Trallwm farm Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 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? Ive seen Dibs work with Dogs and often the problems are sooo basic that you want to punch the owners for being so stupid. We went to a thing yesterday where Dibs was the guest speaker and there was a dog show. People afterwards asked questions how dogs. We were all sat in a big barn in a very middle class area and the vicars dog was attackking a neighbours too,a woman with a Dobie rewarded it every time it snarled and the hosts dog was crawling under benches to confont two dogs who were being good. These people were not halfwits with dogs running loose but still they didnt understand the basics. If people are taught about spaying,worming and can get vouchers,if they are taught how to see problems before they start and basic dog control then whats thier to fail ? Ive not heard any suggestion of tests for dogs as such just a test after dog owners have been shown what we all take for granted. So again its not the dogs tested its thier owners and they can be retested as many times as possible untill they get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brierley Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Don't get it - sorry. On the one hand, it's a test the dogs have to pass, on the other, any dog unless derranged can pass it?? If the idea is truly about responsible ownership, the dog wouldn't actually need to enter into it. The owners or prospective owners would be the ones who needed the certificate, not the dog?? I'm wondering what testing the dog will achieve to be honest. I've seen the most aggressive dogs who are very well managed and a danger to no one because they have very responsible owners who have implemented strict management techniques whilst they are training their dogs. I've also seen dogs who have passed their Gold Good Citizen's Test that truly are a danger because their owners are complacent and don't administer such measures. I've seen dogs that have actually become worse through inadequate training and dogs who have been turned around by owners who have never been near a training class. I think the 'intention' is good, but hasn't been truly thought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 ok...Look at the very core of the idea, before you even get to the tests ect. It says (from what i see) Councils put dog control orders in place. Owners/dogs can be exempt if they pass a test. Surley you can see that this will lead to more councils attempting to put dog control orders in place full stop? Simply because some dogs can be exempted? The help for dog owners is already there. It always has been and promoting those things is great. But not by forcing people to take a test to walk their dogs freely. That wont make you friends and wont make you more open to joe bloggs coming forward. I agree totally that many people make their own mistake, i hear it day in day out. But making those same people take tests? It will scare them away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Bones Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Why should I prove I am a capable dog owner? What about the muppets who will never submit their dogs to tests ? Those same people who have illegal dogs who never admit they own illegal dogs ? Those people who are criminals and who have true fighting dogs and thus wouldn't hesitate to get a faked certificate? Why should I compensate for those who are in the wrong? The people who need to prove their dogs are "safe" are those who have dogs that are unsafe and no amount of certification or rules and regulations will make them do anything. Too many dogs are already hidden "underground" - isn't this potentially forcing yet more to disappear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSDFan Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 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. The way this is worded certainly makes it sound like a test for dogs. It's all well and good to say teach people the basics and what to look for before the problems start. What about the people who are starting with a dog with problems ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Don't get it - sorry. On the one hand, it's a test the dogs have to pass, on the other, any dog unless derranged can pass it?? If the idea is truly about responsible ownership, the dog wouldn't actually need to enter into it. The owners or prospective owners would be the ones who needed the certificate, not the dog?? yes thats right. Not even Bojangles can complete a sats test by himself so it would be like someone teaching me and then I do the stuff with Jangles who would show how well he behaved for me because Ive been taught and then I write a few words about chopping nuts off and hey presto Jangles and I are ready to rumble across a housing estate. This is of course my version and a simplified one but Im just trying in one sylable to explain that the human gets the education and then shows how well thier dog can behave etc soo although the dog gets the stiffkit he wont actually be doing all the work himself. But the stiffkit for the dog shows that work and effort has been put into making the dog one that anyone would be proud of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brierley Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Ive not heard any suggestion of tests for dogs as such just a test after dog owners have been shown what we all take for granted. So again its not the dogs tested its thier owners and they can be retested as many times as possible untill they get it right. So basic training classes?? If so, as I said before, these are available in abundance now so unless the councils are going to foot the bill for the training or the certificate gives added priviledges to the owners or the certificate is introduced as something that is compulsory, then I can't see the point. If the proposed scheme is as has been suggested, then surely the Good Citizen's Bronze award could be THE certificate and would do the same job, would have just as much interest as it has now with the only difference being that Bronze certificate could be produced by owners in areas where bans on keeping dogs in a council house property are being proposed and they would be allowed to keep one????