Welcome to PetForums

Join thousands of other pet owners and pet lovers on the UK's most popular and friendly pet community and discussion forum.

Sign Up

Dog Ownership Suitability Test

Discussion in 'Dog Chat' started by Johnderondon, Aug 11, 2009.


  1. Johnderondon

    Johnderondon PetForums VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    131
    How to prevent dog attacks.

    The Dog Owner Suitability Test Proposal - Official Consultation


    Briefly, this is how it would work:

    Before you can buy a dog you apply for and sit a basic theory test (called the DOT) - a bit like the driving theory test - for which you pay £40 and, like a driving test, once you've passed that's it for life.

    This means that only people who are at least marginally committed and prepared to learn basic animal care and the legal responsibilities of dog ownership can legally buy a dog. Straight away this targets the worst 5-10% of owners - those who purchase a dog from a bloke in the pub, those with no interest beyond looking tough or fashionable, those who pass a petshop window and plunge into dog ownership completely unprepared. The need to pass a test will deter some would-be owners and make others educate themselves which is even better.

    The proposal incorporates a Suppler-level DOT (SDOT) which everyone who sells of gifts a dog must pass. The purpose of the SDOT is twofold - on the one hand it is an advanced DOT ensuring that suppliers have some expertise but mainly it is a way of ensuring the suppliers police the DOT because if they sell to an unDOT'ed buyer then they risk losing their SDOT and, without their SDOT, They won't be able to advertise, they wont be able to legally sell and their business will fail. As a spin-off benefit the SDOT provides a framework that, for the first time, incorporates every breeder large or small, commercial or hobbyist.

    The proposal also includes a legal burden on all media accepting advertisements for dogs to ensure that the advertiser holds a valid SDOT.

    Additionally the proposal includes other aspects that are required to make the whole thing workable, including a £10 per dog annual license, mandatory permanent identification and 3rd party insurance.

    The idea is radical and completely at odds with government.

    I like it.
     
  2. Blitz

    Blitz PetForums VIP

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    18,630
    Likes Received:
    15,071
    sounds very intrusive and completely unworkable. The only people that would take it are the responsible owners, the others would carry on as before. Sorry, it wont help because no one would bother policing it.
     
  3. Patterdale_lover

    Patterdale_lover PetForums VIP

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,564
    Likes Received:
    172
    I understand about making sure dogs have better homes etc.
    but GOD! there is no freedome anymore.
    We have to pass tests to have companions now!
    I'm not gonna even start :rolleyes:
     
  4. HighPr00

    HighPr00 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    18
    I think it's a great idea. :cool::
     
  5. Miss.PuddyCat

    Miss.PuddyCat PetForums VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    3,917
    Likes Received:
    43
    What about people who are horrible at tests or a learning disability of some form that want to own a dog?

    Im horrible, i failed my drivers test twice in the space of a week before i passed on my third try :cool:

    since driving im very carefull but ive nearly given my dad a heart attack a few times :rolleyes:
     
  6. *WillsTillsBills*

    *WillsTillsBills* PetForums Senior

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    520
    Likes Received:
    10
    Hmmm I think it would make people think twice, but at the same time, I agree, that not everybody is good at test and don't cope well in a test environment... I think there should be a dog licence but how it would work/be policed without rules and reg becoming tighter and tighter on dog owners I'm not sure.
     
  7. bird

    bird PetForums VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    8,177
    Likes Received:
    230
    I'm sorry but they can sod off, how dare they ask about the future I dont even know whats in the future. Would they refuse a licence on the basis of an incorrect answer on that one.
     
  8. Happy Paws2

    Happy Paws2 PetForums VIP

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    30,030
    Likes Received:
    22,972
    Yes it is, but only sensible people would take it. The idiots wouldn't both but they still would have dogs. So there would be no point having one.
     
  9. EmzieAngel

    EmzieAngel PetForums VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    79
    I don't think it would work.

    Take my brother for example, he can learn about things really quickly and knows quite a lot about sport, but writing it down on paper is a challenge for him and he just proved that by failing his Uni exams.

    So some dog owners may be the same.
    x
     
  10. CheekoAndCo

    CheekoAndCo PetForums VIP

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,265
    Likes Received:
    68
    There's alot of drivers out on the roads without a license who the police haven't caught. So if they can't catch people out in cars driving dangerously etc then what chances do they have of catching people who haven't taken a test on dog ownership.
     
  11. Johnderondon

    Johnderondon PetForums VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    131
    Thank you. I see that the proposal's author contributed substantially to that thread but you had reservations about how it would be policed.

    The idea is that it is largely self-policing - the media check suppliers and suppliers, in their own self-interest, police buyers - leaving the authorities to focus their efforts and resources on the hardcore of non-compliants. By freeing up wasted resources currently invested in Sec. 1, DDA and bringing new money it will doubly assist that refocus.

    You got there in the end :) Like the driving theory test it would be designed to educate, not to trip people up or try to make them fail. The idea is to empower owners by giving them the basics and, like the driving test, you can always take it again.

    Who's asking about the future?

    Idiots who don't get a DOT will find it difficult to persuade anyone to supply them with a dog. This is the beauty of this idea - the supplier, if he is a business, needs to be able to advertise in the media. He needs an SDOT and it would not be worth risking that SDOT for any one puppy sale. The suppliers will become DOT policemen, while the media become SDOT policemen.

    Sure, they'll always be people who break the law. Any law. But that's not a reason not to have laws. Think how much worse the roads would be if we didn't have a driving test. If people could just get a car and 'have a go' at driving? Because that's what we've got with dogs. Anyone, regardless of knowledge and ability can go out and get any dog they want and, when they create a terrible pile-up, can just go back out and get another one. Whilst the law tries to pin the blame on whichever breed is unfortunate enpough to be popular with these muppets.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice