3 Responses

1. Dave Bailes

   August 30th, 2007 at 6:24 am

   1

   Yes, I am all for responsible dog ownership. There should be a licensing system (with owners supporting the full administrative cost) and a registration system with an application process before obtaining a dog.
   I have scars on my arm from a totally unprovoked attack on a public path. The dog had attacked before. The CPS decided not to prosecute in the final stages of the case so it is left to me to approach the county/civil courts for compensation.
   Only informing (as required) the owner of the dog that I was taking this action I received a threat from him to use his dogs as offensive weapons against me. Such people should lode their dogs and be banned from dog ownership for life.

2. Kay B

   December 8th, 2007 at 7:45 pm

   2

   Im sure theres not a single responisble dog owner out there who wouldnt be willing to take a suitability test! You need a license to drive a vehicle and own a gun, why not to own a dog, they can be just as dangerous.
   Bring on some sort of system that sorts the wheat from the chaf and then maybe we can stop blaming specific breeds for the acts of the irresponsible!!

3. Marjorie

   May 26th, 2008 at 8:17 pm

   3

   For the record, I am one dog owner who, while not “against” a “suitability” test, would probably not support the effort to enact such legislation.

   I am an experienced dog trainer (30 years). I began a responsible dog ownership web site partly to debunk common myths about dog training and behaviour, the likes of which tend to impede proper training and socialisation, rather than promoting it. Myths about dogs are as common as the air we breathe, it seems.

   I’ve taught responsible dog ownership for years, yet I’ve been unfairly targeted by the kind of discrimination that tarnishes all dog owners based on the acts of a few. To that end, no one should be held responsible for any action he/she didn’t commit him/herself. Even if 99% of dog owners are irresponsible, the other 1% shouldn’t be unfairly punished. I believe people should be held accountable for what they actually do, not what someone else has done.

   I recall one man stating, “I hope you’re not letting your dog soil my garden,” as we walked by. Irritated, I held my compsure and agreed that I’m as annoyed as anyone by fouling on my lawn. “I ask my dog to eliminate on my own property before we embark on a walk,” I explained. I immediately pick up after my dog. As a result, you won’t find a single pile of dog poop on my property. Yet I sometimes step in dog feces because some twit has allowed his/her dog to soil my garden. It’s frustrating, to say the least. Just as annoying is being accused of wrongdoing when I’m an example of truly responsible dog ownership.

   I’ve commented on the possibility of some sort of ownership licensing scheme, many times. Inevitably, I come out tending not to support it.

   If it worked, it would be fine. But the fact remains knowledge, coutesy, and common sense simply can’t be legislated. The kinds of dog owners who’ll comply with such a requirement are likely the best dog owners, who aren’t the problem to begin with. The worst dog owners would never comply with such a regulation, and would just operate outside the law until caught, if ever. Then, the dog would likely be the only individual punished to any degree.

   That all said, I tend to boil everything down to how it affects me. It’s ‘the sniff test’ I use to see if something is truly relevant or fair, or if it’s misguided.

   In my case, given my role in correcting popular myths about dogs, there’s a strong likelihood that any ownership test would include one or more of these myths, causing even someone as experienced as me to score at least a few wrong answers. It’s even worse if the “right” answer is in the category of those things which tend to be detrimental in raising a good canine citizen. An example might include the popular caution never to touch a dog when it is eating or sleeping, even though adult owners should frequently interrupt their dogs during these activities, to ensure they maintain their leadership roles. (Where people let their dogs decide when, where, or under what circumstances they can touch them, the dog is likely to develop any number of inappropriate responses, including aggression, as a result.)

   If any answer is judged wrong, when it is actually correct, it undermines the validity of the test. Worse, it might discourage compliance. (Imagine having to learn popular myths about dogs just to pass a test!)

   When questioned about the merits of such a test in the past, I’ve suggested that, in order to avoid subjective topics, the only fair test would be one limited to by-laws and other legal requirements, such as we have for driving a vehicle. Unfortunately, the laws dealing with dog ownership have almost nothing to do with raising a good canine citizen.

   That could change, with better, more humane and more suitable, care guidelines. But it’s not something that’s on the horizon. The public seems perfectly happy with food, water, shelter, and the basic public leashing, licensing, and vaccination laws common to most of the developed world. Yet raising a good canine citizen is so much more than that. It requires daily training, socialisation, and proper supervision at all times outside the home and with children. It begs an owner’s attention and compassion…and commitment.

   Alas, just as parenting licensing may seem like a good idea, it is similarly frought with all kinds of perils. The individuals creating the test are fallible. The test, itself, will likely be biased in one way or another. The test won’t force anyone to be a responsible dog owner. Irresponsible dog owners simply won’t take the test.

   Listen, if I thought that everyone on the road had a valid license, and that license made them knowledgeable, couteous, or even safe, then I might have more support for a dog ownership licensing scheme. But since we know many people operate outside the law, and knowledge of even basic things, like right-of-way and the penalties for speeding, haven’t eliminated problems, there’s no reason to suspect an ownership test would be any more effective.

   As I said, I support resposible dog ownership tenets so strongly, I created a whole educational resource to that end. The biggest problem is, the people most interested are those who’d likely be good dog owners, no matter what. It should never be forgotten that irresponsible dog owners are, by definition, not likely to adhere to bylaws, existing or newly-enacted.

   It would be more effective, in my view, to focus on better public education about humane care and responsible ownership, while increasing penalties for people who prove themselves to be irresponsible. Every region should have a clause that allows authorities to prohibit animal ownership for a period of time (or for life) for certain transgressions. Every region should have a clause that mandates dog care/training courses for owners who run afoul of the law. Every region should first ensure they’re adequately enforcing existing by-laws before enacting new legislation.