Should a dog license be introduced and if so how do you think it should be run and by whom?

For example should it be run by the RSPCA and we all pay an annual fee? Or should it be run by the Kennel Club and run like a car registration system? Or should there not be any annual or any other form of dog license?

I am asking because this has come up in a conversation with another member of Champdogs off board. Tomorrow I will reveal all but hope you will all give as much thought to this and replies as possible.

As a responsible dog owner with KC registered, Tattooed, and chipped dogs I have no need, and have no wish to pay for those who would avoid paying.

I'm afraid not.  The irresponsible people won't pay so it'll only cost those who look after their dogs anyway.  And there's no way that I'd want to be involved with the RSPCA!! :(

If anything, I think that people should have a licence to own a dog, after attending some sort of training course, like passing a driving test, again NOT organised by the RSPCA. :)  But again, who would police such a thing.....???

The RSPCA are claiming that 2 out of every 3 dog owners want the annual license brought back. Would you say this is true?

Pfffffffffffffffffff.............. :) :)

The problem is that most pet owners think that the RSPCA are knowledgable dog people and look on them like they do Vets and don't question what they advise. :(  If the RSPCA say that we need dog licenses, the majority of pet owners will agree with them because they think that they know what they're talking about. :(

> The RSPCA are claiming that 2 out of every 3 dog owners want the annual license brought back.

If the RSPCA were going to be administrating the licences the level might drop to about 1 in 50! No way should they be given any extra power over ordinary pet owners.

> No way should they be given any extra power over ordinary pet owners.

Should they be given a right to run a license then they would be given power over pet owners and breeders surely?

Northern Ireland still has dog licensing.  It only costs £5 a year per dog and most people still don't pay it!  As we contribute about half the dogs PTS in the UK each year (given that we only have a fraction of the population, that's a deplorable statistic :-( ), then it's fairly safe to say that licensing doesn't work.

It's only the responsible dog owners that pay for their licenses.  The rest - the types that need to be targetted - just don't bother.  If the dog gets picked up straying, they simply don't pay the fine to have it released from the pound/for not having a license because it's cheaper to get another dog from their mate up the street whose Staffy X has just had a litter...easy come, easy go. 

Nope, responsible people only would purchase them and even many responsible ones won't.  Why shd. I pay for a licence when the people who are the problem won't?

Don't know who the RSPCA have polled, maybe people who go into their RSPCA vet hospitals and don't pay out what the rest of us have to with vets.

Back in the olden days (when beer was tuppence a pint) I was the only person I knew that used to buy 7 dog licences every year.  Every single pet owner that I knew - with just one dog - thought I was stupid.  I don't remember anyone chasing them for none payment.  Of course, I suppose that I could be chased if I lapsed, because I was already on record.

So, a resounding NO from me.  And I certainly wouldn't want the RSPCA having control, in any way shape or form. 

Think about it sensiibly.  It's people like us that have our dogs vaccinated and microchipped.  The people who don't would be the people that wouldn't pay for a license.

Would I ever buy one again?  No.

Surely this would mean that the RSPCA should loose their charity status and become known as a licencing authority or a government agency.
As others have said the responsible would pay and go through all the procedures needed the irresponsible wouldnt bother and if challenged the dogs would be rehomed at best or got rid of by other means at worst.

Or seized? Like on Animal 24/7 this morning?

>The RSPCA are claiming that 2 out of every 3 dog owners want the annual license brought back. Would you say this is true?

I'd be very interested to hear the context in which this question was asked:

I can imagine several ways in which the question could be posed where it may appear that a Dog License is a good idea.

> Tomorrow I will reveal all

Polly - April Fools Day is on Thursday !!  Don't get us started...  :)

It has nothing to do with April Fools day but a lot to do with what you might read in your paper tomorrow or see on tv or hear on the radio which is why I am asking dog owners the question would you support a dog tax? sorry license?

I was assuming that the in the first instance people would be given a warning a fine and time to comply.

Yet another tax on the honest, law-abiding citizens! The thugs walking round with illegal breeds will hardly be queuing up to buy a dog licence, will they? It's the same with cars, guns etc - the responsible people get licences, insurance etc, the ones who cause the trouble don't bother.

