Alternatives to Competency Tests?

Following on from this thread...http://www.dogsey.com/showthread.php?t=121228

There have been a number of members completely against the idea of competency tests and/or compulsory 3rd party insurance/microchiping.

A few alternatives have been suggested -e.g. free education or 'cracking down on unethical breeders'.

I'm interested in exploring all possibilities so I would just like to hear other proposals to include:
(1) what you would hope to achieve
(2) what measures would be put in place
(3) who would be responsible for implementing/enforcing
(4) who would pick up the costs.

Or do you think that we are safe to carry on as we are (i.e. doing nothing) and that this won't risk the government enforcing more serious restrictions on dog ownership as more and more non-dog owners get fed up of dog related issues?

Something definitely has to be done.

(2) what measures would be put in place
I think the laws should first concentrate to knock out BYB and puppy farmers, along with some that prohibit breeding from unhealthy/untested stock and the breeding of dogs with temperament problems or bad traits (ie aggressiveness).

Compulsory micro-chipping and tougher laws on dog crime should be next, along with vets, breeders and rescues being legally obliged to let new dog owners know they have responsibilities (a leaflet highlighting the main bits should be fine).

(1) what you would hope to achieve
Better dog breeding should result in healthier, fitter dogs with better temperaments and less health issues. For me this is a great start

Micro chipping will ensure the dog is tied to someone - if it does wrong the owner can be tracked. Letting people know they have responsibilities - hopefully that'll make them think twice about 'not' getting their dogs trained/under control.

(3) who would be responsible for implementing/enforcing
Govt - vets, breeders, rescues. Ultimate responsibility lies on the owner.

(4) who would pick up the costs.
Well there wouldn't be much cost in the spreading of info and breeding controls. People pay for their own microchipping.

So what about enforcement - would it only be in respect of any complaint about a breeder?

I like the principles, just not sure they would be practical?

Local councils/animal welfare organisations could do spot checks - by posing as potential puppy buyers

Vets could do checks for micro chips - that'd be as easy as buying a reader for each consultation room (they can afford it they make plenty of dosh!). They ought to be legally obliged to report un-chipped dogs, and make sure the addresses are kept up to date.

New laws brought in just like for cars, that if you move you have to update your dogs address details too.

I don't think there would be that much of a burden to the tax-payer using these methods tbh..

But you have to give them easily checkable criteria to work by which means you have to define what a BYB or a puppyfarmer is in non-subjective terms.

That's a challenge.


I think to make sense of Hali's question, unless we are content to do nothing, we have to assume the implementation of compulsory chipping and a national dog and owner database with legal burdens on all parties to keep the database up to date. Without tracability and accountability we can have no effective control measures.

So, for me, the question becomes is what options do we have beyond microchipping?

Our nation's dogs are beset with so many troubles that we each have our own favourites to champion. Azz has prioritised poor breeding as a primary issue and the cause of other issues. My own slants are towards the rescue crisis, the genetic health of our breeds and our flawed adherence to BSL. Others may feel strongest about abusive owners, 'status' dog owners, dog attacks or any of a number of seemingly distinct and different problems.

On the face of it, there does not appear much connection between a rescue overburdened with strays and an absent mother whose baby gets bitten by the family dog or pup born with hideous and avoidable ailments but they are all examples that we recognise as poor ownership.

Poor ownership lies at the heart of every single dog problem and any measures, restrictions or laws that we pass that do not address ownership standards will be a sticking plaster at best or a horrible DDA-like flop at worse.

To return to Hali's points -

what you would hope to achieve

Improved ownership standards across as broad a range as possible. I'd prioritse 'scope' over 'scale', if that makes sense.

what measures would be put in place

I've already planted my flag for competency testing but other than that, and assuming chipping is in place, I think 3rd party insurance is a must-do.

who would be responsible for implementing/enforcing

Microchipping should be checked by law by (nearly) all canine professionals whenever they first meet the dog. Vets, boarding kennels, dog wardens, etc. If necessary a £1 surcharge per chip would easily provide scanners to local authorities and police. Commercial business should pass on the cost to customers.

If we can successfully implement chipping then enforcement of insurance becomes a doddle. Just link the insurance data with the chip database and we can see who hasn't got insurance. further non-compliance can be detected as and when the dogs come to the attention of the authorities on other matters.

who would pick up the costs.

Whatever the measure it must be met by the dog owners. There is no appetite and no justification for the general taxpayer to pick up the bill for our choice of lifestyle.

About the highlighted bit, in Australia it is compulsory to microchip, you can not advertise a dog for sale without that included or you can get fined. If you are selling pups they are suppose to be microchipped before sold. My boys are microchipped, never once have they been to the vets and been scanned as routine, when I changed vets they still didnt check, I find this a bit of a worry as it takes a small amount of time and I could be claiming to own someone elses dog (I am not though ) so for the money we pay to microchip it does not seem to be a priority of the vets to scan. So in part it is a bit pointless

Good post, along with Danish/French style public liablilty insurance, brilliant ideas,.....much better than the DOT

Question to Azz and Kruse

In aiming to eliminate BYBs, puppyfarms and poor breeders are you happy to accept a large reduction in the UK dog population? I don't know what market share puppyfarmers and BYBs have but puppyfarmers knock out a lot of dogs and, whilst less prolific, there a hell of a lot of BYBs.

If these supplies represented, say, 40% of total supplies would you be okay with a 40% drop in population?

I am convinced that tackling supply without first tackling demand can only lead to a thriving black market and an enforcement nightmare.

A challenge that i feel HAS to be tackled.

If that means every breeder must be registered and the council checks them than so be it.

And by breeder i mean anyone owning or in the care of a dog that drops a litter.
Current breeding regulations only seem to affect those Breeding for business meaning those who will breed their poor staffy multiple times a year are not vetted. If anybody is suspected of breeding without license animals are taken away from them and they are fined.

Breeders should also vet and home check potential buyers meaning less dog with unsuitable owners add the microchippiong and breeders taking dogs back may result in less in rescue.

what is achieved better balanced litters, less dogs in rescue, healthier dogs with better owners.

will some slip through the net? yes.

PUNISH THEM!!!

Vote for meeeee

YES. we are overpopulated.

Id support DOT too