Plans to microchip dogs.

[Einion Yrth]

thinfourth2 said:

Einion Yrth said:

Of course if the child eating canine should happen to have been chipped it will merely serve to highlight the utter futility of the whole business, come to think of it if the CEC happens not to have been chipped it will highlight the utter futility of the whole business.

If it hasn't been chipped then it validates the dogs must be chipped argument

If it has been chipped then it is one that slipped through the gaps

I'm deeply against this whole chipping of dogs despite the fact that all 3 of our dogs are already chipped.

I'm against it as not only will it not effect me but it will also not effect those it is meant to stop.

If they weren't calling it the solution to dangerous dogs i'd back the chipping of all dogs

Chipped or not the child will still have been eaten, thus demonstrating that compulsory chipping as a means of preventing canine infantophagy doesn't work.

[Hooli]

thinfourth2 said:

Hooli 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.

I like that plan

Well its not the dogs fault that it hasn't been chipped so why punish the dog?

Its like when they crush an uninsured car.

Why punish the car?

Crush the chav that was driving the car and let the car have an owner that will care about it.

I still agree. Although our dog isn't chipped as we don't trust them with those stories about cancer etc etc.

[thinfourth2]

Hooli said:

I still agree. Although our dog isn't chipped as we don't trust them with those stories about cancer etc etc.

Benefit vs risk

The tiny chance of cancer i think is out weighed by the benefit of being able to mark my dogs should they go missing meaning a much better chance of getting them back.

Well apart from the one that drools and farts where they could probably keep him.

[Hooli]

thinfourth2 said:

Hooli said:

I still agree. Although our dog isn't chipped as we don't trust them with those stories about cancer etc etc.

Benefit vs risk

The tiny chance of cancer i think is out weighed by the benefit of being able to mark my dogs should they go missing meaning a much better chance of getting them back.

Well apart from the one that drools and farts where they could probably keep him.

We've got a soppy cuddly staffy, if she went missing she'd turn into a fighting dog or get killed long before plod got off their arse.

[rs1952]

SGirl said:

Slightly off-topic .....

This government, like the last one, isn't fit for purpose.

You describe all governments the world over and down the ages.

The less governments to to attempt to control their populations the better and more fit for purpose they become.

[Morningside]

My dogs have a collar with name and telephone number. That seemed to suffice for the last 40+ years and costs about £5.
The chipping is going to be a great money making scam but the VETs and anyone else who can get their hands on the kit.

As for ownership, from what I can see Mr Scum will not bother with chipping or collar or fk all.

Also, from a LOT of news headlines the dog taking great chunks out of children tends to be a family members 'pet' so how is this supposed to stop it?

Yet another kneejerk reaction that grabs headlines but poorly thought out. A bit like banning guns, knives, driving while using mobiles and pointless 30 mph roads in the middle of nowhere.

Its the drip, drip of small laws and forgetting the bigger picture.


I must admit I still shake my head in disbelief at seeing the sign 'It is against the law...' on bus stops.

Edited by Morningside on Tuesday 24th April 13:41

[rs1952]

Morningside said:

I must admit I still shake my head in disbelief at seeing the sign 'It is against the law...' on bus stops.

I know what you mean.

There's a bus shelter near me, that I often deliberately stop at to have a fag

[b2hbm]

Morningside said:

My dogs have a collar with name and telephone number. That seemed to suffice for the last 40+ years and costs about £5.

(part quote)

Same here, and our new puppy won't be chipped either.

Our last dog was chipped because, like most other folks we thought it a good idea with no downsides. Then we started learning about chips migrating around the body, initiating the formation of tumours and one case where the chip failed whilst abroad and the owner ended up not being able to get back into the country with his dog until it was proved rabies-free.

So they are far from infallible bits of kit and knowing a bit more these days I reckon the risks outweigh the benefits.

The collar however does seem to be ever so slightly practical, albeit a low-tech approach. It's cheap. It requires a low level of skill to install one. It's visible to anyone with a pair of eyes, unlike a chip where you need have a scanner handy at the time, so your average copper can easily check a dog without carrying more junk around or calling for a dog warden. And you can even use it to grab hold of the dog should you need to.

I even thought there was a ruling where any dog in public was required to wear an identification collar with the owner's name on it. If the country's law enforcement can't work with such a simple rule then there's no hope for this idea....

[thinfourth2]

b2hbm said:

Morningside said:

My dogs have a collar with name and telephone number. That seemed to suffice for the last 40+ years and costs about £5.

(part quote)

Same here, and our new puppy won't be chipped either.

Our last dog was chipped because, like most other folks we thought it a good idea with no downsides. Then we started learning about chips migrating around the body, initiating the formation of tumours and one case where the chip failed whilst abroad and the owner ended up not being able to get back into the country with his dog until it was proved rabies-free.

So they are far from infallible bits of kit and knowing a bit more these days I reckon the risks outweigh the benefits.

The collar however does seem to be ever so slightly practical, albeit a low-tech approach. It's cheap. It requires a low level of skill to install one. It's visible to anyone with a pair of eyes, unlike a chip where you need have a scanner handy at the time, so your average copper can easily check a dog without carrying more junk around or calling for a dog warden. And you can even use it to grab hold of the dog should you need to.

