Dog Ownership Suitability Test

[cenydd]

it is rarely the licensed drivers that cause real havoc but rather the joy riders.

 

But wouldn't it be so much worse if no drivers were licensed, trained or educated? Just because a small minority ignore the law, and are prepared to run the risk of getting caught, doesn't mean that the law shouldn't be there, does it?

[dave the dog]

Cenydd

I have deliberately kept out of this post up until now, not because I was disinterested but because I wanted to see how others would respond. After many long years working in both animal control and animal welfare I have learned two main points about new legislation.

One, it never appears in the final version as the author(s) intended. It is always bastardised by the government for their own political agenda. Usually after consulting their own favourite special interest groups who have no intention of representing the common man.

Two. Despite all the promises to the contrary, the government never funds new legislation as it needs to be to ensure that it is carried out/enforced correctly.

Good examples are the DDA, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act and the Animal Welfare Act.

I often find myself sounding negative in response to proposals, but that is because I am now very cynical about the chances of any new Bill being 'fit for purpose' when it finally becomes law. These days new legislation often follows the law of the sound bite rather than an honest attempt to address a problem correctly.

As a local authority enforcement officer in animal control & welfare I have been given new duties and powers over the years. The duties generally are to be carried out within existing budgets irrespective of what my work load already was prior to the new laws. The new 'powers' are usually toothless, as an example, in the CN&E Act, Dog Control, it has been made an offence not to provide your identity to me when required. Think about it, I'm not a Constable, I do not have a Constables powers. I will only require your details when I have reason to believe you have committed an offence. You then commit a second offence by not complying. What can I do? Nothing!

The Police nationally want to be 'out' of dogs. Who does that leave? Me and my colleagues nationally. Yet local authorities all over the country are reducing or disbanding their 'Dog Wardens' to save money. It doesn't bode well for any control measures does it?

The analogy made by Egar is, sadly, all too true. The problem owners are the very ones we have to try to deal with daily. With perhaps 1 enforcement officer per local authority there is little chance that new mandatory requirements would affect the problem owners.

This week I have had 1 Warden on the ground to deal with stray dogs, dangerous dogs, dog fouling, welfare issues and education. In one day alone my service received 32 calls from the public and 20 seperate complaint letters from just one councillor. We are one of the better funded services.

[snow]

WHOA!!

 

Thank your lucky stars I hadn't read this thread until now because frankly I am appalled at the tone of some of the posts in here.

 

Let me reaquaint you with the rules here:

 

http://www.therefuge.org.uk/faq.html

 

Please read them before pressing post in future because if I see any more of the types of remarks I have seen in here some people are gonna find themselves on premod and getting a formal warning.

 

One more thing - Ryan O'Maera is an advertising specialist thats his job to use the web to drive advertising to/for his clients, if I suspect that The Refuge is being used for free advertising then this thread and all posts and links will dissapear in the blink of an eye.

[RyanK9]

Hi forum,

 

I just wanted to clarify a few issues related to what has been said on this thread.

 

I'm not an advertising specialist. I am a publisher who operates in the pet sector.

 

I have been 'on record' calling for a dog ownership test for several years. This is not a 'new' idea from me and is something I've spoken about publicly for years.

 

People are perfectly entitled to question my motives, I have no problem with that. All I can do is say that if anyone can show me how or why I would choose this as an opportunity to make money, I'd be delighted to hear it. I don't know where the 'pay off' comes. I am not a dog trainer anymore, I don't need or want dog training clients.

 

This proposal has been two years in the making and I have been regularly outspoken and quite public as to my views on existing dangerous dog laws. As Cenydd has mentioned, we share similar views on the test but also have some differences on the specifics. I was a little disturbed that he seemed to be attacked and one point was even accused of being me. There really isn't a hidden agenda to 'uncover' here but I honestly do appreciate why there may be cynicism.

 

All I can say is this.

 

If I was truly only interested in promoting myself or my magazine I would NOT have picked this issue. It would be far easier for me to make money and get more advertisers by simply ditching any anti BSL media work I have under taken. It is not a particularly media friendly or advertiser friendly stance to adopt as I would have thought people here would understand. I certainly don't attract advertisers by publicly asking for section 1 of the DDA to be lifted, you will have to trust me on that - advertisers are less likely to be involved with a magazine which has publicly asked for the ban on PBT's to be lifted!

 

For the record, just to clarify, I have not 'used' this forum for free advertising, the links below are just some of the 'on record' calls from me for an introduction of a dog ownership test. I do not want, seek or ask for 'free advertising' from dog forums when I can quite easily get my message across using national media. That is in no way a dig, it is just me setting the record straight. As I mentioned, people will have to make their own minds up about my motives but quite frankly I'd be more interested in discussing why or how the proposal is flawed than people dismissing it because of the person behind it. Those who do know me, will know I have a personal NOT professional interest in BSL and dog laws in general.

 

Thank you.

 

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-...-name_page.html

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article65847.ece

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=1...-name_page.html

 

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/rottweile...ler-ban-uk.html

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-...-it-417965.html

 

 

 

[cycas]

I think there was a previous thread about a similar idea, does anyone recall it?

