competence tests before you can be a dog owner

[GSDOWNER]

Every dog owner will have to take a costly ‘competence test’ to prove they can handle their pets, under new Government proposals designed to curb dangerous dogs.
Owners of all breeds would also have to buy third-party insurance in case their pet attacked someone, and pay for the insertion of a microchip in their animal recording their name and address.
The proposals are among a range of measures to overhaul dog laws in England and Wales being considered by senior Ministers, who are expected to announce a public consultation within weeks.




READ MORE

[phil_woods]

Hmmmm it sounds good on paper but will cause more problems than anything. I agree with the idea but in reality there will be loads of problems. The first problem will be the overloaded rescue centres full of dogs that have ben taken off there incompetant owners. The second problem will be enforcement, the police will not arrest someone for not having a dog licence.

I agree with the idea as I have said because some people don't deserve to care for dogs.

I agree with most of this, I would gladly take a test, but I think it should be volluntary and at no cost to us, we should not have to pay because some irisponsible owners have failed in their duty. we should be able to show a pass certificate to anyone interested,.. and have dogs removed from those who are not pass certificate owners

As the artical says, responcible owners already have insurance, and I.D. Chips, this should be made law in any case

Stuart

[joyce]

Who will be the ones doing the assessing

What happens to the dogs who's owners are deemed unfit owners

The responsible owners will be the ones paying for the idiots who you have no hope in hell of getting a penny from

[maxandskye]

I'm glad that I live in Scotland, its far too much bureaucracy for my likeing.

What about folk that may have learning difficulties etc... it doesnt mean that they dont care about their dogs.

[LOVEGSD]

Hmm, in principle it sounds good but my worry is that the idiots with pitbulls or who use dogs as weapons are never going to go for a test so yet again the responsible people do the right thing and the others don't.....what's changed??

The bad owners will always be bad owners, and will not submit to a test unless they have to,... thats fine by me.

I think that the test should be done on a vollunteer basis, and without cost to us, then when we pass, we are given some sort of licence, ...if at some time in the future say after 6 months of the test being introduced, an owner does something wrong,..allows his dog to foul the path without lifting it,..or walking a dog on the road without a lead,..allowing the dog to annoy /attack other people or dogs, then the Police [ for instance ] can ask the owner to show his test certificate/licence.

If he cant produce it, he is then asked to sit the test within a certain time period at a cost, this way the responsible owners dont pay for the irisponsible ones.

Who tests us?, not sure, but there must be someone capable,.the test should not be about obiedence, it doesnt matter if the dog doesnt know a lot, its the person who should be tested not the dog,..so the test would be about, feeding, housing, exercising, can you walk the dog on lead... what do you do if????? this then doesnt discrimiate against people with learning difficulties.

Of course there would then be a big influx of dogs into rescues,.. I certainly wouldnt want that, but every changes brings with it upset, the upset wouldnt last forever, in the end we may just have a far better type of person looking after the dogs in this country

The problems with the dogs is not with the dogs

Stuart

Perhaps something should be done about all the breeders that are only in it for the money and sell to anyone with a full wallet.
The kc website has lots of breeders with just a very small amount "accredited" whatever that means (jargon for benefit of press to say "oh look we are doing something) after years of allowing far too many breeders to mess with genetics to make dogs look "pretty" and "right" in their eyes without any concern for the future.
My biggest shock was the gs selected as best in breed, it even provoked a comment from the tv commentator.

[joyce]

Originally Posted by sparks11

Perhaps something should be done about all the breeders that are only in it for the money and sell to anyone with a full wallet.
The kc website has lots of breeders with just a very small amount "accredited" whatever that means (jargon for benefit of press to say "oh look we are doing something) after years of allowing far too many breeders to mess with genetics to make dogs look "pretty" and "right" in their eyes without any concern for the future.
My biggest shock was the gs selected as best in breed, it even provoked a comment from the tv commentator.

This has been discussed on here, The GSD in question has passed all Health and Character certification, and was prob one of the fittest, healthiest BoB's in the main ring. As for the commentator's stage managed comments on the GSD why just our breed when some of the other breeds cant breath, or see properly without surgery.

My comment was not based on the health of the dog but should have been directed on how the breed has changed over the years with scant regard for the proper wellbeing of the dog, you make the point in your reply to my post that breeds have been modified to the extreme "when some of the other breeds cant breath, or see properly without surgery."
if man cannot live without messing with stuff he/she doesnt understand and only to profit then man should get educated first.
This forum has been a great help to me since i joined but sometimes felt overwhelmed by the knowledge and skill of others that i have been reluctant to post, today however i lost my best friend and i was simply staggered by the responses i received in such a short space of time for which i am truly grateful.
My gs was bred from a long line of european standards, he was hip scored from being a puppy so i could at least be sure that genetic hip defects had not be passed down to him or he would not pass on (a kc standard ensuring good future breeding) the last thing i wanted was to have a puppy which would in future life have to pts because it had been passed a man made genetic fault through no fault of its own.
As for your comment of "character certification" may i remind you that is a standard as is laid down by the kc on how a dog should look, a bit like saying the moon is the correct shape - how do we know what the correct shape is - i will try and find the comment for you about american gsd being bred with short back legs as "not to detract from the cut of the coat its owner was wearing" i read this as saying the dog is a fashion accessory and not a living, loving, warm, kind friend that he/she really is.