Dog Licencing - Identifying the Problem
by Graham Peck
First Published Sept 2002
Introduction
Dog licencing was abolished in 1988. Since then a lack of political will by successive UK governments in implementing legislative reforms of regulations affecting pet dogs has resulted in a lost opportunity to promote responsible dog ownership.
The net result is a continuing significant stray dog problem and perceived inability or unwillingness of authorities to enforce the current regulations which frustrates responsible owners and non-owners alike. These and other issues result in a appreciable cost to society which it only seems fair should be partly deferred by a reasonable dog licence fee.
The Problems
- Stray, lost or stolen dogs.
- Dog related nuisance.
- Non-enforcement of current legislation.
- Continued existence of puppy farming.
- Inability to deal with future disease problems – rabies.
Strays
One of the greatest concerns for owners is the loss of their pet. Addressing this concern probably represents the single greatest benefit to owners for advocating permanent dog identification. Despite this and the fact that proven affordable identifications systems are already available, only about 45% of stray dogs collected by local authorities are successfully re-united with owners. The remainder are either passed to charities, rehomed or euthanased.
This was because only about a third of the dogs were wearing the required identification disc and 10% carried an electronic microchip. Whether this low figure represents ignorance of the law, a naïve 'my dog never strays' attitude or rank indifference to the consequences is a matter of speculation. But the end result is that every year thousands of stray dogs are put to sleep simply because the owners cannot be identified.
Nuisance
Dog faeces fouling public areas is a problem guaranteed to incense the mildest of people as well as representing a public health risk.
Noise nuisance from persistently barking dogs can drive neighbours to war and is one of the commonest animal related disturbances dealt with by Local Authorities.
Aggression and damage of persons and property by dogs are other areas where present regulations seem ineffectual in dealing with irresponsible owners. The Royal Mail is a case in point where it is only able to bring prosecutions against approximately 10% of the owners that have allowed their dogs to bite postmen.
All of these indicate how the present system of regulations is failing. All of these types of dog nuisance would benefit from the appropriate authorities being able to accurately identify the keeper of the offending dog and allow on-the-spot fines or appropriate legal measures to be quickly and effectively taken against their owners.
Enforcement
The public's perception that there is little evidence of enforcement of the current regulations has already eroded any credibility that the authorities had that they could effectively deal with the current dog problems.
Puppy Farms
Loathed by all involved with dog welfare, outlawed supposedly in the UK but still up and running in Wales and Ireland. Puppy farming is large-scale breeding and sale of puppies involving a labyrinthine network of breeders, dealers and retailers. It ensures that it is virtually impossible to ascertain who is responsible for the numerous examples of neglected and unfit puppies that are eventually sold on to the unsuspecting public.
Future Disease Problems
February 2000 saw the end of quarantine requirements for pets entering the UK under the "pet passport" scheme. But the reality is that rabies is present in the wildlife population right up to the channel. With the free movement of pets now in operation it seems not so much a matter of will rabies recur in the UK as when.
The head in the sand attitude to this serious zoonosis and its future impact on the benign attitude of the public to stray dogs and wildlife such as foxes seems to have been overlooked.
The lack of an adequate dog identification scheme could produce unpleasant echoes of the recent foot and mouth epidemic where inadequate resources and contingency planning resulted in a situation that could only be described as a farce if it hadn't had such tragic consequences for so many people.
Identification - An Answer
Accurate and permanent identification of dogs is the key to addressing these problems. It provides a link between an individual dog and its keeper, who can be held responsible for the welfare and actions of that pet.
The Dog Identification Group (DIG) and Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) both produced detailed reports highlight the importance of achieving identification in the majority of the UK's dogs as soon as possible.
The two main permanent means of identification suggested were microchipping and ear tattooing and both are already in use in the UK and many other countries. The preferred choice seems to be for the microchip and that certainly would be our preference having had poor experience of attempting to find and decipher "tired" tattoos.
Mandatory Identification or Not
While both the reports from the DIG and CAWC categorically stated that identification was required they had rather different approaches to its implementation.
The DIG proposed that permanent identification should be made voluntary with a target of 75% of all dogs being registered within five years. This of course is a massive cop out since we all know that making the idea voluntary will effectively sabotage the effectiveness of the whole scheme despite the proposed accompanying extensive advertising and education campaigns to raise awareness.
No convincing argument is put forward as to why the course of action was recommended. However the report did suggest "that consideration of the respective merits and wider implications of a voluntary versus compulsory scheme be deferred to the end of the five year period", then went on to recommend "that that the DIG continue its work during the course of the proposed five year campaign as an advisory body to government".
Additionally "a focus group should be established to continue consideration of permanent identification and associated issues". Apparently the DIG would then "only" meet annually and report to the minister but the focus group would meet quarterly and report to DIG. Actively doing nothing is the phrase that springs to mind.
The report from the CAWC argues the case much better. It too argues that voluntary registration of all dogs should be encouraged. But goes on to offer a strategic approach to permanent dog identification. Is suggests that there should be a mandatory requirement to register all puppies at the point of breeding or sale. This surely must be the key point to future regulatory changes. Make the people who would profit from the production of puppies responsible for undertaking permanent identification. Accountability suddenly comes to the fore. You buy a puppy and it has no identification then the pet shop or breeder is answerable. This is certainly likely to reduce the puppy farm trade as an obviously neglected puppy should be traceable to its breeder. If not then the retailer gets a massive slap on the wrist and is barred from future sale of puppies.
On a long-term basis this approach would see the majority of dogs with time having some sort of permanent identification without relying on the fickle compliance of the general public. The cost of compliance would be shouldered by the breeders. This would render arguments about affordability and availability to certain disadvantaged groups redundant. This would allow enforcement to be effectively targeted at the source of the problem rather than trying to chase down every last owner of an unregistered dog.
The strategic value of this approach is that even if poor compliance with registration continues in the present dog population, a steadily increasing proportion of dogs would be permanently identified dogs within a few years and a very significant percentage within a decade.
Dog Licencing
This was abolished in the UK in 1988 when the annual fee stood at a risible 37½p. The argument that it was no longer economic for the Treasury to collect fees while correct was not a valid reason for doing away with the licence fee. An increase to a realistic amount would have been a better strategy but unpopular with dog owning voters. Hence the easy way out was taken, the fee was abolished which in turn saved the cost of administrating the licencing scheme. Political short-term gain triumphed to the detriment of a coherent long-term strategy (nothing changes - sigh).
While registration is regarded as desirable by all dog-related interest groups, licencing produces a much more heated debate. Arguments vary from imposition of a significant annual licence fee to "discourage superficial dog ownership". Alternatively there are advocates of no fee as it would be a tax on dog ownership and would be effectively penalising responsible individuals for owning a registered dog.
Taxpayers are already paying significant sums to deal with dog-related problems. The CAWC report suggested that sums in the region of £30 million per year were being spent by Local Authorities in dealing with stray dogs. However there are marked difficulties in trying to identify and quantify these costs and other groups suggest that this cost may be significantly higher. The most galling aspect is that despite the sums being spent the fragmented and poorly co-ordinated approach to dog ownership at best struggles to deal satisfactorily with these problems. It certainly does little to address the underlying issues and is apparently failing to improve the situation either from a welfare or enforcement point of view.
This is where an annual licencing fee could make a real difference. A modest fee of about £25 to £30 along with the initial registration fee could help finance the development of a national database rationalising and improving the fragmented present structure where piecemeal schemes dilute the effectiveness of the system.
Helping finance an improved dog warden scheme combined with reformed legislation and mandatory identification would make effective enforcement a realistic possibility for the first time. The police, one would imagine would happily relinquish most of their involvement in dog-related problems apart from serious enforcement or criminal issues.
Equally as important is an improved dog warden service which could help with educating the public on responsible dog ownership and welfare issues. The extra monies would also allow significant media campaigns to be incorporated into raising awareness and understanding the responsibilities of dog ownership.
Realistically no one expects an annual licence fee to cover the full cost of operating the registration, licencing and warden services. If this were the case the resultant exorbitant fee would be counterproductive, as the high cost acted as a deterrent to owner compliance. That said it only seems reasonable that owners of dogs should contribute to the cost of producing an effective dog management service that will benefit both them and their pets and society as a whole. It is a matter of setting the fee that will not discourage responsible pet ownership yet is reasonable so that good compliance is achieved.
The argument that a licence fee is onerous on less well off dog-owners who might be disadvantaged by it, is neatly dealt with in the CAWC report. It states "Responsibility is the key word in animal welfare. Where a small fee is to be charged on an annual basis which keepers find hard to fund, one must question the ability of such keepers to be responsible for the lifetime feeding, care and treatment of their pets". One has to agree the relative cost of a modest licence fee compared to the annual costs of feeding the average dog make the argument seem spurious.
Annual licencing would also allow the database to be kept up to date as animals were sold, stolen or died. The registered keeper would be required to advise the registration authority of a change of status and the details of a new owner, much as is done with vehicle registration at present.
Payment of a licence fee would result in the issuing of a colour-coded collar disc that the dog would be required to wear and would allow rapid identification of valid licence discs by wardens. This would also put in place a system that could be rapidly adapted to allow verification of immunisation status if rabies did become endemic in the UK and compulsory vaccinations became necessary. Failure to have this system in place could mean that a significant number of dogs might have to be destroyed where the authorities were struggling to achieve effective control of an outbreak. The result, endemic rabies.
Discussion
This whole issue of dog control cries out for unified national approach. The present responsibility falls on the shoulders of the Local Authorities under the 1990 Environmental Protection Act. The result is an uneven implementation of the Act depending on the available resources and priorities of individual Authorities. An example is the case of Teignbridge council where the dog wardens effectiveness is being eroded by the addition of other unrelated duties in this case dealing with abandoned vehicles.
To produce any real change needs measures originating from government, supported by coherent legislation integrating a national canine identification and licencing service with adequately funded Local Authority Dog Warden Services, which have adequate powers to produce effective enforcement.
Will the present Labour government be the enlightened initiators of the required change? One would have mistakenly thought so. In its Manifesto for Animals Labour in Opposition in 1996 promised to introduce a dog registration scheme:
"Dogs are highly valued in our society, yet there are problems - including many attacks, difficulties with strays and the nuisance of dog dirt. Each year in Britain many thousands of healthy dogs are destroyed.
Indiscriminate breeding, unthinking acquisition and inadequate care are to blame. The Conservative Government has refused to act. Yet the key is simple: registration.
Labour will introduce a compulsory registration scheme that will provide money for a dog warden service."
As they say talk is cheap. Already well into their second term with a majority that would make introduction of the legislation possible one has to wonder why such a clearly stated objective has been "put aside".
One suspects that we are looking at a lost opportunity. The present Government will already be looking to the next election and that difficult task of achieving a third term. Unrealised expectations and general disillusionment mean that the Government is unlikely to introduce such a contentious measure. The spin merchants will advise that registration and licencing would be unpopular and that it is likely to be perceived as yet another tax and example of over-regulation.
The welfare lobby of rescue organisations and other animal charities present an ambiguous stance that does nothing to force the Government's hand. In principle registration is endorsed (microchipping of strays is done at most rescue centres). However they are opposed to making registration mandatory or charging a licence fee. This attitude is puzzling since simply doing nothing has major welfare implications as the stray problem persists and exploitation continues as poorly enforceable laws are flagrantly ignored.
While I can nothing in print that definitively explains this attitude the unofficial position seems to be that mandatory registration / licencing will be ineffective, poorly complied with, exacerbate the stray dog problem as people abandon pets because of having to pay and disadvantaged owners might be forced to relinquish pets. All of these concerns have been dealt with previously. The issue that the number of stray dogs would increase is a possibility. The extra resources would have to be allocated to help cope but the unpalatable truth has to be faced that increased numbers of dogs would have to be destroyed on a short-term basis.
This probably is the key implication that most of these groups do not want to acknowledge. Condoning this action inevitably would produce adverse publicity and might well affect their funding. Rather than grasp the nettle of change which will at last produce a real improvement in dog welfare and effectively address the lost / stray dog problem the status quo is preferred.
Interestingly the CAWC report indicated that the problem of animals being discarded after the introduction of mandatory schemes of identification was not always seen in other countries where it was implemented.
The CAWC report also notes the following groups' where it seems bizarre that they have not mandatorily required that identification of dogs be undertaken.
- The pet insurance companies to prevent fraudulent claims.
- The charity veterinary service providers to reduce abuse of their services by unscrupulous people wanting to avoid paying private veterinary fees.
- The Kennel Club to avoid falsification of pedigrees that would undermine the credibility and integrity of the stud book.
Conclusion
The saddest aspect of undertaking this review of dog registration and licencing is the realisation that nothing is going to change. None of the main players in this saga have anything to gain from promoting the implementation of these measures.
Dog welfare issues, unnecessary deaths and the heartache of losing a beloved dog will all continue due to short-term political considerations and possible negative publicity.
In the end change is likely to come about by necessity. The re-establishment of rabies within Britain will be the most likely cause. As with the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak the lack of preparation will necessitate draconian measures with respect to movement of pets and an aggressive culling policy with respect to unidentifiable stray pets and feral animals.
Delays and confusion in then implementing a registration scheme and mandatory rabies vaccination will mean that many pets will be confined to their home environment for an extended period.
Let's hope I'm wrong.
Sources
- Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: Dog Identification Group report
- Companion Animal Welfare Council: First Draft Report - Considerations on the Identification of Companion Animals
- New Labour New Britain New Life for Animals December 1996. Quoted in the House of Commons Research Paper 98/6 January 1998
- Report and Action Plan Report of the Dog Warden Service Best Value Service Review
