Effective and Humane

There is a new post on Dog Training Canada that begins:

"Thinking back through the mists of time to when we first decided to sign up for a dog training program, I recall there were some very specific things that were important to us. Our motivation was simply that we wanted to address and change certain behaviours so that we could enjoy our dogs more. It was important therefore that the training program we signed up for had to be effective where (up to that point) we had not been.

The next thing to consider was that the training had to be humane. We loved our dogs, as did everyone else in the class, and would not for a minute consider anything harmful, cruel or inhumane. What we saw emerge from that class was a group of happy dogs and owners that had learned their lessons well and were now much happier together. Classes each week had come to be something to look forward to and we all were sorry when week ten arrived because it meant the lessons were over.

I'm willing to bet that things are really no different for today's dog owner. They are looking (just as we were) for solutions that are effective and humane. This fact would seem to be so obvious as to not even need stating - it fits within the realm of, "common sense."

Unfortunately some troubling trends have emerged in recent years that make it important to state these very facts..."

The rest of the article can be found here: http://dogtrainingcanada.ca/Effective_Humane.htm

A Welcome and Growing Trend

In the past few months we have seen a very welcome trend emerge as common-sense trainers, offering a balanced approach to training dogs and resolving behavioural issues, began to come together to form a humane dog training movement. While there already are several associations for dog trainers (to which some within the emerging group still belong) others have felt it necessary to dissociate from these organizations.

What makes this movement unique is that rather than focus on 'corporate self interest' and association growth, its focus is on the training needs of the consumer and the gaps in what often is currently being promoted in the name of "dog training." Because of the cancerous growth of the positive dog training movement (sometimes referred to as the pure positive or pp movement) dog owners have lost sight of effective training, limit setting that works, the need to teach "NO" and how to truly be an owner and leader.

This is all good news for dogs and their owners because unless we begin to demonstrate effective training and put the brakes on some of the undesirable behaviours, our very relationship with "man's best friend" may be strained past the breaking point. Anyone reading this and wondering who to contact for help in training their dog should really look past the rhetoric of the Ideologue and search for a balanced humane trainer that focuses on reliable results. Look for real dog training you can live with.

Traps

It’s been said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” This statement is fundamental to understanding what so often goes wrong and how we sometimes manage to derail the best made plans for our canine buddy. Despite our intention to properly train him (or if there is already a problem, do “whatever it takes” to get him back on track) we ofttimes simply don’t follow through. In this section I want to examine what makes it so hard to succeed even when we know what needs to be done.

When the owner desires to train their dog or solve a problem, it would seem all that is needed is the right information combined with the correct application. “How to” advice is available from a variety of sources and in all kinds of media. For every endeavor there exists reams of sound and useful suggestions. Knowledge alone isn’t enough. It is not unusual for a new client to tell me what they need to be doing but ‘something’ (they are not always sure what) has prevented them from applying that knowledge. For some of those answers, I encourage owners to look inside themselves, to what makes them “tick.”

The following case illustrates some of the more common traps owners can fall into:

B.T. is a fourteen-month-old, very active and assertive Belgian Tervuren. Margaret is an easy-going woman in her mid forties. They had been to class when B.T. was just a puppy for some very basic puppy training exercises and socialization. About a year later I had occasion to become reacquainted with her, her husband and the dog.

This was not one of those occasions which all trainers enjoy when someone drops by to say how wonderful everything has been going; this was a much more serious occasion. B.T. had inflicted several bites on his owner, a few serious enough to require medical attention.

When this puppy had been obtained at 7-8 weeks (from a local first-time breeder) they had every good intention of raising him right and turning him into a great companion. They heard socialization is critical and so from the time they got B.T. they took him everywhere with them.

Margaret had heard dogs make better companions if they are trained and so she arranged to bring him to my beginners training class when he was 3.5 months old. The dog caught onto things very quickly and demonstrated a keen working ability. It was also in the context of the class that I could see (and pointed out to his owner) the potential for serious problems in the future.

Margaret is an intelligent person and grasps most concepts without difficulty, yet she was having a lot of difficulty training B.T. He pulled her all over the place, didn’t pay attention to her and ignored any attempts she made to set limits. Her generally permissive style and the fact that she always seemed prepared to lavish affection upon him, saw B.T. continually gaining the upper hand.

When I met with her to address some of the problems, she admitted that even though she knew she needed to, she just didn’t seem able to assert herself when it came to dealing with B.T. She had a hard time setting limits and saying NO and tended to make excuses for maintaining the status quo, rather than look at the changes she needed to make.

As bad as things had become, I likely would not have heard from her had it not been for her vet urging her to call me. The vet was very concerned that she had a serious aggression problem, was not willing to acknowledge it and, therefore, was not dealing with it. The staff at the vet clinic were becoming intimidated by this dog’s behavior and, as already mentioned, he had already bitten the owner a few times.

According to her all the bites occurred when she was running to get to the ringing telephone. In addition to this however, she noted the dog (who is never confined in their home) often blocks their ability to move freely about the house. He challenged the husband once and got kneed in the chest for his trouble; since then he has backed right off when the husband gets firm with him.

Despite the seriousness of the situation, Margaret remains exactly as she was when I met with her a year previous. She was still far too permissive with B.T. She was still resistive to changing how she interacts or to setting limits with the dog. She still was making excuses for his behavior and even though he could behave himself quite nicely with her husband, he would not listen to her. Though a treatment plan was agreed upon and put into place, it will not be easy for Margaret, but the outcome very much depends on her ability to stick to it.

On an intellectual level Margaret knows what the problem is and what steps must be taken to rectify the problems she is having with her dog. She readily admits that she needs to change if she is to have any hope of getting things under control with B.T. On an emotional level however, she is having some difficulty taking those steps. Certain feelings she is having are clearly interfering with her effectiveness. For example, she speaks about feeling guilty if she corrects B.T. and fears he won’t like her (rejection) if she imposes limits. She also becomes anxious when contemplating asserting herself and the possibility of a confrontation. Ultimately, what is stopping Margaret from succeeding is the same thing that all of us stumble over from time to time - personal inertia and resistance to any changes which requires us to operate outside our comfort zone.

While everyone has their own unique personality style, it generally encompasses common elements which others can identify with and share. Our own personal style will contain traits and sub-traits that, when combined, determine our comfort zone. Generally changes within that zone are fairly easy to accommodate but being required to operate outside that zone will be experienced as uncomfortable and is usually resisted.

Even when willing to do so (and convinced of the necessity of operating outside that zone) energy and conscious effort are required. Depending on our state of mind and the length of time required, this can be quite draining and anxiety provoking. Anytime we are tired, stressed or operating on ‘autopilot,’ we tend to revert to old comfortable patterns. This is something to be watched for and guarded against because, while we can adapt and learn many new skills, our core will remain as the place we are most likely to go to when pushed hard enough.

Let’s use Margaret as an example: she is an easy going woman with the personality traits of patience, persistence, thoughtfulness and friendliness. What she needs to practice more to correct the imbalance in her relationship with B.T. is assertiveness (expressed through the sub-traits of efficiency, self-motivation, independence and self-confidence). These qualities need to be utilized when B.T. is pushing her, testing her limits and resolve and when he is most stimulated. Once he calms and is more accepting, she can then calm as well and move more into her comfort zone - but always with the understanding that she would move back into the “more assertive Margaret” role whenever necessary.

In order to be able to move into this role, Margaret would have to work on developing those sub-traits she was currently lacking or low in, i.e.,. Could she do it? Yes. Would she do it? That depends on how much she is committed, motivated and willing to change.

The examples of both Mocha and B.T. help illustrate that whatever changes are being sought must be worked for. In order to effect a change in each dog, the owners also had to make some changes. The metamorphoses of both dog and owner are often connected, with the changes evident in the dog reflecting those in the owner.

Reality & Seductions

- by Roger Hild

When it comes to training dogs, the reality is there are many techniques which can be employed. This fact becomes readily apparent when you do a little research. Such research will also reveal some fairly entrenched views about the moral/ethical superiority of one’s preferred approach over that of their competitors. Some approaches, you will note, have been around for quite awhile and will have withstood the test of time while other approaches will be relatively new and not as well proven.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with any of the approaches per se, there is often a seductive quality to the marketing pitch advocates of various approaches use to gain converts to their cause. The seductiveness is to be found in the assurances that, whatever the desired results, they can be had with very little investment of oneself outside their comfort zone. This means for the person with very little patience, the promise would be for immediate results; for the individual that sees themself as too busy, the promise would be accomplishment with no additional effort and for the individual that hates having to set limits or engage in any sort of confrontation, the promise is never having to correct your dog or say “no.” Also, in addition to the marketing of their chosen approach, there is often an attempt to discredit and even demonize others who utilize different, and ofttimes more effective, training approaches. A wise dog owner will watch for traps that play to or attempt to exploit vague moral or ethical ideals. Other trainers (that use more traditional approaches) may be labeled as less humane, less “enlightened,” old-school, less scientific etc in an attempt to avoid objectively looking at the facts as they relate to effectiveness.