 

I like the idea of a dog ownership test, but cannot see how it could be financed and enforced without a huge increase in the cost of dog ownership.

[EGAR]

For the record, just to clarify, I have not 'used' this forum for free advertising, the links below are just some of the 'on record' calls from me for an introduction of a dog ownership test. I do not want, seek or ask for 'free advertising' from dog forums when I can quite easily get my message across using national media. That is in no way a dig, it is just me setting the record straight. As I mentioned, people will have to make their own minds up about my motives but quite frankly I'd be more interested in discussing why or how the proposal is flawed than people dismissing it because of the person behind it. Those who do know me, will know I have a personal NOT professional interest in BSL and dog laws in general.

 

Ah, news travels fast and so you joined. Great, as now I can direct my objections directly to the source. Similar tests have been already introduced in Germany and are being laughed at by dog owners as a money making scheme as they cost quite a bit of money and mean nothing at the end of the day as the answers to the Q's can be learnt by heart ie as in school in some subjects: you know it but you haven't got a clue what it means. As a (former?) dogtrainer you should be aware that many people will never "get" their dogs. Too many have them to make money, as fashion items or p**** elongation - the latter are IMHO the most dangerous group of dog owners. Take for example a working collie on a farm, they are there to work not to cost the farmer money. I am very curious to see the reaction of some, hm, lets say Welsh farmers in the middloe of nowhere, if you tell them they have to have this test or else they can't keep a dog. Or a young lad from a housing estate with his Staffie on a choke chain. I am sure they will be falling over each other to take this test.

 

The other thing is, even IF the tests were to be introduced and the uptake would be great etc - it will still change nothing to aleviate the potential dangerous situations for dogs and people because of the *joy riders*. And those are the ones who got us BSL in the first place. Because what would happen if a dog bites or God forbid kills and the owner had passed the test? Then we have BSL all over again, because it couldn't have been the owner, could it? After all he or she passed a test!

 

I think your energy would be better spend in the promotion of education than yet another licence for people.

 

I live in a very rural part of Ireland, here the people have been farming for centuries, are set in their ways and don't take to newcomers and new things very kindly. Most of them don't even have a dog license (as per law here in Ireland). I know of plenty who would drown, shoot or otherwise dispose of their dogs if they would cost them money. I have no doubt places like this exist in the UK.

 

 

Other than that I wholeheartly agree with the post by Dave the Dog.

Edited March 12, 2008 by EGAR

[RyanK9]

The other thing is, even IF the tests were to be introduced and the uptake would be great etc

 

The uptake would be law.

 

Similar tests have been already introduced in Germany

 

Similar test? You will have to direct me. I know of no similar test to the one I am proposing.

 

it will still change nothing to aleviate the potential dangerous situations for dogs and people because of the *joy riders

 

I don't know what a joy rider is.

 

I live in a very rural part of Ireland, here the people have been farming for centuries, are set in their ways and don't take to newcomers and new things very kindly. Most of them don't even have a dog license (as per law here in Ireland). I know of plenty who would drown, shoot or otherwise dispose of their dogs if they would cost them money. I have no doubt places like this exist in the UK.

 

We'll stick with what we've got then because some people choose to disobey the law?

 

Seems like flawed logic.

 

I think your energy would be better spend in the promotion of education than yet another licence for people.

 

The entire basis of the whole proposal is the education of owners. All owners. Without exception.

[EGAR]

Sorry, but WHAT law?? Killing a dog here is not against the law. I spoke about IRELAND, not the UK - if you care to read my post again :s. It has nothing to do with flawed logic, it's called LIFE.

 

The entire basis of the whole proposal is the education of owners. All owners. Without exception.

 

Oh dear, you would need an army to get that in motion. I can't believe that you are honestly of the opinion that this could work...

 

As to the joy rider, google it ;).

[RyanK9]

Joy rider - person who steals a car?

 

It would not need 'an army' to get in motion, any more than it requires 'an army' to licence drivers and check that MOT's are in place, insurance is in place. There are systems and examples already in effect which regulate far, far larger schemes than this. Last time I checked, it was not the army who regulated driving licences or even school exams.

 

I can't believe that you are honestly of the opinion that this could work

 

Well, here we'll have to disagree. I would not have spent years researching it and discussing it if I thought that.

 

Sorry, but WHAT law?? Killing a dog here is not against the law. I spoke about IRELAND, not the UK - if you care to read my post again :s. It has nothing to do with flawed logic, it's called LIFE.

 

You said it is the law that people have licenses in Ireland but that they ignore that fact. On the basis that we don't have a law just because some choose to ignore it, that IS flawed logic. If it were not, we may as well have no laws. There is a law against murder but people still do it. That's life. Does it mean we should not have a law against it?

 

There is a saying, people get the laws they deserve. Apathetic people who find the negative in everything and insist that this can't be done, that can't be done etc. Those people deserve the laws they get.

Edited March 12, 2008 by RyanK9

[EGAR]

Joy rider - person who steals a car?

