dibs Posted September 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Will try and answer as many points as I can. Yes the overall idea is to educate and avoid bans and controls where possible. The responses have been very interesting and one council who don't feel they have a huge problem at the moment are very interested in trying to offer help and training in their area. They have not decided to suddenly think about dog bans. Someone has mentioned that for once this is working with the councils and trying to get them involved which is my intention. Not one council so far has been negative, one has asked about promoting the idea on various forums, I am trying to arrange some meetings with other councils who would like to know more. If any of you want to be involved in that, please ask. There is no decision yet about who will train or test what, but it seems that what is happening is that I have had some interesting and postive feedback from those who have responded and they seem to be interested in ideas that help owners, not punish them. I am suffering with a flare up of a serious head and neck injury so if I don't get back to this quickly, understand why. Dibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 it wont because as has been seen in the past they will simply move on to other breeds who are not restricted and ruin those too Can I just say that I have seen no where that this will involve specific breeds. Its just an education thing that will teach people something that should go a long way towards better dog ownership and less of ANY dogs being accused. In this weeks local press is a story of a dog due for destruction because his owner handed him to someone while she went into the chippie. A totally unconected person got out of a car next to the dog who was frightened and nipped her. No ones contesting the destruction but they are about who should have been prosecuted. So this dog will die and no ones helping. Perhaps if the owner had done a basic course she may well have thought twice about leaving her dog in a dangerous place and maybe the dog would have behaved differently. Situations like this simply give more power to councils who WILL jump on the band wagon of banning ALL dogs. Councils have one main insurer as do the police etc.If one council doesnt go along with others who DO ban and a child/adult gets bitten then they will be sued for not taking a responsible step towards removing the danger. By pre empting what WILL happen and ensuring that people get educated surely this is what is said to be the way to go on here and other sites daily ? We all agree there is no such thing as irresponsible dogs just irresponsible owners so lets teach the owners before problems happen. Its an alternative to banning not support for banning that way you stop individuals not whole neighbourhoods from having dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane-f Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 What would worry me about this is, what if a dog passed the test and everything, got its cirtificate to say it had passed, then a few month later the dog bite someone or another dog, we all know even with the best behaved dog in the world, something could happen to change it behavour, sometimes we cant put our finger on what happened to change that dog, if this did happen i would be worryed it could cause doubts with in the council about the test, as a owner of multipal dogs (9) although all mutts, i shouldent really have to put my dogs through tests, to say they are sound to be out and about, i would be worryed all this would cross to all dogs not just the ones the council are worryed about and could put all dogs no matter what breed more in to the lime light and in danger, no matter what tests are done or what dogs are band at the end of the day the dogs owning idiots will still be there, if they have one dog taken away from them, they will just get another one and screw that one up too, its people who need the tests not dogs. jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) So this dog will die and no ones helping. Perhaps if the owner had done a basic course she may well have thought twice about leaving her dog in a dangerous place and maybe the dog would have behaved differently. Basic training have always been avaliable for people who wanted them. She could have gone herself. Ive no problem with promoting training but are we talking complusory here? What about a dog that fails? Say a sbt x fails the test and then gets done for being type. That failure could be its death certificate. As i said before this bit: The Safe Pets Project aims to get Councils around the UK to join this scheme and have dog owners apply to take a test with their dog. People whose dog passes the test will get a certificate saying their dog is safe in a specific set of circumstances. We hope this means that councils will exempt dogs from any legislation which involves banning ownership of certain breeds or access to public areas. Concerns me. This to me will make more councils think of introducing bans because theres an exemption for good dogs. As before, once you start allowing bans/control orders to be set up more follow quickly. Suggest promoting dog training classes thats fine but not off the back of control orders, which is how that reads to me. Edited September 23, 2007 by Allie No Dots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Basic training have always been avaliable for people who wanted them. She could have gone herself. Ive no problem with promoting training but are we talking complusory here? What about a dog that fails? Say a sbt x fails the test and then gets done for being type. That failure could be its death certificate. As i said before this bit: Concerns me. This to me will make more councils think of introducing bans because theres an exemption for good dogs. As before, once you start allowing bans/control orders to be set up more follow quickly. Suggest promoting dog training classes thats fine but not off the back of control orders, which is how that reads to me. I dont think anyone is suggesting its compulsery in fact you would have to change laws and tenancy agreements but it may be a way forward rather than just a ban. ANY dog can bite but at least if you have taught people basic control and how to read situations then it gives people choices and the ability to avoid or control a situation. Its not dogs that will fail the test its humans which is the best bit because they would have to redo the tests untill THEY get it right. If they choose to get rid of a dog rather than bother then its one more dog saved to go to a good home anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mum24dog Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 "People whose dog passes the test will get a certificate saying their dog is safe in a specific set of circumstances." Can that be done in any meaningful and reliable way? Dogs are living creatures, not robots. I wouldn't want to sign a certificate like that even for my best behaved dog. And what if someone is given such a certificate and others rely on it? Who will be liable if something untoward hasppens and it all goes pearshaped? I rather suspect such certificates wouldn't be worth the paper they were printed on as a guarantee of dog behaviour. Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brierley Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 So the Council's will be sponsoring the training/testing?? If not, I can't really see much difference to what is available now. Training classes abound in most areas, but only a small percentage of dog owners actually attend. Or, is the proposal that to own a dog who has the certificate it will be allowed to live in a council property and will be allowed to go in areas of restrictions? Sad to say that unless some dog owners see a definite benefit to themselves personally, ie they get something out of it, then things will be just the same as they are now. A comprehensive national database would be far more effective in the medium to long term not just to keep dogs with loving owners, but to ensure that areas that are creating problems are dealt with - be that bad breeding, bad ownership and even bad training and veterinary treatments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brierley Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 So the Council's will be sponsoring the training/testing?? If not, I can't really see much difference to what is available now. Training classes abound in most areas, but only a small percentage of dog owners actually attend. Or, is the proposal that to own a dog who has the certificate it will be allowed to live in a council property and will be allowed to go in areas of restrictions? Sad to say that unless some dog owners see a definite benefit to themselves personally, ie they get something out of it, then things will be just the same as they are now. A comprehensive national database would be far more effective in the medium to long term not just to keep dogs with loving owners, but to ensure that areas that are creating problems are dealt with - be that bad breeding, bad ownership and even bad training and veterinary treatments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 "People whose dog passes the test will get a certificate saying their dog is safe in a specific set of circumstances." Can that be done in any meaningful and reliable way? Dogs are living creatures, not robots. I wouldn't want to sign a certificate like that even for my best behaved dog. And what if someone is given such a certificate and others rely on it? Who will be liable if something untoward hasppens and it all goes pearshaped? I rather suspect such certificates wouldn't be worth the paper they were printed on as a guarantee of dog behaviour. Pam Its not about the dogs behaviour but more about the human in charge which is 9/10ths of the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 im all for training lesley and back the kc good citizen scheme fully, anything to make people more responsible must be a good thing, i just am unaware of what discussion took place before contacting councils about what is currently a very flammable situation dog bans were mentioned by dibs in her OP I have been working on a project to try and offer some sort of counter balance against councils who introduce dog bans and restrictions and on her website The Safe Pets Project aims to get Councils around the UK to join this scheme and have dog owners apply to take a test with their dog. People whose dog passes the test will get a certificate saying their dog is safe in a specific set of circumstances. We hope this means that councils will exempt dogs from any legislation which involves banning ownership of certain breeds or access to public areas. iwithout talks of exemption i would not have been quite so alarmed as those are the words that were bandied about in 1989 perhaps debs could post up the letter containing her proposals to the councils contacted so we have a better idea of exactly what is being proposed because as dibs just stated thart she was currently unable to say what the test would entail and who would conduct the tests im a little confused as to how structured these proposals are. and before suggesting they be discussed at council level i would think most people would wish to know what it is they are backing sorry if i appear wary but having fought a knee jerk reaction for over 16 years i am anxious not to have involvement with anything that isnt set in stone. the dlag have been working on a repeal of the dda and have only just formally released proposals after years of consultation and rewriting, to prevent misunderstanding or misuse at a later date which after the fiasco of the dda i think is a sensible idea i may be wrong here but in her original post dibs asked this If anyone would like to help you could ask your area councillor to ask about the project at their next meeting but then states that her proposals are incomplete It will need a lot of work and a lot of tweaking to get right There is no decision yet about who will train or test what and this That's just one of the things that is to be decided. Tests are only as good as the people interpreting them. There is no point in anyone who hasn't a clue trying to pass or fail a dog or person. If you have any ideas about how to identify the right people to administer tests, please email ideas to me. This makes me feel and correct me if im wrong that this is just the consultation stage and in my past experience of councils it doesnt do to give them an idea without the detail as they have a habit of making up the rest themselves and i personally would not back anything without sight of full and detailed proposals which is why i feel unable to back this currently what you are saying lesley seems to differ from what was said earlier but if this is just a voluntary training course that would be fine as there are plenty of those about at the moment though i do feel that those who need most education will simply not bother as is the case with the kcgc and the only people you will get then are those who would train their dog with or without this particular idea because they are responsible i think there would need tpo be an incentive for others. if this is compulsory then it would be very difficult to enforce and people who are forced to do saya course are unlikely to want to learn anything or to use that training later. just my opinion feel free to ignore it sometimes you just have to agree to disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mum24dog Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) Its not about the dogs behaviour but more about the human in charge which is 9/10ths of the problem Exactly - which is why I doubt the value of any "certification" of a dog as "safe". in my past experience of councils it doesnt do to give them an idea without the detail as they have a habit of making up the rest themselves` Never a truer word..... Edited September 23, 2007 by mum24dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Exactly - which is why I doubt the value of any "certification" of a dog as "safe".Never a truer word..... Thats obviously because you never could guarantee it but you CAN work towards a safer world where situations can be avoided. All people involved would be professionally based hence discussions with those in authority and who are involved on a day to day basis with the situations that are evoked by people who need educating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Its not dogs that will fail the test its humans which is the best bit because they would have to redo the tests untill THEY get it right. If they choose to get rid of a dog rather than bother then its one more dog saved to go to a good home anyway. Hmmm you havent met piper lol She would not pass any testing. She went to training a couple of times before i pulled her out and i will never make her go back. She will not be handled by anyone by me or andy. She wont walk with anyone else. Thats not because we do not bother with her and it will not make me get "rid" of her. But if this idea goes through then i may not be allowed to keep her so hows that fair?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mum24dog Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 All people involved would be professionally based hence discussions with those in authority and who are involved on a day to day basis with the situations that are evoked by people who need educating. Who would these "professionally based" people be? There doesn't seem to have been much thought given to that and the field of "professionals" covers a wide spectrum - some more reputable than others. And there is such a disparity in what people consider good. For example, Billy Malc would like to clone Roger Mugford, while I don't think much of him at all. Sorry, but we get so much claptrap shoved at us from people claiming to be "experts" there are very few people I have any faith in, particularly amongst members of a " profession" which is nothing of the sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Canis-Equus~ Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 As far as I can see... this is STILL supporting BSL. "You cant have a staffy/gsd/blah in this park/house unless it passes xyz test...... you can have a st bernard/labrador/giant tripehound, no you dont have to do tests for that'. So thats STILL bsl. Dibs, DNB are still discussing this, but we do need more information. What do the tests involve. Who will carry them out. Is there a probationary period for dogs to be trained to pass the test? What about puppies? rescues with problems? So far unfortunately I can see good owners with problem free dogs being fine, good owners with problem dogs suffering, and as ever, problem owners with problem dogs doing exactly as they damn well please. Also, as far as access to parks etc.... who will police this? How will that be funded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts