Competency test for dog owners?
Detail:
In a country that has a penchant for legislation, and taking into consideration the almost hysterical reaction every time a tragic story hits the headline about a dog savaging a child, it is perhaps not surprising that a leaked Defra paper shows plans to make dog owners take a competency test.
Charities including the RSPCA have said the fact that the government is opening a conversation on dangerous dogs is a positive thing, but all have serious reservations – and justly so.
Let’s face it, the responsible majority will comply – but who in their right mind can assume that the minority who cause problems with their irresponsible behaviour and attitudes will queue up, pay their £60 or whatever and take this so-called competency test?
Flying pigs comes to mind.
There is also another little question, and one the leaked Defra paper admitted was ‘difficult to answer’, about how exactly competency will be ascertained. And how can you ensure that the person taking said test would be the one who has control over the dog at all times?
Newspapers are full of reports about how certain sectors of the population are training aggressive breeds to fight and attack people. Inevitably this is gang related. There is no way that any legislation seeking registration or voluntary compliance is ever going to be recognised by this group of delinquents. And any legislation, as a result, will be a burden only on the responsible majority who enjoy the companionship of their pets.
Tougher penalties? Unfortunately, these people think they are immune and don’t think they’ll ever get caught.
It’s been said over and over again, but there are no bad dogs, only bad owners.
My sister owns a German shepherd and lives in Switzerland. The hysteria over ‘bad, dangerous dogs’ has had such an effect that you seldom see large breeds when you go for walks in the countryside. As it is, whenever she takes her dog for walks, she will invariably be at the receiving end of a couple of dirty looks and there will always be those who cross to the other side of the path. I hope we never get to the same situation here. However, proposals like this could very well reinforce the misguided suggestion that dogs – especially big dogs – are dangerous and to be avoided.
Let’s see what happens when this is open to public consultation in a few weeks.
Charities including the RSPCA have said the fact that the government is opening a conversation on dangerous dogs is a positive thing, but all have serious reservations – and justly so.
Let’s face it, the responsible majority will comply – but who in their right mind can assume that the minority who cause problems with their irresponsible behaviour and attitudes will queue up, pay their £60 or whatever and take this so-called competency test?
Flying pigs comes to mind.
There is also another little question, and one the leaked Defra paper admitted was ‘difficult to answer’, about how exactly competency will be ascertained. And how can you ensure that the person taking said test would be the one who has control over the dog at all times?
Newspapers are full of reports about how certain sectors of the population are training aggressive breeds to fight and attack people. Inevitably this is gang related. There is no way that any legislation seeking registration or voluntary compliance is ever going to be recognised by this group of delinquents. And any legislation, as a result, will be a burden only on the responsible majority who enjoy the companionship of their pets.
Tougher penalties? Unfortunately, these people think they are immune and don’t think they’ll ever get caught.
It’s been said over and over again, but there are no bad dogs, only bad owners.
My sister owns a German shepherd and lives in Switzerland. The hysteria over ‘bad, dangerous dogs’ has had such an effect that you seldom see large breeds when you go for walks in the countryside. As it is, whenever she takes her dog for walks, she will invariably be at the receiving end of a couple of dirty looks and there will always be those who cross to the other side of the path. I hope we never get to the same situation here. However, proposals like this could very well reinforce the misguided suggestion that dogs – especially big dogs – are dangerous and to be avoided.
Let’s see what happens when this is open to public consultation in a few weeks.
By:
Sandra
Date/time :
01/03/2010
Replies to this topic...
By:
thr33k
Date/time :
27/03/2010 21:09:34
Detail:
Dogs become aggressive partly through lack of exercise, boredom and abusive treatment. It is clearly not the dogs fault if it attacks somebody. If it is a violent breed it is the owners fault for not muzzling the dog properly. The majority of people are not fit to look after children let alone dogs. There should definitely be a competency test.
By:
newshound
Date/time :
15/03/2010 19:59:20
Detail:
I agree with Roger Mugford who was reported as saying that first we need compencancy tests for humans