 

It would not need 'an army' to get in motion, any more than it requires 'an army' to licence drivers and check that MOT's are in place, insurance is in place. There are systems and examples already in effect which regulate far, far larger schemes than this. Last time I checked, it was not the army who regulated driving licences or even school exams.

 

Which is why so many people get done every year for not having tax, cheating at exams and driving without licenses. Aye!

 

 

 

Well, here we'll have to disagree. I would not have spent years researching it and discussing it if I thought that.

 

Well, this is WHY this is called a discussion board ;).

 

You said it is the law that people have licenses in Ireland but that they ignore that fact. On the basis that we don't have a law just because some choose to ignore it, that IS flawed logic. If it were not, we may as well have no laws. There is a law against murder but people still do it. That's life. Does it mean we should not have a law against it?

 

Sorry, but I DIDN'T write that we should have a dog license in Ireland because people ignore it. You are twisiting my words and you know it ;).

 

There is a saying, people get the laws they deserve. Apathetic people who find the negative in everything and insist that this can't be done, that can't be done etc. Those people deserve the laws they get.

 

Now now, are you calling me apathetic and negative just because I do not like your idea and came here to DISCUSS it with you? Tut.

[RyanK9]

Now now, are you calling me apathetic and negative just because I do not like your idea and came here to DISCUSS it with you? Tut.

 

No. I didn't. I made a statement in general.

 

Which is why so many people get done every year for not having tax, cheating at exams and driving without licenses. Aye!

 

Yes. They get prosecuted. Correct. As they should do. I don't really see what point you are trying to make.

 

I am going to bow out now. I came to address some accusations that were untrue and actually quite offensive.

 

Checking back over the thread, it was you who said I was a dog trainer, you who accused Cenydd of being me and you who hinted at the fact that I might have an alterior motive after having 'laughed' at the proposal from your first post having 'seen similar'. I have been researching this for two years quite intensively. I haven't seen similar so perhaps you might want to check again.

 

Provided I have corrected those inacurate statements that were made, I have done what I intended to. I have no problem whatsoever that you disagree with the proposal. Many people will do.

[jacqui d]

having a very quick glance at the web site, what would worry me is that whilst i agree with the education of dog owners completely, just educating some one wouldnt make them any better at dog ownership or any more responsible once they have a dog.

 

"Improved standards relating to the supply of dogs", if that means doing away with BYB and puppy farms, then im all for it.

 

Database of all dogs, not sure what this would achive other than pushing underground breeding.

 

APBT have long since been illegal in this country, yet you can "buy" one just about anywhere in the UK.

 

 

Dog ownership shouldnt imo, be for the elite, for those who can afford to buy or for those who can pass some form of written exam, but for those who have a genuine interest in canine companionship and a passion for dogs and their welfare in general.

[EGAR]

you who accused Cenydd of being me

 

Indeed, I have not, here comes your selctive reading to the fore again.

 

and you who hinted at the fact that I might have an alterior motive after

 

Hinted? If you would know me then you would also know that I don't hint, I say it as it is. As for an ulterior motive, only you will know that.

 

 

having 'laughed' at the proposal from your first post having 'seen similar'.

 

Yes, I ahve laughred at and still do so.

 

I have been researching this for two years quite intensively. I haven't seen similar so perhaps you might want to check again.

 

I have and it DOESN'T work as I have tried to explain to you.

 

I have no problem whatsoever that you disagree with the proposal. Many people will do.

 

I know many people will disagree with it ;). As you have already stated yourself.

 

Good luck!

Edited March 12, 2008 by EGAR

[Melp]

Car Insurance, road tax etc are considered important by the Government [and make them a lot of money] Dogs are generally ignored. The DDA [sECTION 1] has been pretty much ignored by many of the enforcers [police and local authorites] for years.

I can't see any government adopting your policy Ryan because it's just not enforceable.

Much as I'd like to see major changes to existing law and the repeal of sec 1, any new proposals have to be spot on and acceptable to the masses.

The best I've seen so far are those proposed by the NDWA.

[cenydd]

I think there was a previous thread about a similar idea, does anyone recall it?

 

It may be the thread I started about my (now ended) petition you are thinking of:

http://www.rykat.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22783

 

Dave the Dog certainly makes some very important and valid points. There is certainly a need to ensure that any law does not become so watered down or ammended that it becomes useless, and there is certainly a need to address the issue of enforcement. I agree that under the current circumstances there is no way that any dog laws can be enforced - relying on 'charity' welfare organisations, police with no interest or expertise and a very limited number of locally funded wardens just isn't good enough, either to enforce new legislation or to deal effectively with the current problems. This is another issue that badly needs to be addressed in this country. Exactly what the figures would be in terms of income and expenditure on a licensing system (and whether there would be any surplus to help with enforcement) would depend on the details of the system, but funding needs to be secured to improve both law enforcement and welfare law enforcement. I would personally be in favour of a section of the police specifically trained and funded to deal with animal issues to replace the current warden/RSPCA (others' opinions may differ, of course), but that would cost money. The current situation (without wishing to express any disrespect towards the individuals involved or the excellent work they do in difficult circumstances) is woefully inadequate.