The equine world had this a few years ago with the introduction of horse passports (a registration document rather than a travel one)  - it is illegal for a horse to be bought, sold or transported without a passport, yet it happens all the time. The only people who seem to regularly checked are those like us, who take our vaccinated, wormed, insured horses to competitions in our taxed, insured and MOT'd lorries - we're not the sort of people who break the law and avoid such regulations.

If a dog licence was introduced I would probably buy one as I'm a law-abiding kind of person, but don't think it would be feasible. I would love for people to have to have training/pass a test to own a dog though!

> As a responsible dog owner with KC registered, Tattooed, and chipped dogs I have no need, and have no wish to pay for those who would avoid paying.

I agree with above, our dogs are KC registered and chipped but I would think that a large majority are not. I would support some form of registration for all rather than an annual licence. Who would be the overseeing body - I don't know - not keen on the RSPCA. It would have to be structured and inforced so there was no avoidance but people drive around in unlicenced, untaxed cars, which does not give me much hope.
I have heard that chips can be made ineffective in some way - strong magnets - is there any truth in that?
Could it be that all dogs are chipped as puppies before sale.

> I would support some form of registration for all rather than an annual licence. Who would be the overseeing body - I don't know - not keen on the RSPCA. It would have to be structured and inforced so there was no avoidance but people drive around in unlicenced, untaxed cars, which does not give me much hope.
> I have heard that chips can be made ineffective in some way - strong magnets - is there any truth in that?
> Could it be that all dogs are chipped as puppies before sale.

I would like to see people get the choice between chips and tattoos and if we are forced to have a registration system have a registration run like a car registration document were both seller and new owner have to send it off to the licensing body, and only every time the dog changes hands, has to go into rescue and the licensing body recording date of birth and date of death along with reason for death. That would add a huge amount of dog health and welfare info regardless of pedigree or crossbred as a whole. I definitely would not want the RSPCA to run it. The KC is already set up to do so as it has already has multiple registers, so for us it would merely be a change to our registration documents.

As to who should police it???? RSPCA Inspector Eachus who attended all the early DDA cases would probably be happy to set that up, but would we want that? Did anyone see him on Animal 24/7 this morning? It would mean the RSPCA and the KC working together much more closely.

Yes there are ways of stopping a chip from reading properly and how would an owner stand legally if the chip stopped working?

>I would love for people to have to have training/pass a test to own a dog though!

I wouldn't! Who'd set the questions? Nowhere else do you have to pass a test to own something, not even a gun - why a dog?

> I wouldn't! Who'd set the questions? Nowhere else do you have to pass a test to own something, not even a gun - why a dog?

I said training or a test ;-) well maybe fewer dogs would end up in rescue or being euthanised if people knew what they were taking on, and were educated about the realities of dog ownership. Possibly the young couple I know who are selling their husky wouldn't have bought him if they'd been a little more aware of the breed, and not just allowed to go out and buy one. People nowadays want something so they have it, whether it's suitable or not.

Animals are not objects, anyone with the right money can just go out and buy one, like it's a car or a wardrobe - looking at the rescue problem, many of these owners do see them as disposable objects.

You have to pass a test to drive a car - cars don't starve to death if you don't put petrol in them.

>> I would love for people to have to have training/pass a test to own a dog though!
> I wouldn't! Who'd set the questions? Nowhere else do you have to pass a test to own something, not even a gun - why a dog?

Perhaps not a basic test, but maybe something along the lines of attending a day course on how to choose a dog suitable for you, and how to find a vet, a good training club and see some basic dog care and training being done, then a question and answer session after which the potential owners could receive a certificate to say they attended and are aware of the responsibilites of dog ownership?

Jeangenie, Would you support a dog licence though?

What is the safest way to permanently identify a dog?

> I said training or a test

Well I have done loads of tests with my dog - taken him through KC puppy, Bronze and Silver - we trained for Gold but didn't take the test.  So on paper that makes me a highly responsible dog owner compared to many out there who never go to any classes - as we all know the owner is tested as well as the dog. But things can change...  dogs can change, if a tested dog of that calibre later went on to allegedly bite someone then it would all be useless. Don't lets fool ourselves here.

How do you think you would stand in law, if a third party deliberately did something that made your dog aggressive and it then went on to bite? As the current law stands there is no defence for a dog for that, and the owner would still be liable.

