|
Post by CollieSlave on Apr 21, 2013 15:21:24 GMT
Here is an interesting video clip, called 'The Last Mongrel in Britain' by John Rogerson. Amongst other things he suggests that no dog or puppy should be bought or sold for more than £50, and that, to breed any litter of pups, no matter who you are, would need a licence for each individual litter - and the licences would only be available from your local dog shelter!!
|
|
|
Post by SarahHound on Apr 21, 2013 18:46:01 GMT
I can't watch the video just now because I'm at work. But I actually think the opposite. In Sweden, I'm told no dog is sold for under £1000. They have no Dangerous Dog Act, nothing like the problem we have with over breeding in this country, and they have very few dog rescues. They are obviously doing something right compared to us in the UK, and the £1000 price tag is a good idea in my opinion. Certainly would put off the people who go out and buy a collie for £50 and dump it after a few months.
I realise it would be harder for the average dog owner to buy a dog, I know I'd struggle with an initial £1000 for a dog, but if I REALLY wanted one, I would work hard to get it and work hard at being a good dog owner.
|
|
|
Post by CollieSlave on Apr 22, 2013 6:53:28 GMT
I can't watch the video just now because I'm at work. But I actually think the opposite. In Sweden, I'm told no dog is sold for under £1000. They have no Dangerous Dog Act, nothing like the problem we have with over breeding in this country, and they have very few dog rescues. They are obviously doing something right compared to us in the UK, and the £1000 price tag is a good idea in my opinion. Certainly would put off the people who go out and buy a collie for £50 and dump it after a few months. I realise it would be harder for the average dog owner to buy a dog, I know I'd struggle with an initial £1000 for a dog, but if I REALLY wanted one, I would work hard to get it and work hard at being a good dog owner. The Swedish approach makes me wonder if they are simply trying to discourage dog ownership across the board, so to speak! There must surely be very many people in Sweden who would dearly love a dog, and who would have a responsible, loving, skilled and caring approach to dogs but could just not afford this huge sum of money. Is it fair to penalize the less wealthy and poor? What about pensioners for whom a dog might be their only companion? OK, it might discourage people from frivolously taking on a dog but it would also hit hard those who would dearly love a dog but lack money. I find it hard to accept that dog ownership should only be for the wealthy!!!! John Rogerson's suggestion removes the vast profit motive that is behind puppy farms and other scurrilous over-breeding whilst not making the purchase of a dog an activity beyond the reach of the ordinary person.
|
|
|
Post by gladys on Apr 22, 2013 10:57:37 GMT
Or it would make BYB produce more puppies as they are so cheap and more bad owners could own them?!?
|
|
|
Post by BorderTerrier on Apr 22, 2013 17:58:36 GMT
I wouldn't have thought dogs could be sold at that low price! Dogs should be sold for more money so hprrible people don't just buy the dogs so cheap to be abbusive or kick them out onto the streets. There are more reasons aside that!
|
|
|
Post by CollieSlave on Apr 22, 2013 18:35:35 GMT
I wouldn't have thought dogs could be sold at that low price! That is EXACTLY John Rogerson's point - the £50 price limit would stop an awful lot of breeding going on BECAUSE it would not be financially worth doing.
|
|
|
Post by migsy on Apr 22, 2013 22:33:39 GMT
I agree with much of what John Rogerson says.And stealing dogs would be pointless,it's only in fairly recent years dog napping has become a problem for pedigree owners,and some sort of business venture for the more greedy and nasty members of society. High cost doesn't prevent horrible owners,it's the most evil ones who can afford them with their ill gotten money. I don't believe the pet dog will become extinct though,as there will always be genuine dog lovers,not just the odd ones whose very expensive pedigree dog is just some sort of misguided status symbol(these are the ones who end up in rescue centres as their rich but stupid owners get bored with them).
|
|
|
Post by charlottte on Apr 23, 2013 8:59:04 GMT
My brother paid £50 for his Staffy puppy. He desperately wanted a dog since he moved out as he'd lived with Buddy and Jasper before that. She doesn't have papers and was part of an accidental litter. She has a few behaviour problems that come with having a puppy (very excitable, bit of a Tarzan dog) but over all she's a really happy, friendly little dog. He's not well off but he loves that dog with all his heart so not everyone who goes out and pays £50 for a dog intends to dump it Yes I agree that it makes them more accessible to anyone to buy which may make them appear disposable but I think that some sort of liscence would improve dog ownership. If you have to go through applying for a license to have a dog, it's going to put off those people that go off on a whim and buy a dog. If you're a dedicate dog owner, you'd put the time and effort into making sure you did it properly. It would decrease general dog thefts but you'll still get that horrible swine that steals a prized working/show/pet dog and sells it on the sly for more money. People don't adhere to the law now so I don't see why they'd do it if dogs could only be sold for £50 There's arguments to both sides of the story, there would be responsible and irresponsible breeders and owners just like there are now. It's just a sad fact that there's a lot of money in dogs an breeding and people have tapped into that :/ Saying that, I'm not knocking John Rogerson because I think he's brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by CollieSlave on Apr 23, 2013 9:28:08 GMT
The great monkey up the gum tree, so to speak, with suggestions like John Rogerson's is the villainous element in our country - to a greater or lesser degree some people will just ignore ANY legal requirements placed on owning a dog (licences to breed, licences to own, clearing up poo, etc etc) and, due to the 'difficulties' (i.e. lack of inclination and/or finance by the government) of enforcement they will get away with it!! I think Rogerson's suggestions are excellent but will never come to fruition. IMO the restriction on prices charged would be a great aid to eliminating the rogue breeders - MONEY is what attracts the unscrupulous in many fields, and if the financial rewards are dramatically reduced, then the attractions fade. This is obvious!
|
|