France to impose certificate of knowledge

Mule

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 October 2016
Messages
7,665
I am pretty sure it will only be enforced in cases of abuse and/or neglect. Let's say a horse is very thin due to not being fed properly. The relevant authority can then check that the owner has the certificate of knowledge. If no certificate then there is ground for warning the owner/removing horse from their care.

If there are no problems in the horse's management and condition there is little interest to check the paperwork. It's a bit like the only time your get your driving licence checked is usually if something is amiss with your car or driving.
That would be useful
 

paddy555

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 December 2010
Messages
9,253
If somebody is unable to pay the 'fair amount of money', they should not consider buying an equine in the first place.
they may have sufficient money to support their horse, care for it and pay the insurance. It doesn't mean they are expected to have further money to pay for training they may not need just because someone (or some body) has the idea of enforcing training.
 

TealHorse

Active Member
Joined
21 November 2020
Messages
42
they may have sufficient money to support their horse, care for it and pay the insurance. It doesn't mean they are expected to have further money to pay for training they may not need just because someone (or some body) has the idea of enforcing training.
A responsible owner (the definition of which is likely taught on the course, so maybe this conversation alone is evidence of the need for it) would have money put aside for unexpected costs. I do not believe someone can have 'sufficient' money to support their horse, yet they can't afford a course which would (I assume) last their lifetime and be a fraction of the cost of owning a horse.
 

paddy555

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 December 2010
Messages
9,253
I am pretty sure it will only be enforced in cases of abuse and/or neglect. Let's say a horse is very thin due to not being fed properly. The relevant authority can then check that the owner has the certificate of knowledge. If no certificate then there is ground for warning the owner/removing horse from their care.

If there are no problems in the horse's management and condition there is little interest to check the paperwork. It's a bit like the only time your get your driving licence checked is usually if something is amiss with your car or driving.
no shortage of people driving without a valid licence.
So in the case of the certificate of knowledge those who like to comply with the rules will obtain it. They are probably the owners that don't need the training anyway. The rest won't bother. If you don't enforce it why bother. Only the "mugs" will comply.
If the horse is very thin then there is either a problem which the owner is dealing with and can provide vet or whatever other evidence is needed to demonstrate this or alternatively it is abuse and should be dealt with accordingly. Warn them, remove the horse or prosecute them but for heaven's sake get some penalties into place that actually mean something to act as a deterrent.
Having a certificate is not going to stop someone starving a horse. If that is their attitude to an animal that is what they will do.
 

Fred66

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 February 2017
Messages
2,069
How would this work if a total novice owned one but kept it on full livery where they pretty much only rode ? Or for owners of race horses, top SJ / Eventers etc where where they are the owner but neither care for nor ride the horse ?
 

Keith_Beef

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 December 2017
Messages
8,364
Location
Seine et Oise, France
I am pretty sure it will only be enforced in cases of abuse and/or neglect. Let's say a horse is very thin due to not being fed properly. The relevant authority can then check that the owner has the certificate of knowledge. If no certificate then there is ground for warning the owner/removing horse from their care.
A neglected horse is reported, and an inspector arrives. The inspector scans for a chip, and imagine that the code returned links to the National Equine Database and the owner's / keeper's details are up to date, including whether or not that person holds the required certificate... That person still needs to be held to account for the neglect, certificate or no certificate.

There would perhaps be a secondary offence of owning or keeping a horse without the required certificate.