>What is the safest way to permanently identify a dog? <

DNA profile but no business is prepared to invest to find a quick way of doing that, when micro-chips are so cheap and tattooing is only done by smaller groups like the National Dog Tattoo Register.

The simple solution is here but will anyone take notice and act upon it?

Click on the link and then go to The Commercial Puppy Trade link follow instructions and then when open scroll down to page 12 onwards.

http://sites.google.com/site/puppyalert/

Licencing as years ago will not work need to get to the root of the problem and the root of the problem is keeping tags on all puppies that are bred and by whom and who they are sold to. Tracabilty of all dogs from birth is the key and who owns them.

I started this topic as I received a press release from the RSPCA calling for an annual dog licence.

RSPCA calls for new dog registration scheme as survey shows overwhelming support according to the RSPCA they claim new figures revealed today show huge public backing for the introduction of a licence to tackle a range of dog welfare problems which plague the country. A survey commissioned by the charity, 2 out of 3 dog owners (66%)* asked said that they would be in favour of a licence scheme. The RSPCA will be submitting these results in response to the consultation on dangerous dog legislation recently launched by the UK 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." The findings are also backed up by the results of the recent Bateson report into dog breeding which called for urgent action to be taken to safeguard animal welfare.

Among the claims which the RSPCA makes to support this are:

An annual scheme would help to ensure that contact details of owners are kept up to date so they can be reunited with their pet more easily if it is lost or stolen."

A dog licence should be enforced in England to help curb problems such as 'puppy farms', stray dogs, stolen dogs and animal abandonments.

The costs to the health service of dog attacks on people were valued at £3.3 million in England in 2009, according to Hospital Episode Statistics 2009.

Attacks on livestock were valued at £2.2 million in England during 2009 by the Economists Advisory Group's 1998 report to the RSPCA and Kennel Club - adjusted for inflation.

Costs arising from road traffic accidents involving dogs in Britain during 2008 were valued at £14.6 million by the Department for Transport.

A licence would be hugely beneficial in addressing many animal welfare concerns stemming from overbreeding of dogs to a lack of traceable ownership.

Head of external affairs David Bowles said: "The RSPCA has been seriously considering a dog licence scheme as we feel it would provide an effective mechanism for tackling a whole raft of dog welfare problems. The income should be ring-fenced (But would it be used only for dogs and their owners at local level or be quietly put into the RSPCA political fund?) and ploughed into services such as an effective local dog warden service which could make a real difference to both dogs and their owners at a local level. It is possible that a reduction in the licence fee could apply for more responsible dog owners such as those who have their pets neutered".

Similar schemes operate in 23 countries throughout Europe and also in parts of Australia and New Zealand. They have proven success rates in reducing problems with disease, enforcing microchipping and neutering and in turn encouraging responsible pet ownership.

Reading University carried out research on behalf of the RSPCA and have released their findings which clearly show 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.

So if the scheme is poorly funded doesn't this indicate that local government and central government think they have other priorities? So who is to run such a scheme? The RSPCA? Would we want them to run such a scheme?

The TNS poll commissioned by the RSPCA asked 1,017 adults between the ages of 16-64 in Great Britain in February 2010. It is interesting to note that they asked more non dog owners than dogs owners, surely dog owners views would be more appropriate since they have day to day contact and are more likely to be knowledgeable about dog related matters? The poll asked 334 dog owners and 683 non-dog owners for their views.

*76% of the total people asked and 66% of dog owners asked are in favour of the reintroduction of a dog licence.

A total of 771 people asked were in favour of a licence, 145 people asked were against it and 101 people asked did not know.

The government's plans would only effect legislation in England. The Welsh Assembly would be responsible for enforcing a policy in Wales. Will we all be moving to Wales then?????

Several years ago, back in the 1980's they tried to get the dog license reintroduced and an annual fee was mentioned of around £50 per dog, so what fee would they charge now? £100 £200 per annuam? More? Also if dogs which are neutered and spayed are to be given a cheaper fee then how much much the breeder who keeps entire dogs and bitches (and breed mutant puppies according to the RSPCA vet) get charged per year?

