WoofnHoof

I think it's a perfectly good analogy, there are a lot of similarities with driving a vehicle on the road and owning an animal, both can be dangerous, both require a basic knowledge of local laws etc. I would like to make it illegal to own a dog without having completed any training or assessment, people should not be allowed to own an animal unless they understand the basics of caring for them. I don't understand why the issue of ownership is important in the analogy, cars are inanimate if you own one without a license it's not hurting anyone, if you own an animal without any knowledge about it then you can hurt both the animal and others. As for how many dogs I see no reason why the current regulations with respect to numbers would change, your license would state x amount of dogs according to local regs and if you want more you apply for a permit (or different class of license if that came about) same as you do now. Whether it would work remains to be seen and of course requires a strong authority behind it but most people agree that education is the key, I just believe that only the minority tends to educate themselves, mass education only occurs under compulsion.

If education isn't mandatory it won't be widely taken up, it has to be mandatory in order to be effective at a community level. Think of all the people who think that driving is easy they wouldn't learn the road rules or take the test if they didn't have to.

No it isnt. Steve is right on the money. The ACO I spoke to today said your idea is just council registration with a different name. As for a drivers license - it doesnt automatically make people a better driver. Filling in a dodgey RTA test to get a learner's permit does not stop road rage, speeding, drunk drivers, disregard for seatbelts etc. Doesn't stop it but it certainly limits it, look at the huge numbers of people on the roads who get it right compared to the huge numbers of dog owners who can't contain their dogs or dump them in a pound because they lack the basic understanding of animal care and responsibility? The licensing system I'm talking about is nothing like council registration, all that involves is paying for a dog tag, I'm talking about licensing of owners as part of a mandatory education system. You don't have to know anything about animal care and management to register the animal with council.

Licensing owners and making them pass a test or do a course to ensure they are aware of the basics of animal ownership and management. I They do that to get your breeding prefix but there are still many, many dodgy breeders out there. I don't think it would help much There are but they get away with it because they rely on the ignorance of the general public, once the general public becomes educated too it's not as easy to pull the wool over their eyes.

The more attacks that happen the more laws that will come in and the more enforcement will happen regardless of whether we want it or not, they certainly found the manpower and resourcecs to seize and destroy pitbulls in Queensland a few years ago so don't think of it as a matter of if but when. That is why I think a mandatory education system must be put in place, yeah people will try to flout the laws but the more people who are educated the better it will become and community attitudes will change in order to assist with that enforcement. Steve there are already laws which exist which have the power to seize animals so the rights you speak of are tenuous anyway. A licensing system offers a more concrete guideline for the rights you have within those guidelines. Everyone has the right to get a driver's license, their ability to keep that license depends on their ability and willingness to continue to exercise their rights within the law, the grounds for taking away a license are very clear and on the whole extremely fair. There is no reason a similar principle couldn't be applied in this situation. You may disagree with the issue of licensing on those grounds but my focus is on the mandatory education aspect, which can be easily verified with the use of a licensing system, the system can be as broad or as narrow as you want it to be but I would rather that true animal people be involved in setting up such a system. Because if we wait until have it imposed on us by others, which will happen sooner or later, by then we will have no power to say anything about rights or otherwise.

No I dont agree - I also see animal ownership as a privilege - however I am not prepared to forego people's basic rights because there are some idiots around - and if there is no money and no resources to police current laws then why would we anticipate any differences with any other laws ? There isnt any point in comparing drivers licences with dog owners licences and ignorance has never been a defence in any situation anyway. What basic rights would you be forgoing under a licensing system that you don't already forgo under any other system anyway? If it were structured in a similar way to the wildlife license all you have to do is put your address, provide a reference or two (depending on the species) and provide a certificate of completion for safe handling etc in the case of snakes. Sounds pretty similar to getting a driver's license if you ask me. I'm not talking about ignorance as a defence I'm talking about ignorance as the prevailing state at the moment among animal owners where there is no obligation to change. People only learn what they have to learn. At the moment there are no obligations for anyone to have to learn anything at all when they get an animal, this IMO is a huge part of the myriad of problems associated with domestic animal ownership from welfare to effective containment. Of course resources for enforcement are needed and that will come, but first and foremost I think we need a mandatory education system in place to minimise the occurance of problems in the first instance and provide a simple framework for the general public to follow. At the moment if they are even motivated to learn (rare) they need to wallow through legislation that is not designed for reading by lay people. Far better for this information to be dissemated in the form of workbooks, handbooks etc, and integrated together so that welfare laws, management laws, containment laws etc are all there together in a concise simple to understand format, similar to that of the learner driver's handbook.

Steve of course it takes money and resources to enforce but it's far better to push for something that educates people than it is to roll over and wait for people to just not be allowed to have animals at all because they can't be trusted to do the right thing. Enforced education is still education at the end of the day. But I suppose that's the difference between you and me you see animal ownership as a right I see it as a privilege. Raz the reason people don't abide by the companion animal act is because there is no obligation for them to even read it, people for the most part know the road rules because they have to if they want to get a license and pass the test.