If there are no problems in the horse's management and condition there is little interest to check the paperwork. It's a bit like the only time your get your driving licence checked is usually if something is amiss with your car or driving.
In France it is fairly common to see the Gendarmes at a roundabout or motorway toll booth checking licences; they pick every N cars. Or they are there picking cars of a certain model and colour because a similar vehicle is suspected of containing contraband or a person they are looking for.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
4,465
they may have sufficient money to support their horse, care for it and pay the insurance. It doesn't mean they are expected to have further money to pay for training they may not need just because someone (or some body) has the idea of enforcing training.
I get this but we are increasingly living in times where owning an animal and the social licence to do that are questioned - the value of education and some form of 'proof' of competency would go some way to provide that social licence. I don't think even the most ardent supporter is suggesting that this will solve all animal welfare ills but truly there are still too people who own large animals (including horses) who have very little idea of how to look after them or how that animal actually 'works'. This scheme would at least remove a basic level of ignorance and thus a number of ignorance generated cruelty or neglect issues. If people can't afford a very simple 'course' (a bit like bee keepers attend after all) then they really are not in position to take on an animal that may generate all sorts of bills that would not be covered by increasingly expensive insurance. I don't want to see normal people priced out of horse ownership at all but a basic cert of competance would not be unaffordable in the context of equine ownership I don't think. There are also ways in which some of the equine organisations etc would find to support those courses - if we were a bit more enlightened like Sweden perhaps the govt might even subsidise them!! Potentially a basic cert of competance might also provide an initial educational gateway to other quals and courses too. It seems like a no-brainer to me and probably should apply to all domestic animals if we truly want to put our money where our 'animal loving' mouths are.

ETA - I have often thought how dire it is that anybody can go to a pet shop and buy all sorts of animals that reallly need quite specialist conditions and care to thrive yet there is no bar on anyone just buying them and heading off with them. There is considerable suffering of small animals and various reptiles that could be easily addressed with a cert of competance and that would put off some of the people that should never be keeping an animal tbh!
 

Cortez

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 January 2009
Messages
12,375
Location
Ireland
I used to teach a basic horse handling course for Teagasc, the national agricultural training body, aimed at small breeders and novice owners. It was free for farmers and subsidised for others. It was extremely useful for people who didn't know how to get their youngstock ready to go to sales, but also identified problems with welfare, feeding, worming, hoof care, etc. People on the course received a certificate on completion, and I am often asked to repeat the course.
 

Goldenstar

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 March 2011
Messages
41,846
How on earth are those enforced? There's no point in having any rules or regulations if they're not monitored or enforced.

This would never work in the uk as we don't even enforce the Animal Welfare Act (our police seem to leave it to a charity- without any legal rights - to do that ).
Imagine someone keeping horses here without such a certificate- what would happen to them ? A fine ? Someone removes the horses? And puts them where ?

Great as an idea but not workable in the real world.
Yeh it would be a complete box ticking exercise and those terrible owners who cause so much suffering to horses and work for the welfare agencies would not be affected at all .
They don’t obey the law now .
Never has information on how to do things been more available than it is now.
 

paddy555

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 December 2010
Messages
9,253
I get this but we are increasingly living in times where owning an animal and the social licence to do that are questioned - the value of education and some form of 'proof' of competency would go some way to provide that social licence. I don't think even the most ardent supporter is suggesting that this will solve all animal welfare ills but truly there are still too people who own large animals (including horses) who have very little idea of how to look after them or how that animal actually 'works'. This scheme would at least remove a basic level of ignorance and thus a number of ignorance generated cruelty or neglect issues. If people can't afford a very simple 'course' (a bit like bee keepers attend after all) then they really are not in position to take on an animal that may generate all sorts of bills that would not be covered by increasingly expensive insurance. I don't want to see normal people priced out of horse ownership at all but a basic cert of competance would not be unaffordable in the context of equine ownership I don't think. There are also ways in which some of the equine organisations etc would find to support those courses - if we were a bit more enlightened like Sweden perhaps the govt might even subsidise them!! Potentially a basic cert of competance might also provide an initial educational gateway to other quals and courses too. It seems like a no-brainer to me and probably should apply to all domestic animals if we truly want to put our money where our 'animal loving' mouths are.

ETA - I have often thought how dire it is that anybody can go to a pet shop and buy all sorts of animals that reallly need quite specialist conditions and care to thrive yet there is no bar on anyone just buying them and heading off with them. There is considerable suffering of small animals and various reptiles that could be easily addressed with a cert of competance and that would put off some of the people that should never be keeping an animal tbh!

I get the part about a basic course. for those getting an animal for the first time. What do you do about the rest who are the vast majority of horse owners? grandfathers rights? however would you deal with that? Who would pay for the admin. of it? How would you even find people, there is no register of horses. Many have evaded passporting and chipping which the law abiding amongst us have paid for in the same way we would pay for this rubbish idea.

It is not a question that people should be able to afford it if they want a horse but more to the point that if someone is paying money they expect something of value in return. For many on the education front that would be more advanced riding training, for others like me more trimming, some may want course to learn to drive or acquire some other skill. Why on earth would they want to waste money on learning to muck out a stable and groom a horse or be told they need to make sure they ring the farrier every 6 weeks when they have been doing precisely that for the past heaven knows how many years.

Totally pointless tick box exercise. Many are on yards and simply do as the YO dictates. You may learn about worm counts but if the YO worms every 3 months that is your lot. You may learn about the benefits of horses having company and their natural behaviour but if the YO dictates single TO that is it, similarly in fields in winter and a million other things.


Would anyone really suggest that the likes of GS and YCBM and others should pay to do the equivalent of BHS stage 1? :rolleyes:
You don't need a certificate of competence to provide the gateway to other courses. Either you want to do courses and get certs or you don't.

As GS says there is so much info on the internet.. If you really and truly cannot put a headcollar on or groom a horse then I am sure there must be a Youtube video that will show you how.

as for the govt. subsidising then I think it is a great idea. No reason at all why they shouldn't subsidise my expensive luxury hobby. No reason at all why the taxpayer should pay to subsidise the poor, the elderly, the NHS and anyone else who is starving or homeless when they could be paying for horse activities. :p:p
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
4,465
My comment about subsidising horse riding was not about supporting the hobbies of the wealthy but enabling access of more people to equestrianism. The benefits of contact with animals are pretty undisputed and in many ways - why should horses remain the privilege of the wealthy when many, many other sports are more open (thanks to lottery funding and other subsidies) to everyone?

I just don't get why experienced and educated horse owners would resent getting their bit of paper to try and improve education and welfare either. But we are all different and thankfully entitled to freedom of opinion.
 

Fred66

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 February 2017
Messages
2,069
trying to impose the attitudes of britain on the french does not work, its a different more sophisticated society with totally alien concepts, around horses, some backwards some very much in advance, the english may not do it but the french may see it as step in the right direction
Sorry would you mind explaining what you mean by “sophisticated” ? Thank you
 

ycbm

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
43,731
I just don't get why experienced and educated horse owners would resent getting their bit of paper to try and improve education and welfare either. But we are all different and thankfully entitled to freedom of opinion.

Resentment doesn't come into it, but I don't think this suggestion would achieve what you believe it would, and I don't really see why you think I should pay for the privilege of being part of a massive box ticking exercise.
 

paddy555

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 December 2010
Messages
9,253
Just to point out re. the discussion of some of stage 1 and 2, what's wrong with the newer version of the horse owners certificates (as I knew them as)? https://www.bhs.org.uk/our-charity/...islands/2018/essential-horse-knowledge-course
this is described as aimed at the first time horse owner so there is already provision for newcomers to have a course and a test. It should give them a good idea of what to expect re commitment and costs etc so no need for any further certificate course, this one already exists. Problem solved.

Why the rest of us would either need to attend or would gain anything from it I have no idea unless it is just box ticking.
 

paddy555

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 December 2010
Messages
9,253
My comment about subsidising horse riding was not about supporting the hobbies of the wealthy but enabling access of more people to equestrianism. The benefits of contact with animals are pretty undisputed and in many ways -
taxation which is what would be needed to fund this is about enabling access of people to health care, benefits, schooling and everything else it provides. As all of these require considerably more money I doubt there is going to be anything left over to accommodate people's hobbies.

Perhaps the state should also subsidise people's holidays, after all many would like one but cannot afford one. :D
 

ycbm

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
43,731
My comment about subsidising horse riding was not about supporting the hobbies of the wealthy but enabling access of more people to equestrianism. The benefits of contact with animals are pretty undisputed and in many ways - why should horses remain the privilege of the wealthy when many, many other sports are more open (thanks to lottery funding and other subsidies) to everyone?
Sailing is not easily available to those who don't live near the coast. Skiing is very expensive for those who don't live near snow. Competitive diving is not easily available to those who don't live near a deep pool. There are many sports that are not readily accessible to people.

