Yes. Do you disagree? Do you feel that BSL is better than the DOT proposal could be?

I have already explained how the self-policing nature of the DOT frees up the authorities to concentrate their enforcement efforts away from the mainstream and onto the minority of hardcore non-compliants. That is very different to 'not bothering to target the law breakers'.

Recently, the MET police launched a crackdown on suspected illegal dogs during the Notting Hill Festival. Quite a lot of loving family pets where seized. The first one, iirc, was seized early in the morning as the owner was walking the dog out of the area. The owner was concerned that the dog might be distressed at the noise and unusual activity so he was walking it to his mother's house a short distance away where he planned to leave the dog for the day. This was not a dog that had engendered complaint, was not dangerous or involved in any incident. Just a bull breed that looked to a policeman as if it might be of a prohibited type. It will now spend months in kennels being housed and assessed (at taxpayers expense) before most probably being returned to a life on-leash. That is the situation we have at present.

I believe that DOT would be better.

I think the level of non-compliance will be quite small. It's simply not worth not complying. A breeder who supplies a dog to a non-DOTed owner will be running a risk for the rest of that dog's natural life. At any time in the next 10 to fifteen years that owner may be caught and lead the authorities back to the breeder whose breeding will be immediately curtailed by the removal of his SDOT. Similarly a buyer will be presented with a choice of buying from a SDOTed breeder or buying from an illegal supplier and run the risk of being fined. A risk that will be extant for the entire life of the dog. It becomes aligned with self-interest to take the test. It's not that hard and not that expensive - I think most will take it.


Many things have been introduced and worked very well. Would the DOT work very well or be complete nonsense? I think it has the potential to work very well (or I wouldn't support it) but it will need careful preperation. Robust questioning (such as yours) can only benefit the proposal by exposing any flaws or weak areas that might exist. Certainly it is do-able. The Swiss, who have recently introduced a similar scheme, have proved that.

my emphasis

Failure to pay a fine is a different offence to failure to have a DOT and would be dealt with the same way that non-payment of fines is currently dealt with.

If someone fails the test three times that would trigger an automatic assistance visit to determine what the problem is. It could be a language/literacy issue which can be dealt with by offering the test in a different format or it could indicate a deeper problem which absolutely needs addressing before the person could safely offer a home to a dog. It is important to understand that the test is not there to set people up to fail. If someone is repeatedly failing then the emphasis will be to find out why and help to overcome the problem.

I'm not sure that I'd want to track them. Beyond the fact that their dog must be registered to them I don't see that they need tracking.

Patronising? Well you are entitled to a view, of course, but do you imagine that the mother of Archie-Lee knew the risks she was running? There is no doubt in my mind that the dog world encompasses a whole lot of ignorance (a quick glance at the training or behavioural section of any dog website will confirm this and these are people who realise their lack of knowledge and are trying to address it. I assure you that there are yet others who do not even realise that they are missing something).Yes, there will be people who act wrongly in full awareness of their actions and the test will not stop that. But the test will help those who act wrongly out of ignorance or misinformation and that can only be a good thing, surely.

As I have said, I welcome your probing and challenging questions and I will endeavour to answer as best I can but, in fairness, I must ask the same of you or else our conversation is doomed to be nothing but a series of contradictory statements.

Will you tackle the question I posed? Here it is again:

Do you agree that driving standards benefit from the need to pass a test and, if so, why do you feel this would not cross over to dogs?

I think driving standards are pretty appalling even though most people have passed their test. Not that I'm campaigning for it's abolition, but passing your test does not prove you're a good driver, just that you have reached a certain level of competancy. Standards generally slip within a year of passing too.
Also the test is the same whatever vehicle you chose to drive, you can pass your test and then immediately equipe yourself with the most powerful vehicle on the road, total madness.

Why don't you do a poll for your OTT DOT you might find a few supporters that way, no prizes for guessing how I'd vote though.

Please pardon me if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, if I have, just put it down to advancing years and thickening skull!

There seemed to be some suggestion of breeders registering as such. How would this apply to/affect (eg) farmers who do not breed purposefully, but who end up occasionally with "surplus" puppies (like my two blodgers). Registering all these would not be feasible, and would alienate farmers who have more than enough paperwork to wade through already!


Snorri

Parking offences are subject to a fixed Penalty Charge Notice which is legally quite distinct from a fine. Different rules and no, they won't apply to the DOT and dogs.

Damn straight! Unfortunately procreation is regarded as a fundamental human right. If you regard dog ownership in the same way then you are unlikely to ever support a proposal like DOT which says, in essence, that you must earn that right by proving your competancy/commitment.

The agency charged with administering the DOT.


Trouble - you've danced all around this question but still haven't answered it! Do you think that having a driving test ensures better standards of driving than not having a driving test? It's a yes or no answer.

Your response (in which you say it's complete madness but you wouldn't abolish it) is neither.

Anyone who supplies dogs would need an SDOT and would need to register the dogs they produce. If a farmer does not have the time to do this then he can buy his dogs instead of breeding them.

Whilst I support the DOT it is not my proposal. I don't think a poll would be of value at the moment as very few people understand the whole proposal.

I'd like to clarify your (oft-repeated) assertion that the proposal is excessive. Do you feel it is excessive in regard to the problems that dogs face or that it is excessive in regard to the benefits it would bring?

I'm really bored with this now and I'm only replying because I'm polite, I really don't give a monkey's about the DOT to be honest.
As for not putting up a poll because you feel people don't understand the proposal fully, surely that tells you, that although we are up to post 97 or whatever it is still as clear as mud, therefore simply too complex. Keep it simple.
As for the driving test analogy stop chucking your dummy out of the pram, put simply a motor vehicle is a sight more dangerous than a dog. To stop a dog causing damage to people and other animals make it wear a muzzle. However unless we all want to drive at about 15mph at all times I think a tad more skill is called for.
If you want to be pedantic about the driving test, surely it's having lessons and learning how to drive that makes for safer roads, not the test itself. The prospect of losing your license tends to have repercussions that ripple throughout all aspects of life, you may even lose your job, losing a dog license or failing to qualify is hardly the same.
Oh goody yet another agency the DOT to interfere in our everyday lives, is that how Gordon proposes to solve the unemployment problem? Loft lagging and DOT testing. I can't wait. Except I think this proposal is a non-starter. Way to complex and heavy handed.
Just my opinion but I'm not going to change it.

I jsut found this after i posted my thread similar. i think dog owners and potential dog owners should hold a licence.

iv got two dogos and and an amstaff that keep people off my property bears and coyots. got theses dog for there appearence and the family nature they are a duel perpose dog.....you would think twice about comming up my drive way!once i intrduced you to them ..you would want one.there not a wepon but a security service.....