Competing Interests, One Solution

As with all stories, there are two sides to everything:

Service-Assistance dogs enable their disabled owners to function productively in society, helping them with tasks that are outside the physical scope of many; opening doors, turning on lights, assisting them with a variety of tasks that able-bodied people take for granted.

These dogs require a high degree of training in order to prepare them for their lives as Service-assistance dogs, enabling their handicapped owners to lead relatively normal lives and alleviating the need for human caretakers for many day-to-day tasks.

What's come under fire is the proposed definition of Service Assistance dogs and the conundrum that is created by their use as Psychiatric Service Dogs. These individuals might not quite look like they are in need of the assistance a Service dog provides and even more, the tasks that the dogs provide to 'mitigate the disability of the owner" are unclear.

Here's a thought, make access available to all dogs that achieve a level of training that clearly demonstrates they are controllable in public and capable of minding their manners on planes, trains and in automobiles, in Wal-Mart, at the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker's.

That way you leave human dignity intact and the ADA properly interpreted and complied with.

But there's a caveat.

Or two.

The first: the new language makes the identification of a Service Dog by the ADA pretty vague, since an individual cannot ask the nature of the disability a person my have and second; due to this loophole, people are getting away with faux Service Dogs that are causing a world of hurt for the people who really need the assistance.

What to do?

Like I said, allow access to all dogs who can clearly demonstrate appropriate behavior in public. The general public can be assured that the animals they see out with their owners at least have achieved a measurable standard of control and the individuals whose animals cannot demonstrate these skills will be excluded from public access. If an individual has managed to actually get certification indicating their animal has passed an access test and the animal is later determined to be in violation, their permit gets revoked until it is demonstrated that the dog can either re-certify; or after a minimal number of re-certification attempts have been made, it is revoked permanently.

It eliminates the fakirs and the cheats. The people who are blatantly using the loopholes in the ADA Policy can still have an opportunity for redemption if their dogs can pass the access test. It will also help to foster a greater understanding and acceptance of dogs in public, help to enforce current dog leash laws and increase the revenues for localities across the Nation who struggle with funding for pet specific policies.

There are several cities in the United States that have such laws already on the books and there is currently a grassroots movement to introduce similar access tests publicly.

What's the harm? It can potentially generate revenue for communities and quite possibly elevate the ageless place of dog as help-mate as opposed to the harbinger of death and destruction so vividly portrayed by a contemporary media that is no more objective about animals than they are in their pursuit of any other truth.

Prized Hound Dies in Shelter Dispute

Decision to euthanize Big Hitter could be symbol of troubles that imperil the sport

On a clear and frosty morning in late December, Big Hitter, a 5-year-old foxhound who hadn’t been in the woods for weeks, caught a scent and took off running.

He was fast.

His owner, Arnold Jones of St. George, had arrived for a dog drive at the Kingville Hunt Club in Lower Richland near 6 a.m. that Saturday, meeting up with about 35 guys and 50 hunting dogs.

Trevor Bedell poses with one of his hunting dogs, Rider

When Hitter hadn’t returned by 10 a.m., it was clear he had gotten into the Congaree Swamp.

The 6,000-acre hunt club is adjacent to the expansive national park, so it’s not unusual for dogs to chase deer into the swamp and keep on going.

What Jones couldn’t know then was that Hitter — who he’d bought for $750 and expected to produce a line of valuable offspring — would walk for four days and 20 miles, looking for his master, before ending up at the Columbia Animal Shelter.

There, he would die in a dispute over a city law requiring that dogs be neutered before being returned to their owners.

The death of this tricolor foxhound — something that probably would have been unheard of not long ago — has created a stir among hunters.

“There’s rules, surely,” said Trevor Bedell of West Columbia, who helped Jones try to retrieve Hitter, since his hunting buddy lives out of town. “But the animal shelter’s mission should be to protect the dog, when we were making efforts to get the dog.”

Interim city manager Steve Gantt said Hitter’s owners didn’t get to the shelter within the timeline spelled out to them.

“It’s a bad situation all the way around,” said Gantt, who hunted with hounds as a kid in Chester.

CHANGING CULTURE

Hitter could be a symbol for a Southern tradition that’s fading — hunters using dogs to flush deer from the woods, starting a fast and furious chase into the sights of waiting hunters.

It’s a way of hunting passed down in South Carolina families for generations.

But in recent years, the tradition has created bad blood among dog hunters, the more common “still” hunters and landowners.

Large tracts of property required for dog drives are being cut up and developed. The number of hunt clubs is dwindling, too, creating more situations where hunters clash.

Sometimes, dogs tracking a deer will run beyond the boundaries of a hunt club and onto private property, passing a hunter silently waiting in a deer stand.

Jones, who owns 35 to 40 dogs that he uses to hunt big bucks as trophies, can’t imagine hunting any other way.

“There is nothing more exciting than 25 hounds running the deer right at you,” said Jones, 46. “Your heart goes pounding in your chest. It’s an adrenaline rush, to have game coming at you that fast, and you have a matter of seconds to even try to shoot.”

Frank A. Boysia hunts on 3,000 acres he and his father own in Lee and Sumter counties. They farm and participate in wildlife programs that provide habitat for deer and quail.

But Boysia said trespassing dogs disrupt the “good and natural experience” he pursues outdoors.

“I’m sitting there in a peaceful situation with my son on a deer stand, in a food plot that I’ve planted — with my money, with my labor and my love,” said Boysia, 40. “It ruins your whole reason for even having property like that.

“So for me, it’s a property rights issue.”

HUNTING FOR HITTER

Hunters usually look for lost dogs along roads.

That’s because foxhounds know to wait there, said Charles Ruth, a wildlife biologist with the state Department of Natural Resources.

“They’re going to be out standing by the road, looking for their owner. A lot of time, they’ll start walking the road because they can relate the road to the truck to the man.”

That’s how Hitter would have ended up in Columbia.

The Saturday of the hunt, Jones went home to Dorchester County. Bedell, 31, said he drove down Bluff Road and through Lower Richland on each of the next three days, looking for Hitter.

The next day, Christmas Eve, Hitter wandered into Columbia’s Granby Park, his tracking collar and I.D. tag still fastened around his neck.

A city park ranger called the phone number on the tag and left a message for Jones, then called the Columbia Animal Shelter.

RURAL CULTURE, URBAN LAWS

Animal control laws in Columbia don’t acknowledge the tradition of hunting with dogs.

In Columbia, lost pets must be neutered before they can be returned to the owners with three exceptions — if they are sick dogs, show dogs, or guide dogs for the blind.

The spay-neuter program is the foundation of the shelter’s efforts to reduce the number of unwanted animals.

If a hunting dog steps outside the city limits into unincorporated Richland County, the law is different.

In more rural Richland County, owners of hunting dogs can take their dogs home without sterilization if they have a valid hunting license.

Richland County administrator Milton Pope said the dual policies make sense. People are allowed to hunt in the county, not in the city.

Years ago, a debate over whether to require hunting dogs to be spayed or neutered was among the sticking points in efforts to merge city and county animal control operations.

It was no longer an issue when the two jurisdictions decided last year to join programs under one roof — at the Columbia shelter.

The merger will occur in coming weeks. Gantt, the assistant city manager, said this might be a good time to compare policies and see whether they should fall more closely in line.

Still, Marli Drum, the shelter director, doesn’t anticipate problems keeping track of which animals are picked up in the city and which are picked up in the county.

Addresses are logged and city limits lines checked with care, she said, in part to ensure the city doesn’t foot the bill for any animal not in its jurisdiction.

‘A WELL-KNOWN HOUND’

The city’s neutering requirement was a big bone of contention once Jones and Bedell discovered the dog had been taken to the city shelter.

They did not want the dog neutered.

While Bedell had sold the dog to Jones, he said he retained breeding rights.

Jones said Drum first told him the dog had to be neutered, then agreed to accept proof that he had placed in four national trials — documentation that was hard to find during the holidays surrounding Christmas and New Year’s.

“A lot of people knew the dog,” Jones said. “He was a well-known hound. He came from champions.”

Jones collected what proof he could and faxed it to Bedell. Bedell acknowledged he never turned the paperwork over to Drum, saying the documents weren’t what she wanted.

In an interview, Drum said she didn’t have permission to discuss the case but would talk generally about procedures. The city also provided a Jan. 6 memo outlining her recollection of events, under the subject line, “EUTHANIZED DOG.”

Under city policy, lost or stray dogs are held for five days, Drum said. If they have tags, they are kept for two weeks. Once the owner is reached, however, the five-day hold begins.

Bedell said he went by the shelter once and called twice, trying to bring Hitter home.

The last time he called Drum was on Friday, Jan. 2, nine days after Hitter was picked up.

Bedell said he told Drum he planned to adopt the dog once Hitter became available to the public for adoption.

Drum’s memo said she explained he couldn’t adopt the dog just to get around paying the redemption fees, and that she reiterated the dog would have to be neutered.

The following Monday, Bedell went to the shelter only to find that Hitter had been put down, one of 43 dogs to be euthanized Jan. 5.

Drum’s memo said Hitter had developed kennel cough, a contagious infection. “Because of this, the dog could not be held any longer,” she wrote. “To do so would have put many other dogs at risk.”

Just last week, Bedell showed up at the shelter looking to help a friend, Lee Gross, retrieve his lost hunting dog.

The dog had been picked up in Richland County, around Hopkins, and was released to his owner after he produced a hunting license.

“There’s got to be some consistency,” Bedell complained.

“I don’t see how they can be executioner on one and let the other go with a ... hunting license.”

END OF THE HUNT?

Hunting with dogs is part of the culture of the Southeast, from Virginia to Arkansas, said the DNR’s Ruth.

In South Carolina, dog drives are allowed only in the 28 counties where it has the foothold of history, from Richland, Lexington and Kershaw counties south and east toward the coast.

But deer hunting with dogs has declined over the past 20 to 30 years, part of an overall change in the number of people who hunt, according to DNR figures.

After peaking in 1980 at 203,170, the number of South Carolinians who took out hunting licenses bottomed out in 2006 at 154,078.

With tensions rising among hunters, legislators, led by Sen. Yancey McGill, D-Williamsburg, are trying to mediate.

Calhoun County Sheriff Thomas Summers said two or three hunting dogs were shot to death in the woods a couple of years ago in a sign of the growing rift among hunters.

And a couple of “nuisance” lawsuits have been filed against dog owners in the absence of laws to regulate dog drives.

The Legislature stepped in last year, asking DNR to arrange a series of meetings in hopes of reaching agreement among hunters. “We did not come to a consensus,” Ruth said.

Hal Goodwin, whose family started the Kingville Hunt Club in 1962, expects his generation will be the last to hold deer drives — social events that start at daylight and usually include a dinner of game, like venison or catfish stew.

Oftentimes, the men stay overnight, sleeping in campers.

“You may call it a Southern thing, but it’s been going on hundreds of years,” said Goodwin, 59.

“I’ll probably see it go away in my lifetime. ... There’s a big move in South Carolina from a lot of people to do away with dog driving totally.”

But Boysia said he doesn’t want to see an end to the tradition of dog drives.

“I don’t think we’re like the Hatfields and the McCoys. I really do not,” he said. “Ultimately, we’re all hunters.

“We don’t want to drive people out of the sport.”

Reach Hinshaw at (803) 771-8641.

BLOGGER'S NOTE: Regardless of how you feel about the sport of tracking game with dogs, regardless of how you feel about hunting at all; this is an issue that speaks to the heart of the matter regarding rights. This is a direct violation of personal rights regardless of how you view the substance of the article.

I am not opposed to hunting. If it weren't for the fortitude of my ancestors to provide for my bloodline, I would have never existed. These folk would do well to remember that and keep their city ways in the city. There is a compromise and there must be a means to achieve it before all our rights are vanished and all we have are the tattered remnants of our Constitution as it is interpreted by fools and self righteous charlatans.

And Now, the Rest of the Story, or Rub Your Nose in this $%#

This article appeared in a list serv that I share with many of my colleagues.

I will not give credence to it's title or it's content

It highlights the reports of "abuse" by a trainer in New Jersey and similar complaints that have surfaced in New York City, all with incidents that predate either the Minnesota or the New York State bills' attempts to regulate dog trainers.

What I find difficult to believe is that if these reports are true, where is the proof? We insulate ourselves with the trust that these reports are accurate when it is clearly suggested in the case of the New York dog walker/trainer that there may be a hidden agenda, and of the 300 alleged THIRD PARTY reports, no clear evidence exists. Oh, I get it, GUILTY until proven INNOCENT. Gee, what was I thinking....

Huh?

As for the guy in New Jersey, I remember the stink over this a few months ago. A cattle prod was found. A slingshot and a PVC pipe were also found. Early reports suggest that one of these items were found at a colleague's home, not on the property of the target of these charges. If there were concerns 14 years ago as one of the charges suggests, and six since then, why was something not done sooner?

Oh, that's right, it was only important when it suited the proper agenda, like Daschle's taxes or the new head of the Federal Treasury Department and others of the 'New Administration". It only serves a purpose NOW. Not in 1995 when the first alleged crime was perpetrated.

His guilt is assumed, and if he is found so through DUE PROCESS and not the court of public opinion, then we as trainers in our secular community will be justly served as he and his ilk deserve proper punishment for their crimes. Or will we?

Will it be that we are no longer able to practice our craft unless we are supervised by the government to assure that "no harm was done"? Who will be the judge of what constitutes "harm", "inhumane" practices or "abuse"?

What about the owners deeply committed to their dogs who are not served by the government's proposals to endorse certain types of trainers and not others? Will they be forced to give up their dogs because they could not be trained with methods beyond the scope of their definition of approved? How full are the shelters in this country now? How full do you think they will get in the near future if it should come to pass that only "government approved" methods are used?

This is not an endorsement of "punching, hitting, kicking or hanging" dogs by any means. I think such tactics do constitute abuse and I do not personally know of a trainer in my acquaintance who would use such tactics.

It is not the METHOD that defines TRAINED, it is the END RESULT of the training itself. Physically abusing an animal does not constitute a method and defining abuse is the dichotomy. Collars don't abuse dogs, PEOPLE DO. TOOLS are not the issue, who wields the tool is. The banning of tools is the lowest common denominator in all of this and will only serve to be as effective as New York City's current gun control policy.

I see this as a personal vendetta mounted as a political agenda and offered up in a time and place where the controversy can be utilized to it's greatest effect.

The importance of knowing all the facts seems to escape most reporters these days; they are too wrapped up in currying favor amongst their own breed of lobbyists in the political hotbed that surrounds pets and the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR their ownership generates in income for hundreds of thousands of people, businesses and, yup, you guessed it, politicians.

It is inconceivable to me how a party or parties can be so deluded by the fervent scree of a few individuals without the basis of FACT, only the emotion laden mutterings of a few misguided, uneducated bleeding hearts who think they know "inhumane" or "abusive" practices based solely on weak evidence and lots of speculation. And, as I said, perhaps a hidden agenda or two.

Tell me, who is more "abusive"?

Linda Kaim
www.lionheartk9.com

Minnesota Prepared to Enact New Dangerous Dog Act

On January 14th of the current year, District 66A Representative John Lesch ( rep.john.lesch@house.mn ) and Representative of District 64B Michael Paymar ( rep.michael.paymar@house.mn ) introduced a bill that would require owners or those individuals identified as owners of 'dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs" to participate in responsible dog ownership classes. Additional information on this bill indicates that yet again the government is insinuating itself into the affairs of the people without truly addressing the needs of the community at large.

Read more here: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0115.0.html&session=ls86

You may have to copy and paste the above link.

I have taken the liberty of posting the whole sordid mess here:

H.F. No. 115, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Jan 14, 2009

1.1A bill for an act
1.2relating to dogs; requiring certain dog owners to take responsible dog owner
1.3classes and pass certain tests; requiring maintenance of a database; proposing
1.4coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 347.
1.5BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.6 Section 1. [347.57] DEFINITIONS.
1.7 Subdivision 1. Applicability. The definitions in this section apply to sections
1.8347.57 to 347.67.
1.9 Subd. 2. Animal control authority. "Animal control authority" means an agency of
1.10the state, county, municipality, or other governmental subdivision of the state which is
1.11responsible for animal control operations in its jurisdiction.
1.12 Subd. 3. Class training manual. "Class training manual" means the materials used
1.13to train the facilitator and the materials used by facilitators to train the dog owner.
1.14 Subd. 4. Dog owner. "Dog owner" means the owner of a dog that has been declared
1.15dangerous or potentially dangerous.
1.16 Subd. 5. Facilitator. "Facilitator" means a person who teaches the responsible dog
1.17owner class and administers the test to the dog owner.
1.18 Subd. 6. Program manager. "Program manager" means the person who oversees
1.19and coordinates the responsible dog owner class, trains the facilitators, and handles
1.20recordkeeping of the classes.
1.21 Subd. 7. Responsible dog owner class. "Responsible dog owner class" means a
1.22class for owners of dogs that have been declared dangerous or potentially dangerous
1.23under section 347.50.

2.1 Sec. 2. [347.58] RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNER CLASS.
2.2(a) The owner of a dog that has been declared dangerous or potentially dangerous
2.3under section 347.50 must take and pass the responsible dog owner class lasting
2.4approximately four hours. A photo identification of the dog owner is required at the time
2.5of the class to confirm ownership of the dog. The dog owner must enroll in a class within
2.630 days of the dog being declared potentially dangerous or dangerous. The dog owner
2.7must attend the class at the next scheduled class date. The class is for the owner of the
2.8dog only; dogs are not allowed in the class.
2.9(b) Dog owners who own dogs that were previously declared dangerous must
2.10take the responsible dog owner class. The dog owner must attend the class at the next
2.11scheduled class date after the effective date of this section.
2.12(c) The Department of Public Safety must charge the dog owner a reasonable fee for
2.13attending the class.

2.14 Sec. 3. [347.59] PROGRAM MANAGER.
2.15(a) The program manager must be:
2.16(1) a veterinarian in good standing in Minnesota with a minimum of three years
2.17experience; or
2.18(2) a person with a minimum of five years experience working in an animal-related
2.19field, including knowledge and training of dog behavior and education of the public on
2.20dog behavior.
2.21(b) A background check must be performed on a person applying to be a program
2.22manager. The applicant must pass the background check without any violations prior to
2.23being appointed. No person who has been convicted of animal cruelty under Minnesota
2.24law or any other state law may be a program manager.
2.25(c) The Department of Public Safety shall employ the program manager and
2.26determine how much the program manager shall be paid for providing program manager
2.27services.

2.28 Sec. 4. [347.60] FACILITATOR.
2.29A facilitator must have a minimum of five years experience in dog training or in
2.30educating the public on dog behavior. A background check must be performed on a
2.31facilitator and a facilitator must pass the background check without any violations prior to
2.32that person being appointed and trained. No person who has been convicted of animal
2.33cruelty under Minnesota law or any other state law may be a facilitator. A facilitator must
2.34receive retraining by the program manager every three years to remain a facilitator.

3.1 Sec. 5. [347.61] TRAINING.
3.2Ongoing training must be provided by the program manager to facilitators, including
3.3updating the class training manual and teaching facilitators current information.

3.4 Sec. 6. [347.62] ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY DUTIES.
3.5The animal control authority that declares a dog dangerous or potentially dangerous
3.6must provide the following information to the program manager and the Department of
3.7Public Safety:
3.8(1) name, address, and telephone number of the dog owner;
3.9(2) description of the dog;
3.10(3) a tracking number to identify the case; and
3.11(4) any other pertinent information.

3.12 Sec. 7. [347.63] NOTIFICATION.
3.13The program manager must send a written notification to the owners of dogs
3.14declared dangerous or potentially dangerous that they must register for a class within 30
3.15days, how to register for the class, and any other pertinent information.

3.16 Sec. 8. [347.64] CLASS TRAINING MANUAL; FORMS; CURRICULUM; TEST.
3.17(a) The class training manual and curriculum must address the basic needs of the
3.18dog, both behavioral and physical, and include education on dog care and dog behavior.
3.19The class training manual, forms, test, and curriculum must be prepared in consultation
3.20with a study commission and printed by the Department of Public Safety.
3.21(b) Upon completion of the responsible dog owner class, a facilitator must administer
3.22a multiple choice test to the dog owner and grade the test. A dog owner who fails the
3.23test must retake the test within two weeks.
3.24(c) If the owner of a dog declared dangerous fails the test twice, the animal control
3.25authority must seize the animal and provide for disposition of the animal pursuant to
3.26sections 347.54 and 347.541.
3.27(d) If the owner of a dog declared potentially dangerous fails the test twice, the
3.28animal control authority must make the determination as to disposition of the dog.
3.29(e) If a dog owner fails to register for a responsible dog owner class or fails to appear
3.30for the class and take the test, the dog owner must be considered as having failed the test.
3.31(f) A facilitator must provide a certificate of class completion to a dog owner upon
3.32successfully passing the test. A facilitator must forward a verification of completion or
3.33non-completion form and the tests to the program manager. The program manager must
4.1verify the information and forward it to the animal control authority and the Department
4.2of Public Safety.

4.3 Sec. 9. [347.65] LOCATION OF CLASS.
4.4Responsible dog owner classes must be offered to dog owners at locations
4.5determined by the program manager on a quarterly basis, as needed.

4.6 Sec. 10. [347.66] TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.
4.7If ownership of a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog is transferred to another
4.8person, the new owner must take a responsible dog owner class and pass the test.

4.9 Sec. 11. [347.67] STATEWIDE RECORDS; REPORTING; DATABASE.
4.10A database must be maintained by the Department of Public Safety containing
4.11records of all dogs in Minnesota declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, and
4.12owner information, including any convictions for violations of section 347.51; 347.515;
4.13347.56; 609.205, subdivision 4; or 609.226, subdivision 1 or 2; and any dogs owned
4.14by that person that have been ordered destroyed under section 347.56, as well as other
4.15information pertinent to enforcement of sections 347.50 to 347.565. The database must
4.16also contain information regarding the test results of the responsible dog owner class.
4.17The commissioner of public safety, in consultation with animal control professionals,
4.18must determine what information will be kept in this database. This database must be
4.19accessible, only for purposes of law enforcement, to all police and sheriff departments
4.20and other local government departments responsible for conducting or overseeing animal
4.21control operations in their jurisdictions, with the exception that private animal control
4.22authorities contracted to local government agencies may only access these records
4.23through, and with the permission of, those local government agencies. All Minnesota law
4.24enforcement agencies and animal control authorities must report in a timely manner to the
4.25Department of Public Safety any information required under this section.

4.26 Sec. 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.
4.27Sections 1, 3 to 6, 9, and 11 are effective the day following final enactment. Sections
4.282, 7, 8, and 10 are effective six months after that day.


*AUTHOR'S NOTE*

This bill was introduced one week prior to the State of New York bill that I had addressed last week.

It would seem to me that the lawmakers might want to consider enforcing their existing laws as opposed to this dreck which has absolutely no provisions for what constitutes responsible ownership, who makes that determination and who is responsible for the selection criterion for "Program Managers", "Facilitators" or what constitutes appropriate curricula?