Conversely, there are very many sports which are, at much lower entry cost. The benefits of meeting animals can be met much more easily and cheaply with dogs. Horses are expensive creatures both to buy and to maintain. An entry level dinghy is not going to get colic any time soon.

I have no idea why anyone who has horses as a hobby thinks tax payers should subsidise horse sport or why charity should fund anything but the RDA .
.
 

Fred66

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 February 2017
Messages
2,069
Sailing is not easily available to those who don't live near the coast. Skiing is very expensive for those who don't live near snow. Competitive diving is not easily available to those who don't live near a deep pool. There are many sports that are not readily accessible to people.

Conversely, there are very many sports which are, at much lower entry cost. The benefits of meeting animals can be met much more easily and cheaply with dogs. Horses are expensive creatures both to buy and to maintain. An entry level dinghy is not going to get colic any time soon.

I have no idea why anyone who has horses as a hobby thinks tax payers should subsidise horse sport or why charity should fund anything but the RDA .
.
Largely agree, but would like to see riding schools given subsidies to enable some entry level access. Otherwise it will be doomed to be an elite level sport forever. Many troubled but not disabled youngsters benefit from interaction with horses
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
4,465
Resentment doesn't come into it, but I don't think this suggestion would achieve what you believe it would, and I don't really see why you think I should pay for the privilege of being part of a massive box ticking exercise.
Well I guess because that sum of money might contribute to better equine welfare and knowledge generally. That seems a good thing to me and something that horse lovers/animal lovers would want to support. I understand that you feel it might not contribute to improved welfare (and I sometimes feel a bit similar about the things that taxes are spent on but that is another issue) so it would be a 'waste' of your money but only a trial would show whether that was the case. For me as a horse owner I think the social contract is significant and I would be happy to demonstrate that I had 'licence' to keep my animals. I think the dog licence or a better version of it should be brought back too. Making even small hurdles for animal keepers will sieve out some of the least committed at the very least.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
4,465
Sailing is not easily available to those who don't live near the coast. Skiing is very expensive for those who don't live near snow. Competitive diving is not easily available to those who don't live near a deep pool. There are many sports that are not readily accessible to people.

Conversely, there are very many sports which are, at much lower entry cost. The benefits of meeting animals can be met much more easily and cheaply with dogs. Horses are expensive creatures both to buy and to maintain. An entry level dinghy is not going to get colic any time soon.

I have no idea why anyone who has horses as a hobby thinks tax payers should subsidise horse sport or why charity should fund anything but the RDA .
.
Well because I think horses offer something entirely unique and the advantages for some people of working with them are well proven. There is an equestrian industry (or several) too that provide actual work/career opportunities so that subsidy would not necessarily be a frivolity or a dead end but I get, of course that healthcare and education are probably more of a priority than sport. Even so, it could be another kind of 'access' which provides opportunities for people. I don't see why poor people should be stuck without those opportunities to be honest and subsidising elements of equestrianism has nothing to do with subsidising the hobbies of rich people. Several European countries have well tried and tested subsidies for equestrianism because of the recognised health and other benefits of that kind of access and opportunity. Just my view and I have spent my entire career working with people who have and should benefit from a huge variety of opportunities; I would like to see that expanded and I know that horses can make a profound difference to the lives of some people who have few opportunities. Obviously I am passionate about that.
 

stangs

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 September 2021
Messages
1,175
There is considerable suffering of small animals and various reptiles that could be easily addressed with a cert of competance and that would put off some of the people that should never be keeping an animal tbh!
I'm not for or against this certificate of knowledge idea, but I do think a distinction has to be made between small animals and horses, as small animals are much more likely to be solely looked after by their owner and so much more in need of competent owners.

trying to impose the attitudes of britain on the french does not work, its a different more sophisticated society
Sorry?? The French are no better than the British, even if in a different way.
 

ycbm

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
43,731
I don't see what's wrong with horse owning remaining a sport of the relatively wealthy, like flying and skiing. There are many things in life that various groups of people aspire to and put themselves out to make happen if they can. I don't see removing aspiration as beneficial to society.
.
 
Top