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Also...One of the biggest problems with training issues isnt that the owners dont get there is a problem. Many see the problem clearly. But trainers and behaviourists? they scare the hell out of joe bloggs. They think they are going to be told how wrong they are doing things. this is often the case but they dont want to be inspected on their training methods. So they dont go....behaviourists are like shrinks in their opinions. We found the same even with the merseyside people. We offer full behaviourist backup (not us a friend!) few will ring off their own backs. Yet we get julie (behaviourist) to ring them and they realise she isnt going to disect their whole life and bingo. Change that perception in joe bloggs and you have a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purrpuss Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Thank you for the reply, its appreciated, but sorry it still leaves me with concerns. My dogs are not deranged and I am not a halfwit owner (I hope ), yet few of my dogs would pass anysort of obediance test. I take in elderly and in most cases disabled dogs, and am worried about a test setting implications for deaf and blind dogs, disabled dogs and those with the onset of senility. The possible negative impact on these dogs could potentially be huge, unless built in allowances are to be made for dogs (and owners for these dogs) such as these. A vet get out clause maybe ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Also...One of the biggest problems with training issues isnt that the owners dont get there is a problem. Many see the problem clearly. But trainers and behaviourists? they scare the hell out of joe bloggs. They think they are going to be told how wrong they are doing things. this is often the case but they dont want to be inspected on their training methods. So they dont go....behaviourists are like shrinks in their opinions. We found the same even with the merseyside people. We offer full behaviourist backup (not us a friend!) few will ring off their own backs. Yet we get julie (behaviourist) to ring them and they realise she isnt going to disect their whole life and bingo. Change that perception in joe bloggs and you have a start. I agree Thank you for the reply, its appreciated, but sorry it still leaves me with concerns. My dogs are not deranged and I am not a halfwit owner (I hope ), yet few of my dogs would pass anysort of obediance test. I take in elderly and in most cases disabled dogs, and am worried about a test setting implications for deaf and blind dogs, disabled dogs and those with the onset of senility. The possible negative impact on these dogs could potentially be huge, unless built in allowances are to be made for dogs (and owners for these dogs) such as these. A vet get out clause maybe ? To be fair its Dibs thing but I agree with you that there would have to be sensible guidelines for blind and disabled dog but then you wouldnt be allowing yours to roam in the first place and Im sure you have some basic obedience ongoing to ensure thier safety. Most of my dogs ARE deranged and started off on estates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brierley Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Oh heck, I seem to be the harbour of doom and gloom I think one thing you've said Lesley, shows one of the difficulties that will arise with this 'write a few words about chopping his nuts off'. I know many very responsible dog owners who will never breed from their dogs yet prefer to keep their dog intact - would they fail? Can I ask another question (and this may be a little unfair as debbie isn't here personally to answer it), what about the reactive dogs, those with problems, those whose owners are working hard on modification programmes to work their dogs through issues, but whose dogs won't be able to take a jaunt through the housing estate without the safety precaution of being muzzled. Will this dog/owner get a certificate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Lesley, One question for you... Can you be 100 percent sure, that not one of the council contacted with this idea have not thought "ooo that dog control order we wanted to put in but didnt because we might get grief...well now we can do it because we can exempt some dogs so get more support" Can you say with 100 percent certainly that has not occured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brierley Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Another very big problem and perhaps the biggest of them all is that even if this scheme is perfected to Debs satisfaction, it's not Debbie that will implement it. How it would be used and the ultimate test criteria would be decided by men and women who may or may not have ever owned a dog and who may or may not even like dogs. We are seeing lots of absurdities in respect of extensions of breed legislation and dog restrictions in certain areas. I just think that something like this will play into the hands of those who ultimately would like to see an end to dog ownership full stop - maybe I'm just a pessimist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Oh heck, I seem to be the harbour of doom and gloom I think one thing you've said Lesley, shows one of the difficulties that will arise with this 'write a few words about chopping his nuts off'. I know many very responsible dog owners who will never breed from their dogs yet prefer to keep their dog intact - would they fail? Thats my simplistic approach and I didnt say they had to chop they just had to understand the reasons and how things like testicular cancer and pyametria can affect thier dogs later in life. Its just a bit of education in the right direction really Can I ask another question (and this may be a little unfair as debbie isn't here personally to answer it), what about the reactive dogs, those with problems, those whose owners are working hard on modification programmes to work their dogs through issues, but whose dogs won't be able to take a jaunt through the housing estate without the safety precaution of being muzzled. Will this dog/owner get a certificate? This involves council tenants and estates so the reactive dogs would already be there wouldnt they ? so why not try to help these people. I agree with Allie that people may be put off by the job title but thats why reward and recognition is far better than threats and failing. As I said this is Dibs thing but she has a broken rib so any questions will have to be answered by her tommorow but its a great opportunity for you all to put in suggestions that would benefit dogs rather than attack someone who isnt here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Lesley, One question for you... Can you be 100 percent sure, that not one of the council contacted with this idea have not thought "ooo that dog control order we wanted to put in but didnt because we might get grief...well now we can do it because we can exempt some dogs so get more support" Can you say with 100 percent certainly that has not occured? Incase you missed this. Also This involves council tenants and estates so the reactive dogs would already be there wouldnt they Thast makes it sound like council tennants are crap owners! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts