SCOTT Whyte correctly identifies the behaviour of owners as the key element in relation to injury and nuisance caused by dogs ("How to ensure the owners of man's best friend behave responsibly", Agenda, The Herald, July 5).
I fear that it is also the biggest stumbling block.
Dog ownership seems to be increasing rapidly, with many families now owning two or more dogs. Many owners, however, seem to regard their dogs less as a canine companion, to be treasured and enjoyed, and more as a lifestyle statement, fashion accessory or children's toy, consequently entailing no particular sense of responsibility.
With increasing numbers of untrained dogs in the hands of untrained, misguided and largely selfish owners, I fear the problem of dog attacks and nuisance is likely to continue until it reaches epidemic proportions. The incidence of toxicariasis resulting from dog excrement, potentially causing blindness and often affecting children, is already far too high.
I agree with Mr Whyte that, in addition to microchipping, compulsory pet insurance would be a sensible measure. But I would go further: I would reintroduce the dog licence, set at a substantial level of, say, £1,000 a year and conditional upon the dog owner undergoing compulsory training as regards to their responsibility to their pet and to society. That might help focus the minds of many dog owners.
I write, incidentally, as a dog lover who chooses not to be a dog owner.
Iain Stuart,
34 Oakbank Crescent, Perth.
THE article by Scott Whyte on responsible dog ownership was a timely contribution to the debate on how to control irresponsible dog owners. However, it did drop short by suggesting as his main proposal that we must adopt compulsory microchipping.
I am in favour of microchipping dogs. It helps to increase traceability of lost or straying dogs. It helps to increase traceability of owners of dogs out of control, but it is wrong to suggest that it will increase responsible dog ownership.
Compulsory microchipping will only become successful if backed by strictly-enforced severe penalties for non-compliance or failure to update the register on a change of address or owners. Many responsible dog owners will be caught by these penalties, while irresponsible owners will ignore the register and refuse to pay the penalties. The same arguments apply to compulsory pet insurance where rising costs of pet insurance will deprive the elderly and those on low incomes of the benefits of responsible dog ownership.
The most important point missing from Mr Whyte's article is the failure to tackle education through dog training clubs, where not only will the dog be trained but the owner may also be educated in responsible dog ownership.
It is here that we should bring in the pet insurance industry and also the pet food industry to seek their financial support in support of dog training clubs and dog obedience competitions. Government should also be involved, first to ensure that local authorities do not ban dog training clubs from publicly owned premises, secondly by working with the main dog organisations to establish a high standard of professional trainers and thirdly to ensure that dogs under Dog Control Notices receive effective retraining by licensed professional trainers.
Re-introducing a licence system through compulsory microchipping will achieve little without a great deal of effort being put into education.
George Leslie,
Chairman, Canine Concern Scotland Trust,
81-85 Portland Street, Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article