So you don't have a problem with continuing the status quo where anyone can buy an animal without any kind of requirement to know or learn anything about the species they are becoming responsible for? You need a license to keep certain native animals as pets I see no reason something similar couldn't be implemented for domestic animals, this site details the regulations and requirements for keeping wildlife, I see no reason a simlar system couldn't be implemented for domestic animal owners. (And before anyone gets nit picky I'm referring to the general concept not the specifics!) Everyone knows you need a license to keep certain exotic and wildlife species so why should it be different for domestic animals? The regulations are there to provide guidance, education and to protect owners, the public and the animals.

Licensing owners and making them pass a test or do a course to ensure they are aware of the basics of animal ownership and management. It may not solve the problem but I think it would address some aspects, ie the lack of awareness some owners have of the importance of socialisation and the correlation between various animal management practices (or lack thereof) and dog attacks. Enforced education is the only effective path forward that I can see, you can still have people breaking the laws but the vast majority of people, even people that want to own an agressive dog, still don't want to see their dog responsible for an attack on a child. Currently not enough people know what those risk factors are. Currently no one needs to know anything about animals before owning one.

Yeah but don't you think that it's a problem that at the moment you can buy an animal without knowing anything about them? Without knowing anything about their nutrition or exercise requirements or even their obligations under the law? I think that's a really signficant problem which not only contributes to things like dog attacks but to significant animal welfare issues as well. I know people who know nothing about worming, parvo etc until their dog gets sick, if the dog doesn't get sick they remain in blissful ignorance. They don't learn until they have to learn, and sometimes it's too late. You can say exactly the same things about people becoming parents! IMO the most important decision any person can make. Maybe if we start back there then a lot of our problems as a society would go away. The fact is we as dog owners/breeders are over legislated now and those laws already in place are not policed. Adding more laws to make the pollies, law makers and emotional public feel good will do jack shit. Lol not even going there on the human breeding issue However the current system of laws assumes that people know the law and yet there is no compulsion for them to learn it. There are little to no education programs which provide a basic concise guidelines for responsible pet ownership and there are no incentives for people to do them even if they did exist. A licensing system provides the dual purpose of educating people so they know the rules as well as an identification and tracking system for owners.

Yeah but don't you think that it's a problem that at the moment you can buy an animal without knowing anything about them? Without knowing anything about their nutrition or exercise requirements or even their obligations under the law? I think that's a really signficant problem which not only contributes to things like dog attacks but to significant animal welfare issues as well. I know people who know nothing about worming, parvo etc until their dog gets sick, if the dog doesn't get sick they remain in blissful ignorance. They don't learn until they have to learn, and sometimes it's too late.

Yeah I think it's worth trying to really push for it, it won't take more than a semester to teach the absolute basics of responsible pet ownership. As for adults well if licensing were to be brought in a basic one day course would probably be enough to brush up on the 'need to know' stuff, a bit like a first aid course, most people can manage that easily enough. I would hazard a guess that a large proportion of dog owners know very little about nutrition, basic veterinary care, off leash laws, dangerous dog laws etc. Hell I couldn't even tell you what the leash laws are in my local area. Why? Because I've never needed to know or been motivated enough to find out. Similarly Joe Bloggs who feeds his dog Pal and leaves the gate open all the time probably isn't that motivated to know them either if the lack of knowing has never adversely affected him.

I was referring more to the numbers who drive without any license at all - which is pretty high considering the amount of money being thrown at enforcing the law in this area! True, but I would think that the numbers are small compared to the numbers of licensed drivers, and the reason many go uncaught is because nearly everyone has at least done the learner's test so has a basic idea of the road rules, which is the main objective of the test.

I think we need a licensing system, it need only be a basic one. The current system is flawed as currently there is no requirement to know anything about dogs or the existing laws pertaining to them in order to own one. That needs to change. Sandra777 I disagree that the current driver's license system doesn't work, it's not there to produce expert drivers it's there to ensure that most people getting behind the wheel know the basics of handling a vehicle and driving within the laws, which they generally do when you take into account the sheer volume of vehicles on roads. Of course without enforcement it means nothing but don't worry enforcement will come make no mistake about that, that is why the dog community needs to have a say in what exactly that enforcement will entail. I don't know whether I agree with home checks as I've noticed that many rescues etc require a 6 foot fence which I don't have even though I have no trouble keeping my dogs in. I think the desexing and breeding issues should also be left out of the equation at the moment, they could be a part of the study material in terms of education but should have no specific rules attached to them. I also think that a basic animal care and management course should be a part of the school cirriculum, it would be easy to implement in the primary school system where kids do a range of compulsory subjects before specialising in high school. Education will be the key factor in all these but the education should be compulsory before obtaining an animal.

Nup cant see it. I scrolled through but cant find a link to dogzonline. Not a link to dogs but to another forum which seems to have a lot of members in common with here.

I bought my two dogs from a pet store, I don't consider them rescues although the sibe I do refer to as a lucky bugger for ending up with an owner who was crazy enough to buy the sickest looking dog there and then spend thousands on corrective surgery lol The outcome could have been worse but it could have been better had he been born as part of a well thought out and planned healthy litter. The horse I bought from the sales I do consider a rescue because she was off to the doggers but horses are a slightly different kettle of fish since they are worth meat money even if no one else wants them.

And some lose their cars if they break the law. If you tell me this dog was unknown to council, I'll be surprised. But when we write off the attack due to breed, what's to stop this owner from getting another dog. And how did the fact the breed was already banned stop this from happening. It didn't. It probably just ensured that this dog didn't get the kind of socialisation that well raised family pets do. Bring on licensing for owners, not dogs. I totally agree with this, unfortunately whenever such a move has been mooted on here there is an outcry about people's rights to own whatever dog they want and who decides who gets a license etc. I would love to see it and a comprehensive education system integrated alongside so that everyone can access the information and prove they have a basic understanding. Our learner's driver's tests aren't that complicated most people can pass that and it proves they have at least a nodding aquaintance of the basic road rules, surely something similar could be implemented? I learner's permit doesn't make someone an expert nor does it need to it's there to ensure they are not completely ignorant of the road rules and most of us do get through the day without smashing our cars despite the huge numbers on our roads and the inherent dangers so something must be working... I agree I have spoken to people from countries where there is a relatively low pet population and a high population of semi-wild dogs (which can be quite agressive) this results in a community wide fear of most dogs which doesn't leave them when they move. It means that our demographic is changing and there is more need than ever for education, teaching people who may not be aware how to behave around dogs and what the rules are in terms of containing dogs. Many people wouldn't even know that a loose dog is illegal in most areas and if they have come from a country where there are loose dogs around they may feel powerless to report it.

I have these for my dogs

I also know of a friend's dog that got hung on a fence With animals Murphy's law takes precedence, anything that can go wrong will go wrong, it's a matter of risk assessment too but never assume that something will never happen on the basis that it hasn't happened yet.

Totally agree with this. I for one am in favour of mandatory training for anyone who owns an animal, basic animal care should be part of the school cirriculum IMO. Of course then you get the arguments about what sort of training etc etc because no one will ever agree about mandatory anything because of their right to own an animal and do what they want with it. But if there were a mandatory training and accreditation system in place then these smaller issues of which equipment is more/less humane can be addressed within that system and are less likely to be open to abuse. I don't think the general public should be given free rein with equipment or animals for that matter, I think people should be able to show they can provide a good basic standard of care before having an animal and be able to show they know and understand the correct application of any training device before being allowed to use it. You can't drive a car without a license and demonstrated knowledge of the basic road rules because of the potential to do harm to yourself and others with it, the same principles should apply to animal ownership. edited to add a word

what foods/supplements are consistent in these diets,W&H ? It would be an interesting study .. are there large dogs involved, or only littlies? From memory it was member toy dogs I was talking to about it (it was a while back), she has gathered a fair bit of info on LP in chihuahuas and had seen improvement with diet, I don't know if there is one specific food or supplement which makes the difference or if it's just a balanced quality diet as a whole which improves joint and ligament integrity. It certainly seemed to help with mine, didn't remove the condition but appears to have reduced severity and delayed progression. It may only help in the instance where you have a really crap quality diet in the beginning (like my fellow was on) and then go to a higher quality you are going to see an overall improvement in general health but yeah it would be interesting to do a specific study on ligament integrity in relation to diet.

My chi used to skip and was diagnosed similarly to yours, I changed his diet from what I call 'crap-in-a-can' to incorporate more raw, high quality kibble, fish etc and he hasn't skipped for years (he's 8 now) so I would look at his diet first as this can be a factor, I don't know the mechanisms of it but I know that there are consistent good results associated with improving diet. If his diet is already high quality then yes I would look at surgery try to get a surgeon who either specialises in this type of surgery or has done a lot of them with good results.

My first breed is chi's but IMO they don't really count as they are so easy to manage :p In comparison my sibe has been a bit of a shock to the system, I didn't really have massive expectations in terms of obedience but the reality was still a challenge. I love my sibe but I'm going to try for an 'easier' breed just to see what it's like to have a dog come when it's called

How much risk are we talking about though? That is the problem I have with this kind of blanket policy which is based on very little information. I can understand in the case of families etc that they cannot accept the risks but in my case I live alone on a property with my animals. If I had to test for hendra and found one or more of my animals had had it at some point I'd like to know the actual risks of contracting the disease particularly from animals which are not currently displaying symptoms. I'd also like the opportunity to decide for myself as to whether that risk is acceptable or not.

If the lady is scared of dogs and the dog rushed her it doesn't really matter whether the dog actually could bite or not, the fact that it was in a position to scare someone is enough and the owner should have kept it contained to her own area.