robocto:
doggydayjob:
A new law is coming into effect in Germany that requires dog owners to take a practical test on dog care and for their dogs to pass a behavioural evaluation administered by vets.
I’m saddened by the comments on this article that show strong opposition to this law. I agree that current leash laws should be enforced more strongly to decrease bites*, but these laws don’t do anything to protect dogs from being abused or neglected due to ignorance. For example, if people had to pass a test showing they understand the health and behavioural benefits of neutering a dog in puppyhood (or at all in many cases), consider how many animal shelters would become redundant! If everyone knew neutering their male dogs could add several years to their lives while decreasing their aggressive tendencies, I think more people would be willing to go along with it.
*We could certainly use this here in Toronto! It’s rare I encounter a dog on leash in our on-leash park.
This would actually be really cool here in the US. Too bad you’d never be able to enforce it and what would happen if you get a dog and it is found out you don’t have a license? Do you get a chance to take the test? What if you fail? Does the dog get taken? Would people w/o licenses not take their dogs to the vet for fear of them being taken? Also a million other problems with it.
Neat idea, but it would never be practical here. Idk about Germany/Canada
Sorry for taking so long to reply to this; I’ve been a bit busy, but I think it’s important to discuss your point.
Actually, I think it’s really important to discuss your lack of point. You open your statement with a slew of questions, and then dismiss the idea as impractical without waiting for, or proposing, answers to your questions. For good legislation to be created, law-makers need to come together with people arguing both sides of the issue. If you shut down the conversation before making your point, you’re actually harming yourself, because now your point of view is entirely unrepresented.
Please, allow me to answer your questions for how I think the legislation SHOULD go in MY community:
Q1: What happens if you’re found to have an unlicensed dog?
A: In Toronto and London, Ontario*, when an unlicensed dog is picked up and impounded, the owner pays a holding fee and is warned to license the dog. Usually licenses need to be bought before the dog can be returned, but this can be done at animal holding facilities. An additional fine may or may not be issued depending on the number of complaints against the dog/owner. (First time offenders are usually let off with a warning on their record but no actual fine.)
If a test were required to obtain a license, I expect information on available courses and testing dates (or how to take the test online) would be given to the dog owner, and the owner would be allowed to take their dog home after paying the holding fee. A warning would be put against the owner, but no fine would be issued. If the dog were found unlicensed again within a certain period of time (say two months, plenty of time to write a test), the owner would be fined.
Q2: What happens to your dog if you fail the licensing test?
A: The dog would be held by the city/municipality for a reasonable period (say 2 weeks?) so you may take a course or do independent study and retake the test.
At this point, I’d like the point out the types of questions the German lawmakers proposed. These are basic animal care questions, like “Where can you walk your dog off leash?” “Dogs must have access to shelter under what conditions?” and the like. These questions take a few minutes to find the answers to (if they’re about learning the by-laws of your city) or are common sense (like dogs need access to shelter under all conditions, not just when it’s very cold). If you cannot answer these questions, you should not have a dog.
The same goes for the behavioural evaluation for the dogs. If your dog would be deemed un-adoptable by the SPCA, it’s a danger to people around it. These tests are very liberal, and they do allow for nervous and even snippy dogs. If you have a dog that’s a ticking time-bomb, it’s probably better for everyone involved to let it go.
Q3: Would people without licenses not take their dogs to the vet for fear of them being taken?
A: Many people who don’t license their pets are not going to take them to the vet anyway. But it’s not up to the vets to report unlicensed pets. My vet actually recommended I not license my puppy until after he’s neutered, because it’s a huge difference in price.** In any case, many unlicensed pets currently visit vets, and it hasn’t caused any problems so far as I’m aware.
I do agree with you that it’d be hard to enforce this legislation, especially since current pet by-laws aren’t enforced nearly enough. I really like the idea of the law because it focuses on educating the public about how to properly care for their pets. As I said originally, I think people would make better decisions about their dogs’ welfare if they had better information. Few people want their pets to suffer, but some people don’t know how to prevent it. If there were a way to strongly encourage people to take the time to learn how to properly care for their pets, it may eliminate some suffering.
Please, let me know if I missed anything. I’d love to hear if you have any other concerns, and especially any ideas on how to improve the situation without new legislation. It’s interesting to hear how even slightly different cultures handle animal welfare when it comes to pets.
*They’re the only cities where I know pet laws very well, so I apologize for being very specific.
**I think temporary licenses should be issued for puppies under 7 months, because many vets won’t neuter any earlier. I worry about not having Maulkin licensed, but it’s a $50 difference, and that’s a bit ridiculous since he can’t even physically reproduce!
