License for owning pets?

Do you believe it should require license before one person can own pets?

Well, you need license for fishing, for hunting, etc. Why not for owning pets?

Nothing special is required in order to get the license, just some basic knowledge testing for the particular pet you plan to get to prove you have the knowledge to take care of the pet, and background check to prove you can support the pet economically as well as you have the time and space for it. An agreement needs to be signed to take the responsibilities including swear you will do the best for the pets' well being, and never abandon the pet, etc.

There are too many people jump onto the bandwagon of owning a pet or pets without the ability or even the will to take care of them. Once the freshness of excitement wears off, they sometimes ditch the pet or not taking care of them the way they should.

Many pets die because the owners don't have the necessary knowledge on the particular species, ex: tens millions of fish die every year due to newbie mistakes.

Many pets are abandoned, ex: millions dogs and cats.

Invasive species were released, ex: non-native snakes.

I say a license is needed for each pet species.
What do you think? Vote please?

I have to be disagreeable Ram, sorry.

I think a license is a good idea for some species, but not necessarily all species. Not to mention the real problem with this, at least in the US. Who is going to administrate this, and then who is going to pay for that?

It's not going to be expensive. $10~20 for the license. I think it actually can save the owners' money.
Think about it. Some newbie who don't have a clue decide to get some awesome fish for their look, and he bought ten $150 each saltwater fish plus another $500 for the equipments which make it a total $2,000 investment, then they all died because he had no idea what's going on. It's better for him to be truly qualified before spending all that money.


On the second thought. If all the people are required to have a license agreement before owning a pet, then there won't be millions abandoned pets. Now all the animal shelters can do the administration work for the pet license. All the volunteers can still work there. So no fees for the owner to take the test etc., well maybe just $5 for the photo and the actual license.

I can see both sides of this, yes by having someone go through a short instructional class to either learn more or just to brush up on how to care for their pet. And the other side to have a license for every pet is going to be hard to implement. The animal shelters here basically ask if you own your home or have the means to take care of your new pet before releasing the animal to you. So in effect they do a small fact check but it's easy to get around it though.

For the exotics and non-native species you should have to go through a class and apply for a license. Now for the fee it shouldn't be too much, maybe the same price as a hunting or fishing license or a few dollars cheaper. Also the animal has to be chipped and if found to be out in the wild and you haven't reported it missing, you can be charged a fine for the retrieval of it.

Yes, I agree that owners should need to pass a basic knowledge test about their give pets species and how to care for them. In New Zealand there are so many people who shouldn't be allowed to own animals and have no clue on how to care for them. So many of these animals end up in overcrowded shelters.

At least the shetlers here have staff visit homes to see that the property is fenced off and safe for pets.

While it would be a pain in the butt for us responsible and caring pet owners to go through the hassle of getting a pet license, I think it should be instituted. I voted for just one license that would be a catch-all. I don't think you would need one for one beta fish or a hermit crab, but for the sake of ease, a pet license is a pet license. With the proceeds going to the local shelters and for neutering/spaying cats and dogs.

Where I live here in the South, there are WAY too many irresponsible, uncaring "pet owners", and I use the term loosely. For many, dogs are just lawn ornaments just to say they got a dog ... and more often than not, a pit bull.

Please leave their cats and dogs to roam the neighborhoods day and night, causing havoc in one form or another on other people's property.

Somehow, we have to get the dog and cat population under control in this country. And asking people to do the right thing just isn't working out as is so obviously evident. A pet license might seem "big brother", but since adults haven't been acting with responsibility and maturity on this issue, perhaps someone has to do the thinking for them. I hate to be so cynical, but it's the pets who are suffering in the end.

(06-10-2012, 10:49 AM)beyre Wrote: While it would be a pain in the butt for us responsible and caring pet owners to go through the hassle of getting a pet license, I think it should be instituted. I voted for just one license that would be a catch-all. I don't think you would need one for one beta fish or a hermit crab,

Betta fish is actually one of the most abused fish. They die in millions because of the misconception of they can live in a tiny fish bowl with no filtration nor heater. If you look at the betta bowls at any pet store, guaranteed there is at least one or two dead betta right there.

I am not saying people need a betta license, but a fish keeper license. As betta is no different from other freshwater tropical fish, the knowledge required to keep them are the same. Just a Freshwater Tropical fish license should be sufficient to cover all the freshwater tropical fish species.

For hermit crab, it can be trickier. An invert license should cover it, but not without taking a small test on basic knowledge on how to take care of it.

The pet license center should provide all the necessary information for people to learn about any species before taking the test. It's really not that troublesome at all. It's not rocket science. A couple of hours reading should sufficiently cover most of the basic knowledge of any one type of pet species.

(06-06-2012, 04:52 PM)Ram Wrote: It's not going to be expensive. $10~20 for the license. I think it actually can save the owners' money.
Think about it. Some newbie who don't have a clue decide to get some awesome fish for their look, and he bought ten $150 each saltwater fish plus another $500 for the equipments which make it a total $2,000 investment, then they all died because he had no idea what's going on. It's better for him to be truly qualified before spending all that money.


On the second thought. If all the people are required to have a license agreement before owning a pet, then there won't be millions abandoned pets. Now all the animal shelters can do the administration work for the pet license. All the volunteers can still work there. So no fees for the owner to take the test etc., well maybe just $5 for the photo and the actual license.

Don't the shelters have problems with finding homes for pets as it is? In the long run it might lower the amount of pets that end up there but in the short term it will make it harder for them to find homes for current animals.

If the shelters are doing the work, there should be a fee. The shelters could use the money.

James

The point of the license is for
1. preparing the owner to have the necessary knowledge to take care of the pets,
2. To confirm the owners have necessary budget, space, and time to take care of the pets,
3. To have the pet owners to sign the agreement that they shall never mistreat or abandon their pets, or face penalty which will not only revoke their pet license but also it comes with a large fine.

I guess if we let the shelters to do the license work, they can charge a small reasonable fee for issuing the license to keep it running. Much like driver's license.

Quote:Don't the shelters have problems with finding homes for pets as it is? In the long run it might lower the amount of pets that end up there but in the short term it will make it harder for them to find homes for current animals.

It might make it a little bit harder due to the fact that people who shouldn't be owning pets anyway won't be getting one just because it is cute and end up dumping it because they found in the long run it was a lot more work than they thought. At least the animals will be going to good homes where people actually have the ability to care for them.

I think it's complete nonsense to own a pet. To those that argue it would stop animal cruelty or abandonment, it wouldn't at all. Just because I have a license that doesn't mean it's going to stop me from brutalizing animals.

Last week, the headlines were covered with two different incidents of dogs being left in a car during the hottest days of the year. If you read the message boards, immediate calls for licenses and other regulations.

It's nonsense to believe the government can stop this foolishness. The government can't do anything except generate revenue and regulate your lives.

Kind of sad, but Andrew is right in a way. Even the most caring of pet owners do some of the stupidest of things. Such as taking the dog with them to the store in the summer and leave him in the car, even with the windows cracked open a tad. "Oh! We just went into the store for a few items! How could we have known all the checkout lines were full and we had to wait over 20 minutes!" pffft!

I guess there is no one-all solution to this. There are just too many people and too few enforcers.

Where I live, you do have to get a dog license for each dog that you own. I'm not sure if other animals must be licensed. I don't think you need a cat license. You may need one for more exotic pets.

Andrew, just because some pet owners are ignorant or mean does not mean that they all are.

The purpose of the dog license is not to stop human stupidity. It's to have a record of the dog's rabies vaccine in case your dog bites someone and it is reported. If you don't have record of the rabies vaccine, your dog will be put in quarantine and you might not get it back.

Yes, some places have "dog license". They are for different purposes than we are discussing in this thread. They either try to limit the number of dogs per family, or trying to keep eyes on whether or not your dogs have had vaccine. None of its purposes has anything to do with the requirement of be able to take care of the pets.

Pets are dying and abandoning in millions every year because of irresponsible pet owners. Have a license agreement to make sure everyone not only has the knowledge to take care of the particular pet species but also will never ditch the pet is the best way to solve the root problem.

As far as I know, in my country licenses are available, but not necessarily needed. A lot of people I know, including myself, have dogs and other pets yet we don't have a license for them. Some people, like those in the upper class, do have them. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure if we do need them, seeing as our own country laws are quite vague regarding the matter.

Theoretically it's a good idea but in practice it's often abused. In some places, it just becomes a source of income for corrupt officials. Personally, I would like to see the keeping of dogs and cats to be better regulated. Only thing is I am not too sure if licensing would improve things.

Hunting and fishing is too different than owing an animal, hunting mean you killing animal and fishing also mean you killing fish for your food, owning animal doesn't mean that you are killing then or hurting them it mean you are giving them space and your love. If there is license for owning an animal than I bet it would be very difficult for people who to adopt stray dogs and cats. because official work also take time and ofcourse money.

(06-24-2012, 10:16 PM)Victor Leigh Wrote: Theoretically it's a good idea but in practice it's often abused. In some places, it just becomes a source of income for corrupt officials. Personally, I would like to see the keeping of dogs and cats to be better regulated. Only thing is I am not too sure if licensing would improve things.

Corrupted officials will always have their source of income whether or not there is a license for pets. It shouldn't be the reason for saying no to the license.

The license should be cheap, or even free. Like I said, most people who work in animal shelters are volunteers. They can help to issue the license. One of the license requirement of passing basic knowledge test for specific pet species will make sure people are qualified to own a pet just like a driver's license will make sure people can really drive.

