Good day. This is not a gripe, or complaint, it is just a general enquiry .
We own a dog. She is registered, well trained, well kept, in fact she eats better than I do, and is much loved.
About 2 weeks ago she was attacked by another dog, requiring 2 operations and a permanent scar on her face. Thankfully it has not changed her nature. Reading article after article on an increase in dog attacks, noticing an increase in ownership, and a mass increase in people not obeying council rules has brought me to lead many a discussion in the barbershop I work in.
Why is it not mandatory to take your dog to dog training? And how come just anybody can get a dog? Surely if the idea of applying for a licence to own a dog by passing a test and making you a registered, responsible owner would cut down on
a: dogs purchased on impulse, some of which end up in shelters,
B: owners incorrectly handling their pets causing injury to people or other dogs
C: less leg work for the council trying to re-home unwanted dogs
There could be many benefits from having to apply to own a dog before getting one. Correctly trained owners are a big step. The dog that attacked mine was adopted from the RSPCA and was incorrectly handled.
There are many more ideas that this can lead to and a mass of problems it could solve. Also more fines for back yard breeders and owners who are not registered breeders who do not have their dogs/cats fixed. It would slowly start to decrease the number of animals having to be euthanised. If people want to own more than one dog, why can't there be an idea in place that maybe a form of discount on training and registering could come into play if the second animal is a rescued animal to encourage more people to help other dogs, or cats if that is your preference.
If you have to have a special permit to own a lizard or a turtle, why don't you need one for what is potentially a large animal with muscles and teeth that could be unpredictable if raised wrong. Any thoughts on this idea would be appreciated.