Should pet ownership be legally monitored?

luckat

Question for you all.

Do you think that pet ownership should be legally monitored? Should there be a higher licence fee for dogs, and a licence for cats, which would include an initial payment for mandatory spaying (except for show animals), genetic registration and microchipping?

Should that payment be used - with other tax input - to fund a really good system of shelters and publicly-funded vets?

Other thoughts?

Ruby Soho

There are loads of aspects with regard to dog ownership that I would love to see regulated, mandatory microchipping would be top of my list. I think that anyone wishing to breed from a dog should be vetted by an organisation who provides them with a prohibitively expensive license to breed, therefore only the very serious breeder need apply!! It would stop breeding being such a casual affair, and should be limited only to registered animals. I'm probably treading on toes here, but with 16,000 dogs pts in local authority pounds in 2005, I don't really care who I offend!

summer_ina_bowl

i agree that pet ownership should be regulated! i don't think breeding needs to be so strictly limited, but i think that mandatory chipping is definately a good idea, the goverment should maybe incorperate chipping and licences in the one package. i don't think that high prices are the best idea - it would be a shame to 'price-out' poorer people from pet ownership. my prof opinion is that education and registration are the way to go.

Ruby Soho

I dunno, I just find it so disheartening to look at the 'buy and sell' website, there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pups for sale all the time, many with the 'ready in time for christmas' tag, something's gotta give!! I'm sure that all of these pups are prime specimens of their breed, and will no doubt improve breeding stocks for generations to come.... I think its maddening, there are too many pups and not enough decent homes out there. It needs to be strictly regulated in my opinion, but hey, the laws pertaining to dogs aren't regulated as it is!

peasant

I would be very much opposed to introducing a lot of bureaucracy, fines, fees, licences etc.

What this country needs is all encompassing animal welfare legislation. Not just for pets, but for all animals.

Clear definitions for every type of animal what constitutes proper animal husbandry, minimum requirements for care and the conditions they are kept in.
Clear definitions of what is acceptable and what isn't.

Once that is established an organisation like the ISPCA needs to be given proper funding and power of prosecution ...and that's it.

In other words you don't regulate who can or can't keep an animal, but you regulate how it needs to be kept and looked after.
And every now and then your animal warden comes round to see if you do.

shinners007

totally agree with peasent

luckat

So would I agree, except that there are already such regulations, and they're ignored.

People value what they have to pay for, in this country, at the moment. If they had to pay for the welfare of their animals, they'd take better care of them.

Mr. Presentable

Absolutely. most pet owners in my district are not taking responsibility for them. Note: cats, bull terriers without muzzles, jackdaws without speech therapy.......

peasant

luckat wrote: »

So would I agree, except that there are already such regulations, and they're ignored.

People value what they have to pay for, in this country, at the moment. If they had to pay for the welfare of their animals, they'd take better care of them.

I doubt that very much.

People have no problem paying ridiculous amonts for THE puppie they ALWAYS wanted, only to abandon it months later and and then get another one.

As for regulations ...

There are no "such" regulations already in existence, animal welfare law in this country is a joke.

I personally don't get particularly hot or bothered when some owner has his dog unleashed or unmuzzled ..but it makes me bloody angry that there can be puppy farms and they are perfectly legal because they fulfill the measerly legal requirement of "adequate food and shelter."

And it makes me really furious to see how much money the goverment openly pumps into the greyhound industry in the full knowedge of all the terrible things that go on in the background while "supporting" those organisations that deal with the aftermath with a few euro fifty.

Get these things right first ...then worry about fancy microchips.

shinners007

well said peasant!!!

Ruby Soho

Microchipping to me means accountability. If all dogs were chipped, it would be possible to identify and prosecute the owners of cruelty + abandonment cases. Thats why I think its important. I absolutely agree with the last point, but if dog breeding goes on to the extent it is, even with 50 extra welfare officers, it would be holding the tide back with a spoon. I mean, if all people have to do is provide adequate food and shelter for their dogs, it doesn't really put people off breeding a cute litter or two, does it? A proper license may make casual, have a go breeders think twice, and leave it to those who know what they're doing. It would not say who can or can't have a dog, but who can or can't breed their dog. I never said that it was going to solve all of the problems, I simply meant that it would be a step in the right direction. Absolutely, we have a huge problem with welfare here, but I don't know where to start with that.

EGAR

I had a chat with a gut from the Dept of Enviroment who told me that new legislation re *breeding establishments* is in the pipeline and will be coming out soon. I am not privy to the details so let's hope it's a step in the right direction to stop puppy farmers. I think MC is very important not just in cruelty cases but also in cases where the dog is allowed to stray and may injure someone. Also, breeding should be taxed, regardless of the breed, x breed.

Sarah

summer_ina_bowl

I agree. Microchipping means accountability.
If you cannot prove responsibility or ownership, then even the most well thought law system will be prone to loopholes.
Even microchipping has its draw backs, but i think mandatory chipping is as good a place as any to start - as for being thought 'fancy', then even the efficiency/complications of the technology involved in proving responsibility for any new laws etc might be enough to put a bit of fear of retribution into people. I don't think any genuine person should be denied a pet, but a bit of formality might put people off getting a spur of the moment pet.

I still think we should prioratise educating the young, even one or two lessons a year on really basic animal husbandry would make a huge difference to the new generations of pet owners. In my experience, a lot of cruelty/abandonment/neglect cases are all derived from ignorance.

Maybe, i'm being a little too hopeful, but i think if people knew better, they'd do better!

bernard0368

I think all pets should be micro-chipped (Is there not european directive to this effect?) However increasing the licence fee will do no good. The money will just get lost in the dept of finance coffers and the animals will receive no benifit from it be it through welfare groups etc. Also in the case of dogs owner and pet training should be compulsory.