Rewarding Good Ownership.

[~Anne~]

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.

Precisely. You have just described a very legitimate and realistic scenario as well.

My dogs, Pugs, are very, very, very sociable. They are a breed known for their social and docile nature. However, they're dogs. They still will have a grumble if need be and they are often attacked by other dogs who are normally social dogs and not aggressive simply because they do not read canine body language well.

[rebelsquest]

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.

How bloody rude.

Oh and yes, people have nothing better to do with their time than decide to team up on you :rolleyes:

People don't like your idea, and have provided numerous reasons why, but it must be because 1. they all own the same breed and 2. they are friends and are ganging up on you.

Get over yourself.

[Greytmate]

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.

No, not friends and no PMs.

Sorry the sarcasm didn't work. My analogy with children was particularly apt to show the naivety of your idea

So let me de-construct what you are suggesting, to show you the objections again. It isn't surprising that forum members that live in different states that never talk to each other can see how objectionable the plan is, because we don't need to know each other to know how dogs behave.

I don't know who you are, but you don't seem to understand how different breeds are likely to behave, with or without formal training. Most dog behaviour is guided by genetics. You cannot make a maltese dog act like a greyhound or a Boston terrier act like a German shepherd. You may not believe this, but those who have been around purebreed dogs a long time understand it well. It is the reason we have purebred dogs. They have different tendencies, levels of trainability, levels of activity and re-activeness which are not really altered by obedience training. You idea of one test for all dogs that will determine if they are good or not is a really bad idea. There is no consensus with dog owners of what is desirable behaviour and nor should there be. We all like different sorts of dogs.

All we need is a list of things that are against the law and we can go from there, thanks. Your idea of what makes a good dog is likely to be different from those of other people, and we don't need the government to step in and decide what is 'good' in dogs and should be rewarded. We all just need to stay within the Dog Control Acts. A good dog is its own reward.

Some of us in greyhounds have had a lot of experience with behaviour testing of dogs and we know it is a very imperfect science. While we use it as a tool to to determine rehomability of dogs, they are not as effective at determining what should happen with dogs that are privately owned. In fact many people would find it offensive to be told that their dog has a flaw in its personality that might mean it is less social than another dog. The same way that they would be offended if they were told their child had a social problem, just because the child failed a standardised ten minute test on a certain day.

A person might decide to go to a qualified person to investigate or test to see if a child has a social problem, because to do so means that help can be made available. In your plan, there is no help. The resources go only to those that are deemed normal and social, and those that are not are rejected and discriminated against. That isn't an incentive for responsible dog ownership.

What age should a dog be tested? Should puppies be automatically deemed naughty and out of control? This is your scheme Blackdogs, so you need to tell us what is a fair age for testing and whether there is anything that can happen if a 'good dog goes bad.' How are the good dogs physically identified in your concept? How often are they tested?

Your first post said your idea was sketchy. You obviously don't have much experience in dealing with some of the problems people can run into with dogs. Take it from some people that have worked with dogs for many years that your plan is unworkable in many different ways. Even if we could magically devise a perfect test that would work for this, the costs of implementation of the test would be huge and not present any real value to the larger community. The costs of providing and operating separate facilities for the scheme would be so huge, and the benefit so small, that the idea is very ridiculous.

So while I admire those that want to help come up with ways to improve responsible ownership, you seem unqualified to do so. A few years of working with different dogs and their owners, understanding dog behaviour better, training different breeds and working to solve problem behaviour, would give you a better idea of what things are likely to result in dog owners being more responsible, and how being a responsible owner doesn't automatically mean that a dog will be a 'good dog.' Nothing wrong with coming up with concepts, that is welcome from everyone here on DOL. But if an idea cannot work because it is totally based on a myth (responsible owner = social dog) then it should be tossed in the bin and new ideas thought of.

[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.

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

Many people's dogs piss on people. My dog peed on one person, and there's a back story. He was also a lot younger, he hasn't seen the guy in ages and it also happened to be the person I like least. I'm not saying it's acceptable, but taken out of context it could be used to support anything. If you think that's a helpful comment, and you're happier dissing people than you are trying to work together as the dog loving community to change perceptions and attitudes towards dog ownership in Australia well good luck to you.

Edited December 18, 2011 by jacqui835

[❤LovesPoodles❤]

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.

No, not friends and no PMs.

Sorry the sarcasm didn't work. My analogy with children was particularly apt to show the naivety of your idea

So let me de-construct what you are suggesting, to show you the objections again. It isn't surprising that forum members that live in different states that never talk to each other can see how objectionable the plan is, because we don't need to know each other to know how dogs behave.

I don't know who you are, but you don't seem to understand how different breeds are likely to behave, with or without formal training. Most dog behaviour is guided by genetics. You cannot make a maltese dog act like a greyhound or a Boston terrier act like a German shepherd. You may not believe this, but those who have been around purebreed dogs a long time understand it well. It is the reason we have purebred dogs. They have different tendencies, levels of trainability, levels of activity and re-activeness which are not really altered by obedience training. You idea of one test for all dogs that will determine if they are good or not is a really bad idea. There is no consensus with dog owners of what is desirable behaviour and nor should there be. We all like different sorts of dogs.

All we need is a list of things that are against the law and we can go from there, thanks. Your idea of what makes a good dog is likely to be different from those of other people, and we don't need the government to step in and decide what is 'good' in dogs and should be rewarded. We all just need to stay within the Dog Control Acts. A good dog is its own reward.

Some of us in greyhounds have had a lot of experience with behaviour testing of dogs and we know it is a very imperfect science. While we use it as a tool to to determine rehomability of dogs, they are not as effective at determining what should happen with dogs that are privately owned. In fact many people would find it offensive to be told that their dog has a flaw in its personality that might mean it is less social than another dog. The same way that they would be offended if they were told their child had a social problem, just because the child failed a standardised ten minute test on a certain day.

A person might decide to go to a qualified person to investigate or test to see if a child has a social problem, because to do so means that help can be made available. In your plan, there is no help. The resources go only to those that are deemed normal and social, and those that are not are rejected and discriminated against. That isn't an incentive for responsible dog ownership.

What age should a dog be tested? Should puppies be automatically deemed naughty and out of control? This is your scheme Blackdogs, so you need to tell us what is a fair age for testing and whether there is anything that can happen if a 'good dog goes bad.' How are the good dogs physically identified in your concept? How often are they tested?

Your first post said your idea was sketchy. You obviously don't have much experience in dealing with some of the problems people can run into with dogs. Take it from some people that have worked with dogs for many years that your plan is unworkable in many different ways. Even if we could magically devise a perfect test that would work for this, the costs of implementation of the test would be huge and not present any real value to the larger community. The costs of providing and operating separate facilities for the scheme would be so huge, and the benefit so small, that the idea is very ridiculous.

So while I admire those that want to help come up with ways to improve responsible ownership, you seem unqualified to do so. A few years of working with different dogs and their owners, understanding dog behaviour better, training different breeds and working to solve problem behaviour, would give you a better idea of what things are likely to result in dog owners being more responsible, and how being a responsible owner doesn't automatically mean that a dog will be a 'good dog.' Nothing wrong with coming up with concepts, that is welcome from everyone here on DOL. But if an idea cannot work because it is totally based on a myth (responsible owner = social dog) then it should be tossed in the bin and new ideas thought of.

WELL SAID!

[❤LovesPoodles❤]

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

Many people's dogs piss on people. My dog peed on one person, and there's a back story. He was also a lot younger, he hasn't seen the guy in ages and it also happened to be the person I like least. I'm not saying it's acceptable, but taken out of context it could be used to support anything. If you think that's a helpful comment, and you're happier dissing people than you are trying to work together as the dog loving community to change perceptions and attitudes towards dog ownership in Australia well good luck to you.

I'm sorry but I can say I have never seen a dog piss on someone? Sure you have a puppy at home have an accident on someone but a dog actually go up and piss on someone in public I don't think many people have dogs that do this.

[rebelsquest]

Many people's dogs piss on people. My dog peed on one person, and there's a back story. He was also a lot younger, he hasn't seen the guy in ages and it also happened to be the person I like least. I'm not saying it's acceptable, but taken out of context it could be used to support anything. If you think that's a helpful comment, and you're happier dissing people than you are trying to work together as the dog loving community to change perceptions and attitudes towards dog ownership in Australia well good luck to you.

I'm sorry but I can say I have never seen a dog piss on someone? Sure you have a puppy at home have an accident on someone but a dog actually go up and piss on someone in public I don't think many people have dogs that do this.

+1. And whatever the "back story" is, I don't think that makes it acceptable in any way. I can't think of any context where peeing on someone would be ok.

[jacqui835]

Go to a dog park, you'll see plenty of people get pissed on. The last time this issue was discussed plenty of people said their dogs had peed on people, just in their cases the dogs didn't discriminate. In my case, my dog only peed on one guy. It wasn't in public, it was at our house. We've already talked about it and worked out it was my fault, but if you guys are determined to go OT and bring it up again... I was so stressed by having the guy around and I own a dog who is both very intelligent and very sensitive to me. As a result, he picked up on it, and to reassure himself, he covered up the smell of the problem with himself. The man behaved very threateningly towards me, I was scared and angry and crying. It wasn't a great situation, but he was a puppy and I had never been so stressed before. He hasn't peed on anyone since - we now live in a different state. I have spoken to the breeder about it, and she said she wasn't really surprised at the level of sensitivity - it's common in her dogs and when she screens potential buyers her main concern is that you can look after the dog for its whole life, as she took 2 back from bad homes and it was very hard to get them to bond to new owners. I didn't think the behaviour was acceptable but he's a different dog now as an adult too.

Now at our dog sports club I've told them about it too and they have a different name for it. They say Sammy just has very high pack drive and he is very responsive to me.

Now please, if you want to talk more about it, PM me - it's totally OT in this thread.

[Rebanne]

Go to a dog park, you'll see plenty of people get pissed on. The last time this issue was discussed plenty of people said their dogs had peed on people, just in their cases the dogs didn't discriminate. In my case, my dog only peed on one guy. It wasn't in public, it was at our house.

Now at our dog sports club I've told them about it too and they have a different name for it. They say Sammy just has very high pack drive and he is very responsive to me.

Now please, if you want to talk more about it, PM me - it's totally OT in this thread.

it is not off topic as this thread is about rewarding good behaviour by both dog and owner and the thread was started in Oct so your dog was hardly much younger and peed on at least 3 different people.

[jacqui835]

Go to a dog park, you'll see plenty of people get pissed on. The last time this issue was discussed plenty of people said their dogs had peed on people, just in their cases the dogs didn't discriminate. In my case, my dog only peed on one guy. It wasn't in public, it was at our house.

Now at our dog sports club I've told them about it too and they have a different name for it. They say Sammy just has very high pack drive and he is very responsive to me.

Now please, if you want to talk more about it, PM me - it's totally OT in this thread.

it is not off topic as this thread is about rewarding good behaviour by both dog and owner and the thread was started in Oct so your dog was hardly much younger and peed on at least 3 different people.

Nope. But I'm not going to argue with you anymore, it's obviously pointless and I don't even know who you are or care what you think about me or my dog. It is completely OT - re-read the OP if you need to. I'll help you. This thread is about whether you think there should be incentives for responsible owners, and what those incentives should be - and of course how the whole process should/could be implemented. If you would like to talk about something else, or just attack particular members (which btw in case you were wondering, I feel you are currently doing to me), feel free, but don't do in this thread - you're ruining any chance we have of having a constructive discussion about what I (and obviously many other members) believe is a very important issue. If what you're interested in is instead me and my dog (reflected by your last x posts), just PM me.

[Rebanne]

Go to a dog park, you'll see plenty of people get pissed on. The last time this issue was discussed plenty of people said their dogs had peed on people, just in their cases the dogs didn't discriminate. In my case, my dog only peed on one guy. It wasn't in public, it was at our house.

Now at our dog sports club I've told them about it too and they have a different name for it. They say Sammy just has very high pack drive and he is very responsive to me.

Now please, if you want to talk more about it, PM me - it's totally OT in this thread.

it is not off topic as this thread is about rewarding good behaviour by both dog and owner and the thread was started in Oct so your dog was hardly much younger and peed on at least 3 different people.

Nope. But I'm not going to argue with you anymore, it's obviously pointless and I don't even know who you are or care what you think about me or my dog. It is completely OT - re-read the OP if you need to. I'll help you. This thread is about whether you think there should be incentives for responsible owners, and what those incentives should be - and of course how the whole process should/could be implemented. If you would like to talk about something else, or just attack particular members (which btw in case you were wondering, I feel you are currently doing to me), feel free, but don't do in this thread - you're ruining any chance we have of having a constructive discussion about what I (and obviously many other members) believe is a very important issue. If what you're interested in is instead me and my dog (reflected by your last x posts), just PM me.

exactly! responsible dog owners

[jacqui835]

Go to a dog park, you'll see plenty of people get pissed on. The last time this issue was discussed plenty of people said their dogs had peed on people, just in their cases the dogs didn't discriminate. In my case, my dog only peed on one guy. It wasn't in public, it was at our house.

Now at our dog sports club I've told them about it too and they have a different name for it. They say Sammy just has very high pack drive and he is very responsive to me.

Now please, if you want to talk more about it, PM me - it's totally OT in this thread.

it is not off topic as this thread is about rewarding good behaviour by both dog and owner and the thread was started in Oct so your dog was hardly much younger and peed on at least 3 different people.

Nope. But I'm not going to argue with you anymore, it's obviously pointless and I don't even know who you are or care what you think about me or my dog. It is completely OT - re-read the OP if you need to. I'll help you. This thread is about whether you think there should be incentives for responsible owners, and what those incentives should be - and of course how the whole process should/could be implemented. If you would like to talk about something else, or just attack particular members (which btw in case you were wondering, I feel you are currently doing to me), feel free, but don't do in this thread - you're ruining any chance we have of having a constructive discussion about what I (and obviously many other members) believe is a very important issue. If what you're interested in is instead me and my dog (reflected by your last x posts), just PM me.

exactly! responsible dog owners

Exactly - do you think they should be rewarded? Who cares whether you think I'm responsible or not, you don't know me, you don't know my dog and I don't know that you're the best person to be assessing us. But how do you think it should be assessed? And by who? I suggested something along the lines of a new title that was awarded on the grounds of your dog passing a basic obedience test and then also a social reaction test - ie do they react negatively to other dogs, people etc. What do they do when you sit down at a table? Ideally you'd want a dog that stays at your side, doesn't react and lays down when you sit down. And of course trained to toilet on command. Once you passed I think you should be allowed to have your dog with you under more circumstances. I think this would be a good incentive for all dog owners, but I also think it would be great for society on the whole to see more dogs out and about not causing problems (not just guide dogs). As is it now, most people seem to think you're the exception if you have the well-trained dog. I would like this to change, and for the people with poorly behaved unsocialised dogs to be the exception.

What do you think?

[Rebanne]

Go to a dog park, you'll see plenty of people get pissed on. The last time this issue was discussed plenty of people said their dogs had peed on people, just in their cases the dogs didn't discriminate. In my case, my dog only peed on one guy. It wasn't in public, it was at our house.

Now at our dog sports club I've told them about it too and they have a different name for it. They say Sammy just has very high pack drive and he is very responsive to me.

Now please, if you want to talk more about it, PM me - it's totally OT in this thread.

it is not off topic as this thread is about rewarding good behaviour by both dog and owner and the thread was started in Oct so your dog was hardly much younger and peed on at least 3 different people.

Nope. But I'm not going to argue with you anymore, it's obviously pointless and I don't even know who you are or care what you think about me or my dog. It is completely OT - re-read the OP if you need to. I'll help you. This thread is about whether you think there should be incentives for responsible owners, and what those incentives should be - and of course how the whole process should/could be implemented. If you would like to talk about something else, or just attack particular members (which btw in case you were wondering, I feel you are currently doing to me), feel free, but don't do in this thread - you're ruining any chance we have of having a constructive discussion about what I (and obviously many other members) believe is a very important issue. If what you're interested in is instead me and my dog (reflected by your last x posts), just PM me.

exactly! responsible dog owners

Exactly - do you think they should be rewarded? Who cares whether you think I'm responsible or not, you don't know me, you don't know my dog and I don't know that you're the best person to be assessing us. But how do you think it should be assessed? And by who? I suggested something along the lines of a new title that was awarded on the grounds of your dog passing a basic obedience test and then also a social reaction test - ie do they react negatively to other dogs, people etc. What do they do when you sit down at a table? Ideally you'd want a dog that stays at your side, doesn't react and lays down when you sit down. And of course trained to toilet on command. Once you passed I think you should be allowed to have your dog with you under more circumstances. I think this would be a good incentive for all dog owners, but I also think it would be great for society on the whole to see more dogs out and about not causing problems (not just guide dogs). As is it now, most people seem to think you're the exception if you have the well-trained dog. I would like this to change, and for the people with poorly behaved unsocialised dogs to be the exception.

What do you think?

I think is is discrimination pure and simple. And only a short step to excluding all dogs who don't have the magical card to being banned from being out in public, to, in the extreme, being put down cause they don't have the card. Plenty of DINOS would sit quietly at a cafe table or walk around the street, if the owners of the friendly dog who justs wants to say hi would keep the bloody things under control.

[anniek]

As is it now, most people seem to think you're the exception if you have the well-trained dog. I would like this to change, and for the people with poorly behaved unsocialised dogs to be the exception.

What do you think?

Well trained/behaved dogs are very much the exception.

But then I'm one of those greyhound people so what would I know

[~Anne~]

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. :

so rude.

There's that pot, kettle and black scenario again and, once again, you react when people offer an opposing opinion.

Maybe you need to take a good look at yourself in the mirror. . See I added a smiley too.

[Blackdogs]

Oh dear. I've angered the hordes.

Well, obviously it's not an idea that everyone agrees on, it's just a shame we can't discuss it without sarcasm and insults.

This thread has lost any constructive element it might have had under different circumstances so this will be my last input in to it.

[~Anne~]

And the collusion inference made by you wasn't insulting?

Good grief.

[rebelsquest]

And the collusion inference made by you wasn't insulting?

Good grief.

+1, :rolleyes:

[Erny]

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?

I personally don't want anymore laws that relate to any prohibition. We're flooded with such laws. It is stifling and we're being left with less and less room to move, is the way I feel.

I think it deserves to make the seeking of education more encouraging though and to let people know that the getting of education is possible, that there are people out there to help them; that what they do does influence what their dog does. But please ..... not laws. We're over-regulated as it is, especially in Victoria.

I'd like to see "General Common Sense" make a come-back, become more trendy :D. In my dreams ... <sigh>

ETA: Personally, I think that if more and more people join in on doing the right thing (common sense and courtesy-wise) then it would gain in popularity without the necessity for laws and thus without resistance.

ETA: A regular spot in the local-rag along the lines of "responsible pet owner corner", mentioning name of owner, including a picture, and why the person is a responsible dog/pet owner, could be a nice start.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Erny