I even thought there was a ruling where any dog in public was required to wear an identification collar with the owner's name on it. If the country's law enforcement can't work with such a simple rule then there's no hope for this idea....

But collars are not without risk either.

One of our dogs got caught on a fence by the collar and if we hadn't been there it would of been a very dead dog.

I would say the risk of a chip is lower then a collar.

Just the daily wail angle of implanting a chip causes cancer sounds scarier then dog strangles itself with collar.

Also the low level of skill to install a collar

I would disagree

Put one on a 3 month old puppy and don't adjust it while the dog grows and see what happens

[DonkeyApple]

Anyone checked whether the chap who owns the most prevalent chipping company had a dinner with Cameron?

[Morningside]

DonkeyApple said:

Anyone checked whether the chap who owns the most prevalent chipping company had a dinner with Cameron?

So true. Also check who is next to be a Lord.

Still think its kneejerk overreaction. If they really think its going to cure 'whos dog bit little Jonny' then they are having a laugh. And as I said before, 9 times out of 10 its a family member.

[gareth_r]

thinfourth2 said:

I don't think it is about revenue. It is driven by pressure to do something about dangerous dogs. Chipping all dogs will do absolutely nothing about the problem but crucially it appears to be doing something about the problem. So the next time a badly trained dog eats a child then the government can say look we are tackling the problem by chipping all dogs. This makes the daily wail readers happy.

Absolutely - "Something must be done!", cried the media, and lo, "something" was done. It's a completely ineffectual something (see speed cameras), but who cares, certainly no politician. They have done their job, as they see it, if the Treasury breaks even, and if there's a profit in it, so much the better.


I don't have a very high opinion of most politicians, but are they really so stupid that they believe that if the problem is that one law is being ignored, the solution is to introduce another law?

Edited by gareth_r on Wednesday 25th April 13:32

[D1ngd0ng]

Morningside said:

Also, from a LOT of news headlines the dog taking great chunks out of children tends to be a family members 'pet' so how is this supposed to stop it?

Do they? (genuine not rhetorical question ) but does remind me of a piece of advice that I was given when my dog was a puppy. And that was to never ever leave a dog alone with children, even if it is the soppiest cuddly toy around (looking back my own dog was very patient and forgiving with my youngest when she was a toddler)

Anyway to get back on track, as many have said, it isn't about safety as its about revenue. Wonder how much the RSPCA will be charging to chip all those dogs...

[Digga]

gareth_r said:

I don't have a very high opinion of most politicians, but are they really so stupid that they believe that if the problem is that one law is being ignored, the solution is to introduce another law?

I do a lot of mountain biking and litter on otherwise beautiful trails is the bugbear of many.

Sometimes, people 'usefully' suggest that if there were a few bins about (who'd empty them in the middle of bumblefk?) this would reduce the problem. The people suggesting this are the sorts who think problems can be solved with outreach groups and the like.

The realists point out that the sort of tt who throw litter are not the sort who'd bother to use bins in the first instance. You'd just get more litter deposited from those who'd otherwise take it home.

All of these issues reflect a larger social malaise that stratecially placed bins/tags/polite notices will do nothing to combat. Society is infected - from top to bottom, richest to poorest, cleverest to dumbest - with a rich seam of scum. I'm minded of the examples of zero tollerance policing and how pursuing minor offenders often nets major offenders too.

[Halb]

Jasandjules said:

Unfortunately there are those who feel that the chips increase the chances of cancer in dogs.......... I can't recall if there are studies as yet on this, but I know a couple of vets who hold this view.

I believe (but could be wrong) that in certain countries that's why they tattoo the dogs insteaad.... Still a registered animal but no chemical/electrical things internally..

Uu-ooh. I was all in favour of chips till I read this.

[Jasandjules]

Halb said:

Uu-ooh. I was all in favour of chips till I read this.

There is quite a lot of information out on the web if you want to look (though be warned some of the pictures are disturbing).

Nature knows best.

[thinfourth2]

Jasandjules said:

Halb said:

Uu-ooh. I was all in favour of chips till I read this.

There is quite a lot of information out on the web if you want to look (though be warned some of the pictures are disturbing).

Nature knows best.

There is also quite a lot of information that claims that the world trade centre was an inside job and elvis is still alive

Its mostly bks also

[Jasandjules]

thinfourth2 said:

There is also quite a lot of information that claims that the world trade centre was an inside job and elvis is still alive

Its mostly bks also

Are you saying that microchipping is safe and can not be linked to cancer in animals??

[thinfourth2]

Jasandjules said:

thinfourth2 said:

There is also quite a lot of information that claims that the world trade centre was an inside job and elvis is still alive

Its mostly bks also

Are you saying that microchipping is safe and can not be linked to cancer in animals??

Define safe

Nothing is safe

I still maintain that microchips are safer then collars

[Halb]

Jasandjules said:

There is quite a lot of information out on the web if you want to look (though be warned some of the pictures are disturbing).

Nature knows best.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innovations/pet-microchip5.htm

Hmmm, on the face of it, it seems so.