No... wouldnt support it, CERTAINLY wouldnt support the RSPCA as they currently are having ANYTHING to do with it (yeah I saw Animal B*S* 24:7 yesterday morning....).

I MIGHT support a voluntary scheme whereby those who opted to jump through certain hoops got some form of benefit/reduction in something or other/sweeties for doing so....

Carrots, i respond to ...

Sticks i break and stick up peoples wossnames.

Yet another way for the government and their lackeys to keep tabs on law abiding citizens!  

Remember ID cards?  Full Body Scanners at airports - your naked body on view because everyone must be suspected of being a terrorist! 

Wake up sleeple, your civil liberties are being eroded daily and you don't even notice!

To co-operate with this proposed legislation is to allow the government to cut off your arms and then you thank them for not cutting off your legs.

Why should we have to yet again justify our innocence, it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but more and more the government is trying to change this around, we will soon be living in a totalitarian police state.

Dog licensing will NOT curb anything it is supposedly designed to do, but it will curb law abiding citizens going about their lawful business.  In order for this to work YOU will have to pay for and produce documents proving your innocence - to even contemplate co-operation with this is sheer madness.

I'm speaking as the buyer of the last 5 dog licenses in a town of 40,000 people.  I owned one dog and bought the licenses over 5 years.  They were numbered consecutively.

Personally, I wouldn't trust the RSPCA to implement any of the supposed benefits of such a scheme.

There are already laws in place sufficient to sort out any of the problems mentioned.  Lack of will by local and central government to implement existing law is no excuse for trying to bring in heavier handed methods.  The money will be taken in vast quantities and NOTHING will change - except we will all be treated like criminals.

>You have to pass a test to drive a car - cars don't starve to death if you don't put petrol in them.

You can buy a car without taking a test, though, and if it's not maintained properly it'll rot away. You don't have to take a test to get a provisional licence to drive under supervision. You don't have to take your cycling proficiency test before you've got a bike and learned to ride it - so you shouldn't have to take a test to prove you can look after a dog until you've learned how to look after a dog - by having one. An ownership test - the KC Good Citizen scheme is ideal - once you've had a dog for a while to get a reduction in your dog licence (if it was imposed) would be reasonable.

But again, who would set the questions? The council? The RSPCA? The RCVS? The KC? Some expensive quango?

But as it's been proven that dog licences don't work (unless they're hugely expensive) to control antisocial dog behaviour, why send good money after bad?

Just thinking out loud- what if there was a data base of dog owners and once a year you had to take your dog to the vets (or another place ) to have that dog checked over to make sure it has been looked after and fed well and was healthy ( or showed treatment going on ). If all was OK then your license was renewed for another year. All dogs had to be registered and you carried an id card as proof. Any not registered would be illegal owners.
Bit like an MOT for dogs
Life is quite nice in cloud cuckoo land !!!!!!!

The theory's fine, but the vast quantities of dog-police needed to enforce it (on the sink estates, for example) would price it out of the market. It's a civil liberties nightmare.

Does that mean that the puppy farmer -licenced commercial breeder will apply for an individual licence for 100 plus breeding bitches, together with their stud dogs after they have bred for them a number of years? Nonsense

Does that mean the back yard breeder will apply for their 3 o 4 breedng bitches after they have bred from them? Nonsense.

I doubt they will.  What is needed is that every person wishing to breed from their dog/s regardless of how many, should by law have all dogs they own identifiable. Any that can be health screened for known diseases in the breed should be.  The dogs used for breeding should be checked by a vet for basic health too.  Then when the breeder has in their possession the ID of dogs they wish to breed from, the health screening certificates and health test result from vet they then should be able to apply for a licence from their local Council to breed.  But very importantly limit the number of dogs a person can own for breeding (not as now 100 plus and more). Then when the dogs have finished their breeding life they must be neutered/spayed and that certificate from the vet certifies he carried out the operation is then passed to the rescue with the said dog or to its new owners. If the owner of this dog has a casual licence (to allow breeding from one dog) they must after the first litter have that dog spayed or neutered. 
Whether the puppies that are bred from one bitch when the owner has a casual licence or from the owner with several dogs used for breeding with a commercial licence when sold must all be identifyable, health checked by a vet and the new owner must be in recent of all paperwork.  They in turn must apply for the same if they decide they wish to breed.  If they do not then spay/neuter should be encouraged - to be found breeding without a licence a heavy penalty.
If the puppy is destined to be sold to a dealer or pet shop then the same must apply and cannot be sold unless everything is inplace. But as the number of breeding bitches are reduced if this became law as the Council must limit the numbers used for breeding there will be less puppies available to sell to dealers and pet shops. In time the trade would cease and dry up.
This is the only way forward to restrict the numbers of dogs a person can own and breed from. ID is in place already, so make that the breeders responsibilty, health screening is in place make that the breeders responsiblity, the only addition is the health check at vets prior to breeding and for the puppy before sold. With the paper work in place only then can the breeder apply for a licence from the Council after they have seen and verified all paperwork and persons ID matches.

This would control excessive breeding control (puppy farming) control back yard breeding, and there  would be less dogs going into rescue and those that did would already be neutered and spayed if bred from.

Where is the heavy cost involved, the only cost is for the breeder and the Council a little more admin.

The RSPCAs idea shows a total lack of undertanding of the bigger problem and does not get to the root of the problem overbreeding, irrespnsible breeding, irresponsible ownership and lack of control and accoutabilty  from breeder, dealer, pet shop, breeder new puppy owner.  They are trying to close the gate after the horse has bolted, by making owners responsible, that is too late. The responsibilty has to start with breeders at the point when the breeder first decides to breed and produce a puppy to be sold.           

>> I would love for people to have to have training/pass a test to own a dog though!
> I wouldn't! Who'd set the questions? Nowhere else do you have to pass a test to own something, not even a gun - why a dog?

Any Tom, Dick or Harriet can have a baby and it can turn into a violent thug later, but no-one gives people a 'parent test' to see if they will be responsible!

but no-one gives people a 'parent test' to see if they will be responsible!
I'd vote for that!! :) :) ;) ;)

> but no-one gives people a 'parent test' to see if they will be responsible!
> I'd vote for that!!

Me to

In Response to Dill
Yet another way for the government and their lackeys to keep tabs on law abiding citizens!  

Remember ID cards?  Full Body Scanners at airports - your naked body on view because everyone must be suspected of being a terrorist! 

Wake up sleeple, your civil liberties are being eroded daily and you don't even notice!

To co-operate with this proposed legislation is to allow the government to cut off your arms and then you thank them for not cutting off your legs.

Why should we have to yet again justify our innocence, it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but more and more the government is trying to change this around, we will soon be living in a totalitarian police state.

Here here. Will not solve anything. one of the biggest problems with dogs these days are the status/weapons dogs  and none of the suggested laws will have any effexct on these. The problems are not the dogs. they go much deeper than this. It may be a contoversial view but I see the dog problem as only a symptom of a society problem. We need to  solve the problem of the drug dealers and the gang culture as this is the root of the problem. the dogs are only a symptom. if we don't solve this then even if we stop these people having dogs then they will only find another alternative. Guns became harder to get so  they turned to knives and dogs.

the government seemd to think that just writing a new law for a problem will solve it but without effective enforcement nothing changes, and most of the enforcement agencies seem to pick on the easier targets rather than the ones which are really causing the problems.  for example Animal 24:7 yesterday  shows the dog squad siezing several nice friendly dogs off people in the stereet  rather than the street gangs.

> As a responsible dog owner with KC registered, Tattooed, and chipped dogs I have no need, and have no wish to pay for those who would avoid paying.

I totally agree Brainless, I live on the Isle of Man where dogs "must" be licenced. Non of mine are & I don't intend on licencing them.
There is no way to police it. You fill in a form take it to the post office where you receive a disc to put on your dogs collar & thats it.

> Similar schemes operate in 23 countries throughout Europe and also in parts of Australia and New Zealand. They have proven success rates in reducing problems with disease, enforcing microchipping and neutering and in turn encouraging responsible pet ownership.
>

I don't know where they got this information. I've come from New Zealand where I had to pay $70 per dog, per year to my local council for my dogs licence.  Pitbulls must be at least 30% of the dog population as they are to be seen on many a street corner roaming loose, no collars, skinny and mangy looking and I imagine no licence.  One pitbull owner I knew had never licenced her dog despite the dog warden going to her house 3 times and pleading with her to get it done, the penalty ( I can't remember the amount but I think $1000) was never enforced.

As far as I could tell, the only sucess rate that came from the funds was an increase of dog wardens whose main concern was to deal with dog barking complaints.  I had a visit myself as my dogs had barked once when I was out for 2 hours.  I went to my neighbours who said yes something had set my dogs off for a few minutes but then they were quiet again.  The result of this was that the warden said she would take my dogs away if I did not agree to buy them each an electronic shock collar at a cost of $240 (from herself of course) there and then.

IMO licencing does not promote responsible dog ownership, it promotes revenue collection from those who are responsible enough to follow the law.

Mel

I find the number of dog owners asked compared to the number of non dog owners asked rather puzzling! Perhaps we should have a petition on downing streets web site to send a clear indication to the PM that dog owners do not think it will work?

> The equine world had this a few years ago with the introduction of horse passports (a registration document rather than a travel one)&nbsp; - it is illegal for a horse to be bought, sold or transported without a passport, yet it happens all the time. The only people who seem to regularly checked are those like us, who take our vaccinated, wormed, insured horses to competitions in our taxed, insured and MOT'd lorries - we're not the sort of people who break the law and avoid such regulations

I was going to bring horse passports up too. The amount of people I know who don't have them!! But also when you have a horse PTS they are meant to go with their passport yet a pony I lost to Grass Sickness I was never once asked for his passport and still have it here. So I am yet to see the point of paying for the passports! I suspect dog licensing would go a similar way.

I don't think a licence would work, it didn't before, so why now? I wouldn't be in favour of paying hundreds of pounds per dog, we all know there are many excellent dog homes out there but their owners are not rich and a huge annual licence fee on top of everything else would be prohibitive - I include myself in that. We all know, I am sure, of people who have loads of money but really should not be entitled to own a dog. I do believe in microchipping pups and that the microchips should be linked back to breeders.
What do the great non-dog owning public know about dog ownership, so the slant between owners and non-owners asked is puzzling.

I agree with Dill, every year there are more and more proposals by the government which are essentially curtailments of our civil liberties :(

Ireland has dog licences and it doesn't work. One can purchase a licence at the local post office and I dare say, 10% do and 90% don't. Although there are half-hearted attempts by dogwardens to go around and check - nothing ever comes of it.

> every year there are more and more proposals by the government which are essentially curtailments of our civil liberties :-(

I to agree but in all likelyhood there will be some sort of legislation, if not sooner rather than later. The 'Nanny State'  with its' knee jerk reaction has been here for a long time. So perhaps it would be more productive to have thoughts on how something could work rather than how 'it wouldn't'. 

>So perhaps it would be more productive to have thoughts on how something could work rather than how 'it wouldn't'. 

Without realising what won't work you can't move forward to something that might.

There's plenty of evidence that a licensing scheme doesn't work, so there's no point in flogging that particular dead horse.

>So perhaps it would be more productive to have thoughts on how something could work rather than how 'it >wouldn't'. 

And that is the thinking that allows those in Government to bring in so many new laws and reduce our liberty

"thank you sir for cutting my arms off and not taking my feet too, would you like my eyes?"

As I stated before

There are already perfectly adequate laws in place to deal with puppy farms, intimidation dogs, animal welfare etc.  The will has to be there to enforce them. 

Further curtailing the freedom and privacy of millions of innocent people will not help one jot, it won't help the innocent owners and it won't help animals in need!

I  will not submit to proving my innocence of any wrong-doing on a daily, monthly or yearly basis.  If that happens then we will not be living in a democracy, we will be living under a tyranny.

I read Orson Wells' 1984 30 years ago, I thought it a work of fiction - not the Labour Government manifesto

Review your lost liberty

I can remember going to the Post Office, I was about 9, and paying 7/6( that's 37.5 pence for any youngsters ;-) ) for a dog licence . It meant little then and I can not see how it will make a difference now. IF it meant plenty of good dog wardens, better rescue centres. less abadoned dogs, compulsory puppy training and nueturing except to prooven and good licenced breeders I would gladly pay but it won't ,so I won't...

> I read Orson Wells' 1984 30 years ago, I thought it a work of fiction - not the Labour Government manifesto

Excellant!