Welsh Government announce  a Control of Dogs Bill on the 17/7/12
The First Minister has  announced the Welsh Government's intention to introduce an Assembly Bill for the Control of Dogs, a measure the RSPCA has been calling for.

The plans  are to make  changes to the law governing dangerous dogs so that action can be taken where dogs attack people or other animals on any property.

The focus will be on dog behaviour, not breed, to include a strong education and training element for owners. In a draft Bill developed in conjunction with the other two enforcers, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the National Dog Wardens Association. The RSPCA has proposed that Dog Control Notices are a necessary preventative measure and we are pleased to see these included in today's announcement.

The RSPCA  want the Welsh Government to link  measures with  current proposals under development for compulsory microchipping ,to a NATIONAL ANNUAL REGISTRATION SCHEME scheme for dogs in Wales.

>to a NATIONAL ANNUAL REGISTRATION SCHEME scheme for dogs in Wales.

And, as usual, it's the responsible dog owners that get hammered.  As people like me would register, and people that need to be monitored will do nothing.

Jean I agree, how do they think they are going to be able to monitor every dog in Wales. Are the Police/RSPCA going to do random stop and scans to any dogs they see out and about?

> Are the Police/RSPCA going to do random stop and scans to any dogs they see out and about?

Why not?  Or at least the dogs that appear to be badly controlled, caught fouling, off lead in an area they should not be etc.

I agree they should do this and, to begin with, they will. In all likelihood after a few months the police will have other priorities and this will stop.
Jeff.

Police will always have varying priorities in different areas of the country but if an area had a particular problem with dogs I don't see why that could not be targetted at least within a planned campaign when those priorities allowed much as a lot of antisocial behaviour is dealt with.

I agree, but that reinforces my point. 
Jeff.

Well in a way :) but I don't see why they would not return to do another campaign if the need arose.  The technology required is small and cheap so I don't see why not.

I agree (doing that a lot lately :-) ) but I have my doubts it would happen in practice - would be good if I was wrong. - and I don't say that often!
Jeff.

Well they haven't enforced the DDA based on the dogs I see proudly announced as Pit bulls and advertised in papers as put bull x puppies etc. 

If the law had worked these dogs would have died out over the last 20 years, not been bred from when it was illegal to.

Currently the law requires every dog to wear a tag when out (something anyone can see) yet no-one enforces it, so who will check for an invisible chip, it would require random checks.  Why have another IDENTIFICATION law if the first isn't enforced.  The original Dog License that anyone could afford was scrapped due to being ineffective, poor compliance.

Compulsory licensing will be of no benefit to the responsible dog owner, at least Car Tax (Road Fund License) is supposed to fund roads.  Will they suddenly start providing badly needed services for the dog owner, dog parks?  Dog training classes provided (at present it's almost impossible to rent venues at reasonable cost, and council halls not at all).

No it will be a source of revenue and little or no enforcement will take place.

My dogs are already registered with the KC and two Identification organisations (chip and tattoo)

> The technology required is small and cheap so I don't see why not.

MM dog tag even cheaper and visible, yet people do not comply with current identification law, many seem unaware that wearing a tag with owners name and address is a legal requirement, with only some working dogs exempt.

> and little or no enforcement will take place.

How do you know? As I said the technology required to check microchips and registration is small and cheap.  Much easier to apply than expensive court cases to establish breed and ownership.

> MM dog tag even cheaper and visible

Fine for getting a lost dog back to its owner but collars and tags can be swopped about.  The microchip or similar permanent identification would be needed to prove a particular dog or ownership I would think in the case of something antisocial.

I would suggest that none of can know 100% nor can we know it WILL be enforced however given the track record of the authorities on matters such as this I KNOW which eventuality I would place my money on. 
Jeff.

> however given the track record of the authorities on matters such

Actually our community police are very good.  They attend all our parish meetings and when an issue is identified such as speeding through the village, vandalism etc they will generally report back at the next meeting regarding action taken.  Infact wih low cost issues I have never known them not to take action almost immediately.  If you check  your local paper you will probably see a column of similar reporting.

Then you are very lucky.
Jeff.

I really don't think so.  I believe most places have community officers and this is just the sort of thing they do.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.
Jeff.

[b The microchip or similar permanent identification would be needed to prove a particular dog or ownership I would think in the case of something antisocial.]

But what's to stop someone saying they sold the dog, or it ran off and must have been taken in by someone else ?
Will there be a legal requirement to keep chip details up to date ?

But what's to stop someone saying they sold the dog, or it ran off and must have been taken in by someone else ?

Nothing at all to stop them using that as a defence which could never be disproven beyond reasonable doubt.
.

> The RSPCA  want the Welsh Government to link  measures with  current proposals under development for compulsory microchipping ,to a NATIONAL ANNUAL REGISTRATION SCHEME scheme for dogs in Wales.

Lennox's case is still fresh in our minds - that dog was licensed and chipped then ruled to be an illegal dog after 5 years of being licensed, so how can making people license and chip their dogs be of any use if it can't even cut out the licensing of 'illegal' breeds where these rules are allready in force?

> As I said the technology required to check microchips and registration is small and cheap. Much easier to apply than expensive court cases to establish breed and ownership.

"When Lennox was a puppy his owners had him neutered, licensed, insured, DNA registered, Pet Safe registered and micro chipped and although the Belfast City Council have issued a dog licence for Lennox for the last five years and continue to do so today,"
and all of that never stopped a lenghty & expensive court battle......

Taken form here

> But what's to stop someone saying they sold the dog, or it ran off and must have been taken in by someone else ?

I don't see why it can not be built into the system, as they have with vehicle licencing, that the onus is on the registered owner to update any changes or they will remain responsible in law.
I wonder what other suggestions people have for a better well to deal with this problem?  As I see it, one way or another, it must involve the police and this seems as good a way as any to facilitate them carrying out what is necessary with the least expence overall.
I particularly like this aspect of the draft

>The focus will be on dog behaviour, not breed, to include a strong education and training element for owners.

mastifflover

EXACTLY!

People who do everything that is required, and go above and beyond, are punished.  I still say that it is the idiots like me that adhere to guidelines who lose out.

Many years ago, when I was religiously buying 5 dog licences every year, friends were scoffing at me, as they didn't bother buying one for a single dog.

> and all of that never stopped a lenghty & expensive court battle......
>

As I understand it the case was not over ownership.

> As I understand it the case was not over ownership.

No it's about weather a dog should be killed due to being a danger to the public or not and as the thread is about chanes to the law relating to dangerous dogs, it's a pretty huge point that a dog with no complaints about it's behaviour, can still be deemed to be dangerous & destroyed, despite the owners following the law regarding chipping & licensing.

I personally find it a huge worry.

We can pay to have our dogs chipped, pay for a license, but the real problem owners - those that only get a dog as a weapon for example - will NOT do anything legal - they are under the radar - that is exactly how they manage to be such a problem now. There are al lready laws in place to deal with dangerous dogs - whoever is in charge of such a dog is guilty of an offence - ownership does not come into it, these new laws are not about public safety, they are about the RSPCA trying to control the dog world and the government making some extra money.

As I said on a recent thread that has been removed, one has a much, much higher chance (about 12 times greater) of being put in hospital and spending more time in there, for needing a pooh than by being injured by a dog (be it accidental or deliberate), yet we have no massive media campagin to combat constipation.

> we have no massive media campagin to combat constipation.

I think you would probably start one if other people were responsible for your constipation :)

>those that only get a dog as a weapon for example - will NOT do anything legal - they are under the radar

The whole point of introducing these measure is to reduce their ability to stay under the radar.  I agree licencing alone would be daft but linked to permanent identification it gets a lot trickier to avoid.

So why have licensing? 

Surely Identification, which is already a legal requirement (well identification of the owner on tag) and often ignored and certainly appears not to be enforced. 

It's another stealth tax.

As I said my dogs are already registered with three organisations, and cross referenced with at least two, the Kennel club have both the tattoo and chip details on their records for my dogs, and the tattoo regsiter have their KC reg details.

I can remember as a child being sent to the local post office[ not that local when I think about it, must have been a couple of miles] to get the dog licence for 7 shillings and 6 pence [37.5p] and collect the family allowance at the same time.

Who issues these DDA licences, does the dog have to be presented for examination?

> I don't see why it can not be built into the system, as they have with vehicle licencing, that the onus is on the registered owner to update any changes or they will remain responsible in law.

So why are the RSPCA so blind that they cannot see that this will change nothing, the responsible owners will yet again be supporting this quasi police business by buying an annual licence and the irresponsible will as ever walk away scott free?

If we have to have a license why not run it the way the KC runs registrations and registration transfers. That would only charge people every time the dog changes hands, the same way the DVLA run car registration? The KC is already set up to run it and it would not cost responsible owners any more than it does now. The RSPCA on the other hand would charge a load of money every single year which would force some people to have to give up their dogs if they could not afford the licence or force people into breaking the law.

I have followed the RSPCA's moves over this licence business and have come to the conclusion it is no longer an animal charity but is in fact a business with over paid executives who have nothing better to do than dream up ways of harassing responsible dog owners and dog breeders.

I too have been following the legislation and the politics behind it and I am aware of an undercurrent .....I also look at other countries laws and the different city and county laws in the US. I support deed not breed , but fail to see  where the funds will come from for back up to handle all licensing  checks ,I am worried about the prices , like in some of the States lower fees are  for neutered pets.
There are already laws that are ignored .
I am wary of the private property inclusion .
Legislation will be a minefield .
We already have licensing in Wales of the hell holes they call puppy farms , who sell them in the rest of the country to petshops and dealerships.
The R£PCA already farm out their call centres to Ventura (Capita plc) which is why the public get a disappointing response to their urgent animal welfare calls .