Friday, 3 September 2010

Why the RSPCA think we need dog licenses

Here's a link to the RSPCA report on why we need dog licenses. I have to say this is quite possibly the most anti-dog document I have read in a very long time.
Pitched at Government quite obviously not pet people, but I picked up from its many pages that a dog licence will prove really useful to government if there's a nasty disease outbreak and they need to know where the dogs are... How reassuring.
Do have a read, leave off the jaffa cakes though as it'll give you indigestion!


Frances said...

This is an extremely poor report. Firstly, practically all the "statistics" are guesstimates, and poorly based ones at that. Secondly, there is no attempt even to estimate the positive economic contribution of dogs and dog ownership - such as the known benefits to owners' health and well being, which must save the NHS and Social Services very large sums. Thirdly, where there are figures that are reasonably reliable, they mainly seem to be showing a reduction in adverse incidents from dog ownership over time, despite the (possibly) larger number of dogs in the UK. Numbers of prosecutions are up (very slightly), but there have been changes in the law that make prosecution easier - and the overall numbers are still tiny. Nowhere is there any evidence that a licence will have any effect whatsoever on dog welfare, animal welfare, or human welfare. In fact, all the "evidence" in this report could easily be interpreted to show that the situation has improved overall since the dog licence was abolished. I give it a D-, and frankly a "Must do better".

Wendy Coyne said...

The RSPCA are suggesting that there will be a 50% take up rate of the license. In other words they expect 1/2 of the country's dogs not to have a license. I wonder if those without one will be the well cared for, healthy, well trained pets? Probebly not.

Anonymous said...

The RSPCA are very clever in the way the “package” these reports they make out they are scientific reports and based on a wealth of research and material, yet all they are, are cheap publicity stunts to get THEIR view into the media and political arena. This one again is thinly veiled piece of political lobbying. The give the impression that this report an academic study by Reading University when indeed it has written by the RSPCA OWN charity's head of external affairs David Bowles. They make great play on the claim that “About two-thirds of UK dog owners would support a new licence to help tackle dangerous dogs and other concerns” yet what they fail to mention is that ONLY 1,017 took part in the survey of which OVER 2/3rds did not OWN a dog. Even allowing for the 334 people questioned that did own a dog also agreed with their 2/3rds claim of wanting a licence (which would be very hard to believe) it means that the RSPCA would at most have just 220 dog owners who would of been in favour of such a scheme!!! These figure hardly make this report a valid one when you look at the fact that they have based their evidence on a sample that is less than 0.003% of the dogs owned in this country!! This is just another exercise for the RSPCA to try and raise revenue for their own political aim, without the public (or indeed anyone) having a right to question, investigate or challenge their spending and policies on animal and canine welfare. The figure just don’t stack up......unless you a RSPCA well paid official who is more than economical with the truth!! ( source of survey figures, as the RSPCA have been trying to hide them and fail to mention them in the report was

Anonymous said...

I wonder if RSPCA is working for the cause of animals or against them. If it really is so worried about the spread or outbreak of diseases, it could do a lot more like educating the dog owners and raising awareness about the different diseases that afflict dogs. Diseases like cancers are on the rise in man's best friend because of the unhealthy food and environment of the present times. Awareness of the regular vaccinations every 3 years for Communicable diseases like Distemper, Parvo etc. Perhaps even a regular Rabies ( 3 years not more frequent )vaccination, if they are really worried about an outbreak. Otherwise as I pointed out on the other topic, it ought to be Rechristened as a society for PROMOTION of cruelty, instead of Prevention.