Rewarding Good Ownership.

[~Anne~]

Maybe we could have a good citizen program for children. To reward good parents. Good kid means good parent, right? Bad kid, irresponsible parent?

Only certified Good Little Children allowed in certain shopping centres, playgrounds and parks. Naughty children not welcome. Yes, that would go down so well.

Yes please! Love the idea.

[jacqui835]

There is more to being a good dog owner than obedience training, there are some clubs I would never go near. I have not done any formal club training with my girl but I certainly consider myself a good dog owner and have a very good dog. I walk her regularly to different areas, always pick up after her, she doesn't bark and cause a nuisance for my neighbours, she gets veterinary attention when required without hesitaion and never tries to leave home because she is bored.

I would appreciate the council just acknowledging I am a responsible dog owner, discounts for Rego wouldn't work here because it is one payment for lifetime cover.

Well, how about if your dog just needed to pass a temperament test and some basic commands, particularly recall?

I agree that there's more to good dog ownership than obedience training. I was thinking more along the lines of proving your dog to be sociable and responsive.

No, but it would make your dog fail any tests. If the dog is aggressive, it may not be your fault or within your control but that doesn't we could let dangerous dogs

Who would do the test and whose temperament test would be used?

One of my dogs is dog agressive, she would fail any temperament test.

Does that then put me in the irresposible owner category?

No, but it would make your dog fail any tests. If the dog is aggressive, it may not be your fault or within your control but that doesn't we should increase the chances of negative dog incidents. Most dogs won't be aggressive when properly trained and socialised, but of course there will be exceptions. For the people who go to the effort to train their dogs though and create dogs that are unlikely to ever cause any trouble, there should be benefits and they should be allowed to have their dogs with them in more situations.

[Blackdogs]

To answer several concerns at once:

I think the government needs to sink more money into responsible pet ownership, so I don't have grievances with a subsidised program. However, it would make for an interesting enterprise.

The the idea would be to provide sociable dogs with places to mingle, so DINOS and other less sociable dogs wouldn't be suited to this environment and I doubt owners of these kinds of dogs would seek out this kind of interaction anyway.

Not being elligible to use these facilities doesn't indicate that you're a bad owner, just that you're not suitable. I do think it would provide incentives for people to socialise and train their dogs, though. Plus, it would provide people with safer places for their dogs to mingle.

The system I'm talking about would not be used in any other setting than newly created facilities, so people who didn't want to be involved wouldn't have to be involved and nothing for them would change.

[Blackdogs]

Hi Blackdogs,

I like the general idea. Sure, as others have pointed out, there would be problems. But in general, as a hypothetical idea, it's nice. And I think you're not talking about removing current privileges or rights that dog owners / dogs have (i.e., you're not talking about adding extra restrictions); rather, you're talking about the creation of extra places / situations, in which some dogs and their owners would be allowed.

So, for example, a cafe would open, and dogs who've passed certain criteria would be welcome (sort of like how dogs can go to certain daycare centres only if they're vaccinated etc). So you're not removing any rights or privileges that people already have; you're simply adding new good things, available to certain dogs / people. So no-one suffers (relative to the current situation), and some people benefit. Is that right?

I would love to go to a cafe created for people and their dogs - dogs who have passed a dog-friendliness test or something like that. It's a nice thought.

Kitt.

BINGO!

[Blackdogs]

I thought some councils gave discounted registration for dogs who have passed an obedience course? Not my council unfortunately but I'm sure I heard that somewhere, in SA I think?

I didn't know that. That's not a bad idea either.

This is a rough sketch of how it used to be (City of Casey, at least) ....

$xx discount for dog being desexed; plus

$xx discount for dog being obedience trained.

Total possible discount = $xxx

Now it is :

$xx discount for dog being desexed; plus

$xx discount for dog being microchipped (which is compulsory anyway, so I don't see point in discount); OR

$xx discount for dog being obedience trained.

Total possible discount = $xxx (ie total possible discount no higher than it used to be).

Which kind of takes the emphasis off obedience training IMO. Same total possible discount applies whether or not you obedience train your dog.

ETA: In regards to the thread topic .... some food for thought. Don't forget that for dogs to behave well in certain environments they need to be proofed to those environments. So, who would set the criteria and how high would the bar be? If it is too high, it might prevent the proofing to what may potentially be new and novel environments which means we could end up with less and less dogs being able to learn to cope with them. As I said - food for thought. Be careful about looking at the ideal without taking into account how the ideal is attained .

Good point, I see what you're saying. As I said, it's a sketchy thought and there would be things that needed to be ironed out for it to be implemented. How would you suggest this problem could be worked with, Erny? Could there be a supervised beginners get together that was more controlled?

[Greytmate]

To answer several concerns at once:

I think the government needs to sink more money into responsible pet ownership, so I don't have grievances with a subsidised program. However, it would make for an interesting enterprise.

The the idea would be to provide sociable dogs with places to mingle, so DINOS and other less sociable dogs wouldn't be suited to this environment and I doubt owners of these kinds of dogs would seek out this kind of interaction anyway.

Not being elligible to use these facilities doesn't indicate that you're a bad owner, just that you're not suitable. I do think it would provide incentives for people to socialise and train their dogs, though. Plus, it would provide people with safer places for their dogs to mingle.

The system I'm talking about would not be used in any other setting than newly created facilities, so people who didn't want to be involved wouldn't have to be involved and nothing for them would change.

You think the government should buy land and facilities , and then only allow certain people to use them, based on a doggy personality test? I don't think you will convince any government that that is an effective use of money in promoting responsible animal ownership.

The more dogs you mingle, the higher the chance that there will be incidents of 'irresponsibility.'

The reward for being a responsible dog owner is already there. The dog is safe and happy.

[Blackdogs]

To answer several concerns at once:

I think the government needs to sink more money into responsible pet ownership, so I don't have grievances with a subsidised program. However, it would make for an interesting enterprise.

The the idea would be to provide sociable dogs with places to mingle, so DINOS and other less sociable dogs wouldn't be suited to this environment and I doubt owners of these kinds of dogs would seek out this kind of interaction anyway.

Not being elligible to use these facilities doesn't indicate that you're a bad owner, just that you're not suitable. I do think it would provide incentives for people to socialise and train their dogs, though. Plus, it would provide people with safer places for their dogs to mingle.

The system I'm talking about would not be used in any other setting than newly created facilities, so people who didn't want to be involved wouldn't have to be involved and nothing for them would change.

You think the government should buy land and facilities , and then only allow certain people to use them, based on a doggy personality test? I don't think you will convince any government that that is an effective use of money in promoting responsible animal ownership.

The more dogs you mingle, the higher the chance that there will be incidents of 'irresponsibility.'

The reward for being a responsible dog owner is already there. The dog is safe and happy.

This is just a hypothetical, not parliamentary proposal, but whether or not they would go for it in polished form I'm not sure. Pets are taking more of a central role in people's lives these days and contribute greatly to the economy. Doggy day care centres were a crazy idea not so long ago.

Of course whenever there are more stairs/cars/machines there are more accidents, so you put safety systems in place to minimise the chance of them happening. Stairs have rails, cars have speed limits, OH&S governs machinery use. You'd have much less chance of an incident taking place in a regulated situation than you would in a park.

[Greytmate]

To answer several concerns at once:

I think the government needs to sink more money into responsible pet ownership, so I don't have grievances with a subsidised program. However, it would make for an interesting enterprise.

The the idea would be to provide sociable dogs with places to mingle, so DINOS and other less sociable dogs wouldn't be suited to this environment and I doubt owners of these kinds of dogs would seek out this kind of interaction anyway.

Not being elligible to use these facilities doesn't indicate that you're a bad owner, just that you're not suitable. I do think it would provide incentives for people to socialise and train their dogs, though. Plus, it would provide people with safer places for their dogs to mingle.

The system I'm talking about would not be used in any other setting than newly created facilities, so people who didn't want to be involved wouldn't have to be involved and nothing for them would change.

You think the government should buy land and facilities , and then only allow certain people to use them, based on a doggy personality test? I don't think you will convince any government that that is an effective use of money in promoting responsible animal ownership.

The more dogs you mingle, the higher the chance that there will be incidents of 'irresponsibility.'

The reward for being a responsible dog owner is already there. The dog is safe and happy.

This is just a hypothetical, not parliamentary proposal, but whether or not they would go for it in polished form I'm not sure. Pets are taking more of a central role in people's lives these days and contribute greatly to the economy. Doggy day care centres were a crazy idea not so long ago.

Of course whenever there are more stairs/cars/machines there are more accidents, so you put safety systems in place to minimise the chance of them happening. Stairs have rails, cars have speed limits, OH&S governs machinery use. You'd have much less chance of an incident taking place in a regulated situation than you would in a park.

There are animal control laws, and if people followed them we could all enjoy taking our dogs everywhere.

Many of us still think doggy day care is crazy, and much prefer traditional kennel set up with individual runs if we have to leave our dogs in professional care.

[Blackdogs]

To answer several concerns at once:

I think the government needs to sink more money into responsible pet ownership, so I don't have grievances with a subsidised program. However, it would make for an interesting enterprise.

The the idea would be to provide sociable dogs with places to mingle, so DINOS and other less sociable dogs wouldn't be suited to this environment and I doubt owners of these kinds of dogs would seek out this kind of interaction anyway.

Not being elligible to use these facilities doesn't indicate that you're a bad owner, just that you're not suitable. I do think it would provide incentives for people to socialise and train their dogs, though. Plus, it would provide people with safer places for their dogs to mingle.

The system I'm talking about would not be used in any other setting than newly created facilities, so people who didn't want to be involved wouldn't have to be involved and nothing for them would change.

You think the government should buy land and facilities , and then only allow certain people to use them, based on a doggy personality test? I don't think you will convince any government that that is an effective use of money in promoting responsible animal ownership.

The more dogs you mingle, the higher the chance that there will be incidents of 'irresponsibility.'

The reward for being a responsible dog owner is already there. The dog is safe and happy.

This is just a hypothetical, not parliamentary proposal, but whether or not they would go for it in polished form I'm not sure. Pets are taking more of a central role in people's lives these days and contribute greatly to the economy. Doggy day care centres were a crazy idea not so long ago.

Of course whenever there are more stairs/cars/machines there are more accidents, so you put safety systems in place to minimise the chance of them happening. Stairs have rails, cars have speed limits, OH&S governs machinery use. You'd have much less chance of an incident taking place in a regulated situation than you would in a park.

There are animal control laws, and if people followed them we could all enjoy taking our dogs everywhere.

Many of us still think doggy day care is crazy, and much prefer traditional kennel set up with individual runs if we have to leave our dogs in professional care.

But they don't always follow them. A someone said earlier, carrots are better than sticks.

Each to their own with regards to doggy day care. I think a properly run centre is a brilliant idea.

[Rebanne]

So non suitable owners and their dogs stay away but have to pay for it via the government. Greytmates suggestion was better.

You pay.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Rebanne

[Rebanne]

I can see it now, a lovely fenced dog park, paid for by the government but used only by a few select card carrying members of the public overseen by a paid employee. But OMG, Gasp, Horror, one of the friendly dogs gets jumped on by another friendly dog and doesn't appreciate it and growls to tell the other dog it was out of line

Oh the shame, the suitable owner now becomes unsuitable and their card is taken from them, they are in disgrace, their dog has obviously not had enough training or socialisation but they somehow got a card, how embarrassing

Maybe the suitable dog owners would have to wear a big yellow tick or something on their clothing to make sure they were easily identifiable from a distance so all the non suitable owners could marvel at their superior dog training skills.

[Blackdogs]

It seems Greyhound people are particularly averse to the concept.

I suspect there are a few pats on the back going on in PM land along with tips on perfecting the art of sarcasm. You wouldn't by any chance be all friends now would you?

Ahh well, as with everything, some people will agree, some people will disagree.

[tdierikx]

It's not just "Greyhound people" who are averse to it... I'm totally over the concept of everyone wanting to get some sort of reward for doing the right thing - too many people nowadays with the "what's in it for me" attitude...

Whatever happened to people just doing the right thing because it's the bloody right thing to do?

T.

[sparkycat]

It's not just "Greyhound people" who are averse to it... I'm totally over the concept of everyone wanting to get some sort of reward for doing the right thing - too many people nowadays with the "what's in it for me" attitude...

Whatever happened to people just doing the right thing because it's the bloody right thing to do?

T.

Agree !

[Dame Aussie]

I've never owned a greyhound, and I don't think this is a good idea.

No dog is foolproof and obedience training only goes so far. This to me is just not necessary, I see dogs at cafes near me all the time with no issues?

My personal view is that council and government already have their dirty little fingers all over dog ownership and something like this will just restrict more people and their dogs.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Aussie3

[spyda62]

I am not averse to this idea because I am "greyhound" person.

I am averse to it because it is just such a flawed theory. I pay plenty of taxes and council rates already and dont want to pay more for a system that I know, I will fail with one of my dogs and be deemed an irresposible dog owner.

My dogs are with us nearly all the time as it is. I dont see how this idea is going to be of any benfit what so ever to someone like me.

[Rebanne]

I suspect there are a few pats on the back going on in PM land along with tips on perfecting the art of sarcasm. You wouldn't by any chance be all friends now would you?

Don't flatter yourself, you are nowhere near as important to others as you are to yourself

[jacqui835]

To answer several concerns at once:

I think the government needs to sink more money into responsible pet ownership, so I don't have grievances with a subsidised program. However, it would make for an interesting enterprise.

The the idea would be to provide sociable dogs with places to mingle, so DINOS and other less sociable dogs wouldn't be suited to this environment and I doubt owners of these kinds of dogs would seek out this kind of interaction anyway.

Not being elligible to use these facilities doesn't indicate that you're a bad owner, just that you're not suitable. I do think it would provide incentives for people to socialise and train their dogs, though. Plus, it would provide people with safer places for their dogs to mingle.

The system I'm talking about would not be used in any other setting than newly created facilities, so people who didn't want to be involved wouldn't have to be involved and nothing for them would change.

You think the government should buy land and facilities , and then only allow certain people to use them, based on a doggy personality test? I don't think you will convince any government that that is an effective use of money in promoting responsible animal ownership.

The more dogs you mingle, the higher the chance that there will be incidents of 'irresponsibility.'

The reward for being a responsible dog owner is already there. The dog is safe and happy.

Never thought I'd say this but I agree with Greytmate. I would not consider that an incentive anyway, there are lots of off-lead areas available - and whilst I've had a couple of incidents, I haven't seen anything yet (in 2 states and visiting just about every off-lead area around) that would make me stop going. You get better at identifying dogs that are going to be problems, and I'll just leave now if I see something I don't like and go elsewhere. May have to drive a bit further but you can always find somewhere safe for your dog to run off-lead and happy. Even in Centennial Park, Sydney, you could avoid the popular areas and just spend quality time with your dog. If you want to play with other dogs, organise play dates with responsible owners you know, or people from these forums - I've done it and it's been very successful.

I don't want to have to leave my dog at home all the time when I have taken the time, and hence know that he is not a liability. That would be a great incentive for me. And for others. Because I have been asked by a few doberman owners how I can sit outside a cafe with my dog, when other large dogs walk past who try to have a go at him and yet my dog ignores them - they have to leave their dogs at home. And the general public needs to see is that we're not the exception, and that most dogs can be trained to the point where they will be non-reactive unless there is a real threat. And if they can't well I would be arguing we need to revise our breeding standards - but that's a whole other argument and one I won't go into here...

[jacqui835]

It seems Greyhound people are particularly averse to the concept.

I suspect there are a few pats on the back going on in PM land along with tips on perfecting the art of sarcasm. You wouldn't by any chance be all friends now would you?

Ahh well, as with everything, some people will agree, some people will disagree.

Yes and there are some people you will never convince - alone though we will never make any changes and the public will continue to hold the opinions they currently do of the place of dogs in society, how to raise them and what to expect from them. I think some people are missing a point here. Through an incentives program people could see the advantages of proper dog ownership - and realise that having a dog that is poorly behaved and can't be taken out is the fault almost always of the owner. But if instead of talking about that and how to achieve the goals we all have for our dogs and dogs in general, people would prefer to make sarcastic remarks and shut people down - well, it's hard to have hope isn't it.

[Rebanne]

It seems Greyhound people are particularly averse to the concept.

I suspect there are a few pats on the back going on in PM land along with tips on perfecting the art of sarcasm. You wouldn't by any chance be all friends now would you?

Ahh well, as with everything, some people will agree, some people will disagree.

Yes and there are some people you will never convince - alone though we will never make any changes and the public will continue to hold the opinions they currently do of the place of dogs in society, how to raise them and what to expect from them. I think some people are missing a point here. Through an incentives program people could see the advantages of proper dog ownership - and realise that having a dog that is poorly behaved and can't be taken out is the fault almost always of the owner. But if instead of talking about that and how to achieve the goals we all have for our dogs and dogs in general, people would prefer to make sarcastic remarks and shut people down - well, it's hard to have hope isn't it.

you're a fine one to talk when you have a dog that goes around pissing on people