Allie No Dots Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 summit else... Lesley you pointed out to be compulsory it would need a change of law. At present we have: 1871 dogs act (covers private property, owner does not have to be in charge of the dog at the time someone else can be) DDA section 3 Dog doesnt actually have to hurt anyone just make them feel fear And EVERY council in the country has a clause in their tenancy stating you can have such and such a pet provided it doesnt cause a nusiance. So why do we need more testing? The means are there to tackle problem owners. We should be fighting dog control orders/bans not watering them down to make them more * acceptable * imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Canis-Equus~ Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Yep... totally agree. Councils are also already more than welcome to suggest to owners of any dog that they try training classes, KCGC awards etc etc. MORE rules and regs is confusing, leading to chinese whispers about what you can and cannot do. People already dont understand what is and isnt a pitbull, if i had had a pound (not counting the BBAS lot) for every time someone told me you can have a pitbull you just have to get it licenced id be rich beyond my wildest dreams... thats just one example of peoples misunderstandings. If SOME people can have 'banned' breeds in council houses and others cant, then there will be a helluva lot more misunderstandings, dogs bought assuming they can be kept and then dumped when its foudn they cant... Another stick to weild for the trouble making neighbours, and as ever, those who are 'bad' enough get away with murder and the innocents suffer. Just to make it clear to everyone as well, as ive just re read Dibs first post. DNB have NOT agreed to officially support this at all. We are discussing it. That is as far as we have got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mop Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 SafePets UK believes that owners, not dogs cause the problems and that decent owners and their dogs should not pay for the sins of bad owners. We have developed this project to enable owners and dogs to prove their ability to live safely in the community. I am probably reading this differently to others, it often happens The first part I agree with, it is the owners and not the dogs but who decides if the owner has the ability to control their dog in the community? Many don't these days. Yesterday a Retriever raced up to me and I thought he was going to jump on me, thankfully he didn't but his owner didn't care if he did or not. She soon found out that I cared about being approached by a dog like this and I am used to boistrous dogs. This isn't the dogs fault but the owners. There is no logic in trying to ban breeds, it has no effect on bad owners. They will continue to be bad owners and just have different dogs. I like this and it is true, which is why I would sooner see the owners demonstrating control of their dogs and not the dogs obedience. Greyhounds have problems sitting but there are many trainers who won't accept this, many dogs have other problems which makes these dogs difficult to do an obedience test in these types of circumstances. To me controlling my dogs isn't getting them to sit or down on command, but dogs walking nicely on a loose lead, have a decent recall but most of all, listen to their handler, so many dogs don't, they just please themselves because they haven't been taught any different. Even dogs with problems will learn how to listen to their owners. Training to enable dogs to pass the test will be an integral part of the project. I don't agree with this, training should be to become well mannered, obedient dogs and not to pass a test. When I started to learn to drive, on my first lesson my instructor asked if I wanted to learn to drive or to just pass my test. There is no point in passing a test if all the other work hasn't been put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purrpuss Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Please can I ask, and yes, there is a huge degree of self interest in this question, what about the dogs that will never pass any obediency type tests ? What is your idea for what will happen to them ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mum24dog Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 DNB have NOT agreed to officially support this at all. We are discussing it. That is as far as we have got. I do think it's important for organisations to maintain a unified front (as far as possible) on matters concerning restrictions on dogs. Divided we fall etc. I don't think it's helpful for an individual to "go public" and promise a press campaign without liaising with those who have been working long and hard against knee jerk official reactions or to launch an idea in such a nebulous form. Be proactive by all means, but don't try and go it alone. Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) This is perhaps a rhetorical question for those commenting from the DNB committee etc, as you seem to have a range of opinions & therefore I presume a lot of discussions ahead. The DDA, which you've been fighting has now been there a long time. You've opposed it and undoubtedly brought a lot of help to a lot of owners involved in court cases but you haven't been able to get it repealed (so far). Have you managed to make any more progress with any Council in terms of them not introducing control orders once proposed? It appears that Councils are still discussing introducing Control Orders etc. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be opposed at all merely questioning whether point blank opposition to the Council rather than seeking to work with them as suggested has actually worked anywhere? It may be worth observing that nowhere in the proposal has any specific breed been mentioned. The OP has merely suggested she would like to see / encourage dog owners of any breed to prove responsible ownership and thus hopes to reduce the likelihood of such orders being introduced. As far as I can see she's at present just attempting to gauge what, if any interest is out there, what problems are perceived in given areas etc. Until that information is gathered calls for her to identify specifically what will be involved, who will test etc probably aren't realistic at this stage in my opinion. Proposals could be put forward but inevitably if their name is going on it those Councils will want to have a say in things. I don't think it's claimed this will help all dogs but with or without such schemes if more Councils get their way as things presently stand both well behaved and problem dogs could be barred from Council properties. Edited September 23, 2007 by Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Please can I ask, and yes, there is a huge degree of self interest in this question, what about the dogs that will never pass any obediency type tests ? What is your idea for what will happen to them ? Debbie is ill tonight as she broke a rib last week and smashed a tooth so she isnt about tonight but as someone who isnt involved in this so Im just the same as you all. Im not really aware of any dogs unless they are totally deranged that could fail it but then its about teaching owners how to relate to thier dogs. In theory if a dog was deranged enough presumably it would already have eaten its owner. I dont think its about failing dogs because that would be a negative test, its about teaching owners to succeed so they dont fail thier dogs. I think Debbie is looking for sensible input so that there will be no negative side to this. What happens to incredibly dangerous dogs in rescue when no one can help them ? If you know of a positive way forward then put the idea forward. I know the response Debbie has had has been amazingly positive from those who have the responsibility of deciding to follow the trend of banning. If councils have an alternative that thier insurers are happy with then surely that will save families losing dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 sorry ian but councils 70 of them i believe have been contacted already about a sheme that so far has no set idea of tests or who will implement them and we are being asked in this post to ask our councils to enter discussion without even knowing what we are asking about though i do hold my hands up to being wrong this is not breed specific its dog specific all dogs all breeds and that is far more worrying than plain old bsl imho i would gladly support human specific laws tho incidentally the control orders were i believe brought into force in 2006 and have only recently started to be implemented (funny that happens when an incident occurs) when dnb did not exist so they and i say they because i am part of the bull breed advisory service not deed not breed can not be blamed for not fighting a law that came into effect before they were born Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Im not really aware of any dogs unless they are totally deranged that could fail it No disrespect lesley but no one knows whats in this test so how do you know that no dog will fail it? If councils have an alternative that thier insurers are happy with then surely that will save families losing dogs. As it stands to my knowledge it is illegal for councils to ban council tennants from owning certain breeds (except the four named breeds) even in ireland. What they can do is change their tenancy agreements for new families and THAT we should fight. At the moment the one thing that is stopping some councils putting in dog control orders is the fact that it will cause a stink in their area. You make it so that some owners can still have their dogs incertain areas and we have less people to help fight the control orders in the first place. What then? They will move on to other things. As Mel said, Debs hasnt actually thought out exactly what she wants. The DDA wasnt thought out either. One word has caused the death of hundreds, probably thousands of dogs. One word. So no this isnt a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mum24dog Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 I know the response Debbie has had has been amazingly positive from those who have the responsibility of deciding to follow the trend of banning. Have you seen those responses? She thought DNB was supportive but it now appears that they are only discussing it. Maybe some of the "amazingly positive" responsive are also being viewed in a hopefully optimistic way. I still fail to see the difference between what Debbie is suggesting and what is already available, apart from the "exemption certificate" aspect, which I anticipate would prove to be unworkable. Much simpler to write to Councils telling them what is currently available and encourage them to promote responsible dog ownership that way. Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 I still fail to see the difference between what Debbie is suggesting and what is already available, apart from the "exemption certificate" aspect, I see more councils putting in more control orders and possible bans in the future because they can exempt dogs they like . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mum24dog Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Im not really aware of any dogs unless they are totally deranged that could fail it So the point of the test would be????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mum24dog Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 "Several councils have got back to me so far, some positively and a lot are in discussions internally about the idea." From the OP. Not quite "amazingly positive" IMO. "Several" have got back to her - "some" positively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Have you seen those responses?She thought DNB was supportive but it now appears that they are only discussing it. Maybe some of the "amazingly positive" responsive are also being viewed in a hopefully optimistic way. I still fail to see the difference between what Debbie is suggesting and what is already available, apart from the "exemption certificate" aspect, which I anticipate would prove to be unworkable. Much simpler to write to Councils telling them what is currently available and encourage them to promote responsible dog ownership that way. Pam actually yes. I dont think the intention was to ask you for permission it was to see opinion from those dealing with these problems already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) Lesley, do you know what is in these tests? Debs said she hasnt figured those out yet yet you said no dog would fail. If there is more info then maybe we should know what it is? Also any positive reply could be councils seeing there insurance going down, property going up in price and a way to get control orders with a little less grief from the public. Edited September 23, 2007 by Allie No Dots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts