Promoting Responsible Dog Ownership in Scotland: Microchipping and other Measures. An Analysis of Consultation Responses

8. Other Possible Measures to Promote Responsible Dog Ownership

8.1 This chapter reports on the analysis of responses to questions relating to three other possible measures to promote responsible dog ownership: the reintroduction of dog licensing; the muzzling of all dogs in public; and the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003. The consultation document included the following questions:

Question 20: Do you think a system of dog licensing could help encourage responsible dog ownership and help make our communities safer from dangerous and out of control dogs? Do you have views on how such a dog licensing scheme might operate?

Question 21: Do you think muzzling of dogs while in public should be introduced?

Question 22. The Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 gives local authorities the powers to deal with dog mess.

a. Are you aware that local authorities have these powers? [Yes / No / Don't know]

b. Do you think they are being used effectively in your area? [Yes / No / Don't know]

c. Is there more you think can be done to address this issue effectively? [Yes / No / Don't know]

8.2 Note that Questions 20 and 21 both took the form of a yes / no question; however, there was no tick-box provided in the consultation response form for these two questions. Yes / no responses have been imputed on the basis of an analysis of the respondents' comments. If it was not clear whether the respondent agreed or disagreed with the proposal, their response was coded as "unclear". The figures shown in Tables 8.1 and 8.2 below are therefore based on these imputed responses.

Q20 Dog licensing

8.3 Question 20 asked respondents whether they thought a system of dog licensing could help encourage responsible dog ownership and help make communities safer from dangerous and out of control dogs. As explained above, although there was no tick-box provided, a yes / no response was imputed based on the comments made. Respondents were also asked in this question if they had views on how such a dog licensing scheme might operate. It is important to note that while the question sought views on whether dog licensing could encourage responsible dog ownership and help protect communities, many (perhaps most) of the respondents responded in terms which indicated that they were actually answering in relation to whether or not they supported the introduction of dog licensing. Thus the meaning which attaches to the imputed responses and to the quantitative analysis, is not completely clear, and the information given below should be considered in this context.

8.4 Altogether, 721 respondents made a comment at Question 20. This is a smaller number of comments than for all other substantive questions (which typically received between 1,400 and 1,500 responses). As previously noted in paragraph 2.4, the question on licensing had been omitted in error from the original version of the consultation questionnaire. When the corrected questionnaire was issued in early January, everyone who had already responded to the original questionnaire was contacted directly and invited to reply to the new question on licensing. About 10% of those who were contacted responded to this follow up email. (This compares to 88% of those who responded to the question on the corrected version of the questionnaire.)

8.5 As can be seen in Table 8.1 below, a response of "yes" was imputed for 32% of respondents, "no" for 46% of respondents and "unclear" for 22% of respondents.

Table 8.1: Question 20 - Do you think a system of dog licensing could help encourage responsible dog ownership and help make our communities safer from dangerous and out of control dogs?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	27	31%	201	32%	228	32%
No	35	40%	297	47%	332	46%
Unclear	25	29%	136	21%	161	22%
Total	87	100%	634	100%	721	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

8.6 The proportion whose imputed answer was "yes" was substantially higher for community respondents (50% compared to 32% overall) whilst the proportion answering "no" was lower for both the community respondents and for enforcement agencies (19% and 32% respectively, compared to 46% overall).

8.7 There was a large degree of overlap in the comments raised by respondents allocated to each of the three groups. The same issues were raised in a positive way, in a negative way, and in an ambivalent way by respondents. Many of those who said "yes" went on to qualify their support in some way.

8.8 In addition, the Scotland for Animals campaign response, submitted by 736 respondents, provided a comment on the topic of licensing. The campaign response stated that:

"Mandatory licensing [should] be introduced as part of procedures to ensure appropriate qualification for animal ownership." (Scotland for Animals campaign response)

8.9 Again, this statement did not address the actual question asked at Question 20 of the consultation questionnaire. However, it is a clear endorsement of a system of licensing. If these 736 responses are added to the number of non-campaign respondents in favour of licensing, the overall support for licensing increases to about two-thirds (66%) of all respondents.