The type of learning we are primarily concerned with, when it comes to training dogs, is experiential i.e. learning from experiences. We provide and repeat the experiences from which we want the dog to learn. As we do this, we set up and manipulate cues, consequences and behaviour so that the dog will learn the lesson we are trying to teach. Regardless of the type of training techniques, all training approaches will be fundamentally based on this concept. Those experiences are then organized in such a way so as to teach more complex lessons.

Those advocating for the new will often make reference to words like “latest” and “scientific” with the desire to link the two terms wherever possible. However, the fact is that when it comes to how dogs learn, there is really nothing new - dogs really haven’t changed much since we began keeping them as companions and neither has the way they learn.

In recent years many dog trainers have jumped on an “Operant Conditioning” bandwagon. The practitioners of this variety of “OC” are quick to make claims about how dogs learn and declare them to be based on the latest scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, there is nothing new nor scientific in their assertions or methods. It is also noteworthy that more efficient and effective training alternatives are available.

True Operant Conditioning is a reasonably balanced learning theory. It is a four-quadrant model that attempts to explain learning in terms of the consequences related to an action. Within that 4Q model are the different contingencies of positive and negative reinforcement as well as positive and negative punishment. Those who claim to subscribe to Operant Conditioning theory but who only are willing to work with the “reward” side of the equation are in reality practitioners of a bandwagon variety of OC that might more properly be called “PROC” or Positive Reinforcement Operant Conditioning. Where true OC offers a reasonable chance of success through balance, “PROC” is a very protracted and unrealistic method for attempting to train. The results are mediocre at best and more often simply disappointing. The motivation for “PROC” is not better training but a seductive philosophy (sometimes pursued with almost religious zeal) of abolishing all painful life lessons. It is indeed unfortunate that this almost narcissistic need (for a “warm and fuzzy,” feel good above all else approach to life) gets packaged and marketed as “animal-friendly” or “more humane.” It is a selfish approach designed to place the trainer's need to feel good above the learning needs of his student.

In psychological terms, conditioning means, “causing an organism to exhibit a specific response to a stimulus.” The conditioned response must be specific, reliable, highly predictable and reproducible. Any response (other than the “conditioned” response), any randomness or any failure to respond correctly, must be accounted for and explained. As I said earlier, there are several ways to cause the sought after response, using positive and negative consequences. By definition conditioning, particularly Skinners Operant Conditioning model, does not acknowledge or take into account any internal events such as thoughts, feelings, or motivations and therein lies its weakness. If these internal events are not acknowledged as contributing to the conditioning of the behavior, they cannot then be used to explain any “conditioning failures.” Conditioned performances, (particularly utilizing only positive reinforcement) while often improved, are often not the best that one would hope for or expect. When performance falters (as it frequently does) more conditioning will not solve the problem whereas addressing some of the internal factors (excluded by OC) or looking at relationship related issues, very often does.

The main problem with the theory of conditioning (and particularly with Operant Conditioning) is in the understanding and application of the learning process. Operant Conditioning is simply one kind of conditioning (made famous by B F Skinner) which seeks to explain all behavior and learning in terms of the associations made between responses to stimuli and the resulting consequences. Although behaviorists believe all thought processes can be accounted for through associations of stimuli and responses, other psychologists strongly reject such an approach as inadequate to explain many kinds of behavior.

A good training program, on the other hand, addresses the whole dog and not just the behavior. Along with utilizing all four quadrants found in the Operant Conditioning model, it also seeks to deal in those areas that behaviorists refuse to acknowledge (such as choice, motivation, drive, and various mental/emotional processes). It would flow from a philosophy which acknowledges that, in addition to (or regardless of) any conditioning, dogs make decisions and sometimes become contentious. Real training is about working with the dog to teach him what is expected – what choices to make and how to behave. It holds him accountable for the choices he makes. It acknowledges there is a difference between knowing and doing and that difference can sometimes represent a point of contention, rather than a lack of conditioning.

Training (for me) is as much about the interactive dynamics between student and teacher as about what is being taught. In the learning process (some of which will be a conditioning process) the student also learns about the teacher. Often the emerging interpersonal dynamics will influence subsequent behavior far more than any single training or conditioning sequence. At some point, tasks will be performed as taught because a choice has been made to do so - not simply as the result of some stimulus-response reflex (read conditioning) action.

On the other hand, behaviorism and its tool (Operant Conditioning) is, “neglected by cognitive etiologists and ecological psychologists convinced that its methods are irrelevant to studying how animals and persons behave in their natural and social environment,” according to a recent article on behaviorism published in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Also of note in the same article: “The deepest and most complex reason for behaviorism's demise is its commitment to the thesis that behavior can be explained without reference to mental activity. Many philosophers and psychologists find this thesis hopelessly restrictive. They reject behaviorism because of it....”

Punishment vs. Correction

In the course of a recent discussion about dogs pulling on leash (and what role corrections might play) a colleague queried me about the following:
“I change directions frequently, especially if I sense she's about to course ahead. If she moves to the end of the leash and there is pressure, I'll get her attention with a sound, and signal her to follow my new direction, and reinforce her for doing so. Of course any pressure is released for her doing so, but I did not deliver it. I keep my hands as still as stones. Now in your opinion, are there any leash corrections involved here?”

Without a doubt there are corrections in that example. The subject of the discussion is “learning theory,” not teaching theory. The intervention, as experienced by the dog, was effective and therefore “corrective.” Learning theory does not address who supplies the stimulus (pos. or neg.) only what its effect was on the subject. If, either by pulling the leash, simply stopping or changing direction, the dog experienced a stimulus that made him stop what he was doing, the effect was the same and the handler caused the correction to happen. The dog is not stupid, he knows from whence the correction came. If the correction was effective, the next thing the dog did was to look at you and move into a position beside you – he knows. He doesn’t stare off into the sky and wonder, “Lord was that you? Why me lord?”

If we were to all gather together in a large park and began training our dog, many of you would see that what I do probably isn’t a whole lot different than what you do – even those of you who say you use only “positive methods.” I am not a punishment based trainer, yet I do correct my dogs. The correction can be anything including redirection, removing a reward or applying an unpleasant (physical) consequence.

The first, (and most obvious) problem is deciding what the words themselves mean. Secondly, (and most important) we must begin to appreciate how the average layperson understands those words. JQP is seldom a scientist and yet these words have been part of the common vocabulary since long before there were “behaviorists” attempting to give new meanings to everyday words.

Terms such as “positive punishment,” “negative punishment,” “aversive” etc. for a variety of reasons, have all become a part of the ‘behaviorspeak’ movement. In the laboratories where they were studying behavior, people like B. F. Skinner began using many common words (such as the terms already mentioned) to describe their observations, philosophies, actions and beliefs. It likely was not their intent to change the meanings of many of these words but what they ended up doing was to add a somewhat different meaning to some of them. The problem comes when we don’t all sing from the same book (nor should we feel we must).

The meanings given these words by behaviorists are not what I (as a part of JQP) mean when I use them and herein lies the problem. Take the word “punish,” the Oxford dictionary definition is: “Cause (offender) to suffer for offence; chastise; inflict penalty on (offender); inflict penalty for (offence); (colloq.) inflict severe blows on (opponent)….” Punishment is defined as “punishing penalty.” Nowhere in the definition is there any mention that a punishment is to correct or change behavior; it is simply the penalty handed out, after the fact, for unacceptable behavior. These definitions are in line with what most people think when they use the word.

The word “Correct” does have as one of its meanings, to punish but it is with the intent of making right. Other meanings are: Set right; substitute right thing (for wrong one); counteract; bring into accordance with standard; eliminate aberration etc.

The “behaviorspeak” definition of punishment is any action that is used to stop a behavior or reduce its occurrence (and the definition is based on the outcome). According to those that subscribe to this definition, corrections would be included under the heading of punishment. When they talk in terms of positive or negative punishment, they mean to add something to punish (positive = to add) or taking something away to punish (negative = take away). This gets further complicated by the use of the term “aversive” by which they usually mean the “punisher” which was added to make the behavior stop.

The interesting thing is that some of these “opposed to punishment” types, who would label any “aversive correction” as punishment, have a different standard for themselves. A few years ago, I was at a seminar being put on by a rather well known PROC (Positive Reinforcement Operant Conditioning) trainer. He decried the use of any form of “punishment.” One of the participants wanted help with her dog that pulled on leash. He took the dog and began to walk it. As soon as the dog charged away from his side, he stopped, dropped all slack and held on to the handle tightly. The dog hit the end of the line rather hard (I’d be hard pressed to leash correct any more effectively). This was repeated two more times and then the dog “miraculously” began to walk beside him. Someone asked him about his use of punishment and he denied it saying what he had shown us was not punishment but rather the dog correcting himself. (Note: there is suddenly a distinction being made between punishment and correction?)

The aversion some trainers feel (to acknowledge an action as a correction) is an interesting phenomenon and it speaks to the person’s personal issues more than it does to dog training philosophy. Two possible reasons come to mind (there may be more) why someone would be reluctant to acknowledge a correction:
1. Economic – they want their training philosophy to seem politically correct so that clients will want to train with them.
2. Emotional – they may feel caught on the horns of their own “moral dilemma” and want to assuage their feelings of guilt.

The fact that JQP does make a distinction between correction and punishment is important. Those in the “positive behaviorspeak” camp know and exploit the fact that there is such a strong emotional reaction to the term “punishment” (as evidenced by this very discussion and many more just like it). If they can convince potential clients that they are “punishing” their dog (rather than correcting him) they can then make the argument to both the new client and to themselves, that theirs is the more “humane” way to train.

So to get back to that gathering in the park, I would expect to see a variety of techniques with some very good training going on. Pushing aside the different philosophies and terms others might use, I would expect to see an interaction between each dog and handler that connected consequences to behaviors. Beyond this I’d also expect to see (especially with the really good trainers) a level of communication that transcends anything the theorists could have imagined.


_____
Tsuro Dog Training
Visit us at http://www.tsurodogtraining.com

So..........Define Training

Someone once told me that in their opinion, most dogs (90%) are untrained. I don’t know if that figure is accurate or not but I’ll agree that a large number are not very well behaved. One of the problems I have with that assertion is I’m not sure what the claimant means by the word “trained.” To muddy the water further, we have heard all kinds of ideas about how some kinds of early training can interfere with other (future) training.

Here are a few more rambling thoughts to add to the above subjects:

It has been estimated that an alarming percentage of high school students are functionally illiterate when they graduate. Similarly, I see a number of dogs that have been through school and permitted to graduate that are “training illiterates.” I think there is a correlation that is reflected in the prevailing cultural/political attitudes.

Politically, I can only speak for my small part of the globe (Ontario Canada). Prior to the 2004 election here, under a Conservative government, we had seen a return to standards and testing. The result was an improvement in the literacy rate. The teacher unions led the fight against reintroducing testing and standards and we heard some pretty crazy claims about how being forced to pass tests might damage a student’s self-esteem. They stated the ability to meet testable standards didn’t indicate a student is really learning or gaining anything. Parents, however, thought the standards were great and approval for standards and testing was very high. We once again have a Liberal government and there is already evidence that the academic standards will be abandoned for a more “feel-good” socially correct agenda. I see the same arguments used against holding training and trainers to any standards. The problem is thus a human, politically motivated one and not unique to teachers or trainers.

Does an average family dog (that has learned to abide by the house rules and do as she is told), qualify as trained? I have an actual dog in mind. I did not train this dog – her owners did not seek out any trainer and she did not go to any training classes. I met her because she lives next door to one of my former clients. She is an AussieXCollie mix about three years old. She stays off the road and the only place she is permitted to go is next door to play with the Newf (my clients dog). She always comes when whistled for and will stay put if told. I am told that in the house she is perfect and never gets into anything she isn’t supposed to. When outside and told to stay in her own yard she does. If a stranger walks in to the yard, she will bark and follow them to the door but other than sound the alarm, has never made any aggressive move toward anyone coming on the property. Let’s call her “Dog A” and hold her up for comparison to a couple other dogs.

Dog B is also three and has been going to school since starting puppy class at 12 weeks (has never been my student – only saw the dog in consultation). This dog has been through several beginner and “second-level” classes plus trick and agility classes. The dog supposedly knows all the obedience commands but when I asked the owner to get him to sit the owner was ignored – no sit. The dog also would not come and pulled on leash. The reason for the consult – the dog is “reactive” and has gotten into several fights with other dogs. The dog would only “perform” obedience commands once the owner bribed him with treats and only then for a brief period.

Dog C is a Standard Poodle I saw at a correction match. This dog was observed entering the building on his hind legs pulling for all he is worth. The owner’s arm was fully extended and the dog was all but hauling her off her feet. Inside the building people moved to get their dogs out of this poodle’s path and there were a number of growls from several other dogs. At one point the poodle jumped up on a table holding a bunch of premium lists. I was told (didn’t observe) that the dog would be better behaved once inside the ring.

Dog D lives next door and spends much of his time on the end of a chain. He does go inside when the family is home but otherwise he will wander the roads and they have to go running after him to get him back. Given the chance, he’ll shit in any yard but his own.

To my way of thinking the only dog that qualifies is Dog A. What dogs do you think qualify?

Variations on a Theme

Once upon a time in a far distant place, there was a tribe of people that really loved cars. Indeed, some loved cars so much that they even had more than one. Things started to go a bit sour, in this far distant place, when word started to get out that some of these beloved cars were involved in some rather nasty accidents and people sometimes got badly hurt. What to do?

Initially, it seemed, many of the car owners seemed to be content simply ignoring the problem – hoping it would go away. As the number of incidents reported each day continued to increase, ignoring was no longer an option. As the outcry increased, the people demanded their tribal leaders do something. The leaders, ever sensitive to the demands of the crowd, asked for clarification as to what exactly is the problem.

It was at about this same time that a group of the more astute folks began to identify a number of issues. Some of the things they noticed were:

- The large number of “problem cars.” It was noted that many people were not able to get their car do what they wanted it to. Some folks had to make several attempts just to get the car going where they wanted it to go. (This realization sparked a new industry [trainers] dedicated to teaching people how to safely make their cars do what they wanted).

- Many of the more serious injuries were caused by Chev. Pick-up trucks.

- More “accidents” seemed to happen at locations where more of the tribes people tended to congregate.

- Some of the cars were very poorly put together and not properly maintained.

- There was a segment of the tribe that believed it was wrong to own cars.

As pressure mounted to “do something,” the leaders looked at a number of actions. They considered where the accidents happened and decided to limit car access to these areas. This led to the formation of “car parks” these were small enclosed areas (complete with guard rails) where people were free to take their car and drive it in circles for an hour or two. This seemed to help some but the pressure continued so they looked at banning certain makes of cars.

Since many of the injuries were from Chev pick-ups, they decided to ban them. Meantime the trainers were saying there is no need to ban vehicles, people just need to learn how to drive properly. They argued that it is not the vehicle but the driver that needs to be dealt with – punish the bad drivers, they urged. They also pointed out the poorly built and poorly maintained vehicles and said, “someone should do something about that.”

Still the carnage on the roads continued and the experts continued to argue about what the real cause was and what the solution should be. Meantime the group who didn’t think people ought to own cars began to get excited because they could see that in time, they just might get their wish. They would just push for more and more 'vehicle ban' legislation and also push for more and more “No cars allowed” locations. They thought it great that the "experts" couldn’t agree and seemed unable to get over their “pissin’ contest.”

As all this was going on, there was a group that kept asking, “Why not hold people responsible for their actions?” Why not make people prove they can actually drive and if they can, let them take their car in public. If someone can’t demonstrate safe driving, remove them from public areas until they are once again safe.

Others thought this might be a good idea but they had a number of reservations. They wanted to know how they could identify those who qualified to be in public with a car. When the concept of certifying or licensing was floated, they cried “No way, we don’t want the tribal leaders having that kind of bureaucratic power” (they seemed to forget that the leaders were getting set to ban the vehicles.) The most curious objection seemed to come from the trainers: they seemed to be very concerned about their own liability. While they agreed (in principle) that everyone who has a car should learn to drive, they could not agree that the owner should have to demonstrate that they can drive. Curious indeed.