Dog owners of Scotland look here

[McWigglebum4th]

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00441552....

Please look at this and fill in the linked consultation as we don't need any more laws

[frank hovis]

Done ,
Cheers for the link

[Kiltie]

McWigglebum4th said:

... we don't need any more laws

In my view, compulsory microchipping is an obvious move toward a greater degree of responsible dog ownership in Scotland.

[Jasandjules]

Kiltie said:

In my view, compulsory microchipping is an obvious move toward a greater degree of responsible dog ownership in Scotland.

Why?

[Kiltie]

I think that having to have dogs linked to the person responsible for them is only ever going to serve to reduce all the bad things that we dog lovers don't like.

• More likely for lost dogs to be reunited with owners.
• Easier to secure prosecution in certain cases of dog attacks or anti social behaviour.
• Dog theft (or more specifically selling on) would be more difficult and hence less attracive.
• Maybe puppy farming made more difficult?
• Dogs less likely to be traded as commodities (fighting, coursing etc.)

I honestly see it as a "what's not to like?" thing.

Do you see it otherwise?

Edited by Kiltie on Saturday 28th December 22:49

[Mobile Chicane]

I'm unclear exactly what problem this new legislation is trying to solve: responsible owners will of course microchip their dogs, and give them collars with name tags on.

Meanwhile, 3.142-keys don't give a toss and never will.

[Kiltie]

Not more of a case of making the wrong way more difficult and hence the right way easier?

[Jasandjules]

Kiltie said:

I think that having to have dogs linked to the person responsible for them is only ever going to serve to reduce all the bad things that we dog lovers don't like.

That relies on the naughty people chipping and registering their dogs. They won't

• More likely for lost dogs to be reunited with owners.

Possible. Only if the information is accurate, up to date and the owner wants the dog back. If it helps you, I am aware of many "owners" of lost dogs saying they sold the dog weeks ago.......

• Easier to secure prosecution in certain cases of dog attacks or anti social behaviour.

How? Do you think when a dog attacks someone that everyone on the street will have a chip reader and will immediately check the chip number?

• Dog theft (or more specifically selling on) would be more difficult and hence less attracive.

they can be cut out. and it is quite damaging when they do. But guess what, people who don't give a to**s about dogs will do this, the same way they will cut an ear off a tattoo'd dog.

• Maybe puppy farming made more difficult?

How?

• Dogs less likely to be traded as commodities (fighting, coursing etc.)

How? See above, people won't register, will deny all knowledge etc

I honestly see it as a "what's not to like?" thing.

Do you see it otherwise?

Edited by Kiltie on Saturday 28th December 22:49

Not to mention the higher risk of cancer.

The damage the chip can do when it moves - ever seen a dog that can't walk on one leg because the chip has hit a nerve?

The fact is that chipping won't solve the problems they claim it will - which then leads me to cui bono...

[McWigglebum4th]

Kiltie said:

I think that having to have dogs linked to the person responsible for them is only ever going to serve to reduce all the bad things that we dog lovers don't like.

• More likely for lost dogs to be reunited with owners.

A responsible owner will already do this so what has changed? apart from helping those that are irresponsible?

• Easier to secure prosecution in certain cases of dog attacks or anti social behaviour.

How?

• Dog theft (or more specifically selling on) would be more difficult and hence less attractive.

Did you get your dogs chip checked when you last bought one? if not why not?
However stealing dogs is already illegal so why not using existing laws to stop it?

• Maybe puppy farming made more difficult?

How?

• Dogs less likely to be traded as commodities (fighting, coursing etc.)

Which are already illegal so why can't we use existing laws to stop it?

I honestly see it as a "what's not to like?" thing.

Do you see it otherwise?

As what is not to like?

Have you read the whole thing as one idea is to muzzle all dogs in public which is frankly utterly stupid and unworkable.

And you can bet that the dog license will be £100 a year for working scum and free for the poor oppressed unemployable people who the SNP relys on

[McWigglebum4th]

Mobile Chicane said:

I'm unclear exactly what problem this new legislation is trying to solve: responsible owners will of course microchip their dogs, and give them collars with name tags on.

Meanwhile, 3.142-keys don't give a toss and never will.