Arguments in favour of a system of dog licensing

8.10 The main argument made in favour of a system of dog licensing focused on the premise of the question; namely that licensing would encourage responsible dog ownership. Respondents who made this point argued that the licence should not have been scrapped in 1987. Respondents thought the time and costs involved for obtaining a licence might reduce the "impulse purchase" of dogs and make some people "think twice" before going ahead. The quotes below illustrate these points:

"OneKind believes that a dog licensing scheme could provide an appropriate means of encouraging responsible dog ownership, not only with reference to dog control, but also dog welfare." (OneKind)

"I would agree with the statement. A new scheme should operate similar to the pre-1987 arrangement except that it should be self-financing, i.e. at no cost to general or local taxation." (Individual respondent)

"Licensing would also act as a barrier to those who see a dog as an "impulse purchase", and help to underline the commitment required to own a dog for its lifespan." (Individual respondent)

8.11 Respondents also expressed support for the licensing of breeders, and of dog walkers - as well as for the general population of dog owners. Respondents mentioned other countries (particularly Switzerland) where licensing schemes were thought to work well.

"There is an impressive system in place in Switzerland where the owner has to undergo training with and without the dog prior to being licensed." (Aberdeenshire Council)

"Serious consideration should be given to dog ownership licensing including investigating other models where this has been implemented successfully (i.e. Switzerland - since bringing in dog licensing have seen decrease in the number of irresponsible dog owners - although it is recognised that there are cultural and economic differences)." (Renfrewshire Council)

8.12 Many of those who were in favour of licensing in principle offered qualifying comments. For example, that not everyone would participate, that enforcement would have to be properly resourced, that it should be owners - not dogs - who should be licensed, that any funds raised through licensing should be spent on enforcement and other welfare measures, and that certain categories (working dogs were mentioned) should be exempt. For example:

"Agree in principle with licensing but it is unlikely to impact on the behaviour of the less responsible owners." (Stirling Council)

"I most certainly do but the funds raised MUST be ring fenced otherwise it is just another form of taxation!" (Individual respondent)

"Dog licensing, with exemptions for farm dogs, combined with compulsory microchipping would have the most impact but again there will be massive problems associated with enforcement and it is unlikely that all would comply." (NFU Scotland)

8.13 Respondents often argued that licensing should not be seen in isolation but must be integrated with other measures. (See paragraph 8.14 and the analysis of Question 24 in Chapter 9 below for further details.)

"It might take ten years but a properly policed and resourced, integrated pet owner licensing and education scheme could eliminate puppy farming, put an end to irresponsible back room breeders, end the huge problem of too many unwanted and abandoned dogs and greatly reduce the incidence of dog attacks both within owner's homes and out in the wider community." (Animal Concern Advice Line)

Arguments against a system of dog licensing

8.14 The key themes raised by those who were against a system of dog licensing were similar to the themes raised by respondents who offer a qualifying comment to a "yes" response. In particular:

• Only responsible owners will adhere to a system of dog licensing. Many respondents made the case that a licensing scheme would not be effective in promoting responsible dog ownership as it was only the responsible owners who would adhere to the system. Those that should be the target of the system - irresponsible owners - would be unaffected. In other words, irresponsible owners would not pay any attention to the requirement to license. It was therefore suggested that licensing would "penalise" responsible owners, acting as a "tax on dog ownership" and would do nothing to deter irresponsible owners.
• Licensing was discontinued because it was ineffective. There was considerable comment that the previous system of licensing was not effective, and only a minority of dog owners participated in it. Respondents wondered what had changed in the intervening years that would make a system effective now. The point was made that licensing does not ensure traceability. Moreover, respondents said that there was evidence that the current system of licensing in Northern Ireland had not been effective in reducing the number of strays; there was also said to be only one-third compliance with licensing in Northern Ireland. Another respondent also said the current licensing system in the Isle of Man was not effective.
• Enforcement would be very expensive. Respondents focused on the costs of enforcement and were not convinced that there would be sufficient resources available to police any system effectively. Without strong enforcement procedures in place, it was not clear that there was any benefit to a system of licensing such as promoting responsible dog ownership. Some respondents also argued that any benefits that might result from licensing could not be justified by the costs.
• Licensing is not required if compulsory microchipping is introduced. Some respondents thought that compulsory microchipping was preferable to licensing. Microchipping was seen as a simpler and more effective measure. It was thought that the information recorded on the microchip could cover all the relevant aspects and that licensing would not add anything. This was expressed as "if compulsory microchipping will provide all of the solutions claimed then licensing will not be necessary". Thus, respondents thought that the introduction of licensing represented unnecessary duplication.
• Licensing should be targeted and should apply to specific sectors / breeds only. Some respondents thought that whilst there was no general requirement for licensing, it would be useful to introduce licensing for specific groups including: all breeders; specific breeds which were identified as being dangerous; and professional dog walkers. This point was often linked to a more general point about targeting irresponsible owners rather than having a blanket approach.
• Licensing is not a substitute for education. Some respondents thought that to focus on licensing was a "red herring". The real, underlying issue was that dog owners required proper education and training in order to be responsible dog owners.
• Licensing will not deter dog attacks. Respondents did not think that there was a link between the introduction of licensing and the prevention of dog attacks.

8.15 Other points were made against dog licensing including that this was simply a money-making exercise, that it would discourage dog ownership (seen by this group of respondents as undesirable) and that it would be better to use other measures including higher insurance for dangerous dogs.

Practical arrangements for implementation

8.16 A number of issues were raised in relation to the part of the question which asked how any licensing system should operate. Many of these related to the level at which the costs should be set. Respondents were divided in their views with some emphasising that the costs should be kept as low as possible (a figure of £10 was mentioned) so as not to exclude anyone and that costs should be reduced for neutered dogs and / or for owners who had undertaken approved courses, whilst others thought the costs should be high in order to discourage casual ownership and to provide resources for enforcement and improving welfare. Some respondents felt that the costs should be higher for certain breeds.

"The licence should be set at a level high enough to cover the cost of microchipping, third party insurance, dog wardens and scanners." (Individual respondent)

"If we are to make microchipping law as in N.Ireland, (a good thing) but to then impose a yearly paid license on people will be viewed upon the government forcing yet another tax on singly a group of people in our communities. A small fee of no more of £5 may be acceptable but not £10 or more. And a discount should be given if you have two or more dogs in a household." (K9 CHAT)

"The fees offset animal control costs, so problem animals (aggressive or overpopulated breeds) can have a higher fee" (Individual respondent)

8.17 Respondents thought that the enforcement of dog licensing should be undertaken by local authority inspectors, and that this service should be expanded using the money raised through licensing. It was also thought that the numbers of dog wardens should be increased. These comments echoed the views that were expressed in relation to the enforcement of microchipping (see Chapter 5).

"All dog owners should have a licence and this would mean that dog wardens, police, SPCA and local authorities would be able to keep an eye on dogs and track them down better. Any money should be put into a scheme supporting dog wardens." (Individual respondent)

8.18 Specific mention was made of other 'models' which could serve as a template for the introduction. These included: the National Entitlement Card and General Licences (cattle).

"I strongly believe that a licencing system is essential - the National Entitlement Card offers an existing method for recording ownership that shouldn't create an undue burden on government and shouldn't be expensive to implement." (Individual respondent)

"If the Scottish Government is minded to introduce a dog (or rather, dog owner) licensing system, OneKind would recommend following the model of the General Licences currently provided for purposes such as the movement of cattle, activities affecting wild birds, and import / export trading." (OneKind)

8.19 Finally, a key area raised in regard to implementation was the importance of developing an integrated set of measures which did not focus solely on licensing (or indeed licensing combined with microchipping). The other measures considered to be important included: training and education; dog parks; having dogs on leads in public places; ensuring that a numbered tag is worn on the collar; and the use of DNA profiling. See the discussion of Question 24 in Chapter 9 for more detail in relation to these other measures.

