# Compulsory Dog Training Classes for all pet dogs. No exceptions.



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

i was listening to an item on Radio 4 yesterday about dog bits, and ,as you can imagine, may people were phoning in with comments.

One lady stated that in Switzerland, when you get a puppy you must attend compulsory dog training classes and pass the test at the end. If you fail the test, you must retake the classes. They didn't say what would happen if you failed again, but by her comments it would appear you had to relinquish the dog, as to ow a dog, you must have passed the test with that dog (a course and test for every dog you own). I cannot remember how long the course was- I think 3 months- it certainly wasn't just a couple of classes. I'm not sure how this is policed, but it would seem it is.

Go!

I feel, in theory, this is an excellent idea. How it would pan out in practice is another thing.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*As a dog owner i would hate it if i was made to go to dog training classes. In all the years i have had dogs i have never been to one class.
My dogs are far from perfect, but that's how i like them.*


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Owning a Dog in Basel « LifeInBasel

This is a blog, so may not be entirely accurate. I like the idea of doing a theoretical course before buying and a practice one after.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Why would you hate it?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Old Shep said:


> Why would you hate it?


*Because i feel the way i raise my dogs is down to me alone. What one person might think is right i might not.
Same as i wouldn't want someone telling me how to raise my kids.*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I wouldn't like it either. When I adopted Indie part of our contract with the rescue (which we agreed to and signed) was to take her to puppy classes at 6 months of age and get a signed form from the class to say we had completed the course. I'm not sure what they would have done if we hadn't but as I'd agreed to it I set about trying to find a class. I visited a few and to be honest picked the best of those but there were many things I still wasn't happy about and didn't agree with. I didn't want to be a PITA owner disagreeing with everything so I kept quiet and did what I had to do. It didn't help Indie at all. She is still scared of a lot of dogs. She found the class completely overwhelming, on one occasion when the next class up (which was much larger and wasn't pups) came into the hall a bit early the noise was so loud with a couple of big dogs really going at each other. Indie got more and more distressed and got away from me and threw herself at the door. No suggestions were made or offers of help so I took her outside but could see she was beyond calming/reassuring. Luckily that was our last class of 6 so we got our form signed. I tried to take her back once after that but she was still terrified so I called it a day. I think classes suit some dogs and not others so no I wouldn't like to be forced to take them with every dog.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

But surely if the classes were of a good standard, they could only help?

The vast majority of dog owners and not as committed as the people on his forum. We are not representative of the general dog owning public (as I am always pointing out to people with ill prepared "surveys").

If it was only possible to buy puppoes from regulated breeders and prospective owners could not take the pup home without evidence of having successfully complete a theoretical test, how can there be any objections? Sounds like common sense to me.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2015)

Another thing to consider is who would provide the training. 

I do like the idea of a dog and handler having some basic requirements for public access, but I think it should be up to them how they train for that.

And then of course is the expense of monitoring and enforcing such a requirement. Does no good if it's not enforced.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Old Shep said:


> But surely if the classes were of a good standard, they could only help?
> 
> The vast majority of dog owners and not as committed as the people on his forum. We are not representative of the general dog owning public (as I am always pointing out to people with ill prepared "surveys").
> 
> If it was only possible to buy puppoes from regulated breeders and prospective owners could not take the pup home without evidence of having successfully complete a theoretical test, how can there be any objections? Sounds like common sense to me.


But we all have different ideas about what constitutes a good standard. The classes I went to were considered of a good standard but I found some of the advice still to be outdated and worrying. One example - one owner attended with her young son, she mentioned to the trainer how the pup was not happy with her son being around in close proximity when pup was eating and pup had grumbled a couple of times. The trainer advised she must get the pup used to the child taking away its food and giving it back. I asked if that wouldn't make the pup even more protective of its food and wouldn't it be more sensible to get child to feed the dog, giving a small amount in the bowl then adding to it but no, child should go and pick the bowl up while the pup was eating. This was a class for taking KCGC awards. Another owner had a pup barking at dogs out on walks so a citronella collar was loaned to her


----------



## Rahoulb (Dec 17, 2013)

We keep seeing the odd post on here where people are saying "and the trainer picked her up by the choke chain" or said "you need to show the dog who's boss". I wouldn't want to force people to go to classes with trainers like that. 

A better idea would be compulsory training classes for owners - with one simple rule that is drummed into your head over six weeks - if the other dog is on the lead it is NOT OK for your dog to go over to it, whether he wants to play or not.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

AFAIK, the theoretical training prior to acquiring a pup is about welfare needs- not training.

Surely* there can be no objection to that?

Also the classes which have to be taken are from people who have a specific qualification. 

As far as expense goes, I'm sorry, but if someone is acquiring a pup and they cannot afford classes, they should not be getting a pup. Classes are a damn sight cheaper than insurance or vet fees!