Ah but the pie people are difficult to deal with

Working scum are easy to fine and prosecute

[bexVN]

I'm not sure how ANYONE especially supposedly responsible owners can do anything but support microchipping. I have seen many hundreds of animals chipped and have NEVER EVER seen a bad reaction to one, there have been ones that have moved and come out but nothing more.

The biggest problem is keeping info upto date but the amount of dogs abd cats we have successfully reunited due to chip details far out weighs any negatives trying to be portrayed here.

Plus cutting out a chip is far more improbable than cutting off a tattooed ear. Scanners ate very sensitive they do not pin point a chip. Would love to see concrete (ie properly and scientifically researched) evidence of cancer causing microchips

Edited by bexVN on Sunday 29th December 12:35

[Kiltie]

Jasandjules said:

Not to mention the higher risk of cancer.

The damage the chip can do when it moves - ever seen a dog that can't walk on one leg because the chip has hit a nerve?

I've just asked a couple of people and none of us have ever heard of the cancer risk or problems related to breaking or moving.

Can you provide any background? (Daily Mail links not accepted)

Jasandjules said:

The fact is that chipping won't solve the problems they claim it will - which then leads me to cui bono...

The Scottish Parliament aren't "claiming" anything. They're consulting.

Cui bono? Well, if the points I've made above are even only a tiny bit valid then it'll benefit some dogs. That's a good thing.

[Jasandjules]

http://www.chipmenot.org/scientificevidence.htm

[Kiltie]

McWigglebum4th said:

As what is not to like?

Have you read the whole thing as one idea is to muzzle all dogs in public which is frankly utterly stupid and unworkable.

Consultation said:

21. Do you think muzzling of dogs while in public should be introduced?

It's not "an idea" it's a question ... on a consultation ...

You can enter the answer "no" if you wish - as did I.

I really don't understand the push back. This is democracy at work. If the majority want what I don't then I live with it.

[Kiltie]

Jasandjules said:

http://www.chipmenot.org/scientificevidence.htm

Thanks, I'll have a look at that later.

[Kiltie]

J&J / Wiggle,

Struggling to respond to your replies as they're entered in my own quote.

I'll take them one at a time with a separate reply for each.

Bear with ...

[Kiltie]

Kiltie said:

I think that having to have dogs linked to the person responsible for them is only ever going to serve to reduce all the bad things that we dog lovers don't like.

Jasandjules said:

That relies on the naughty people chipping and registering their dogs. They won't.

Yeah I know but new laws are rarely billed as an absolute cure for anything.

If you make the wrong thing more difficult then the right thing becomes the path of least resistance for some.

I agree that compulsory micro chipping isn't going to be a panacea but it will change the behaviours of some currently not doing the right thing so why would I possibly object?

[bexVN]

Everything I have read so far re cancer by microchipis anecdotal or not been shown to be conclusive at all. One more 'detailed' study was shown to be flawed due to being too small and missing out variables.

[McWigglebum4th]

Kiltie said:

McWigglebum4th said:

As what is not to like?

Have you read the whole thing as one idea is to muzzle all dogs in public which is frankly utterly stupid and unworkable.

Consultation said:

21. Do you think muzzling of dogs while in public should be introduced?

It's not "an idea" it's a question ... on a consultation ...

You can enter the answer "no" if you wish - as did I.

I really don't understand the push back. This is democracy at work. If the majority want what I don't then I live with it.

For it even to make it onto the paper then it must of been considered as a good idea.

My fear is the powers at be will decide that we are wrong and the idiot that thought up the muzzle idea is right and we end up with yet another stupid law.

[Kiltie]

Kiltie said:

* More likely for lost dogs to be reunited with owners.

Jasandjules said:

Possible. Only if the information is accurate, up to date and the owner wants the dog back. If it helps you, I am aware of many "owners" of lost dogs saying they sold the dog weeks ago.......

McWigglebum4th said:

A responsible owner will already do this so what has changed? apart from helping those that are irresponsible?

I take the view that if you make a possibility for folks to be punished for doing the "wrong" thing then a proportion will be more likely to do the right thing.

I think part of the consultation was to do with responsibility to amend records to reflect changes and keep them up to date.

I don't see the prospect of a minority flouting a law as being any possible reason not to embrace it.