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.