Rumpole Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 yes wholeheartedly support education and training and the kc good citizen scheme has done a lot of good in providing that though im not sure how they would feel if they were asked for it to be used in order to ban dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Thats no different from the KC good citizen from what i see. Anyone can do these tests if they so wish too and good on them. But not in conjunction with control orders or breed bans. Well I dont know whether you or I have misundersttod - I only skimmed through her proposal but I understood the OP to be saying she was suggesting testing as a means of discouraging breed bans / control though she accepted there may be some areas dogs were not permitted. I don't personally agree with the last part but again here in the ERYC area that does happen - dogs are not permitted on some beaches at all at certain times of the year - but if I've read the proposal correctly I think it's a step forward over breed control / bans. As for the tests themselves it's been a couple of years & I could have a failing memory but I went to two training classes, one closed, the other was the above. At the closed class Jo passed her Bronze & silver KC. At the above Tara twice failed - she'll do the practical training element without problem but doesn't like strangers examining her teeth, ears etc & just gave a warning growl so failed. She's mellowed over the years but I've not been back & tried again. It's been a two or three years & I could be wrong but dont recall that being part of the KC test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) The way i read the proposal was that dogs in areas with control orders ect could be tested and if they pass be exempt from the bans... 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. That would mean councils would be happier introducing breed bans ect imho. Ive no probs with people doing kc good citizen ect if they wish to. Its a great thing to do. Checking the dog over is part of either puppy or bronze iirc Edited September 23, 2007 by Allie No Dots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Well I dont know whether you or I have misundersttod - I only skimmed through her proposal but I understood the OP to be saying she was suggesting testing as a means of discouraging breed bans / control though she accepted there may be some areas dogs were not permitted. I know Deb doesn't support BSL but there is a bit on the safe pet site which says: "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." Which does suggest the test is for the council to use to exempt some dogs from any breed ban, rather than to be used as an alternative to a breed ban? At the closed class Jo passed her Bronze & silver KC. At the above Tara twice failed - she'll do the practical training element without problem but doesn't like strangers examining her teeth, ears etc & just gave a warning growl so failed. She's mellowed over the years but I've not been back & tried again. It's been a two or three years & I could be wrong but dont recall that being part of the KC test. I have only looked at the KC's bronze details http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/2850/gcdsbronze.pdf to check, but you are right, it doesn't include strangers examining the dog - it says: "The examiner will be shown how a handler can examine their own dog. The dog is to be placed for inspection of its mouth, teeth, throat, eyes, ears, stomach, tail and feet when standing, sitting or lying down as required." The KC's Good Citizen scheme has nothing to do with breed bans - the KC opposes breed bans and indeed its KC Dog scheme, which has been set up to help dog owners protect their rights and freedoms, is working hard with owners to try to fight dog control orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brierley Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Not got a lot of time to reply at the moment, but the initial worries I would have with a scheme that is so limited (sorry, it's how I see it), is that it could quite possibly lead to an extension, rather than diminishment (is that a word?) of the named dogs listed on the DDA. For example, statistics can easily be manipulated to suit whatever you want them to read. I believe that in one example Labradors are shown to be the main perpetrators of dog bites. Horrific!! How can the labrador - the people-friendly family dog be responsible for more dog bites than, lets say a Malinois, a Pit Bull, a Chow a <insert any breed you can think of>. The simple answer is that the statistics in this case do not take into account the number of labradors in the area as opposed to the number of Malinois, Pit Bulls, Chows etc, etc etc. A few years ago now, I went to a seminar given by one of the most known names in temperament testing for rescue dogs and was absolutely appalled by what I saw demonstrated. In one particular case, the dog was pushed and pushed and pushed until he eventually snapped and went in for the bite. He was so wound up by the testing that he bit the handler who put him back in the van. An extreme example, but one that none-the-less happened. The tester, in my opinion, had assessed the dog on sight and wasn't too interested in what the tests actually revealed so manipulated the test to prove the point. It can happen, it did happen!! Way too open to abuse to be viable - just my opinion and I can fully understand the sentiment behind the suggestion, but I do think that such a scheme could and very likely would lead on to more rather than less bans and restrictions. Unfortunately, many Councils are made up of folk who are not as sympathetic to dog ownership as we as trainers and owners are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 I know Deb doesn't support BSL but there is a bit on the safe pet site which says: "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." Which does suggest the test is for the council to use to exempt some dogs from any breed ban, rather than to be used as an alternative to a breed ban? I understand the point / concern here but the way I read it was that the original poster would endeavour to educate and discourage the use of breed