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Mine all went to classes and I would do it again, but as to making it compulsory and giving/having no choice then I don't think it could work if it just became a blanket order..

What I would like to see though would be people with out of control dogs or ones that allow them to bark and be a general pain in the A non stop be made to go and complete a course (assuming the problem is just lack of proper management and training). I could see that working and helping. 

Don't they do something similar for driving now, you have to on a course of some sort and pass, instead of being given points all the time, depending on the offence.


----------



## Ownedbymany (Nov 16, 2014)

Good idea in theory but what happens to dogs that cant be trained in 3 months or 6 months if they have to retake the class. There are a lot of dogs out there that have issues that cant be fixed straight away and some where you can only try to improve things rather than fix them....

If these classes are solely for puppies than they could be brilliant if run correctly to prevent problems in the first place but what about older rehomes/rescues? Can you keep your dog if the dog isn't easily fixed as long as management strategies are used? What about medical issues?

Or what happens after the class is passed and the owner just gets lazy with maintaining the training? Or something happens to the dog to make it reactive? Or shy owners who's confidence falls to bits when others in the class are doing better/don't perform well if they feel pressure?

I'm all for education but I'm not sure it would work very well in practice.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

What would be put in place for those dogs who aren't suitable for attending group classes? Or for those people who work odd shifts and can't attend a class on a set day every week? People with disabilities that make it difficult to attend classes? Dogs who've retaken the test time after time and keep on failing? Depending on what was on the test there could well be dogs who would never pass it and not just due to a lack of competence by the owner or a lack of work put in.

In theory, yeah, great. In practice though I think there are a hell of a lot of what ifs to think about. And how it would be enforced is beyond me. Again it would be something that the responsible owners would bother doing and the irresponsible wouldn't.

I have no objection going to classes with my dog, I enjoy them and he enjoys them and I think they certainly benefit new dog owners. But do I actually need them to teach my dog basic manners? No. Will I need them 3 or 4 dogs down the road to teach my dog basic manners? No.


----------



## Snowdog (Mar 3, 2015)

so wheres all the dog trainers gonna come from?
there wouldnt be enough


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Because i feel the way i raise my dogs is down to me alone. What one person might think is right i might not.
> Same as i wouldn't want someone telling me how to raise my kids.*


Training on how to raise kids before having them! now that would be a good idea.



Snowdog said:


> so wheres all the dog trainers gonna come from?
> there wouldnt be enough


I think PF could provide one or two :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## sezeelson (Jul 5, 2011)

My puppy and my rescue was taken to classes when I got them. I believe training helps strengthen the bond as well as all the practical benefits. I feel I could have trained Runa without classes but I need structure so classes where more for me then her!

I don't agree with compulsory classes for each and every dog you aquire. What about foster carers? Especially emergency/temp fosters! They couldn't take a 3 month test for every dog they get in! And as already raised its far to easy to fall into a class with someone who follows outdated methods.

I do agree with a class for owners though taught by professionals with an up to date qualifications in animal behaviour and welfare.
Main topics being the five freedoms in detail. As well as canine first aid, canine body language in brief, children and dogs, dog walking etiquette and safety, finding the right dog for you with emphasis on rescue and genuine breeders (with health tested parents and contracts etc). There would be a test at the end and passing would grant you an ownership licence.

Profits from the classes could go towards enforcement of the licence? Just my opinion anyway


----------



## Snowdog (Mar 3, 2015)

northnsouth said:


> Training on how to raise kids before having them! now that would be a good idea.
> 
> I think PF could provide one or two :smilewinkgrin:


youd need about 40, 000 to cover the 8 and 1/2 million dog owners

theres only about 8 million humans in switzerland


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

In theory it sounds like a good idea but hard to implement and enforce.

One thing though. I don't believe owners should have to pass a test. Some people just go to pieces under pressure but may be perfectly competent. Perhaps a certificate to say you have participated and completed instead.


----------



## Snowdog (Mar 3, 2015)

Poundingpaws said:


> In theory it sounds like a good idea but hard to implement and enforce.
> 
> One thing though. I don't believe owners should have to pass a test. Some people just go to pieces under pressure but may be perfectly competent. Perhaps a certificate to say you have participated and completed instead.


what sort of test?


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Some classes are absolutely atrociously run and stressful for the dogs involved. 

I wouldn't want to be forced, by law, to expose my dog to such an environment (counter-productive to providing positive experiences and confidence and good lifeskills for the world we live in).

If we could choose the class/trainer that would be another matter. BUT what if they class you choose/require has a waiting list, and the training must be completed and approved within a specific timeframe? Are you forced to go back to atrociously run, stressful class or be breaking the law?


----------



## Wiz201 (Jun 13, 2012)

I want the choice to go to classes, not be forced to. Most training is done at home; the class is used to practise it around other dogs and get confirmation from the trainer you're doing it right or instructed if doing it wrong.


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

Snowdog said:


> what sort of test?


 I assume people are talking about a competency test before owning a dog. Not quite sure what your asking me.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

If someone told me I HAD to go to dog training classes I know what my answer would be...If any of my dogs had a problem I was struggling with I would find advice (like I did with Molly from this place) but I sure as hell wouldn't have someone dump me on a training course...I dislike most people for a start...and like with Molly...fear of everything....lets shove her in a room full of dogs and people...yeh that'll work, poor girl would have had a breakdown.
The option to attend classes fair enough but I don't think it should be enforced


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2015)

Old Shep said:


> AFAIK, the theoretical training prior to acquiring a pup is about welfare needs- not training.
> 
> Surely* there can be no objection to that?
> 
> ...


I meant the expense of implementing and enforcing such a law. You would need to employ and qualify people to test competency. You would need to employ people to monitor if the law is being upheld and enforce it if it is not, these people would need to be trained as well. I'm sure there are many other expenses I haven't listed or even considered. So... where is that money coming from?


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

I wouldn't like the idea of compulsory dog classes BUT I would always take my puppy to puppy classes.


----------



## Snowdog (Mar 3, 2015)

Poundingpaws said:


> I assume people are talking about a competency test before owning a dog. Not quite sure what your asking me.


I wasn't assuming anything, I was asking you what you meant by a test?
I think you just answered my question


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

Snowdog said:


> I wasn't assuming anything, I was asking you what you meant by a test?
> I think you just answered my question


Sorry you've lost me.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Snowdog said:


> I wasn't assuming anything, I was asking you what you meant by a test?
> I think you just answered my question


The test was mentioned in the original post, I assume that's what poundingpaws was referring to in their post. You take the training course and pass a test to be deemed competent to have the dog or something like that.


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

Sarah1983 said:


> The test was mentioned in the original post, I assume that's what poundingpaws was referring to in their post. You take the training course and pass a test to be deemed competent to have the dog or something like that.


Yes that's what I was referring to Sarah.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

I completely agree with this (IN THEORY). I think all puppy owners should attend training classes. It will help their poor dogs no end rather than have an owner confusing them  That aside, there is a duty of care that your dog should be under control so basic training is a necessity.

The problem is that the trainers themselves are a lottery. There is no minimum standard or required curriculum etc. and how would the quality of the trainers be monitored? There are enough people pretending to be dog trainers that I wouldn't send any dog to other than a cuddly toy!


----------



## Snowdog (Mar 3, 2015)

Poundingpaws said:


> Sorry you've lost me.


Its my fault

Earlier you wrote:
"I don't believe owners should have to pass a test. Some people just go to pieces under pressure but may be perfectly competent. Perhaps a certificate to say you have participated and completed instead".

I was only replying to this post made by you.
That is because I have misread the above as "I DO believe owners should have to pass a test"

Im sorry


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

Snowdog said:


> Its my fault
> 
> Earlier you wrote:
> "I don't believe owners should have to pass a test. Some people just go to pieces under pressure but may be perfectly competent. Perhaps a certificate to say you have participated and completed instead".
> ...


No problem


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I'm quite surprised at the number of people who would be against a pre-ownership test. We have to take a proficiency test before we are able to drive a car or scooter. While I realise dogs are not cars, the principles the same.


Of course it'll be difficult to police and implement. Of course it would require standardisation and regulation of dog trainers (is that a bad idea?) and of course it would require money (how about strict licensing? The money going towards supporting the system)

We are only talking hypothetically though. There's absolutly no chance the UK public would countenance something like this.

I would. But I'm a bit of an old centralised leftie!


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Old Shep said:


> Why would you hate it?


I would hate it too. I like to learn new things re my dogs etc but going to a class with a load of people would do my head in.

I can see the good and bad with this idea.....its good for people who never owned a dog that they can have some instruction ...and not so good for the rest of us who don't want to mingle.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2015)

Old Shep said:


> I'm quite surprised at the number of people who would be against a pre-ownership test. We have to take a proficiency test before we are able to drive a car or scooter. While I realise dogs are not cars, the principles the same.
> 
> Of course it'll be difficult to police and implement. Of course it would require standardisation and regulation of dog trainers (is that a bad idea?) and of course it would require money (how about strict licensing? The money going towards supporting the system)
> 
> ...


What would the pre-ownership test consist of?

Drivers tests are basically knowledge of the law, and as you can see in drivers, being knowledgeable of the law doesnt stop anyone from breaking it... As can be seen by how many people speed, run red lights, text and drive, drive without licenses, etc., etc. 
So I guess I just dont see how dogs would benefit from a pre-ownership test. Those who are already responsible would continue to be so, those who are not, would continue to not be.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I believe the one in Switzerland covers the law and responsibilities. Not sure what else.

But this would be open for discussion (in my perfect world where I am queen!.)


----------



## Amelia66 (Feb 15, 2011)

people have to take a driving test and can still be absolutely **** drivers why would this make any difference in this case? People learn to pass a test not care for a dog and they can still have issues, be miss treated or neglected despite a piece of paper saying you passed one test.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> I'm quite surprised at the number of people who would be against a pre-ownership test. We have to take a proficiency test before we are able to drive a car or scooter. While I realise dogs are not cars, the principles the same.
> 
> Of course it'll be difficult to police and implement. Of course it would require standardisation and regulation of dog trainers (is that a bad idea?) and of course it would require money (how about strict licensing? The money going towards supporting the system)
> 
> ...


This is what's wrong with it. Dogs are living creatures not mechanical objects.

I've been to two classes in my dog owning life. One for pet obedience to help with my puppies obsession with other dogs, only went to 5, that's all I needed to sort my problem. Wouldn't have stayed a moment longer, didn't agree with half they spouted.

The other an agility class. Only went to about 3 of them. totally disgusted at how out of control most of the dogs were, and it was rubbing off on mine


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Imagine having a fearful puppy or rescue and being forced to attend


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But we all have different ideas about what constitutes a good standard. The classes I went to were considered of a good standard but I found some of the advice still to be outdated and worrying. One example - one owner attended with her young son, she mentioned to the trainer how the pup was not happy with her son being around in close proximity when pup was eating and pup had grumbled a couple of times. The trainer advised she must get the pup used to the child taking away its food and giving it back. I asked if that wouldn't make the pup even more protective of its food and wouldn't it be more sensible to get child to feed the dog, giving a small amount in the bowl then adding to it but no, child should go and pick the bowl up while the pup was eating. This was a class for taking KCGC awards. Another owner had a pup barking at dogs out on walks so a citronella collar was loaned to her


That's the sort of thing that would worry me about it. If there was a consistent curriculum, reward-based, I'd support the idea.

Mind you some of the people who come voluntarily to the training club I'm involved in are totally clueless, have no idea how dogs learn, don't take on board what they're told and expect results very quickly. They usually disappear after a few sessions.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

rona said:


> Imagine having a fearful puppy or rescue and being forced to attend


There's a very fearful rescue lurcher in Flossie's class. She sat at the back with her owners to start with, and their chairs have gradually moved forwards until they're in the same line as everyone else's. The dog has made huge improvements in her confidence - still balks at some exercises - but happily participates now in most of them. It's been great to see how much more confident she is now.

The trainers are all very sensitive to her needs, and the owners are spot on with how far she can go at any time.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Burrowzig said:


> There's a very fearful rescue lurcher in Flossie's class. She sat at the back with her owners to start with, and their chairs have gradually moved forwards until they're in the same line as everyone else's. The dog has made huge improvements in her confidence - still balks at some exercises - but happily participates now in most of them. It's been great to see how much more confident she is now.
> 
> The trainers are all very sensitive to her needs, and the owners are spot on with how far she can go at any time.


That's great, but what if the class/trainer was the exact opposite?

I took Jack to a couple of different training classes - he hated them, even a specific greyhound class - so I stopped taking him. He got nothing from it.

I think each dog needs to be considered as an individual.

I'm all for educating owners in general though.

There aren't enough trainers or dog wardens to implement this proposal, or police it either IMO.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> There's a very fearful rescue lurcher in Flossie's class. She sat at the back with her owners to start with, and their chairs have gradually moved forwards until they're in the same line as everyone else's. The dog has made huge improvements in her confidence - still balks at some exercises - but happily participates now in most of them. It's been great to see how much more confident she is now.
> 
> The trainers are all very sensitive to her needs, and the owners are spot on with how far she can go at any time.


I took my GSP to puppy classes but asked so many questions about rescue dallie he was invited to join, even though he was two. The first week he sat under a chair with his back to the room shaking like a leave, the next week he had a peek at what was happening,by the fourth week he was brave enough to join the puppies. I went onto have some 1 - 1 training for him. The great thing now,(he is 11),ashe loves puppies a far few people have asked for OB to help socialise theirs


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *As a dog owner i would hate it if i was made to go to dog training classes. In all the years i have had dogs i have never been to one class.
> My dogs are far from perfect, but that's how i like them.*


What she said. I train my dogs myself, always have done. Whoever made up such a stupid rule knows sweet fanny adams about dogs, is all I can say. I would expect the same for children, that parents had to pass a training class before having the little beasts. I see far more well behaved dogs and knowledgeable owners, than I do well behaved kids and knowledgeable parents.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

I hate the idea. But then I don't like being told what to do, or subscribing to making something that should really be down to the choice of the individual "compulsory". A dog is not an object like a car and the choices that I make regarding the handling and training of that dog should be my own, NOT something I'm forced to do.

I think it's human nature to object to being told what they can and can't do. So no, moving practicalities aside, I don't think it would make any difference.


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

I'm unsure what I think about it tbh, as I have always been lucky and very happy with the classes we attended and found them very informative. 

The thing is, most people on this forum are dog savvy and experienced. The majority of the public aren't. 

In my very limited experience, i was very suprised by the amount of people who turned up to the KC puppy classes (they will take pups up to a year old and with waiting lists etc there was pups 6mnths and older) who had bought a little cute bundle and allowed that little cute bundle to merrily prance about and taught it absolutely nothing and were then faced with a dog on the verge of adolescence who hadn't a notion what the owners wanted and was swiftly becoming a danger to itself and others.

Most of these dogs had owners who somehow thought the dog will magically know how to sit, stay, leave things alone, be allowed off lead and were not having the happiest of lives with their not so cute bundles now.

Surely some type of class would be better than nothing in that respect?


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

labradrk said:


> I hate the idea. But then I don't like being told what to do, or subscribing to making something that should really be down to the choice of the individual "compulsory". A dog is not an object like a car and *the choices that I make regarding the handling and training of that dog should be my own*, NOT something I'm forced to do.
> 
> I think it's human nature to object to being told what they can and can't do. So no, moving practicalities aside, I don't think it would make any difference.


And what about the people whose cultural ethos leads them to making bad decisions; the brigade for instance who train their dogs to be as aggressive as possible in order to give their owners some kudos and street cred?

By the same token, do you think it's also people's choice to bring their kids up to be thieves, bullies, druggies? What about one's obligation and responsibility to the rest of society? For some people, compulsory classes may be their only opportunity to learn about reward-based training rather than the 'old' methods such as rubbing puppies' noses in their 'accidents'.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I think how you react to this question is actually based on your political (with a small"p") standpoint.

I you believe in a society where individual freedom trumps collective responsibility, then of course you are going to say no.

I lean more towards statutory involvement in matters which affect us all- and if that requires legislation, then, so be it. But then, I don't mind the state telling me what to do becuas we we live in a democratic country and our system, while not perfect, is geared towards a "middle ground". 

In actual fact, I'd prefer more state control of matters which affect is all (eg. Vaccination, which I believe should be compulsory for all children, as it is in some countries)


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2015)

Old Shep said:


> I think how you react to this question is actually based on your political (with a small"p") standpoint.
> 
> I you believe in a society where individual freedom trumps collective responsibility, then of course you are going to say no.
> 
> ...


Oh... IDK... I think a lot of it just has to do with personal experience. I think the whole individual freedom / collective responsibility thing is a bit too simplistic. 
My stance is more just being realistic. Yeah, its a great idea in theory, but in practice what is that going to look like in the real world? And thats where youre going to see me putting on the brakes. Because in the real world, not all puppy classes are created equal. In the real world, not all puppies are created equal. In the real world, not all owners are created equal.

I have zero need to take any of my puppies to puppy classes and nor do I want them hanging out with a bunch of puppies with no impulse control. I want them hanging out with adult dogs who know how to behave and how to appropriately correct a wayward puppy. And because of my own resources, I have the ability to do this and no need for a class. It would be hugely hypocritical of me to say yeah, all those other peons need classes, but not me. Sorry, I cant say that. You have to allow for each individual case.

Im more about *personal* responsibility. Have expectations for behavior and enforce them. Then let people figure out how to meet those expectations on their own terms.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I agree its about personal experience and knowing your dog/puppy well enough to know what it can cope with. As I said earlier we had no choice we had to take Indie as part of her adoption contract but it achieved nothing for her apart from making her even more anxious around noisy bouncy dogs. 

Our classes were positive and reward based but they still gave out outdated and in my opinion sometimes dangerous advice so there would have to be very strict rules about who could run the classes and what they should cover and how plus the size of the class.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I can see your point Old Shep, I think that training classes would iron out a lot of the crap. 

But equally it was a poorly run training class that contributed to Molly's reactivity despite being clicker and positive based (a poor mix of dogs). It didn't really help me at all. I think more education is good but from the outset and with more choices. One to one helped us loads but with a behaviourist. It wasn't until Molly was 3 that I took her into a training place with that same behaviourist but having learned loads myself.

I think compulsory human training prior to getting the dog  I know that would've helped me having never heard of a reactive dog before.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

maybe it would be a better idea all round to have more puppy training classes available...so when you get your KC papers or chipping paperwork or even your puppy jabs, there could be some info on where to get training if you want it...but not to force it.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

My understanding of the Swiss model is that the pre ownership classes are compulsory.
Obviously you could not implement a change like this without first having standards set for the trainers and the content standardised. You require your proof of having co pelted the course before you can purchase a pup.

I can't see how anyone could object to that.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Old Shep said:


> I think how you react to this question is actually based on your political (with a small"p") standpoint.
> 
> I you believe in a society where individual freedom trumps collective responsibility, then of course you are going to say no.
> 
> ...


Don't you think this is a little simplistic? As humans we like to categorise stuff but I really don't think you can categorise the answers to your question according to pro either individual freedoms or collective reponsibility.

Both of those are important (I'm certainly in favour of both) and if you think in absolutes then you neglect one or the other, which is not good (both should be catered for).

It would not be in the interests of collective responsibility to insist that dog owners had their dogs attend a training class, in the instance that the remaining spaces were at poorly run classes (think about the logistics of the government regulating class standards?) which would be detrimental to the dog's learning and experiences in the world and could well have a consequential negative impact or their behaviour. 
In short it would not be collectively responsible to legally bind owners to send their dogs to classes (which may or may not be well run and beneficial)- it would be a complete lucky dip.

The dog training and behaviour industry is not standardised and is plagued by a fair few cowboys and others who, however well intentioned aren't really providing beneficial classes.

I do think a mandatory informative course for owners (without/prior to getting their dog) would be beneficial; covering aspects such as basics of training (learning theory in simple terms), important behaviours to teach (recall, wait, lead-work), dog law and responsible ownership. 
Again how you would regulate this and ensure it was upheld is another question.

Incidentally I have a friend in Switzerland who had a bit of a nightmare finding a decent class that would be of any benefit (the others would have been detrimental) to her dog, in order to be in accordance with the law.

On another point, I wouldn't want to be forced to vaccinate my dogs either (especially if yearly). For one thing, many leading veterinary researchers believe that overloading their systems in this way can be detrimental when they already have sufficient immunity from their original vaccinations. Some dogs show adverse health effects (correlated with these yearly boosters). One of mine for example cannot be boostered because they make him unwell. He has sufficient immunity from his first vaccinations and my others are done, so in any case, herd immunity helps too. 
Again, I repeat, it's not always useful to think in absolutes.


----------



## Rosie64 (Feb 27, 2014)

I would have loved to take my dog to puppy training classes when I had him but the only classes in my area were all inaccessible to me.I am 66 and disabled I do not drive and can only get around on a mobility scooter does that mean that I should not be allowed to own a dog.The only thing that I can not vouch for 100% is recall that purely because I have been afraid to put him to the test as if he does run off I may not be able to follow on my scooter and I am not willing to take that chance with him.All other aspects of his training are good he is a well socialised non aggressive obedient dog with good manners with everyone regardless of age or gender thanks to the internet , library and a lot of research into training methods for my breed of dog


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Old Shep said:


> My understanding of the Swiss model is that the pre ownership classes are compulsory.


I think the concept of imparting basic pre- dog ownership information is a very good one. I am often shocked at the ignorance of some owners ...new and not so new ....in regard to simple (and to many of us obvious) facts.

Pre-dog ownership isn't about training the dog. It's about training the human to think *before* they get a dog and *before* mistakes are made

And if we were to make the classes compulsory where better to do so than in schools where attendance is *already* compulsory.

I would like to see every pupil in every school receive sessions in caring for animals. They could come under one of a number of contempory subjects and be part of the national curriculum. The subject would cover pet ownership and the law, but also the feeding, caring for and basic training of animals. And who to contact if you have a problem.

In canine behaviour as in everything, prevention is better than (looking for a) cure.

J


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I think a lot of people are missing the point here- this is a hypothetical question.

You cannot base your objection on a scheme which is not in existence on issues of how it could be implemented. As I've said before, it's a GIVEN that the infrastructure to support the scheme would need to be put i. Place before it could be implemented. That's obvious.

I was talking about possibilities. Anything is possible if there's a will to succeed. 

Otherwise no one would do anything at all. Ever!


----------



## Snowdog (Mar 3, 2015)

Old Shep said:


> I think a lot of people are missing the point here- this is a hypothetical question.
> 
> You cannot base your objection on a scheme which is not in existence on issues of how it could be implemented. As I've said before, it's a GIVEN that the infrastructure to support the scheme would need to be put i. Place before it could be implemented. That's obvious.
> 
> ...


take a few years to set it all into place

finding the 40,000 odd dog trainers acceptable to everyone would be tricky


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

Old Shep said:


> I think a lot of people are missing the point here- this is a hypothetical question.
> 
> You cannot base your objection on a scheme which is not in existence on issues of how it could be implemented. As I've said before, it's a GIVEN that the infrastructure to support the scheme would need to be put i. Place before it could be implemented. That's obvious.
> 
> ...


Well, I dont live in a hypothetical world. I live in the real world, so I cant really pretend the real world doesnt exist. Sorry


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Well, I dont live in a hypothetical world. I live in the real world, so I cant really pretend the real world doesnt exist. Sorry


Oh but it would be nice if it didn't at times lol.

There are loads of people who've passed KC bronze silver and gold with their dogs who quite frankly don't have a clue. There are people in Germany who've passed the test required to own a dog over a certain size who don't have a clue. There are trainers who don't have a clue. In fact I'm convinced that some of the top, highly recommended trainers and behaviourists have never actually lived in the real world with a dog with issues. Quite frankly, I don't think being forced to attend a training class will do much, particularly for those who really don't want to do it. They'd likely do just enough to pass the test and keep their dog then carry on as they usually would in real life.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

Sarah1983 said:


> Oh but it would be nice if it didn't at times lol.
> 
> There are loads of people who've passed KC bronze silver and gold with their dogs who quite frankly don't have a clue. There are people in Germany who've passed the test required to own a dog over a certain size who don't have a clue. There are trainers who don't have a clue. In fact I'm convinced that some of the top, highly recommended trainers and behaviourists have never actually lived in the real world with a dog with issues. Quite frankly, I don't think being forced to attend a training class will do much, particularly for those who really don't want to do it. They'd likely do just enough to pass the test and keep their dog then carry on as they usually would in real life.


Exactly. So if were looking to help dogs, and do what is going to benefit dogs and dog ownership, then we *have* to account for the real world.

Its all well and good to know that a pebble and a feather will drop at the same rate in a vacuum, but if youre standing at the top of the Eiffel Tower, you have to realize that there is no vacuum and that the pebble might hurt someone at the bottom, and the feather wont.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

With attitudes like that we will never improve the situation for dogs. May as well not even try because it's justt too damn difficult.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

Old Shep said:


> With attitudes like that we will never improve the situation for dogs. May as well not even try because it's justt too damn difficult.


I work every single day to improve the situation for dogs  Im out there in person educating, helping, volunteering, and using my own dogs as examples.

Just because we dont agree on the *how* doesnt mean we dont care or arent doing anything.

I think youre thinking too much in absolutes and black and white. When it comes to sentient creatures (talking both humans and dogs), there is much more areas of grey than any absolutes.


----------



## Sarahliz100 (Jan 5, 2014)

I'm afraid I'm with the majority in feeling that it wouldn't work. 

I get a lot out of taking my dog to class. But I'm motivated, am lucky to go to an excellent class and put a lot of work into training outside of class. I'm able to afford to go to the classes I want to. If I was told I had to go to some random class in the local church hall lead by someone I wasn't convinced knew any more than me I wouldn't be impressed.

I know that when I'm "forced" to go to some sort of course for work (you know the kind of tick box exercises that seem a little pointless) I resent being there and I'm not especially great at really getting involved and participating. I imagine if people who wouldn't otherwise want to go to dog training classes were made to go they would choose the cheapest/easiest option (which may not be the best) and sit out their time whilst engaging as little as possible. They may pick up some useful stuff, but if they've chosen a dodgy class they might also pick up some frankly dangerous tips. 

I would imagine the combination of the requirement for a huge number of new classes, plus a large number of people needing to go to class who really couldn't give a damn about it would potentially lead to some pretty poor quality classes of dubious benefit.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

I`ve known a lot of trainers in my 50+ years of owning / training dogs. Maybe two were brilliant. Possibly half were OK but I had issues with a few things. A good quarter were misguided and a few were downright dangerous. Like the one who jumped on top of my muzzled GSD with People issues and flattened her. Or the one who advised I give a guardy dog `a good slap`. 
Before this is considered we would need a concensus on what constitutes a good trainer, minimum qualifications and some way of ratifying them. 
Then it might be a very good idea. 
But at my local hugely popular club, the beginners class is run by a man whose wife did a training course once. He tells people to teach Sit by shoving their dogs`bums to the floor. And says one should `take no nonsense.`


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

This is what is in place in Switzerland ....and yes, actually it may work over here if you think about it. From it's wording it seems that you are required to attend a course ...at *your *chosen training establishment to show that you have a basic knowledge and you have a year to get a certificate (something like the KC Good Citizen I suspect) to show you can control your dog in everyday situations.

So you aren't being forced to a trainer you don't like ...and you can still train 'your own way' so long as you can prove you can control your dog.



> *Requirement to take a course in theory and in practice
> In accordance with article 68, paras 1 and 2 of OPAn,*
> 
> Persons who have acquired a dog since 1 September 2008 must be able to provide a certificate of competence (theoretical course) proving that they have learnt how to keep and to handle dogs. Persons who can prove that they already had a dog before 1 September 2008 do not need to satisfy this condition.
> ...


J


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Change is hard. When there are obstacles in the way careful investigation, thought and planning are required to overcome them.

I'm at a loss to understand why people would just say " great idea, but it'd never work"

He most fulfilling and rewarding position I held in my working career was also the one with the most obstacles and with the vast majority* of staff saying " it won't work"

Well it did work, and the results in respect of human dignity, respect and individual control over ones own life are still there to see- it has also provided a template for other, similar work.


* the entire staff at a hospital! parents and senior staff from social work opposed what we were trying to do. Every single parent- without exception- when the process had been completed (it took 5 years) said it had been worthwhile and not one wanted to return to the previous situation. I wish I could say the same for the staff. We probably brought about half the hospital staff on board and the vast majority of social work staff agreed it was a huge improvement.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

Nobody is saying there doesnt need to be change, just that the change needs to take in to account what is in the best interest of the dogs its affecting. 

I do not think it is in the best interest of dogs for training classes to be compulsory. Not all dogs need to be in a class setting. Not all trainers are competent. 

Now, if you want to talk about regulating the dog training business, there is somewhere to start. 
If you want to start talking about public access tests that allow dogs who have passed to go places with their owners that normally would not allow pets, again, Im all ears.

But just change for the sake of saying youre doing something without thinking about the real repercussions of that change, sorry, but you wont get me on board.


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

I like the idea of dog ownership classes but not training classes.

Styles of training and methods vary so much , also some of us dont do well in group settings and that stress would be felt by our dogs so I wonder if it would be a fair test..
I do think there needs to be more rules ( for want of a better word) inplace to stop the ignorent buying and selling/ idiot ownership of dogs cats and anything else...it seems you need more paperwork to buy a telly than a dog these days.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

dorrit said:


> I like the idea of dog ownership classes but not training classes.
> 
> Styles of training and methods vary so much , also some of us dont do well in group settings and that stress would be felt by our dogs so I wonder if it would be a fair test..
> I do think there needs to be more rules ( for want of a better word) inplace to stop the ignorent buying and selling/ idiot ownership of dogs cats and anything else...it seems you need more paperwork to buy a telly than a dog these days.


Good point, Some kind of lessons before buying a dog sounds a good idea, but then again so many people get dogs from friends...friends of friends etc where the original owners neither know nor care who buys them so long as they're making money, in an ideal world owning a pet would be done responsibly but we all know we live in a world far from that unfortunately


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Nobody is saying there doesnt need to be change, just that the change needs to take in to account what is in the best interest of the dogs its affecting.
> 
> I do not think it is in the best interest of dogs for training classes to be compulsory. Not all dogs need to be in a class setting. Not all trainers are competent.
> 
> ...


But this is exactly the debate I am trying to have.

Things are pretty awful at the mement. Breeding, dog ownership and dog training are all unregulated. So where should we start? Maybe not compulsory pre ownership classes. Maybe we should start at the very begining and restrict breeding. How you do that is open to debate, but I doubt any real dog lover would object to restricting dog breeding. For a start we could legislate in such a manner that puppy farms become a thing of the past.

Then there's the provision of dog training. Hasn't Germany regulated this industry? Again, how you do this would need to be debated.

At the moment we have far to many irresponsible "breeders"; we have morons buying pups and dogs; we have far too many dogs in shelters; we have some awful dog trainers; we have a lot of poorly trained dogs.....

.....so, if we don't start somewhere and regulating the purchase of dogs (attendance at pre ownership classes, as I suggested) isn't the way,what is? Where do we start?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Old Shep said:


> But this is exactly the debate I am trying to have.
> 
> Things are pretty awful at the mement. Breeding, dog ownership and dog training are all unregulated. So where should we start? Maybe not compulsory pre ownership classes. Maybe we should start at the very begining and restrict breeding. How you do that is open to debate, but I doubt any real dog lover would object to restricting dog breeding. For a start we could legislate in such a manner that puppy farms become a thing of the past.
> 
> ...


*I would be in favour of every breeder being held responsible for the animals they breed.
Perhaps making it compulsory for all breeders to be registered. But if this were to happen, then the authorities would also need to send out a clear and harsh warning that anyone breaking the rule would face harsh fines. And i don't mean silly fines either.
*


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I would be in favour of every breeder being held responsible for the animals they breed.
> Perhaps making it compulsory for all breeders to be registered. But if this were to happen, then the authorities would also need to send out a clear and harsh warning that anyone breaking the rule would face harsh fines. And i don't mean silly fines either.
> *


VERY good idea there,it should start at the top with a clear warning and a real punishment, none of this 'lets ban you from owning/breeding but not follow it up' higher fines, sentencing and less of the lip service they usually give...if it was a child the social services would be involved...if it's an animal it's ok we'll just forget about it....more people check on a child...children can speak...act out...are watched by schools/public etc...unfortunately animals don't have this.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I am strongly in favour of statutory legislation to restrict the breeding of all dogs. To be effective it must be legislated for. Severe fines and prison sentences for the worst offenders would need to be in place.

However, I think this could be opposed by some of the "show" fraternity.- Going by the negativity the Assured Breeder scheme gets from some showing folk.

This would control the proliferation of puppy farms and casual breeders. 

Run alongside a scheme like they have in Switzerland to compel new owners to undertake a training course before purchasing a pup, could minimise a lot of issues.

Could be payed for by taxing the sale of dogs- say a sliding scale. Kc registered dogs and their crosses costing most, mutts costing less. Tax exemption for guide dogs and the like. No exemption for working dogs such as farm dogs and working gundogs, as the temptation to overbreed these dogs would be detrimental to their welfare.


----------