Imagine if there isn't a driver's license, how much worse will it be on the road? It will not solve problems 100% but it will help. Like there will always be speeding and drunk driving, there will still be people abandoning or abusing pets even if they signed agreement not to do such thing before getting the license. But with rules in place, once caught ditching pets, not only the license shall be revoked, the owner will be fined.

(06-26-2012, 12:06 AM)evilgenius Wrote: Hunting and fishing is too different than owing an animal, hunting mean you killing animal and fishing also mean you killing fish for your food, owning animal doesn't mean that you are killing then or hurting them it mean you are giving them space and your love. If there is license for owning an animal than I bet it would be very difficult for people who to adopt stray dogs and cats. because official work also take time and ofcourse money.

We might have used the wrong example, but in my opinion the pet license should be much similar to a driver's license. To get a driver's license, you must pass both paper test and road test to show you have capable knowledge and skills to drive, as well as you know the traffic rules and agree to follow it.

For the purposed pet license, not only the license holder must pass tests to prove he or she have the necessary knowledge and is capable of taking care of the pet, but they also must know the rules of having such license which mean they must not do anything against the agreement (no mistreating, abusing or abandoning of pets) or they will be fined, jailed, and lose the license.

In our local community dogs and cats need to be licensed; which is basically in place to provide a source of revenue for the town. The tags do get linked to the owners, so if a pet does get caught by the animal control officer the owner is called and it is returned (not without paying an additional fee however).

I personally think the costs are a bit prohibitive, which leads many people to not even bother with a license. On the same note, it is the people who can't afford the licenses who take much better care of their pets (imo).

The subject of needing a license for fishing and hunting was mentioned as well, but what is to say the person with the hunting license won't use his privilege of gun ownership to use it as a weapon against others? Just because you have a license to do something, it doesn't mean it will be valued. Don't get me started about those who are caught for impaired driving.

(06-20-2012, 04:12 AM)andrew320 Wrote: I think it's complete nonsense to own a pet. To those that argue it would stop animal cruelty or abandonment, it wouldn't at all. Just because I have a license that doesn't mean it's going to stop me from brutalizing animals.

Last week, the headlines were covered with two different incidents of dogs being left in a car during the hottest days of the year. If you read the message boards, immediate calls for licenses and other regulations.

It's nonsense to believe the government can stop this foolishness. The government can't do anything except generate revenue and regulate your lives.

I would have to agree with what your saying for the most part. Just look at cars. You need a drivers license to drive one but that doesn't stop accidents, speeding or any other law that you can think of. Some will follow the rules and some won't.

James

(06-30-2012, 03:12 PM)Flexin Wrote: I would have to agree with what your saying for the most part. Just look at cars. You need a drivers license to drive one but that doesn't stop accidents, speeding or any other law that you can think of. Some will follow the rules and some won't.

James

There would be way more accidents if a driver's license isn't required to drive.
Nothing can stop "bad things" from happening completely, but it surely have cut down the number by more than you think.

Yes, but then you would also have a bigger black market for animals too. Ergo, more puppy mills. The main reason, at least in the U.S., that drivers licenses reduce accidents, is that there are various ways you can be caught, be arrested, and there can be jail time involved. Once again how are you going to enforce such a regulation? Stop people at petsmart buying food? Stop everyone you see with an animal? Force them to present a license to get veterinary care? And are you actually going to punish people? It really makes very little sense, practically speaking. It will either cost more to administrate than the licensing fees will ever cover, or it will just be a farce.

It is easy to enforce.
For example -
Have all pet stores, local, chain, or online require people to show the license proof before making an order. It is as simple as to show your ID when buying booze. For ordering online, simple add one blank to fill your license number.

It also requires to show license registration at the vet. It is also easy to do.

For dogs, cats, and birds, a simple requirement to have a tag with license registration number on them would not only be easy, but it also would be good for tracking down lost pets.

Ram, I am really not trying to be argumentative. :p But then what about the mad increase in illegal animal breeding? Anyone that breeds &/or sells animals would have to have a separate registration, and be able to prove that all the animals produced/sold went to people with licenses. Who its going to follow up on that? And then, if someone needs to rehome an animal, for whatever reason, do you just take their word that they checked to make sure that person has a license? Or would they have to take the animal to an already overfull underfunded shelter? And what about someone like Karen who works to rescue & adopt out animals? Is she going to have to track license #'s?

No, we are not arguing. We are having an interesting discussion. That's what the forum for.

You also have to take the word of liquor stores and bars that they only sell to people over 21. Isn't that the same?
I know some people will always try to get around the laws, but it will keep most people in place for sure.

The whole point of having such license agreement is to cure the root problem of having overpopulated shelters due to mass abandoning of pets by irresponsible or incapable pet owners, as well as to solve the root problem for mass dying of pets in incapable hands. Yes, there will be people get around it, but those people won't be majority. With such license in place, there will be no more mass dying of fish, birds, and mass homeless dogs and cats.