How does that prevent an attack taking place?
No dog is under control unless leashed and muzzled. Putting the breed on the banned list will mean that can be enforced. It can still maul owners and kids at their home though or escape and do damage. A licence doesn't do **** to prevent bad things happening.
Even without licensing, people can be banned from dog ownership if found to be a dick to the animal or disregard the safety of others. Those laws need to be enforced!
Licensing will do jack all to prevent anything and is just a comfort blanket that big nanny state types want.
I'm pro banning breeds. It starts the removal process and acceptability of having these horrific animals. There's also a bunch of restrictions then put in place on owners of the breeds without affecting others with non-war dogs.
I'm pro enforcement of current laws. Idiot owners need banning from ownership and to pay for the damage their animals cause (all dogs included in this). If your dog can't be insured, and it's on a banned list, then it needs to be destroyed unfortunately. It's classed as dangerous for a reason.
I'm pro licensing for breeders. You breed something that kills? You have some explaining to do; lineage and temperament of ascendants, due diligence on who it was sold to, ensuring they understand how to train and control etc.
I'm anti licensing for ownership*. What does it actually achieve? It's typical British "oi, got a licence for that?' memery that we get ridiculed around the world for.
*before any action is taken on the above first. If those steps fail to reduce the attacks, then yea, maybe take a look at a dog ownership licence. Still can't see what it will achieve, be enforceable and could even make things worse through complacency.
.
