Dog owners could be forced to take out insurance (From This Is Wiltshire)

Long overdue

Do you think the proposals are a good idea?Just like motor insurance then. The responsible will pay the irresponsible will not and the problem will continue.

I agree with Tarot, the responsible ones already have insurance,
if we are thinking of injury to others then I think this should be extended to mobility scooters and pushbikes too - but who will enforce it ?

tarot wrote:
Do you think the proposals are a good idea?Just like motor insurance then. The responsible will pay the irresponsible will not and the problem will continue.

that is the world we live in!
you work and save and pay for the unemployed, unwilling and unfits.
then come old age and you have to sell your lifesaving assets to be cared for whilst those who have been careless get free healthcare.
It is a bit too late to complain about it now.

Who's complaining? just stating a fact.

There would be no point in complaining it would get us nowhere.

If car drivers get away with having no insurance, there's no hope of policing this one. The police can't even stop people using mobiles whilst driving let alone check up on a dog owner having insurance. The responsible ones will do what is necessary but the majority will not bother.

Most if not all of the states in the US have dog licensing with tags issued that must be kept on the dogs’ collar.

Those licensing a dog must supply various details including medical, neutering and insurance certificates.

The licensing works two ways. One if a dog is lost its owner is easily identified and two if the dog, ergo the owner, is subject to legal violation (off leash, fouling, neglect of animal, attacking livestock or people) then again they are easily traceable.

We used to have dog licensing in this country and for whatever reason the powers of the day decided to cancel the need for it.

The re-establishing of an adequate licensing and insurance system may just help prevent some of the much publicised injuries and deaths caused by dog attacks AND make it easier to prosecute those who ill-treat their own animals.

And for those of us who are a tad fed up with the perpetual problem of pooh on pavements, it may just see some of the offending owners who refuse to clear up after their pets in court.

Maybe 6 months community service picking up pet pooh off the street and grassed areas they were so happy to let their own dog foul may just bring home how unpleasant the problem really is!

Chowmai wrote:
Most if not all of the states in the US have dog licensing with tags issued that must be kept on the dogs’ collar. Those licensing a dog must supply various details including medical, neutering and insurance certificates. The licensing works two ways. One if a dog is lost its owner is easily identified and two if the dog, ergo the owner, is subject to legal violation (off leash, fouling, neglect of animal, attacking livestock or people) then again they are easily traceable. We used to have dog licensing in this country and for whatever reason the powers of the day decided to cancel the need for it. The re-establishing of an adequate licensing and insurance system may just help prevent some of the much publicised injuries and deaths caused by dog attacks AND make it easier to prosecute those who ill-treat their own animals. And for those of us who are a tad fed up with the perpetual problem of pooh on pavements, it may just see some of the offending owners who refuse to clear up after their pets in court. Maybe 6 months community service picking up pet pooh off the street and grassed areas they were so happy to let their own dog foul may just bring home how unpleasant the problem really is!

I agree with you, unfortunately Brits and their lunatic politicians aren't very well known to have common sense.
I mean look.... Labour won 3 times in a row and just about to close in on Tories in 2010.
Britain = Idiocracy

Another set of unenforceable laws or will this be passed on to councils as well.

Great idea. No insurance, then put the dog down immediately.
What about the same for cat's?

Even better. Rehome the dogs and put the owners down.

Robh wrote:
Even better. Rehome the dogs and put the owners down.

I could go along with that, but not for cats.

Chowmai wrote:
Most if not all of the states in the US have dog licensing with tags issued that must be kept on the dogs’ collar. Those licensing a dog must supply various details including medical, neutering and insurance certificates. The licensing works two ways. One if a dog is lost its owner is easily identified and two if the dog, ergo the owner, is subject to legal violation (off leash, fouling, neglect of animal, attacking livestock or people) then again they are easily traceable. We used to have dog licensing in this country and for whatever reason the powers of the day decided to cancel the need for it. The re-establishing of an adequate licensing and insurance system may just help prevent some of the much publicised injuries and deaths caused by dog attacks AND make it easier to prosecute those who ill-treat their own animals. And for those of us who are a tad fed up with the perpetual problem of pooh on pavements, it may just see some of the offending owners who refuse to clear up after their pets in court. Maybe 6 months community service picking up pet pooh off the street and grassed areas they were so happy to let their own dog foul may just bring home how unpleasant the problem really is!

However, in the US the police are actually interested in law-enforcement. Indeed they are constitutionally bound to 'serve and protect'.
.
In the UK the police cannot be bothered. Or at best, are selective in the laws they choose to enforce.
.
We already have the Dangerous Dogs Act which makes it a criminal offence not to have any dog under control (ie. on a lead) in a public place. However if you are threatened or assaulted by a dog off a lead try getting the lazy and incompetant police to show an interest. No chance.
.
Introducing this additional legislation will make nice headlines for the politicians, but will the police spring into action to enforce it? Unless there's revenue in it or career-enhancing points to be won, I somehow doubt it.

