With the incidence of dog attacks and cruelty increasing, would it improve matters if people were asked to attend a training course at their own cost specialising in the animal of their choice?

After a specific number of classes have been attented the 'trainee' would then be tested.
A failure would require the trainee to swot up then resit;
On passing, a certificate could be issued entitling the person to purchase the animal they have studied.

Surely the REAL enthusiasts would walk through an exam of this kind.
And wouldn't they welcome steps such as these which would ultimately protect the creatures that they are interested in and admire?
It's a sad fact that many never grow out of the 'taddies in a jam-jar stage, and continue to aquire animals that inevitably die through ignorance.

My previous posts on pet issues were based on these veiws that I've held for a long time; but the basis of my argument was and is that if people are really concerned about animal welfare they would be prepared to forego ownership of animals if it means that cruelty and exploitation would be stopped or greatly reduced.
Some years ago I was employed by a well known animal welfare org' to provide photographic evidence regarding importing protected wildlife.
They are memories that I wish I could forget.

And though it may be less sinister, it is never-the-less equally disturbing, that there really are people around (like Marge Simpsons sisters,) who coo and cuddle their monitor lizards, and dress their pets in ridiculous outfits etc etc.

If we are going to have pets we owe it to them to do our utmost to protect them and to give them as fullfilling a life as possible. -- Don't we?

Just to answer a poster who wanted my C.V.
Veggy - not Vegan
Owner 2 muts -
As a family assist a 'homelessness charity'
cycle and re-cycle as much as poss
Am an incredible lover
= Practically perfect!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:wave: Welcome to the SF Pet Owner's Group SUPERTYKE :)

I'd be all in favour of your proposals (although I do think you should be able to sit the exam without the expense of the training course - as people such as breeder's children should walk it with their eyes shut) but this may push pet ownership 'underground' and put off genuine pet lovers, without deterring the swines we'd all like to see strung up for their treatment of defenceless animals :(

I agree, however unfortunately it'll never work. That's why dog licenses were stopped. The government won't put money and time into checking pet licenses.

Also, I studied dogs a lot before I got mine but wouldn't have appreciated having to take a course with a cost to it as you can learn it all if you do a bit of reading up on the net.

I agree with taking a test though, if it would work. Steps are already in place because most responsible breeders will vet potential owners very carefully, but unfortunately there's too many bad breeders out there too.

Thanks Guys (Gals!?) A positive start. (More or less!!)

A friend just emailed me saying that she heard on the radio that a paper similar to my suggestion is in front of a parliamentary group and is being considered!! I swear I had no previous knowledge of this - O.K. then don't believe me!! She didn't get the full gist of the report because of traffic chaos so any additional info would be appreciated.
I think it's in reaction to the poor baby that has just been killed by the Rottweilers - bless the child it's, absolutely appalling.

Farbeit from me to welcome government interference, but something must be done to tackle this growing problem, for the sake of all people and all animals.

Regarding having to pay for a course in pet-care. I wouldn't want to exclude anyone from pet ownership but the animal charities couldn't possibly finance such a proposal; some provision would come from somewhere I expect, for those less able to afford the course. Which wouldn't have to be so expensive, volunteer tutors etc etc.
After the course, a certificate of competence could be issued along with a voucher allowing the holder to buy the animal from a bona - fide dealer.
There would then be traceable documentation available if the animal should be lost/stolen.
Anyway, I expect the fuss will die away when the latest tragedy is forgotten.
Hope not.

The problem with charging for courses is that those people who could otherwise afford to provide a caring and well informed home for an animal may find themselves financially unable to do so, making pet ownership exclusive to the so-called upper classes who may well have more money than sense! Also they say knowledge is power but people have a choice in how to utilise said power. Some chose not to use it at all.

I am a great believer in research and have a bookcase of care books to prove this, any true animal lover will really know their stuff. These people should not be persecuted because of others. The money used to pay for a course could be used to provide excellent care for the animal.

The cost provision would come from taxes, further pushing up the cost of living. Can you imagine the expenses of running all the courses for so many different animals? And how about those already owning animals when this comes into force? Where will all the animals go whose owners are found lacking yet not cruel? To an already overcrowded rescue and eventual euthanasia?

A nice idea but I fear totally impractical, and possibly cruel in its own way?

Most people could learn how to look after a pet properly and pass a test, it's what happens afterwards.

Good points Sooz22.
However my idea was to involve the RSPCA - PDSA, etc and not to burden the tax payer further. The potential savings for the animal charities would possibly offset teaching expenses.
Or maybe a self funded home course might be the answer, the exam then taken, when the applicant feels ready, at a registered centre.

To be fair, it is often not the case that a true 'animal lover' will will be 'well informed'. How many pets do you see that are grossly overweight - under exercised have skin allergies etc etc? And these are just the more obvious deficiencies/illnesses that some people who truly love their animals very often don't recognise.

For sure something needs to be done to combat 'cruelty through ignorance', as well as the more usual forms of cruelty. Also, this idea would go a long way towards stopping impulse pet buying and 'novelty' purchases of creatures that really do need specialist owners.
I'm pretty sure that many of the enthuiasts who own exotics would gladly volunteer some time to pass on their expertise; class-rooms in local school and community centres come cheap if not free.
Pet ownership has always incurred costs to the owner in terms of time and money; therefore what more useful and 'loving' gift could anyone give to their pet than the ability to care for them properly and to recognise early on, illness/injury?

Anyway, I'm told that there is an official move in the pipe re' some form of registration towards ensuring owner accountability/responcibility so the whole thing could soon be out of our hands.

I think that the way forward would be through tackling commercial breeding before rounding on the owners. Otherwise there would be a geater surplus of animals and even less 'registered' homes to take them.

Perhaps your definition of an animal lover does not fit mine. I would determine an animal lover as someone with a great interested in the care, habits and general life of an animal as opposed to someone who just 'likes animals'. I guess these people would be better known as 'hobbyists' who for the most part are better informed than the general public.

As for asking animal centers to fund the course it would place more pressure upon their stretched resources, donations from the general public, thats right, the same lot who pay the taxes. As I pointed out before there would be a great influx of animals from this system to such rescues from owners who were no longer declared 'fit' and from breeders who could suddenly not home animals due to a shortage of 'fit' owners. If the centers are over stretched from running the courses then the only opportunity for these animals is a bullet in the head, seen as they wont even be able to afford euthanasia.

I guess what I feel will invariaby happen is a total clogging of the system.

Having spent lots of time speaking to members of the public at the Shelter, it always surprises me how little some people know about the cats that they want to take home with them.

Maybe having spent so long as a cat owner, and being around so many cats and kittens (seeing lots of health and emotional problems, babies being born etc). it's just really easy to forget that the knowledge that we all have there is acquired slowly over the years.

I'm not that sure how this sort of scheme could work, but notionally it would be an interesting concept to explore.

You have an excellent point their Medusa, is a test a substitute for experience? Most owners learn somthing new about their animals everyday, and a lot of this knowledge cannot be taught.

I have often wondered if perhaps the rspca could do more. On the forms I had to sign when I got a cat from there (he's in heaven now bless him) it stated that there may be a home check of some sort. I had to write down how secure my garden was and so on. I was never checked out? I could have put anything on those forms and the wouldn't have known. I think that all places like this should do a home check for every potencial pet owner. Any person who is genuinly interested in taking in an animal knowing that they can provide it with a safe and happy home would not object to this.

I know someone who got a cat from the rspca, well a kitten, took her home, named her, got fed up of her so took her back. Then decided she couldn't live without her and got her boyfriend to go and get her back in his name and address and then he gave the cat back to her. That was one confused cat.

I know that most people wouldn't object to a homecheck, but that's because most people who come to adopt are offering what is a physically sufficient home for a new cat.

What is lacking in most cases where a person is turned down (apart from the people who are living in accommodation where animals aren't allowed anyway) is the emotional commitment to take on the responsibility, and that is usually discovered by asking people to fill in a sensibly designed form and talking to them before they are admitted to ever see the cats.

You would be amazed at the number of people who arrive to adopt a kitten, but when they fill in the form you find out that the kitten would be left alone for 10 hours every day (on top of the 8 hours that the people are asleep and the kitten's getting up to who knows what?).

These people have genuinely not thought about the responsibility of owning a kitten- the home may be suitable for a well-adjusted adult cat who's happy to mind their own business for most of the day, but not for a young one who needs the love and guidance so they develop into a happy and adjusted adult.

In that instance, who needs a homecheck to say 'no'? The issues may be different with dogs where secured gardens and the like are more important, but cats are adaptable animals- if they have loving people around them.

You have an excellent point their Medusa, is a test a substitute for experience? Most owners learn somthing new about their animals everyday, and a lot of this knowledge cannot be taught.

I think you might find that Medusa isn't commenting on the 'experience V test' issue, sooz22, if you read her post again.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, Medusa but I took it that you were saying that you have gained much of your experience through your involvement with the cat shelter and the nurturing of your own cats and children etc etc. And that you would be more than happy to help with advising potential owners in pet care.

I don't even know if a 'test' as such would be necessary. As long as a minimum number of 'classes' were attended. At least, it would demonstrate a degree of commitment, a factor often so blatently lacking, as Medusa has so often wittnessed. For sure, it is clear that she has huge respect for other life-forms, surely the most important pre-requisite for animal ownership.

I have been fortunate enough to share some of my life with several animals.
All of them have shown me that their first love is their freedom.
From the baby Rook that I found injured and dying as an 11 year old, to my lifetime with dogs, cats, doves and a badger cub called 'Spud' who my dad and I found in a dug out set, orphanned and hungry but spitting fury at us all the same!

Note: provocative comments removed - Strix

I think you might find that Medusa isn't commenting on the 'experience V test' issue, sooz22, if you read her post again.

What I meant was that medusa's comments made me think of an issue which had not previously been raised, not that she actually made the point herself (else why would I repeat it?). I also think that you seem to be tarring every owner with the same brush. Apparently no-one else can be a consciencous pet owner and animal rescuer like yourself?

Preaching to people the wrongs of the world will indeed not make you friends, also it will not change the way people treat their animals. Perhaps if you showed them the respect they deserved they would be more likely to show the same to their animals. i.e for most people it is not a lecture on their 'stupidity' which they require but a friend who can offer sound advice which, after all is what the pets forum is all about.

To settle one small point- I believe that neither experience nor formalised learning can by itself provide the information and learning that a new animal owner needs to have.

I also don't believe that some aspects of looking after an animal can be taught at all (in much the same way as you can show someone how to draw building plans, but they have to start thinking like an architect themselves).

Note: tidied ;) - Strix

Note: Tidied - strix ;)

Back to the issue at hand, that is experience vs. knowledge, I believe that both are necessary and both can be self-taught, although a lot can be learnt from other peoples experiences and indeed mistakes. What it comes down to is the perceptivness and the commitment of the owner in question. After all you can take a horse to water....

So in order for a certified ownership scheme to run I think it would require after checks to inspect the condition and care of the animals on a regular basis, unannounced. Although im sure this will raise a ton of Human Rights Issues:rolleyes:

I am a great believer in research and have a bookcase of care books to prove this, any true animal lover will really know their stuff. These people should not be persecuted because of others. The money used to pay for a course could be used to provide excellent care for the animal.

The cost provision would come from taxes, further pushing up the cost of living. Can you imagine the expenses of running all the courses for so many different animals? And how about those already owning animals when this comes into force? Where will all the animals go whose owners are found lacking yet not cruel? To an already overcrowded rescue and eventual euthanasia?

A nice idea but I fear totally impractical, and possibly cruel in its own way?

When I began this poll I did so partly in reaction to what I and many others percieve as a growing problem that needs urgent attention.

Note: Personal attacks and off-topic arguement removed - Strix

.... the people who (often) unintentionally ill treat animals are more often in need of education (patronise-patronise) than rebuke, which is the basis of my post.

Note: Personal attacks and off-topic arguement removed - Strix

Note: Please leave out the personal attacks.
I don't want to close this thread, as it's a very interesting and valid point to debate.

(You may find a re-read is helpful before continuing posting if you've been on this thread already ;) )