepers do not enter competitions and don't like to advertise their locations.