I've been putting this off because I'm not sure it can really constitute a debate so to speak but due to an incident taking place today I thought I'd go ahead and make it.

Now I won't go into my view point yet but will just pose a couple of questions. The subject is basically around licenses for keeping pets/animals. The reason I'm interested in this is due to needing a DWA License to keep animals which are considered dangerous, comes with a lot of regulations, such as a secure room and so on. My thought pattern is that most animals are potentially dangerous, depending on how they're treated and brought up. We see this within dogs all the time and unfortunately incidents like the one I link to below bring us back to the reality that these are animals which are potentially dangerous.

Do you think licensing should be brought back for owning a dog? Should licensing be introduced for all kinds of animals kept as pets? Or should a few emotive cases not be responsible for changing rules and regulations?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/8309434.stm

(I do have more to say on this but unsure if people are interested in this area)

Hi,

My first thought was to say that yes a license should be brought in for pet owners or at least dog owners. I'm not much of a pet lover;not that I would hurt an animal. I was thinking it would be a good idea in order to help stop dogs attacking but then thought, would it actually do anything to stop these attacks so not sure now.

It's a good idea if it stops animal cruelty but the answer to that could be to permanently ban anyone found guilty of animal cruelty of any kind.

So I think my answer is if having a license is going to help prevent dog attacks then yes but if not then I can't see a point.....my minds not set in concrete though and I'd be interseted in other people's view points.

Hi

I am a big animal lover and wouldn't mind having a licence but again, whilst loving and conscientious pet lovers would probably be quite happy to have one, the criminal and negligent wouldn't bother and yet they are the ones who would most need one.

I can remember my mum having to buy a dog licence years ago, I think they were about 37p lol. I thought at the time it was more a gesture of tokenism than anything else. Unless you have to undergo some sort of competency test before you are allowed to have a pet then they are a bit pointless tbh, people will still buy illegal animals as there is a thriving trade in smuggled animals.

Maybe if licences were more costly and you had to have one before taking on a pet then maybe more people would realise the responsibility and cost of owning a pet and we wouldn't see so many abused and neglected pets. Rescue centres are particularly pushed this year due to the recession and many are full all the time. I don't think the RSPCA has the resources to check licences as well.

I have 2 rescue cats and had to have my home checked before I was allowed to have them and provide details such as what vet I am registred with, previous experience etc. I was more than happy as I had nothing to hide and it was reassuring that the rescue centre took it so seriously. It is this sort of vetting that I think is necessary.

Also what pets would you have a licence for, a dog, cat, rabbit or hamster? licencing has only applied to dogs in the past.