bans, control orders etc where ever possible. Where that fight had already been lost (for the time being?) however and a ban was in place they would hope to offer owners a means of obtaining an exemption as an alternative to being forced to rehome their dog. A means of trying to bring about improvements by working with rather than against the Council(s). I didn't take her to mean that she would work with them in implementing or in any way supporting any new bans / orders. Perhaps OP could clarify her thoughts / intentions on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Way too open to abuse to be viable - just my opinion and I can fully understand the sentiment behind the suggestion, but I do think that such a scheme could and very likely would lead on to more rather than less bans and restrictions. Unfortunately, many Councils are made up of folk who are not as sympathetic to dog ownership as we as trainers and owners are Excellent post Brierley, and I think that this is at the heart of my concerns: councils are local governments who have to "manage" their citizens. If the councils was made up of rational thinking people, with at least an appreciation for dogs and their owners it might be a different ball game, but this scheme is just too dependent on councils and assessors that we have no idea about. I think all this energy would be better spent fighting the current DDA and developing an alternative that focuses on the owners rather than the dogs - of whatever breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 If the councils was made up of rational thinking people, with at least an appreciation for dogs and their owners it might be a different ball game It'll never happen. Just my opinion of course, but personally I think it's secretly part of the screening process at the relatively junior levels - rational thinking people out, prcoedure driven robots welcomed in with open arms. Worryingly these people then get promoted over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Ian, Deb says on the safe pets project site that over 70 councils have been contacted to date about her proposal, so I assume that councils are already being contacted whether or not they had mentioned/considered implementing a breed ban in their properties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melp Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 I understand the point / concern here but the way I read it was that the original poster would endeavour to educate and discourage the use of breed bans, control orders etc where ever possible. Where that fight had already been lost (for the time being?) however and a ban was in place they would hope to offer owners a means of obtaining an exemption as an alternative to being forced to rehome their dog. A means of trying to bring about improvements by working with rather than against the Council(s). I didn't take her to mean that she would work with them in implementing or in any way supporting any new bans / orders. Perhaps OP could clarify her thoughts / intentions on this? This is what I understood it to be too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 maybe more councils are now thinking about it since theyve been contacted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 It'll never happen. Just my opinion of course, but personally I think it's secretly part of the screening process at the relatively junior levels - rational thinking people out, prcoedure driven robots welcomed in with open arms. Worryingly these people then get promoted over the years. Exactly, so why present these people with yet another idea on how to "govern" (read: restrict) their citizens even more? This "Dogs Control Order" was created in 2006. Councils have not started to implement these until in the last months, and I really believe on the back of all the sensationalist "dangerous dogs" press. Councils in general do not seem to think for themselves, they need things to be handed to them on a plate and then hope that they apply the desired process of thought to it - and that's where the risk lies! - so why would you want to present a scheme to councils which will enable them to exempt some dogs from an overall (possibly breed specific like in Dublin) dog ban? They might never have thought about that to begin with but hey, here's a dog trainer no less, who is handing them this idea AND a way for them to get away with implementing it! Like I said, it could possibly work with rational, thinking people, but they either have been turned down for the job or have never wanted to apply to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Can I ask a few questions with regard to this please Debbie I understand the point / concern here but the way I read it was that the original poster would endeavour to educate and discourage the use of breed bans, control orders etc where ever possible. Is this the case Deb? I know you are opposed to BSL, which is great, but you said on your SPP site that over 70 councils have so far been contacted with your proposal - is your initial point of contact to state your disapproval of BSL, of control orders, any proposed breed bans in council properties etc.? At what point do you then mention the proposal for the test? Do you only mention it if council replies to you and says they are considering implementing a breed ban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mum24dog Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 maybe more councils are now thinking about it since theyve been contacted It's very worrying that a well meaning action could have the opposite effect to that intended. And even taking the original premise, why the need for more tests, probably applied by incompetents, when the KCGC awards were intended to encourage and promote responsible ownership, as others have said? And how is any of this going to affect the dog owning idiots who give us all a bad name and take no notice of the legislation that already exists? Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 And how is any of this going to affect the dog owning idiots who give us all a bad name and take no notice of the legislation that already exists? Pam 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts