dogs

[scott1968]

It’s not a perfect world and it’s usually the responsible that have to pay for irresponsible

Well you've made this proposal - are you happy that it is imperfect, and makes the world more imperfect than it already is?

Do you not think that new policies should make things better, not worse?

Is that the only answer you can come up with to the questions "What would the charge pay for?" and "What benefit does a responsible dog-owner, who may have had dogs continuously for decades with never any problems, get in return for his £50 - £100?" ?

You've made this proposal - can you not articulate any benefits of it?

And I'd still like to know how it would be introduced. Would it be for all new dog purchases after a certain date, or would all existing dog owners have to apply?

I could just play your game and just pick faults with someone’s ideas,
If you are going to come back with all this negativity at least have some positive suggestions of your own.


Not all new policies work for everyone. (I think it would be better)

The charge could for example cover third party insurance.

I pay car insurance every year (20+ years) never had an accident – what do I get in return.

If it saves one child’s live then it’s a benefit.

It would apply to all dog owners (all dogs chipped)

 

[hermes]

Quite a lot to miss. You can play with a dog all day, you can take it on long walks, you can play hide and seek with them (they always win) you can train it to behave well, you can train it to do tricks or daft things, they can be incredibly loyal and good company. They will catch balls, frisbees etc and they will swim for sticks. They will go and fetch the newspaper and find your slippers wherever they may be.

My kids have plenty of things to keep them busy all day. I don't like walking dogs, I've got enough to do without following an animal around picking up its poo. Catching and fetching? Why do I need an animal to do these things for me?

You fail to mention that they eat huge amounts of food, complicate travel plans, chew your furniture, shed hair all over the place, pick up ticks and fleas , love to chew and roll in things that stink for fun etc etc

I know there are pluses, but there are huge minuses as well, some of us just don't value the ability to catch a ball and fawning obseqiousness that highly.

We are a cat family OK? thats all that needs to said.

I only answered your question "what's to miss". You didn't ask me to mention the negative aspects and then you tell me I have "failed" to mention them.
Also, many of the points I raised were benefits a child would enjoy more than an adult, but you seem to be replying from a rather selfish point of view.

We are a cat family OK? thats all that needs to said

I don't know if it's ok or not. It seems that you have decided that it is. Have you asked your kids whether they'd like a dog?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I could just play your game and just pick faults with someone’s ideas,

It's not a game. You made a proposal which I thought had flaws or the potential for flaws, so I asked you for clarification and explanation.

If you are unable to explain, or clarify, or justify a flawed proposal, or if your proposal is flawed because you haven't given it enough thought, or if you were unaware of its flaws because you hadn't given it enough thought then it is perfectly proper for me to point that out.

If you are going to come back with all this negativity at least have some positive suggestions of your own.

Asking people to think things through, and to look for flaws, and to devise ways to remove those flaws is not negativity. Pointing out flaws and asking them to improve their proposal to remove the flaws is not negativity.

Not all new policies work for everyone. (I think it would be better)

No new policy can please, or be absolutely even in its impact on, everyone. That does not mean that policies should not be designed to be as fair and even as possible

The charge could for example cover third party insurance.

So should everybody pay the same? Should the licence fee be the same for the little old lady with her west highland terrier and the scrap-metal-dealer-and-car-ringer with his bull terrier?

If your answer is yes, are you utterly convinced that that is as fair a system as is possible, and that no effort should be made to examine it to see if it could be fairer?

If your answer is no, then what scheme would you propose?

I am not being negative if I expect people making proposals to have thought of these things, and I do not need to make proposals of my own to expect those that do to make a proper job of it.

I pay car insurance every year (20+ years) never had an accident – what do I get in return.

You get the right to do something that carries risks to other people. As you have never had an accident then the cost to you to give yourself this right is not high.

If you are arguing that people should be made to carry properly risk-based insurance then that's fine, but you weren't - you were proposing a flat rate of £50 - £100, no mention of insurance.

If it saves one child’s live then it’s a benefit.

You oughtn't to say that without qualification. You should do a cost-benefit analysis.

It would apply to all dog owners (all dogs chipped)

Chipping would be a good idea, and I can see how a DNA database would be useful in identifying the owners of dogs that foul the pavements.

 

[baldy01]

I only answered your question "what's to miss". You didn't ask me to mention the negative aspects and then you tell me I have "failed" to mention them.

I just re-read that and it came out sounding P'd off but I didn't mean it that way at all, sorry. I'm also filling out some bulls**t HR docs for work at the moment and the frustration obviously spilled over

As in all things we weigh the advantages and disadvantages and choose accordingly, dogs don't fit into everyones lifestyle and to try to make it would be unfair to the dog, also a major consideration.

 

[hermes]

dogs don't fit into everyones lifestyle and to try to make it would be unfair to the dog, .

I wish everyone thought the same.

 

[baldy01]

To try to address it by classifying dogs purely on size is too simplistic.

Fair enough, the classifications would have to be more complex.

Personally, I would love it if nobody kept cats, but there you go.

I'm not sure that "keep" describes the relationship with cats.

There would be, however, a cost to enforce all of these measures, and we do need to think about who would pay, and how, and how much, and we do need to think about what we say to the recently widowed woman who can no longer afford the licence on the labrador that her and her recently departed husband had had since it was a puppy, and what we say to the children of the man who has lost his job, or who has run off with another woman, about why their pet has to be taken from them.

Balanced against the cost of people who get mauled or killed? No one said it would be easy, the question is is people feeling sad or lonely better that people getting bitten, mauled or killed??

 

[baldy01]

If it saves one child’s live then it’s a benefit.

You oughtn't to say that without qualification. You should do a cost-benefit analysis.

I'm fascinated to hear what you think the value of a childs life is?

 

[JohnD]

It tends to be calculated on two bases:

1) If someone else pays: Infinite

2) If I/we pay: proportional to the cost of saving a childs life in some other way - e.g. £1,000 spent on vaccination saves ? lives, £1,000 spent on airbags; £1,000 spent on zebra crossings; Road safety training; leukemia treatments; drainage improvements; barriers around level crossings; meningitis awareness; Bitrex in household chemicals. A reduction factor is applied for distance - my child is worth X, your child is worth X-N, a child in a foreign country is worth X-500N, a child in Africa is worth X-1,000,000,N

 

[baldy01]

It tends to be calculated on two bases:

1) If someone else pays: Infinite

2) If I/we pay: proportional to the cost of saving a childs life in some other way - e.g. £1,000 spent on vaccination saves ? lives, £1,000 spent on airbags; £1,000 spent on zebra crossings; Road safety training; leukemia treatments; drainage improvements; barriers around level crossings; meningitis awareness; Bitrex in household chemicals. A reduction factor is applied for distance - my child is worth X, your child is worth X-N, a child in a foreign country is worth X-500N, a child in Africa is worth X-1,000,000,N

That doesn't really answer the question does it. Lets say the statistics show that by implementing restrictions on large dogs will save one child from being mauled to death in the next 12 months. I have peered into the future and that child is yours.

Now whats the cost benefit analysis? Is it worth spending £1M on? £10M? what? How do you figure that, I'm really interested.

 

[JohnD]

If it's my child and you're paying, it's infinite.

If it's your child and I'm paying, I might chip in a couple of hundred quid if i know you, but as I don't, then I think it's up to you to take care of your own kids.

If it's to be paid for out of taxation, I am very reluctant to see taxes rise at all.

 

[scott1968]

I could just play your game and just pick faults with someone’s ideas,

It's not a game. You made a proposal which I thought had flaws or the potential for flaws, so I asked you for clarification and explanation.

If you are unable to explain, or clarify, or justify a flawed proposal, or if your proposal is flawed because you haven't given it enough thought, or if you were unaware of its flaws because you hadn't given it enough thought then it is perfectly proper for me to point that out.

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
The same as a gun license helps police guns and gun owners.
The same as a Gorgi license helps police safely installed gas appliances

If you are going to come back with all this negativity at least have some positive suggestions of your own.

Asking people to think things through, and to look for flaws, and to devise ways to remove those flaws is not negativity. Pointing out flaws and asking them to improve their proposal to remove the flaws is not negativity. .

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
You have not yet giving a better proposal.

Not all new policies work for everyone. (I think it would be better)

No new policy can please, or be absolutely even in its impact on, everyone. That does not mean that policies should not be designed to be as fair and even as possible.

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
The proposal is fair

The charge could for example cover third party insurance.

So should everybody pay the same? Should the licence fee be the same for the little old lady with her west highland terrier and the scrap-metal-dealer-and-car-ringer with his bull terrier?

If your answer is yes, are you utterly convinced that that is as fair a system as is possible, and that no effort should be made to examine it to see if it could be fairer?

If your answer is no, then what scheme would you propose?

I am not being negative if I expect people making proposals to have thought of these things, and I do not need to make proposals of my own to expect those that do to make a proper job of it.

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
But if you want to suggest different costs go ahead

I pay car insurance every year (20+ years) never had an accident – what do I get in return.

You get the right to do something that carries risks to other people. As you have never had an accident then the cost to you to give yourself this right is not high.

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
Dogs carry a risk to other people so dog owners should have third party insurance.

If you are arguing that people should be made to carry properly risk-based insurance then that's fine, but you weren't - you were proposing a flat rate of £50 - £100, no mention of insurance.

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
You asked what the £50 - £100 should cover and one of my suggestions was third party insurance.

If it saves one child’s live then it’s a benefit.
You oughtn't to say that without qualification. You should do a cost-benefit analysis.

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
I can say that “If it saves one child’s live then it’s a benefit”

It would apply to all dog owners (all dogs chipped)

Chipping would be a good idea, and I can see how a DNA database would be useful in identifying the owners of dogs that foul the pavements.

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
The £50 - £ 100 would also cover the DNA database.

 

[baldy01]

If it's my child and you're paying, it's infinite.

If it's your child and I'm paying, I might chip in a couple of hundred quid if i know you, but as I don't, then I think it's up to you to take care of your own kids.

If it's to be paid for out of taxation, I am very reluctant to see taxes rise at all.

Well I'd be willing to chip in my share to make everyones kids safer, but apparently thats just me.

 

[scott1968]

If it's my child and you're paying, it's infinite.

If it's your child and I'm paying, I might chip in a couple of hundred quid if i know you, but as I don't, then I think it's up to you to take care of your own kids.

If it's to be paid for out of taxation, I am very reluctant to see taxes rise at all.

Well I'd be willing to chip in my share to make everyones kids safer, but apparently thats just me.

Me too

 

[JohnD]

Well I'd be willing to chip in my share to make everyones kids safer, but apparently thats just me.

That's great! How much are you willing to pay to cut deaths due to dog attack; how much due to meningitis; smoking; road safety; glue sniffing; knife fighting; suicide as a result of school bullying; accidental drowning; murder by mum's new boyfriend; fire in the home aggravated by no battery in smoke alarm? Surely you aren't going to restrict yourself a single cause?

 

[baldy01]

My share, like I said.