Specific issues relating to legislation

8.20 A number of respondents raised specific points about current legislation, and in particular proposals for amendments. These included: change access under the Land Reform Scotland Act (2003) to ban dogs from nature reserves; amend the Licensing of Animal Dealers (young kittens and young dogs) Scotland Regulations 2009 and / or Breeding of Dogs Act 1993 so that the sale and transfer of all dogs are documented and registered and to reduce the number of litters annually before a licence is required; ensure that the 2009 secondary legislation operates for dogs born prior to the legislation coming into force; revise the Dangerous Dogs Act to, for example, drop all reference to specific breeds.

Scotland for Animals campaign response

8.21 As highlighted in paragraphs 8.8 and 8.9 above, the Scotland for Animals (SfA) campaign response supported the introduction of mandatory licensing. A number of points in the SfA response have already been highlighted in the preceding analysis, namely that: fees should be nominal and discounts provided for neutered dogs; that the Licensing of Animal Dealers (young kittens and young dogs) Scotland Regulations 2009 should be amended as described in paragraph 8.20 above; that all dog sales should be licensed; that dogs must wear collar and tag with details of their registration at all times; that enforcement (and administration) costs should be met by the fees collected; and that enforcement should be carried out by local authority inspectors.

8.22 In addition, the SfA response made points relating to: the licensing of animal dealers and the retrospective application of legislation relating to animal dealers and the making of local authority duties mandatory. (See Annex 1 for the full SfA campaign text.)

Q21 Muzzling of all dogs in public

8.23 Question 21 asked respondents whether they thought the muzzling of all dogs while in public should be introduced. This was a yes / no question, but the consultation questionnaire did not provide a tick-box option to respondents. Instead respondents were invited to give comments on the question, and on the basis of these comments, if the respondent's agreement or disagreement with the proposal could be inferred, a yes or no response was imputed. If the respondent's agreement / disagreement could not be inferred, the response was categorised as "unclear". These imputed responses are reported in Table 8.2 below.

8.24 Altogether, 1,574 respondents made a comment at Question 21, and in 2% of cases, it could be inferred that the respondent was in favour of muzzling all dogs in public, while in 96% it could be inferred that the respondent was opposed. Just 2% of responses were classed as unclear.

Table 8.2: Question 21 - Do you think muzzling of dogs while in public should be introduced?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	2	2%	37	3%	39	2%
No	101	96%	1,410	96%	1,511	96%
Unclear	2	2%	22	1%	24	2%
Total	105	100%	1,469	100%	1,574	100%

8.25 The Scotland for Animals campaign response (submitted by 736 respondents) also called for the muzzling of all dogs in public not to become mandatory. If these 736 responses were included in Table 8.2 above, the proportion of respondents opposed to compulsory muzzling of all dogs in public would rise to 97%.

8.26 Of the 1,574 respondents who made a comment, 310 (20%) said "No", "Definitely not", "Absolutely not", or some combination of these three statements, and then made no other comment. By contrast, 11 respondents said "Yes" and made no other comment.

8.27 As the figures above suggest, respondents were very strongly opposed to the mandatory muzzling of all dogs in public. Indeed they often said explicitly that they were strongly opposed.

Reasons for supporting mandatory muzzling of all dogs in public

8.28 Around half of those who were in favour of muzzling all dogs in public were representatives of community groups; individuals who described themselves as "non-dog owners", "citizens", "parents" or "grandparents"; or who categorised themselves as "other" respondents in the Respondent Information Form.^[6] The points made by this group were that: muzzles (and leads) were the only measures that would prevent dog attacks in public places; compulsory muzzling would make streets and parks safer for children and restore confidence among members of the public; muzzling is commonplace in other countries; it should be strictly enforced; and it would be easy to do so (because of its visibility).

8.29 Some among this group thought that all dogs should be muzzled unless they were on a lead and "being held by someone stronger than the dog". Others expressed some uncertainty about the proposal, saying that it "possibly" should be done, or that it "should be considered". This group also thought that exemptions could be made for guide dogs and working dogs.

