Canine Good Citizen Test and the AKC

[Maralynn]

The places I rented were listed as "NO dogs allowed." I called, explained about my dogs and they rented to me with an entire pack of BCs. A lot of places that say "no dogs allowed" in their adds will actually consider dogs under certain circumstances. TD certification can be the difference with those rentals.

 

Very true. I have a friend that rents out her second home every summer for a week at a time. Strictly no dogs allowed. She has a dog and loves her, I always take mine when I go to visit. She just doesn't want strange dogs with an unknown amount of training in her house, and I don't blame her.

[Eileen Stein]

My insurance co. doesn't list BCs as a problem. In fact I carry a special rider on Jin in case he's stolen. If you plan on visiting the resorts in the area note than Landmark/Wyndham do not allow dogs and the Marriotts only allows CGC the last time.

 

I take it from what you're saying here that Landmark/Wyndham doesn't allow dogs period, without regard to CGC? I don't know exactly where you are, but the Desert Springs/Palm Desert Marriott's website says, "Pet Policy: No pets allowed" -- again no mention of CGC.

 

The places I rented were listed as "NO dogs allowed." I called, explained about my dogs and they rented to me with an entire pack of BCs. A lot of places that say "no dogs allowed" in their adds will actually consider dogs under certain circumstances. TD certification can be the difference with those rentals.

 

When I was looking for the one-year rental I mentioned earlier, I did encounter several places that initially said, "We don't allow dogs" or "We normally don't allow dogs." Oddly enough, just my describing the dogs as well-behaved, obedient, quiet, not destructive, etc. caused each of them to say, "Oh, well, that would be okay then." Nobody asked for any kind of documentation. I'm sure there ARE places that really won't allow dogs, and there are probably even some that will allow them only upon presentation of some kind of certificate (or sheepdog trial ribbon!), but I wouldn't want anyone to assume that just because a "No Dogs" or "No dogs except . . ." policy is stated that it's the last word on the subject.

 

It just occurred to me that I have an even better illustration of this. At the Edgeworth trial last month, two friends and I rented a really nice cabin for the long weekend. Their literature said "No Pets," and they had never heard of the sheepdog trial. We persuaded them to rent the cabin to us even though we would have with us a total of 7 dogs. No certificates, testimonials or ribbons involved. We arrived with the dogs, the owners saw them going in and out of the cabin -- no problems. Earlier this month we sought to rent another nice place several hours away for the week of the 2010 finals, which also initially told us they had a No Dogs policy. We told them we would have a bunch of dogs with us but they were nice dogs, they said they'd think it over, we asked if they'd like to see a reference from a place where we'd recently stayed, they said yes, at our request the Edgeworth place emailed them that we were fine, and we now have a reservation for us and our dogs. My only point is that as long as there are other ways for me to accomplish something, I will not choose the way that supports the AKC.

[SoloRiver]

Hi Eileen, I wasn't suggesting that you'd forge a CGC certificate, but that the certificate you provided would be affiliated with no recognized certification program. I would prefer that my dogs have certifications from an organization that is real and that is recognized even by laypeople as a valid certifying organization.

 

The TDI test presents itself as a "natural extension of the CGC" and the test requirement brochure (downloadable here) refers readers to the AKC CGC program. This is not as bad as actually participating in an AKC activity I suppose but it is not entirely separate either. The TDI test does require that dogs be willing to visit strangers in addition to the CGC requirements, which makes sense for a therapy dog but in my mind is unnecessary for a well-mannered pet. Actually, none of my dogs are particularly outgoing, even Fly and Jett, who are temperamentally normal, just not interested in people they don't know. I am sure it would not be difficult to train either of them to greet strangers, however.

 

I would consider the TDI test for Fly and Jett if I found myself in a position to need certifications and if the test situations were available just for the sake of not supporting AKC, but if the TDI test were difficult to access and the CGC were readily available I would not lose too much sleep over getting CGCs instead. I do believe that maintaining the CGC program is one of the (perhaps few) very positive things that AKC does, along with funding for canine health-related scientific research (which I and my colleagues benefitted from) so I can't say anything particularly bad about it. I think the CGC program is a good thing and that is establishes worthwhile, realistic, positive goals for pet owners. I would never personally discourage a pet owner from training for CGC certification with his or her dog. I guess for me the CGC battle just isn't worth fighting.

[Eileen Stein]

Hi Eileen, I wasn't suggesting that you'd forge a CGC certificate, but that the certificate you provided would be affiliated with no recognized certification program. I would prefer that my dogs have certifications from an organization that is real and that is recognized even by laypeople as a valid certifying organization.

 

Okay. It was the "lying" and "forging" stuff that threw me off. Also, the idea of preferring to have certifications from the AKC when an old sheepdog trial ribbon had proven just as effective is hard for me to get my mind around. I guess I would prefer to have certifications from the AKC to a poke in the eye with a sharp stick if the stick was very sharp and the poke was very deep. But telling people they should accept my dogs because my dogs have a certificate from the AKC is not a statement I would choose to make except in the direst of circumstances when there was no other choice.

 

The TDI test presents itself as a "natural extension of the CGC" and the test requirement brochure (downloadable here) refers readers to the AKC CGC program. This is not as bad as actually participating in an AKC activity I suppose but it is not entirely separate either.

 

It's nothing like participating in an AKC activity. It's participating in an activity of an entirely different, unrelated organization which happens to use some of the test elements of an AKC program, and acknowledges that. By referring to the AKC CGC program TDI gets a little reflected glory from AKC's public name recognition. I cannot see how this benefits the AKC in any way.

 

I would consider the TDI test for Fly and Jett if I found myself in a position to need certifications and if the test situations were available just for the sake of not supporting AKC, but if the TDI test were difficult to access and the CGC were readily available I would not lose too much sleep over getting CGCs instead. I do believe that maintaining the CGC program is one of the (perhaps few) very positive things that AKC does, along with funding for canine health-related scientific research (which I and my colleagues benefitted from) so I can't say anything particularly bad about it. I think the CGC program is a good thing and that is establishes worthwhile, realistic, positive goals for pet owners. I would never personally discourage a pet owner from training for CGC certification with his or her dog. I guess for me the CGC battle just isn't worth fighting.

 

I'm sure that point of view is much more prevalent than mine.