skip to nav

The licensing of dogs

ARGUMENTS FOR:

The Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) was an incompetent and ill-thought-out piece of legislation, which hasn't achieved its aim. It is pointless to ban certain breeds, especially since they can't always be easily identified.

Cars have to be licensed, and you require a licence to own a shotgun. It is reasonable to extend this requirement to dogs, given the number of fatalities and assaults.

Requiring owners to license their dogs would instil a sense of responsibility which is now lacking. It would actually be in the interest of dogs themselves, since fewer would be bought on a whim.

The licence could be refused to anyone with a record of poor dog-control, and to anyone whose premises were unsuitable for a particular breed.

Licensing would save lives and make public parks safer, since dog owners would be more aware not only of their responsibilities, but of the risk of losing the right to own a dog.

The First Post guide to the issue of the day

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

Licensing dogs would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Dog licences used to be required: they were abolished because enforcement was even more difficult than in the case of cars, many of which run unlicensed and uninsured on our roads. It is foolish to pass a law which is unlikely to be enforced.

The proposal penalises the vast majority of dog owners whose dogs are well behaved.

A licence cannot guarantee a dog's good behaviour. There would still be attacks and occasional deaths.

The stringent gun laws passed in the wake of the Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies haven't reduced the number of gun-related homicides. Why should stringent dog laws work any better?

The proposal is a typical example of a knee-jerk response, and such responses always make for bad law.

FIRST POSTED JANUARY 3, 2007