Hi,

From the perspective of a website that enables breeders and pet owners to sell dogs, it would easily be possible to only allow people to advertise their dogs if they had a supplier licence, as long as an online check could be done against an online database of registered dog suppliers to validate it. However, what about a person who only has a dog owners licence, what if they could no longer keep their dog and wanted to advertise it online or in a publication? would they need to apply for a dog supplier licence instead of a dog owners licence?

Also, there would be no way to check that a valid advertiser only sold his dogs/puppies to people with a dog owners licence. This would have to be the responsibility of the seller and not the website or publication that displays the advert.

Mark

__________________

Free Pet Advertising in the UK at Pets4Homes
Dogs - Puppies - Pets - Cats - Kittens for Sale

I have built in a section on media/advertising to the proposal. It would be possible for a publication to do a check against a database a bit like how a person can do a credit check or indeed check whether a garage has a valid MOT testing licence etc.

In terms of individuals who wish to re-home their dog. In most cases, they would place the dog in the care of a rescue home who would have their own supplier licence. If the person themselves decided they wished to find a new home for the dog privately - if they wanted to advertise the dog for sale, they would need a supplier level licence. I think it has to be black and white otherwise puppy dealers would use it as a loophole to get round the law. Alternatively, if they 'supply' the dog to someone privately without advertising it for sale, providing they supply it to someone who does have an ownership licence, no offence would be committed.

If a media outlet didn't check the validty of a supplier's licence to advertise the sale of dogs, then they would technically be accepting unlawful advertising. So what I see happening here is that all media who accept ads for dogs would pass the obligation onto the advertiser via their terms and conditions. I think this is a good thing as well. So if an advertiser tries to mislead a media organisation by attempting to advertise dogs for sale when they are not legally entitled to, action could be taken directly by the media organisation who could pass this information onto the relevant authorities. I see this as a great way, again, to flush out the 'dealers'.

I know if I came to your site and wanted to advertise my puppies for sale and I didn't have a licence but knew you had the power to cross reference me, I'd be taking quite a large risk!!

Every law is broken by someone, but at least there will be a law there. One that is workable and, in my opinion, will reduce the amount of bad owners and dodgy breeders. Our next door neighbours are what you would call BYB's and if it was against the law I'd be reporting them on day one.

No doubt there will be people that break this law so I can't see it totally eradicting all bad owners and breeders for some time but its got to reduce it pretty dramatically. The rest is up to the people responsible for enforcing it.

No law is abided by completely by everyone but imagine if they weren't there! No laws against peado's or murderers. That's the problem, atm there's virtually no laws on dog ownership or breeding.

So who is going to be rsponsible for producing the licensing and checking it,How much is it going to cost etc....I don't mind the extra expense if it's reasonable but the responsible owners and Breeders I feel will be penalised for those irresponsible ones.

With an awful lot of dogs in the UK I can't see how this would be policed,enforced etc....

With regards to the BSL there are no current plans to scrap it at the moment.

It would be run by a new agency of DEFRA who would exclusively look after dog related welfare issues.

The cost of the test would be down to the Govt to decide but I would pitch it at £40 and one licence would be per person, not per dog.

Also, if an entire family wanted to take the test, I would propose it be discounted so an entire family could take the test at just the £40 rate. I don't see any harm at all in incentivising more people to take the test and get to learn more about dog ownership.

With an estimated 6m dog owners in the UK, £40 per test (which I feel is very affordable and reasonable) would raise £240,000,000 which is easily enough revenue to fund and support the new department. So it is self financing, self sufficient and I don't believe excludes anyone from dog ownership on the grounds of price.

My proposal asks for a full repeal of section 1 of the DDA. BSL is a useless, horrible law that protects nobody and makes victims of innocent dogs and owners. If the Govt were to take the proposal and NOT exclude the BSL elements of the DDA, I would distance myself from this proposal and have no part in it.

DEFRA......mmmm,sorry I have doubts then,again how would it be policed and enforced,not really sure how it could work.Sounds great in theory but like I said I have a feeling that it will do little to combat irresponsible ownership.There is and always will be loopholes in this kind of legislation.

Who's going to check up on owners,will there be spotchecks etc,there is no way I would give either of my dogs details to anyone except the KC,dog theft again is another issue....

Did you see the discription DEFRA gave off the Pittbull?

The KC?

Interesting. You'd trust the KC more than the Government?

Don't know if you read this article relating to the KC and BSL

Want to Send a Dog to Its Death? Get ‘Qualified’ to do so in 240 Minutes

Ultimately if we can't trust the Govt which is DEFRA to enforce and implement dog laws, we're in trouble.

Did you know the KC supported the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act which introduced BSL in the first place?

The issue is this. The Govt takes advice from certain organisations such as the RSPCA, the KC etc. Unfortunately, those organisations are not elected, don't represent the 'average' dog owner and in all honesty, are not set up to be law makers - hence we have bad dog laws which they now distance themselves from.

Which is why I have proposed the Pet Owner's Parliament which aims to get many thousands of UK dog owners to have their say and offer their experience and feedback on dog related laws. Dog owners have no representation and I certainly would not let the KC represent me as an owner.

The KC didn't support BSL they obstained fom it.

Would I trust the Government,are you joking?I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them!Look at the current legislation wasn't that rushed through parliment in 1991.

The Fiasco in merseyside still ongoing with owners appearing in court.Trust the government,No chance!

Yes I would trust the KC more than the government,again how will it be policed and enforced?
The KC and TC went to court to support dog owners,the Governments stance must have been it was fine to organise an amnesty...Kill / Murder innocent pets,again they were running scared!
Would I trust them to have my dogs details not on your life!

That's an image they'd like people to believe.

I've been covering BSL issues for many years. Have reported on literally hundreds of dog attack stories, given comment to the media on BSL etc. It is a personal interest of mine. I can tell you honestly, the KC did support Lord Baker's 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act.

The bad laws we have now were not dreamed up by DEFRA. They were created by Lord Baker and his Tory Government and they were supported by the Kennel Club I'm afraid. I can appreciate why you would think otherwise as the Kennel Club have spent many years publicly deriding BSL whilst failing to mention that they supported its introduction. I would urge you to read this:

Scottish Dog Owners Have Been Sold Out Over new Dangerous Dogs Proposal

In particular this:

Interesting but I do not believe rubbish printed in the press,nor do I believe policitans.

I also have been following BSL for years.....
I also suppose he was willing to admit that a westie,a golden retriever,and a Jack russell have all killed children...

He wanted rid of the Pitt in the uk Why?They are no more dangerous than any other breed.They wanted rid because they needed to be seen to be "Protecting The Public".Same as the amnesty in merseyside,what did it achieve,nothing!Ask those owners how they feel about the Government and DEFRA!

Again I will ask you and please tell me how will it be policed and enforced?