I feel an election coming on. Why not enforce current legislation, although it was thrown together as a knee jerk reaction and could do with some revision.

This is another stupid idea from a Government that's run out of steam.
.
Why don't Labour just pack up their bags and clear off.
.
They know there are not enough Police to enforce the existing laws without creating any new ones.

Pseudo wrote:
This is another stupid idea from a Government that's run out of steam. . Why don't Labour just pack up their bags and clear off. . They know there are not enough Police to enforce the existing laws without creating any new ones.

There are enough police. But they're busy doing other things. Somewhere along the line they decided it was their job to decide which laws to enforce and which ones they would not bother with anymore, in order to free up time for less arduous activities, such as public consultation exercises, statistical crime reduction programmes and award ceremonies.

Wait though....Think of the new technology that will be required to enforce this new law !

There's ANPR for a start ( Automatic Nawty Pooch Rehabilitation )

And if any canine is found to be uninsured, the offending doggy could be served with an ASBOne! .....whatever next ?

swinDON Quixote wrote:
Wait though....Think of the new technology that will be required to enforce this new law ! There's ANPR for a start ( Automatic Nawty Pooch Rehabilitation ) And if any canine is found to be uninsured, the offending doggy could be served with an ASBOne! .....whatever next ?

Oh stop, you're killing me..

My dog (and cat) are both micro chipped and insured, I pick up after my dog has been to the toilet and the cat doesn’t go outside bothering the neighbours he is an “indoor” cat who uses the litter tray. I am a responsible animal owner.
Unfortunately if you don’t already control your animals and clear up after them then you are unlikely to do so because Gordon Brown asks you to.
Even if the police were to bring a case the magistrates are just as likely to throw it out because the dog had big woeful eyes or the owner is on benefits and had to choose between his daily fag/drug/beer allowance and insuring his dog.
Yet another un-enforceable law that just wastes everyone time.

tarot wrote:
Do you think the proposals are a good idea?Just like motor insurance then. The responsible will pay the irresponsible will not and the problem will continue.

The proposals are unworkable and stupid. As Tarot says, only the responsible dog owners will be penalised.

What about the elderly who perhaps only have a small dog as their only companion and can't afford the proposed £600 for 3rd Party Liability Insurance? (which is a nonsensical amount in the first place given that top of the range dog insurance costs around £400 per annum).

While I agree with microchipping (mine are both microchipped), microchipping only works if the owners remember to inform the microchipping company if they move house, change their telephone numbers etc.

Microchips can and do stop working. Sometimes they migrate to another part of the animal's body. A chip implanted in the scruff of the neck can sometimes end up, say on the hip or even on the belly. That's happened more than once.

Microchip scanners can also be faulty and, as there is more than one microchipping company, not all scanners can read another company's chip.

I think a far better, and more cost effective method of dealing with the problem of irresponsible owners is to increase the current penalties which, at the moment are woefully inadequate. Same goes for the penalties for cruelty to animals. They are no deterrent whatsoever.

This "consultation" to me is just another money-making scheme for the government.

Anyone doubting that should have a look at one of today's newspapers - DM. The government are doing another "consultation". This time the target of their "affections" is young mothers with prams or buggies using buses!

Election due or what???

Forgot to say (I'm tired), check your home insurance policies.

Many of them cover dogs for 3rd Party Liability.

Methinks that Broon isn't going to WINALOT of votes with this latest farcical, nay, hare brained scheme.

Maybe it's time we PAWSED for thought on this one. Just who is going to feel the COLLAR of an uninsured doggy, and what type of punishment can the hapless pooch expect ? The police seize uninsured motor vehicles, impound them and then make the owners pay for their release...same thing here ?... Think not !
And I heard today that the latest target for a govt. "crackdown" are mothers using public transport whilst in possession of a pushchair !

Something tells me that there might be an election fairly soon ?

swinDON Quixote wrote:
Wait though....Think of the new technology that will be required to enforce this new law ! There's ANPR for a start ( Automatic Nawty Pooch Rehabilitation ) And if any canine is found to be uninsured, the offending doggy could be served with an ASBOne! .....whatever next ?

Surely ANPR is Automatic Naughty Pooch Recognition

Jiver wrote:

swinDON Quixote wrote:
Wait though....Think of the new technology that will be required to enforce this new law ! There's ANPR for a start ( Automatic Nawty Pooch Rehabilitation ) And if any canine is found to be uninsured, the offending doggy could be served with an ASBOne! .....whatever next ?

Surely ANPR is Automatic Naughty Pooch Recognition

Could be "Anonymous Non-insured Pup Reporting"