Are our furry friends about to cost us all an arm and a leg, financially?

With a variety of dogs patrolling our UK Streets, ranging in size, colour, weight and temperament, it was only time before the UK government figured they would hit the responsible dog owner in the ass with the one weapon they know will damage us. Money! Instead of employing stricter jail sentences for those who flout the law and use innocent animals to fight one another for entertainment or those idiots who neglect to give basic care to their four legged friends, the UK government has yet again come up with a brain dead idea to penalise those of us who treasure our furry friends.

The proposals that they are outlining are deemed to “There would be a financial impact on dog owners, but there also might be an impact on dog risk.” according to one bright spark within the department of farming, environment and rural affairs. Really? And who, then, may I ask will that effect the most? Those of us who are in low income jobs who seek comfort in our four legged companions. As the trend has seemed to take a pattern of hitting the lower classes hard financially within the past few years, I am not altogether surprised that this blasé statement was offered up.

A proposal outlined on petparliament.com came up with some very plausible implementations that seemed more than reasonable and may I add affordable.

A test to prove you have the ability to care for a dog seems more than a great idea to me. [they should enforce that one for parents too]. But proving you can care for a dog and give it a stable home seems more than a reasonable request and the £40/50 they are proposing the cost to be also seems fair. A licence to help contribute toward associations like the RSPCA and the dog wardens again seems reasonable and quite a genius idea standing to cost the individual dog owner £10 per year per dog. This would cut down on overcrowding, and the continued support of those associations that help dogs that face not so pleasant existence’s.

Having stronger sentences also features on this groups proposals as does third party insurance like the government are suggesting but the cost of this insurance worries me and the blanketed effect it is taking even more so. One insurance company spokesman stated their basic insurance is £15 per month which does cover for £1000000 and serves as third party but their highest policy covers for £3000000. Which one is everyone guessing all dog owners will be forced to get? My money’s on the maximum insurance.

Most of us take out insurance for one thing or another and most sensible dog owners do have insurance to cover for vet bills but if the government expects everyone to have the £50 per month policy then this would make it extremely difficult for most house holds to keep a loving four legged friend. there should be some alternative, maybe a hierarchy as there is for certain breeds needing higher policies because of their genetic vulnerabilities. So if you wanted to own one of the dogs under the dangerous dog act then your policy may incur you more money. It still may hit a responsible dog owner hard but if your dog has a good temperament and can be allowed to walk on its lead through your town/city/park without snapping at a person or another dog then why should those owners be hit so brutally?

Another proposal is a database of dogs and owners. This makes perfect sense. Keeping a database of each owner and dog and having to change that information if the dog changes owners so all associations connected with monitoring dog behaviour up and down the country have instant access to the dog’s and your information. this method would make for easy reunions if a dog is lost. To add to this, I believe microchipping should be compulsory.

Alongside the database is more stringent rulings for suppliers who would be hit with a hefty fine if dogs were sold to someone who did not hold a valid dog licence. Again this would ensure that all dogs sold within the UK should be going to responsible owners and the money raised from the licence fees would make sure that troublesome dogs were captured and either rehabilitated or euthanized.

Coming to the topic of euthanasia, these proposals from Petparliment.comsuggest that no dog should be euthanized in an assumed attack before a behaviouralist has seen the dog and assessed its behaviour. This is something I have firmly believed in for a long time. What if a dog attacks through fear or protection? I.e. I have a guide dog, what if someone is trying to knife me and my dog bites the perpetrator’s leg to stop him hurting me? As the law has it at present, my guide dog would be euthanised. How is that fair?

Although I agree with a lot of proposals, I think the government needs to assess the bigger picture. Financially hitting people will not stop the dangerous dogs and their irresponsible owners, reassessing the dangerous dog act, implementing a dog ownership test and a yearly dog licence along with the database, stricter rulings on suppliers and guide lines for them along with much more support and revenue for animal support agencies will satisfy all responsible dog owners and hit those wastes of spaces in society from inflicting their cruelty on an innocent animal. The UK government needs to realise that hitting the poor members of society when it comes to their four legged friends will not solve the issues of dangerous dogs, education, supervision and monitoring would be the responsible route to take.