Field test for effectual control. Anybody?

time lord

With so many people not having their dogs not under effectual control what would your field test be to efficiently evaluate on a case by case basis whether or not the dog in question is under effectual control?
All opinions appreciated. Bear in mind a time frame and practicality are the only caveats.

Kinzig

time lord wrote: »

With so many people not having their dogs not under effectual control what would your field test be to efficiently evaluate on a case by case basis whether or not the dog in question is under effectual control?
All opinions appreciated. Bear in mind a time frame and practicality are the only caveats.

Im presently working on a 6 month old spaniel to have him on recall with a whistle signal and stop on another..when his training is completed I expect to be able to recall him to me under any circumstances or drop to the whistle at any distance under any circumstances..thereby having full control on him even if hes not close..ill expect him to be rock steady by about 1 year old..as ive trained other spaniels to do the same..hope this answers your question..

time lord

Kinzig wrote: »

Im presently working on a 6 month old spaniel to have him on recall with a whistle signal and stop on another..when his training is completed I expect to be able to recall him to me under any circumstances or drop to the whistle at any distance under any circumstances..thereby having full control on him even if hes not close..ill expect him to be rock steady by about 1 year old..as ive trained other spaniels to do the same..hope this answers your question..

Good training not that I'm critiquing anyone's answer just looking for a glove that fits! Maybe 'field test' is to near a literal meaning. A 'small exercise' to show that the owner has or has not effectual control of their dog applicable to the everyday dog walker who has not got the dog on a lead lets say.

TooManyDogs

Sometimes I think a simple Stay exercise like in competitive obedience can be very telling.

Owner asks the dog to stay and walks a certain distance away, the dog must not move, after a period of time the owner calls the dog and the dog recalls straight to them and sits.
The distance the owner walks from the dog and the length of time the dog must stay for gets longer as the dog and handler progress up through the levels but certainly it's a good basic test for effectual control I'd have thought?

DBB

TooManyDogs wrote: »

Sometimes I think a simple Stay exercise like in competitive obedience can be very telling.

Owner asks the dog to stay and walks a certain distance away, the dog must not move, after a period of time the owner calls the dog and the dog recalls straight to them and sits.
The distance the owner walks from the dog and the length of time the dog must stay for gets longer as the dog and handler progress up through the levels but certainly it's a good basic test for effectual control I'd have thought?

I'm not sure, simply because I know so, so few owners who teach this, and you know yourself... it needs to be taught!
Would a simple recall not do, no? To me, under effectual control means that the owner can get their dog back straight away, so that their dog cannot annoy anyone. That, to me at least, is what effectual control is: not bothering anyone!
I'd probably go for a 3-strikes model, dog has to come back 2 out of 3 times on first? Second? command, in a moderately distracting environment e.g. other dogs in the distance, but not within, say, 100m of the dog?

Kinzig

DBB wrote: »

I'm not sure, simply because I know so, so few owners who teach this, and you know yourself... it needs to be taught!
Would a simple recall not do, no? To me, under effectual control means that the owner can get their dog back straight away, so that their dog cannot annoy anyone. That, to me at least, is what effectual control is: not bothering anyone!
I'd probably go for a 3-strikes model, dog has to come back 2 out of 3 times on first? Second? command, in a moderately distracting environment e.g. other dogs in the distance, but not within, say, 100m of the dog?

I would tend to agree..for a dog walker a dog that is positive to recall under distraction would be the litmus test..

fatmammycat

Recall would be my major test too, and I mean recall during play/reactions or if your dog has just spotted the most interesting thing in the whole wide world.
My own dog will come out of a play situation on a call, but I wouldn't trust him fully in flight mode so he remains leashed in public - as per the law anyway, but to protect him and I would not like him bothering anyone.
But there again my dog is only 15 months and every time we go out we're training in some capacity or other; it's only recently that I've trained him to ignore other dogs behaviour when he's on a lead, and that includes some super rude dogs who have come rushing up to him ( a lab even came between us the other day, while my dog was leashed, with the owner bawling in the bakground 'he just wants to say hello!'). For a young intact GSD, his tolerance of rude dogs is nothing short of spectacular, but it's a pain in the backside for me. Now that lab has absolutely no recall whatsoever and could not be considered under effectual control.

TooManyDogs

DBB wrote: »

I'm not sure, simply because I know so, so few owners who teach this, and you know yourself... it needs to be taught!

True. 'Effectual control' is very open to personal interpretation isn't it?

timelord were you thinking of it as each person's individual test for control or as a general test that could be implemented if a warden were to stop them in the street?

DBB

TooManyDogs wrote: »

True. 'Effectual control' is very open to personal interpretation isn't it?

And therein lies the problem! My policy is that an owner should not give anyone a reason to complain about their dog, nor give an onlooker (eg the warden) any ammunition.
Recall would be difficult in a high-distraction situation as you describe fatmammycat, which is why I wanted to make sure that there'd be terms and conditions attached, for example, there should not be another dog within 100m? More? Less? of the dog in question. It'd need to be a fair test for an owner who has basic obedience (recall) established. It'd certainly make owners who don't bother training their dog cop themselves on.... But I think it's a pipe dream! I just don't see us ever getting our act together in terms of sensible, workable dog control legislation.

fatmammycat

DBB wrote: »

And therein lies the problem! My policy is that an owner should not give anyone a reason to complain about their dog, nor give an onlooker (eg the warden) any ammunition.
Recall would be difficult in a high-distraction situation as you describe fatmammycat, which is why I wanted to make sure that there'd be terms and conditions attached, for example, there should not be another dog within 100m? More? Less? of the dog in question. It'd need to be a fair test for an owner who has basic obedience (recall) established. It'd certainly make owners who don't bother training their dog cop themselves on.... But I think it's a pipe dream! I just don't see us ever getting our act together in terms of sensible, workable dog control legislation.

Would be interesting to say the least! Swallows are my current bete noire, it's almost as though they enjoy swooping inches in front of his nose.

time lord

TooManyDogs wrote: »

True. 'Effectual control' is very open to personal interpretation isn't it?

timelord were you thinking of it as each person's individual test for control or as a general test that could be implemented if a warden were to stop them in the street?

A test that could be done by anyone charged with implementing the control of dogs act and/or relevant bye laws. Or just a standard people would identify with to draw a conclusion. Either or, just a conduit to make a conclusion.
"Come here, stay" and person in charge walks away seems to be the most appropriate at the moment unless something else is recommended.

DBB

time lord wrote: »

A test that could be done by anyone charged with implementing the control of dogs act and/or relevant bye laws. Or just a standard people would identify with to draw a conclusion. Either or, just a conduit to make a conclusion.
"Come here, stay" and person in charge walks away seems to be the most appropriate at the moment unless something else is recommended.

I don't feel that the stay or walk away bit are necessary time lord, because you're getting into slightly more advanced obedience there, which imo is not really fair or realistic for many owners.
I think it needs to be very simple: does the dog come back when called, in a moderately distracting scenario?
It doesn't need any more bells and whistles than that.

time lord

DBB wrote: »

I don't feel that the stay or walk away bit are necessary time lord, because you're getting into slightly more advanced obedience there, which imo is not really fair or realistic for many owners.
I think it needs to be very simple: does the dog come back when called, in a moderately distracting scenario?
It doesn't need any more bells and whistles than that.

In my opinion if an owners full extent to their dogs training is come here then they are ill equipped to exert effectual control on their dog. What would control of their dog be then if not effectual control.
For the control to be effectual in a given senario which is usually but not always outside where other dogs and members of the public are, the control should be effectual and not selective. I dont think come here cuts it, especially as an umbrella notion for the general public. I honestly think a huge number of dog walkers who walk their dogs off a lead do not have effectual control over their dogs. The simplest effectual control measure is to use a lead in most cases.
The diligent, good dog owners should be free to walk their dogs as they see fit but as we know the lazy dog owners who make a nuisance for all are in abundance. To facilitate the good owners a simple field test should suffice to show their dog is under effectual control but I fear that many nuisance people who walk a dog would also temporarily pass a field test of 'come here' and not separate anyone who has put some time in to their dog from the people who are not prepared to invest time into their dog and think the law always facilitates them walking their dog anywhere off a lead because they have been told their dog doesn't have to be on a lead.
I think your test would be a runner for most boardsies but not for the public at large. Many dogs I see often come back when called but for all of a couple of seconds to their owners before bolting off again 'to say hello' to some diligent owner say with a R.B. on a lead. Anyway it's just my tuppence worth, I keep my opinions fluid as each case is always a bit different.

DBB

Are you suggesting that all dog owners must always have their dogs on lead in order that their dogs are deemed under effectual control?
If that was what "under effectual control" was meant to mean, then surely the law would simply cut to the chase as it already does in the RB legislation, and say "all dogs must be on lead"?
I'm inclined to think that the law, as it stands, is deliberately not so restrictive. There is already a clear distinction made, and it was evidently decided that "all dogs must be on lead" is not the same as "all dogs must be under effectual control".
Surely, if an owner can get their dog back on command, in a moderately distracting scenario, they are exhibiting that they can prevent their dog from getting into trouble/annoying people/annoying other dogs? Owner calls, dog returns, owner can clip lead on dog, or at worst, dog is no longer causing a nuisance because he's back with his owner. There is no need for the dog to also be able to stay for x seconds whilst the owner walks away.... I can't see why this would be relevant, especially in an informal dog-walking scenario.
I don't think either that many owners have good recall over their dogs, and to simply insist on this one element alone is going to be a challenge for many owners, let alone also asking for some pretty advanced obedience moves. I think you are overestimating how difficult many owners find it to establish a straightforward recall... I would consider it a pretty good achievement for an average owner to do this.
You asked for ideas, and I don't think that what I suggested is all that "selective", to be honest. I think it's representative of a broad range of scenarios. If the owner can call the dog back, then the dog is under control. If owners can call their dogs back, yet still insist on letting their dog run riot, isn't the legislation there to deal with them? But to have people like this make people like me and other responsible owners have to keep my dogs on lead at all times is grossly unfair.
I'd have thought that were a simpler system introduced, and enforced, then all dog owners will be somewhat forced to make it their business to ensure their dog has some basic obedience skills, hence making the dog-owning world a happier place... Dog gets exercised off-lead, dog does not annoy anyone in the process.
Is this a policy that is being discussed at some level in the industry?

time lord

DBB wrote: »

"Are you suggesting that all dog owners must always have their dogs on lead in order that their dogs are deemed under effectual control?"
No. It's an option to achieve effectual control.


"Surely, if an owner can get their dog back on command, in a moderately distracting scenario, they are exhibiting that they can prevent their dog from getting into trouble/annoying people/annoying other dogs?"

I wouldnt concur. Too many dogs just do what they want regardless of recall.

"Owner calls, dog returns, owner can clip lead on dog, or at worst, dog is no longer causing a nuisance because he's back with his owner. There is no need for the dog to also be able to stay for x seconds whilst the owner walks away.... I can't see why this would be relevant, especially in an informal dog-walking scenario.
I don't think either that many owners have good recall over their dogs, and to simply insist on this one element alone is going to be a challenge for many owners, let alone also asking for some pretty advanced obedience moves. I think you are overestimating how difficult many owners find it to establish a straightforward recall... I would consider it a pretty good achievement for an average owner to do this."

I don't overestimate how many dogs will not come back when it's necessary to maintain effectual control.

"You asked for ideas, and I don't think that what I suggested is all that "selective", to be honest. I think it's representative of a broad range of scenarios. If the owner can call the dog back, then the dog is under control. If owners can call their dogs back, yet still insist on letting their dog run riot, isn't the legislation there to deal with them? But to have people like this make people like me and other responsible owners have to keep my dogs on lead at all times is grossly unfair.
I'd have thought that were a simpler system introduced, and enforced, then all dog owners will be somewhat forced to make it their business to ensure their dog has some basic obedience skills, hence making the dog-owning world a happier place... Dog gets exercised off-lead, dog does not annoy anyone in the process."

So many of the public are so bad at looking after their dogs that a common sense approach will not always work as it remains very vague.

"Is this a policy that is being discussed at some level in the industry?

"
Not to my knowledge. Must get the hang of this quoting stuff

DBB

"Surely, if an owner can get their dog back on command, in a moderately distracting scenario, they are exhibiting that they can prevent their dog from getting into trouble/annoying people/annoying other dogs?"

I wouldnt concur. Too many dogs just do what they want regardless of recall.

I am really confused by what you're looking for now!
If an owner can call their dog back, and their dog comes back... surely that 100% exhibits that the dog is under effectual control? That the owner can call the dog away?
How can you say that a dog that has returned to its owner on command is "doing what it wants regardless of recall"?
If it obeys, it obeys. It either does, or it doesn't.

So, if you're talking about a scenario where a dog warden comes upon an area where dogs are running about the place. Nobody is worried, nobody is complaining, it's just a group of owners allowing their dogs have some off-lead time.
The warden would like to determine whether the dogs are under effectual control.
He approaches an owner whose dog is playing with a small group of other dogs, and asks the owner to call their dog. The owner calls, and the dog comes back.
Therefore, at that moment, the warden would have to conclude that this dog is under effectual control.

He approaches the next owner, whose dog is sniffing a tree, and asks the owner to call the dog back. The owner calls, and the dog runs off in the opposite direction to play with the other dogs.
Therefore, at that moment, the warden would have to conclude that this dog is not under effectual control.

I don't really know what the argument is here? If an owner can let their dog off-lead without having recall problems, there's no issue, is there? If an owner can't let their dog off without issue, then they run the risk of being fined, complained about etc. The law is there to deal with the latter, not the former, and I'd have thought it's pretty easy for a warden to conclude which dog belongs to which category. I don't really see what's vague about it tbh.

If you're suggesting having all dogs on-lead as an answer, what are your alternatives? What other answers do you suggest?

time lord

My singular opinion on anything won't change much. Doesn't seem like a strong consensus is about for a standard field test.