Plans to microchip dogs.

[LittleSwill]

I like the idea of tattoos. Intel inside.

[thinfourth2]

MrFlat6 said:

I already have a barcode equivalent - my fingerprint. Works very well...

Sorry if your dog ownership plans are slightly affected by a minority who break the law, that's life (and applies to lots of things)

How about fitting all cars in the UK with a speed limiter

As a small minority break the speed limit

[SGirl]

thinfourth2 said:

So of course you muzzle your dog at all times.

No, I don't. But I'd be happy to muzzle her if it meant she was safe from attack by dogs that shouldn't even be off-lead. If all dogs were muzzled when they're out accompanied in public, dogs will probably still fight but they won't be able to bite.

thinfourth2 said:

We don't and not once have they mildly killed anyone.

Same here. But our dog *has* been attacked a couple of times. I'm sure I don't need to tell you the demographic of the owners of the dogs that attacked her. These people won't be chipping their dogs.

thinfourth2 said:

And yet again its the good old solution of that group over there are doing something illegal so to stop them we shall force an entirely different group not doing anything illegal or causing any hassle to follow some new laws which the group who are causing the problem will completely ignore.

WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE fkING LAWS

I agree, we don't. I'm just saying - muzzles are a visible indicator of compliance with the law I suggested. Microchips are not. The problem people will ignore a microchip law, we know that. But if a muzzle law were brought in instead, it'd be obvious that they're not complying.

Edited by SGirl on Monday 23 April 12:18

[stinkysteve]

thinfourth2 said:

Eaten a few bunny wabbits but no postmen or children.


WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE fkING LAWS

Hunting with dogs is outlawed, if your dog kills a bunny wabbit you've broken the law!

Just like when my terrier kills a rat under the sheds. This is a mental situation.

WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE fkING LAWS +1

a massive plus one. No new law on microchipping will prevent chav scum being irresponsible.

[Tiggsy]

SystemParanoia said:

any dog found without a microchip after xx/xx/xxxx date will be thrown over the nearest railway bridge

that will sort all the problems

That' how I roll!

[Zaxxon]

Bring back dog licences, deny them to scum and make having a dog a privilige and not a right.

And whilst were at it, lets do the same regarding children.

Edited by Zaxxon on Monday 23 April 18:59

[Dogwatch]

Even if a dog has been chipped, as with cars the ownership/keeper details are only as good as the last person who notified a change of ownership.

Neighbours had a rescue collie-cross which they had to return as it kept escaping by jumping their 6ft fences!

Had a call a month or two later - 'We've found your dog running loose'. Seems neither the new owners nor the rescue centre had updated the chip database details.

Perhaps making it illegal to sell a male dog which still has his plums (except to a licensed breeder) would be an idea too, coupled with either a tat or a chip.

[SystemParanoia]

Tiggsy said:

SystemParanoia said:

any dog found without a microchip after xx/xx/xxxx date will be thrown over the nearest railway bridge

that will sort all the problems

That' how I roll!

ske-ge-dow-de-ge-de-ge-dow!

[AshVX220]

SGirl said:

thinfourth2 said:

So of course you muzzle your dog at all times.

No, I don't. But I'd be happy to muzzle her if it meant she was safe from attack by dogs that shouldn't even be off-lead. If all dogs were muzzled when they're out accompanied in public, dogs will probably still fight but they won't be able to bite.

thinfourth2 said:

We don't and not once have they mildly killed anyone.

Same here. But our dog *has* been attacked a couple of times. I'm sure I don't need to tell you the demographic of the owners of the dogs that attacked her. These people won't be chipping their dogs.

thinfourth2 said:

And yet again its the good old solution of that group over there are doing something illegal so to stop them we shall force an entirely different group not doing anything illegal or causing any hassle to follow some new laws which the group who are causing the problem will completely ignore.

WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE fkING LAWS

I agree, we don't. I'm just saying - muzzles are a visible indicator of compliance with the law I suggested. Microchips are not. The problem people will ignore a microchip law, we know that. But if a muzzle law were brought in instead, it'd be obvious that they're not complying.

Edited by SGirl on Monday 23 April 12:18

The scum would just keep the muzzle on in public, but then remove it when the poor dog's in a pit fighting for it's life.

As with all things in this country, we need less new laws and harsher punishment for those who break the existing laws. The state is too big as it is without introducing new ways to make it bigger.

[crofty1984]

dmulally said:

I never knew that. I'll have to check Rommel tonight. Best thing I ever did for him was to de-plum him. No more having his ass handed to him in the dog park since then.

Was a bit of bad karma though as not long after I did that I found out I had testicular cancer so mixed results.

Shouldn't laugh, but I will.

[D1ngd0ng]

The Guardian said:

North Wales assistant chief constable Gareth Pritchard has said he wants dog owners to be prosecuted if their animal attacks police and other public sector workers when they step on private property. Currently owners can only be prosecuted if a dog attack occurs on public land.

How does the dog tell the difference between a public servant and some scrote who is casing your property? Mine cannot and is very vocal when the the doorbell rings (or the postman delivers, or the little old lady delivers the free paper etc)

My own dog is chipped (doesn't make him run any faster but he did put on some weight...) but that is only because I'm a glutton for punishment and would quite like him back if he was ever lost and found.

[Tiggsy]

D1ngd0ng said:

The Guardian said:

North Wales assistant chief constable Gareth Pritchard has said he wants dog owners to be prosecuted if their animal attacks police and other public sector workers when they step on private property. Currently owners can only be prosecuted if a dog attack occurs on public land.

How does the dog tell the difference between a public servant and some scrote who is casing your property?

It cant - which is why you shouldnt have a dog (or put a dog in a situation where it will) bite someone walking up your driveway.

[colonel c]

The fact that some elements of our society would ignore such regulation should not stop it being introduced. Just so long as it don't turn into another money grabbing or taxing opportunity.

[thinfourth2]

colonel c said:

The fact that some elements of our society would ignore such regulation should not stop it being introduced.

So the fact that it is utterly useless against the problem it is designed to tackle isn't a good reason not bring in the law.

Okay


To tackle uninsured drivers i shall make it illegal to drive an uninsured car without wearing a pink tutu on your head

[barker22]

Tiggsy said:

It cant - which is why you shouldnt have a dog (or put a dog in a situation where it will) bite someone walking up your driveway.

Seriously. So the great PH collective would have:

compulsory microchips
muzzles
Doggy asbo's where they aren't allowed out in the garden between certain hours

Why don't we just ban dogs of any kind.
Microchips wont work, what about when 'blazin dave' and 'gstar mick' breed their dogs. Who is going to know that they have had pups. The next thing you know there are pups being sold to the 'crew' where the whole process starts again. They breed them and sell them on. You will be lucky if even 3 out of 20 of these dogs are identified as even existing.
The only people able to check for a chip are going to be the police, rspca etc. There aren't enough of them nor do they have the time to make it even a remotely viable solution.

[Jasandjules]

Tiggsy said:

It cant - which is why you shouldnt have a dog (or put a dog in a situation where it will) bite someone walking up your driveway.

It's not just your driveway though is it? It's your house, and your garden.

ANY dog owner should be very, very worried about this legislation.

[Zaxxon]

Gaz. said:

That hasn't really worked for cars has it?

If a chip & licence is required then the scums will just steal a dog and remove its chip with an apple corer - which is what they do already. The last time the government released the figures, 56% of dogs stolen where Staffordshire Bull terriers, 28% were Rottweilers. Until something is done about illegal bredding, puppy farming and dog theft we will have this same problem forever and a day.

Damn, you quoted me, I have just seen and changed my appalling spelling.

[thinfourth2]

barker22 said:

Seriously. So the great PH collective would have:

compulsory microchips
muzzles
Doggy asbo's where they aren't allowed out in the garden between certain hours

Why don't we just ban dogs of any kind.
Microchips wont work, what about when 'blazin dave' and 'gstar mick' breed their dogs. Who is going to know that they have had pups. The next thing you know there are pups being sold to the 'crew' where the whole process starts again. They breed them and sell them on. You will be lucky if even 3 out of 20 of these dogs are identified as even existing.
The only people able to check for a chip are going to be the police, rspca etc. There aren't enough of them nor do they have the time to make it even a remotely viable solution.

i still think my solution is the best

If any dog its found outside without a chip then its owner gets put down.

[Jasandjules]

thinfourth2 said:

i still think my solution is the best

If any dog its found outside without a chip then its owner gets put down.

http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/131533/

There is a lot more data out there.....

[thinfourth2]

Jasandjules said:

thinfourth2 said:

i still think my solution is the best

If any dog its found outside without a chip then its owner gets put down.

http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/131533/

There is a lot more data out there.....

Okay they can have a piece of paper but the principle stays the same