A state pronouncement does not extol one with the necessary virtues of either the actual training of a dog, nor the skills necessary for the instruction of a dog's training.

What are these people smoking?

New York Dog Owners/Trainers Soon to be Howling at Albany

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New York Dog Owners/Trainers Soon to be Howling at Albany
January 7th, 2009
Albany, New York

New York District 39’s Assemblyman Jose Peralta has initiated a bill (A01540) into the New York State legislature to compel dog owners to comply with new licensing requirements, including a provision requiring them to attend and complete dog obedience training.

The Bill will also have a profound effect on Professional Dog Trainers conducting commerce in New York State; including those who participate in a wide variety of dog training disciplines from training hunting dogs, competitive obedience dogs and protection dogs as well as those who make their livelihood on the misbehaviors of man’s best friend.

This Bill is attached to the New York State Department of Agriculture and Marketing and the provisions within it rely heavily on “...the Commissioner to establish requirements for basic obedience courses for dogs and their owners that must be completed successfully...”, all without mentioning the consequences should they (owners) be found not in compliance. In addition, the provision in 113-A requires that “...the Commissioner shall establish requirements for Dog Obedience Schools which are ‘authorized’ to provide the basic dog obedience courses for dogs and their owners...”, again all without clarifying the language that will address that authorization.

Upon contacting the Assemblyman’s office, it was implied that those “authorization prerequisites” could possibly come in the form of ‘certification’ for dog trainers in order to meet this criterion and continue to conduct commerce by offering training help to dogs and their owners in the state of New York.

Certification has long been a ‘bone’ of contention amongst the dog training community with disagreements from what qualifies a dog trainer to what would constitute a trained dog, by any standards. It has been long established that dog training has been largely unregulated and it has historically been identified as a diverse group of individuals who practice a variety of dog training disciplines.

With the recent growth of schools for Dog Trainers, professional organizations and other dog training communities, many long-time Professional Dog Trainers are feeling the heat of this pending legislation.

Up until only a few short years ago, there was no such thing as ‘certification’ for dog trainers and today its value depends largely on the certifying body, and the organization that endorses the certification.

Many Professional Dog Trainers have practiced their craft for decades, through the traditional institutions of apprenticeship and practical hands-on training, where even the most well known organization that recognizes Professional Dog Trainers (Association of Pet Dog Trainers) established in the mid ‘90’s offers only a multiple choice questionnaire and a minimal number of hands-on hours before granting a certification. The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors established in 1965, requires an essay examination of practical skill sets and video portions to identify these skill sets in order to be endorsed; the International Association of Canine Professionals established in the late ‘90’s affords a voluntary process for it’s members to elect a certification program that contains not only an essay portion, but a video portion as well as endorsements written by students of the applicant, something neither of the other organizations require.

With an inability to determine what constitutes “basic obedience” in a meaningful way, logic suggest those already in place, a certification determining the safe behavior of the dog is a far better alternative to regulating dog owners and Dog Trainers. Such an option to amend a community’s licensing requirements with “Good Dog” tests such as Rockville Maryland’s Section 3-23 “Animal Off-Leash with Permission” offers a meaningful alternative to New York’s proposed difficult to implement, difficult to enforce legislation.

Reasonable legislation can be drafted to promote responsible dog ownership without forcing impositions on already responsible men and women who own dogs and Professional Dog Trainers who offer training services without the benefit of questionable ‘certification’.

Responsible New York State dog owners cannot help but be failed by this proposal and the Professional Dog Trainers who currently serve them should not be restricted from conducting their trade by a state mandate that can only be damaging to dog owners and their dogs.

Coeur d’Lion K9 Behavior Management
Linda I Kaim
1443 Old Taneytown Rd
Westminster,Maryland 21158
410-857-0555
717-880-4751
coeurdlionk9@gmail.com
www.lionheartk9.com