Now the Government wants competence tests before you can be a dog owner

Now the Government wants competence tests before you can be a dog owner

www.dailymail.co.uk

Every dog owner will have to take a costly ‘competence test’ to prove they can handle their pets, under new Government proposals designed to curb dangerous dogs.
Owners of all breeds would also have to buy third-party insurance in case their pet attacked someone, and pay for the insertion of a microchip in their animal recording their name and address.
The proposals are among a range of measures to overhaul dog laws in England and Wales being considered by senior Ministers, who are expected to announce a public consultation within weeks.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

(visit the link for the full news article)

Take a test to own a dog? There is a point here where it is obvious that the government is going way to in the wrong direction to govern its people. If you consider the number of dog breeds are, there is always going to be a breed that is unpopular, as it will go through with what society and what all is going on, and will be considered dangerous or more of a biter. But the question needs to be asked, is this something that they really need to do or consider with everything else that is going on?

www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Funny that.

No competency test for parenthood though, right?

No competency test for political or public service?

Well, there you go.

reply to post by Maxmars


for your very points

they will probably never pass it.

England is going crazy on trying to pass laws... they like telling ppl what they can and cannot do.

They created Austrailia off the backs of criminals...

Im starting to wonder about England....

To say someone needs something before they can do something, is to say you are willingly giving your freedom away.

Weather it be a house, a car, or even a dog, its all our freedom at risk.

"But we don't want to get in car accidents with crazy drivers!"

Those who trade freedom for security are both ignorant and deserve neither.

Haha this is complete and utter BS!!!!!!!!!! If the government wants to crack down on dangerous dogs CRACK DOWN ON THEM AND PUT THESE SCUMBAG DOG FIGHERS IN JAIL! PUT THESE DAMN PUPPY MILLS OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!!! A few bad apples shouldn't spoil the bunch. My god what is happening in Amerika?

Ooops this is in the UK......LOL doesn't surprise me one bit! UK has fallen so far from grace. Unfortunately your influence still runs rampant over here in America as far as laws. I thought we already kicked your ass once............

[edit on 2-3-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


Whats happening to America? Nothing, its still the same land. Whats happening to people is my question.

Sounds a lot like owning a gun in certain states.

I imagine the catalyst for such absurd measures is the ghetto trash sect with their habit of intentionally raising angry and anti-social animals for the sake of their ghetto image or perhaps even ghetto glamorous past times such as dog fighting.

The obvious point here being that those people wont bother to comply with any tests or mandates. They'll simply own the animals under the radar. A practice which will bolster the ghetto image of the abused dog and abusive owner. In effect ensuring the practice which you wish to limit only expands as it gains even more stature among the mentally deficient.

reply to post by gandhi


Considering there used to be forests that stretched all the way from the East Coast to the West coast I'd beg to differ LOL> America isn't the same land nor the same people.

Dog owners are already required to be licensed. I dont think it is that much to ask that they prove they are responsible enough to be pet owners.

I do agree, though, that perhaps we ought to start with parenting and public service....

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

Now the Government wants competence tests before you can be a dog owner

www.dailymail.co.uk

Every dog owner will have to take a costly ‘competence test’ to prove they can handle their pets, under new Government proposals designed to curb dangerous dogs.
Owners of all breeds would also have to buy third-party insurance in case their pet attacked someone, and pay for the insertion of a microchip in their animal recording their name and address.
The proposals are among a range of measures to overhaul dog laws in England and Wales being considered by senior Ministers, who are expected to announce a public consultation within weeks.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

(visit the link for the full news article)

Don't believe everything you read from the dailymail another of Labour's paper's. Money-making scheme to pay for the recession debt. Controlling society of what they can and what they cannot. Should i need go on... I think not as we can all think for ourselves and DON'T need the likes of jackasses government's to make that decision. About time people SPEAK UP tell the government its not going to happen. Its a load of sh#te. SPEAK UP.

The only problem I have with this is if it is in fact "costly" to pass such tests. Some expense I could see (after all, part of adopting a pet is accepting the cost of its maintenance for the foreseeable future). But the cost shouldn't be incommensurate with the cost of owning the animal.

Honestly, I think it's not a bad idea to require people who want to have a pet to show that they are capable of taking care of that pet. I don't know about the situation in the UK, but I know that here in the US the shelters are overflowing with pets whose owners realized they had taken on more than they expected.

And who knows, maybe if it was harder to just buy that cute little puppy in the window there would be less demand for them and less motive for puppy mills to exist.

I like the idea of a competence test for politicians too

edit to add: the requirement to buy insurance in case the animal attacks someone and to pay to have the dog microchipped bother me a lot more than the competence tests.

[edit on 3/2/2010 by americandingbat]

Originally posted by gandhi
To say someone needs something before they can do something, is to say you are willingly giving your freedom away.

Weather it be a house, a car, or even a dog, its all our freedom at risk.

"But we don't want to get in car accidents with crazy drivers!"

Those who trade freedom for security are both ignorant and deserve neither.

Well said! SPEAKING UP!

Originally posted by rjmelter
reply to post by Maxmars

 

for your very points

they will probably never pass it.

England is going crazy on trying to pass laws... they like telling ppl what they can and cannot do.

They created Austrailia off the backs of criminals...

Im starting to wonder about England....

Well Said! SPEAKING UP!!

Originally posted by gandhi
reply to post by Zosynspiracy

 

Whats happening to America? Nothing, its still the same land. Whats happening to people is my question.

Remember, everything happens in America only...even if its a foreign newspaper talking about their land...it must be America because only America exists...the rest of the world are just some backwoods freedom hater brown people and france.

a test is fine
the cost is not

Originally posted by gandhi
To say someone needs something before they can do something, is to say you are willingly giving your freedom away.

Weather it be a house, a car, or even a dog, its all our freedom at risk.

"But we don't want to get in car accidents with crazy drivers!"

Those who trade freedom for security are both ignorant and deserve neither.

So, to say that you need a license to drive a car, proving you are qualified to do so, is giving up freedom?

What about if we abolish that, and let anyone drive. Is the 8 yeas old behind the wheel that kills a family because he is not equipped to drive taking away their freedom?

Even moreso, is the guy flying a plane with no license infringing upon the freedoms of those he kills when he crashes?

It ain't that black and white.

This seems a little overboard. There are certain breeds of dogs people have a tendency to be skittish about. In the U.S., the American Pit Bull is one of them. It is my undertanding this breed is banned in some countries, but it is not here in the U.S. (Not to debate the virtues or lack thereof of the pit bull. This is just an example).

If it is as the article claims; to insure dog owners are aware of difficulties with certain breeds, then why not just require a license/insurance for that particular breed? This would be fairly simple to put in place.

Why make all dog owners adhere to rules that are supposedly designed for only a few breeds? (Or one )

I suspect it's another way to collect taxes. Our actual dogs are licensed, but not the dog owner. So now they can have a double tax. Or it sure looks that way.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

Owners of all breeds would also have to buy third-party insurance in case their pet attacked someone

Now that part makes sense...or would dog owners prefer to be sued into poverty at having to meet the expenses of the victim of the dog-bite out of their own pocket?

I don't particularly think New Labour gives a damn about pet owners or the well being of pets, as chip implants supposedly cause cancer. This is nothing more than another gimmick to introduce yet another tax, which will no doubt go towards funding their gravy train. There's rumours going around that they are even planning on introducing a death tax. Unbelievable...

Labour in secret 10% death tax plan.
www.timesonline.co.uk...
Animal Chip Implants May Cause Cancer
tech.yahoo.com...
Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors
www.washingtonpost.com...