Cookie Notice

WE LOVE THE NATIONS OF EUROPE
However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Sunday, 3 February 2008

No need to reintroduce dog licences

The growth in the number of 'street legal' Staffordshire bull terriers is obvious to those of us who live within Zone 3. The switch to legal Staffies has come after police action has reduced the numbers of illegal American bull terriers available on the black market. As the Observer reports:
'It appears to be the latest hoodie accessory,' said RSPCA chief inspector Jan Eachus. 'Guns are illegal, knives are illegal, but to walk a dog on the street is not against the law.'
Predictably, Statists are calling for the re-introduction of the dog licence, or for owner licencing, or compulsory taxation and chipping of all dogs. None of these measures are needed.

Let's be clear about this. These people are not owner-occupiers. They live in council houses or housing association flats. Tenancy agreements allow their landlords the right to approve dogs on an individual basis; the scruffy mongrel that is some elderly person's sole companion can be allowed, a fighting or inappropriate dog, whether defined by the Dangerous Dogs Act or not, can be refused and the tenant evicted if they breach their agreement.

All that's needed is for councils and HAs to be told their government subsidies will be decreased unless they act like responsible landlords. Such action will not entirely eliminate the problem, but will certainly reduce it so substantially that it ceases to be one.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Come on, Raedwald, you are asking someone in a position of authority have a bit of backbone, and in addition to accept responsibility for their actions! Surely you know better than that!

Roger Thornhill said...

We need to resolve the daft concept of "duty of care" where any eviction would immediately grant the person priority to be rehoused! Used to happen to those living in crack houses, even.

But, much could be done by the use of consequence.