I think something along those lines would be a good thing.
The way I see it, basic dog care (or general pet care) should be taught as a compulsary subject in schools, as so many children know nothing about proper dog ownership responsibilties and they'll grow up to be the irresponsible dog owners of the future. At least if they were educated on what to do and what not to do, regular dog owners would probably end up being more responsible on the whole. Just teaching the subject wouldn't eliminate intentional cruelty though, so even better, it should be compulsary to take a dog ownership test of some sort, to check your knowledge of pet care and training along with laws regarding dogs etc. If you don't pass the test, you don't get a license, you can't have a dog. That'd help with bad dog owners, in my opinion. Plus, people who didn't want a dog so much that they could be bothered to learn and take the test probably would end up being those people who give up once the novelty wears off, and that way they wouldn't get a dog in the first place. If you're serious about getting and loving a dog you'd take the time to get your license.

The other day at college, we had to decide in groups what laws we would create if we had the choice. My friends and I came up with the idea I just explained, and the response from one girl (who had come up with the law "All little dogs should be sent to China to be eaten, because they're annoying."   ) was that "What? So I'd have to bother taking a test, and pay for a license as well as the dog? That's too much effort." My answer was that it would stop people like her owning dogs.

Rachel

Playing devil's advocate here - is there an argument that if people are required to obtain a licence to keep a dog or even all pets, should that not apply to having children as well. Is this a nanny state issue?

I happen to think the idea has some merits but like to explore the full picture.

More's the point, how on earth did the b****** (sorry - just get very riled when I hear these tales) escape jail.

Surely we should be campaigning for tougher penalties for people who perpetrate such vile acts - and I'm talking the possibility of years, not just months or a slap on the wrists.

Dear God Words fail me.....

I'm glad K9 are bringing this to the attention of the public.

Why do people who perpetrate evil deeds against animals tend to get such paltry punishments meted out by the courts, does anyone know?  Is it because the legislation doesn't exist to allow custodial sentences or the legislation isn't robust enough to allow more than a 'slap on the wrist' to be handed out in most cases?  Or is it that the magistrates/judges that hear the cases view cruelty to animals as being insignificant/unimportant?

  People were so incensed abouth that little staffie , that it appeared on Crimewatch this week. Lets hope somebody gives info. as it had quite a distinctive harness on.

Why?????  what did it prove, the poor innocent dog was somebody's loyal companion. The B****** want's the same dome to him. then see how he feels.

This week seems to have been particularly nasty in terms of cruelty cases in Britain

http://www.k9magazine.com/viewarticle.php?sid=15&aid=1260
Man punches dog to death outside a pub

http://www.k9magazine.com/viewarticle.php?sid=15&&vid=0&npage=&aid=1253
Yobs kill dogs with beer bottle

No jail time for either crime.