Reasons for objecting to mandatory muzzling

8.30 Those who were opposed to mandatory muzzling of all dogs described the proposal as "cruel", "pointless", "unnecessary", "stupid", "abhorrent", "ridiculous", "draconian" and "insane". Some respondents said they would disobey any law that required them to muzzle their well-behaved dog. Respondents gave four main reasons for their strong opposition to the idea:

• It would make little difference to the problem of dog attacks. Respondents made the point that most dog attacks occur on private property in the dog's own home.
• It would compromise the dog's welfare. Respondents argued that a muzzle would prevent dogs from engaging in their natural behaviours; cause anxiety and distress in well-behaved dogs and, as a result, lead to an increase in bad behaviour; put a muzzled dog at the mercy of a dangerous dog running free (and there was a general view that irresponsible owners were likely to ignore the requirement to muzzle their dog); restrict the dog's ability to pant, drink and accept food rewards; put the dog at risk of injury if it was running in woods and caught the muzzle on a branch; and prevent the dog from playing and exercising (as it would be unable to retrieve or socialise properly with other dogs). Some respondents, including the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, and the National Dog Warden Association, specifically stated that a policy of muzzling all dogs in public would be a breach of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which makes provision for an animal's needs including "its need to be able to exhibit normal behavioural patterns".
• It is unnecessary. Respondents repeatedly made the point that the vast majority of dogs are not dangerous and would never bite a person or attack another dog. Furthermore, existing legislation makes provision for the muzzling of known dangerous dogs.
• It would simply reinforce the misconception that some people have that all dogs are dangerous.

8.31 The following two reasons were also given, less often:

• It would be impractical to muzzle certain dogs. Examples included dogs with shorter snouts, very large dogs, and working dogs that require to use their mouths for retrieving or assisting their owners. It would also make it impossible for dogs to be trained in agility and flyball, to take part in dog shows, to participate in pet therapy schemes, and other similar beneficial activities.
• Muzzling would create a "false sense of security". There was a view that a muzzle does not ultimately address an aggressive dog's need for training and proper control, and therefore could be counter-productive.

8.32 The following quotes illustrate these range of points:

"Scottish Kennel Club disagrees with the mandatory muzzling of dogs in public. As well as being unfair on the majority of dogs whose behaviour in public is exemplary Scottish Kennel Club believes that this would lead the general public to believe that all dogs are dangerous which is not the case. Scottish Kennel Club also believes that the current legislation, Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 gives the local authority the power to require dogs to undergo training, or even have to wear a muzzle, should their behaviour require it, therefore a blanket requirement is not necessary." (Scottish Kennel Club)

"The Scottish SPCA would not support compulsory muzzling of all dogs in a public place, as this itself could lead to welfare problems, and does not allow a dog to express natural behaviours. A large number of the attacks by dogs that have happened in recent times have occurred in private and not public places. The Scottish SPCA supports the provisions of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 that allows Local Authorities to impose conditions such as muzzling a dog where there is reason to do so, this is entirely appropriate and proportionate." (Scottish SPCA)

"No, absolutely not. There would be massive welfare issues involved with this because of people without knowledge of how to use muzzles properly not being able to use them humanely…. When out with my dogs, I would much prefer to meet a dog whose owner can pull him or her towards them, than a loose dog wearing a muzzle who is still not under the control of the owner." (Individual respondent)

8.33 Respondents argued that only dangerous dogs should be required to be muzzled. They also pointed out that having "a dog on a lead in public places" (except in designated exercise areas) was sufficient to keep the dog under control.

8.34 Respondents considered that the education of dog owners and of children, and the proper training and socialisation of dogs, were the keys to promoting responsible dog ownership and ensuring public safety. Some respondents also advocated the promotion of the "yellow ribbon campaign" for "dogs that need space".^[7]

Q22 Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003

8.35 Question 22 asked three yes / no questions about the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003, followed by a space for comments.

8.36 In total, 1,492 respondents answered Question 22a; 1,481 answered Question 22b; and 1,475 answered Question 22c. Nearly all (96%) of respondents indicated that they were aware that local authorities had powers to deal with dog mess. However, two-thirds of respondents (67%) thought that these powers were not being used effectively in their area, and two-thirds of respondents again (68%) believed that more could be done to address this issue effectively. See Tables 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 below.

Table 8.3: Question 22a - Are you aware that local authorities have these powers?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	99	100%	1,327	95%	1,426	96%
No	-	0%	54	4%	54	4%
Don't know	-	0%	12	1%	12	1%
Total	99	100%	1,393	100%	1,492	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

Table 8.4: Question 22b - Do you think they are being used effectively in your area?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	27	28%	248	18%	275	19%
No	52	53%	938	68%	990	67%
Don't know	19	19%	1997	14%	216	15%
Total	98	100%	1,383	100%	1,481	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

Table 8.5: Question 22c - Is there more you think can be done to address this issue effectively?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	76	76%	921	67%	997	68%
No	5	5%	142	10%	147	10%
Don't know	19	19%	312	23%	331	22%
Total	100	100%	1,375	100%	1,475	100%

8.37 There was little variation between different types of respondent in their answers to Questions 22a and 22c. However, in relation to Question 22b, there was a marked difference in the views of enforcement agencies as compared to other respondents - 71% of enforcement agencies said that local authorities were using their powers under the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 effectively vs 19% of respondents overall.^[8]

8.38 Altogether, 973 respondents made a comment at Question 22. Comments largely focused on the second and third of the three questions, with respondents describing their own experiences of dog fouling in their area, and making a range of suggestions about how to address the issue more effectively.

8.39 There were repeated comments among respondents that streets and public parks in their area were "disgusting" as a result of dog fouling. It was rare for respondents to state that dog fouling was not a problem in their area. The problem appeared to be as prevalent in rural areas (small towns, villages and farming areas) as in large towns and cities. The challenges of addressing the problem effectively were seen to be that: it is difficult to catch people in the act (dog fouling often happens "under cover of darkness" or outside normal working hours for council employees); "bagging and binning" requires a sense of social responsibility that some people simply do not have; successful prosecution requires corroborative or photographic evidence; and it is difficult to report dog owners who do not pick up after their pets when "you don't know where they live". The common practice by some dog walkers of bagging their dog's mess and then leaving the bag on the ground, or hanging in bushes, was particularly singled out as a source of frustration.

8.40 While some respondents thought that the problem was impossible to enforce effectively, most clearly wanted their councils to do more. One local authority respondent reported that a public consultation had identified tackling dog fouling as among the highest priorities for action within their area.

8.41 Some respondents, including the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Kennel Club, noted that the current Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 specifically states that the law does not apply to agricultural land. These respondents highlighted the significant dangers to livestock which can result from parasites in dog faeces, and they called for the legislation to be amended to make it an offence to not clean up after a dog that fouls on agricultural land.

"It is a real concern to NFUS that agricultural land is exempt from the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act. Its specific exemption sends a message to dog owners that it is ok to allow their dogs to foul on agricultural land. In reality dog fouling on agricultural is responsible for increased cases of Neosporosis and Sarcocystis in livestock. Neosporosis is now considered to be the most significant cause of abortion in cattle on UK farms and Sarcocystis is a serious disease causing death in livestock and can be zoonotic. All agricultural land should be included in the Dog Fouling legislation as dog fouling is a livestock health issue on grazing land and a potential human health risk on field fruit and vegetables." (NFU Scotland)

Respondents' suggestions for addressing the problem of dog fouling

8.42 Respondents made a wide range of suggestions about how to more effectively address the problem of dog fouling. The four mentioned most often were to:

• Undertake better enforcement: Better enforcement was generally seen to involve more dog wardens actively patrolling the area, and fining people who allowed their dogs to foul in public places. Respondents repeatedly said that they had never seen a dog warden in their area, nor had they ever heard of anyone being fined for allowing their dog to foul. There was a perception that current legislation is not enforced, and some respondents thought that this situation should be redressed before any new legislation was introduced. Respondents wanted to see dog wardens out actively patrolling dog walking areas, or targeting known "hot spots". There were suggestions that wardens should be "undercover" - not wearing a high visibility jacket displaying their local authority insignia. Other suggestions included: CCTV installed in dog walking areas; training community volunteer wardens; giving members of the public the ability to report dog fouling anonymously; giving dog wardens access to the DVLA (car licensing) database so that they can more easily trace dog owners through their vehicles; and outsourcing enforcement to commercial companies (as many local authorities have done in relation to parking enforcement). Local authority respondents highlighted that many local authorities had tried numerous methods over a number of years to address the problem of dog fouling. However, these efforts were reported to be extremely resource intensive.
• Increase penalties: There were numerous calls for higher fines for dog fouling (suggestions ranged from £50 to £1000); for offenders to be sentenced to community service requiring them to pick up litter and dog excrement; for removing dogs from repeat offenders; for making it offence to be walking a dog in public without the means to pick up after it; and for the public "naming and shaming" of repeat offenders. Respondents argued that increased income from fines would ultimately pay for more dog wardens on the street. However, one local authority respondent noted that it can be financially prohibitive for local authorities to pursue non-payment of fixed penalty notices. It was suggested by some local authority respondents that reclassifying dog fouling as a criminal offence (equivalent to anti-social behaviour) and involving the police in helping to enforce the law would encourage irresponsible dog owners to take the problem more seriously.
• Improve education and public awareness: Respondents thought more could be done to educate children in schools about the responsibility of dog ownership, and to educate dog owners about the need to pay attention to their dogs when the dog is off lead. There were also suggestions that there should be compulsory classes for all dog owners; more media campaigns; and clearer guidance about where dogs are, and are not, allowed to be exercised. Respondents wanted local councils to facilitate and support dog owner education through the lease of council-owned facilities for dog training classes. Some respondents highlighted the public health hazards of uncollected dog waste (to children and the users of public parks / playing fields) and the hazards to livestock, and thought that awareness of these hazards needed to be better communicated to dog owners, both in towns and rural areas. There was also a suggestion that the "stick and flick" approach could be better promoted in rural and wooded areas to help avoid the unsightly abandonment of plastic poo bags.^[9] Some respondents called for more signs and notices on lamp posts and in parks; however, others thought this was a waste of money since better signage "would not make irresponsible owners pick up".
• Provide more dog bins - and empty bins more frequently. Respondents frequently reported that dog bins were not available where they were needed. Indeed, in some areas, councils had removed dog bins as part of a cost-cutting exercise. The point was often made that people will be much less likely to bag their dog's mess if they have to walk for a long distance carrying the bag. Where bins were available, they were reported to be often overflowing - thus resulting in bags littering the ground below the bin.

8.43 Three other suggestions, made less often, were to:

• Provide free poo bags: Respondents thought that more could be done to make it easy for people to pick up their dog's mess. Providing free bags at a variety of public locations (in local shops and veterinary surgeries, as well as in parks and other dog walking areas) was seen to be one way of doing this.
• Provide dedicated dog parks: While a few respondents called for dogs to be banned from certain public areas, such as play parks and school grounds, others advocated the provision of dedicated dog parks - fenced in areas where dogs could be exercised and allowed to run free, where children and other members of the public would not be at risk of coming in contact with dog faeces.
• Carry out DNA profiling. Respondents who advocated DNA profiling believed that it was the only way of effectively enforcing current legislation regarding dog fouling. Some suggested that laboratory testing of dog faeces could be paid for through the reintroduction of dog licensing if the licence fee were set at "a sensible level".

8.44 A few respondents called for all dogs to be on a lead in public places, since this would make it harder for owners to "not notice" when their dog is fouling. Others suggested greater regulation of professional dog walkers, which they considered to be among "the worst offenders" as they are unable to pick up after multiple dogs which are all off-lead.

8.45 A small number of respondents also highlighted the positive impacts of the Green Dog Walker Scheme which has been rolled out in some local authority areas (Midlothian and Falkirk were specifically named).^[10]