Plans to microchip dogs.
Discussion
Not before time I think. But how would it be policed.
The Guardian said:
Millions of dog owners could be forced to pay for microchips for pet dogs under plans to be announced next week.
Ministers are expected to call for every newborn puppy to be fitted with a device that stores information about the dog, its breed and contact details for its owner.
The information would then be stored on a central database available to the police and the RSPCA, which the government believes would make it easier to track and prosecute owners of dangerous dogs.
A consultation on whether to introduce compulsory microchipping in Wales is due to be launched later this year.
Charities campaigning for better laws to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs have welcomed the changes, but concerns have been raised that while many responsible owners will shoulder the cost – between £20 and £30 – owners of dangerous dogs could choose not to comply.
Neil Parish MP, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on animal welfare, said: "If we're not careful we're going to make things more difficult for legitimate dog owners, and not solve the real problem of dangerous dogs. We have got to find the dogs who are being bred illegally by people who mix breeds to create potentially vicious dogs."
He added: "It's not so much the dogs that should be targeted, but the owners who train them to be vicious."
The Association of Chief Police Officers has called for a strengthening of the terms of the Dangerous Dogs Act after a recent pitbull-type dog attack in east London in March left five officers in hospital.
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.
Plans for compulsory microchipping have been mooted since the Labour government announced similar plans in 2010, but last month Gavin Grant, the new chief executive of the RSPCA, said that previous governments had failed to tackle the issue. "Irresponsible ownership is dire for dogs and the community. Inaction by successive governments has seen it worsen. RSPCA inspectors, our animal rescue centres and veterinary clinics are left to pick up the pieces.
"The coalition has had 18 months to reintroduce dog registration and microchipping that ties owners to their dogs. Previous governments have failed dogs and owners … The time for talking is past. We need effective action now."
Since microchipping was introduced in 1989, more than 4m dogs and cats in the UK have been fitted, with up to 8,000 new registrations every week, the Dogs Trust said.
Ministers are expected to call for every newborn puppy to be fitted with a device that stores information about the dog, its breed and contact details for its owner.
The information would then be stored on a central database available to the police and the RSPCA, which the government believes would make it easier to track and prosecute owners of dangerous dogs.
A consultation on whether to introduce compulsory microchipping in Wales is due to be launched later this year.
Charities campaigning for better laws to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs have welcomed the changes, but concerns have been raised that while many responsible owners will shoulder the cost – between £20 and £30 – owners of dangerous dogs could choose not to comply.
Neil Parish MP, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on animal welfare, said: "If we're not careful we're going to make things more difficult for legitimate dog owners, and not solve the real problem of dangerous dogs. We have got to find the dogs who are being bred illegally by people who mix breeds to create potentially vicious dogs."
He added: "It's not so much the dogs that should be targeted, but the owners who train them to be vicious."
The Association of Chief Police Officers has called for a strengthening of the terms of the Dangerous Dogs Act after a recent pitbull-type dog attack in east London in March left five officers in hospital.
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.
Plans for compulsory microchipping have been mooted since the Labour government announced similar plans in 2010, but last month Gavin Grant, the new chief executive of the RSPCA, said that previous governments had failed to tackle the issue. "Irresponsible ownership is dire for dogs and the community. Inaction by successive governments has seen it worsen. RSPCA inspectors, our animal rescue centres and veterinary clinics are left to pick up the pieces.
"The coalition has had 18 months to reintroduce dog registration and microchipping that ties owners to their dogs. Previous governments have failed dogs and owners … The time for talking is past. We need effective action now."
Since microchipping was introduced in 1989, more than 4m dogs and cats in the UK have been fitted, with up to 8,000 new registrations every week, the Dogs Trust said.
Turn7 said:
Any caring dog owner will have already chipped their dogs.
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..
Jasandjules said:
Turn7 said:
Any caring dog owner will have already chipped their dogs.
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..
LordFlathead said:
So if you chip a Greyhound, how much faster does it go?
Depends on the mapping...
There are a number of good reasons to chip dogs but I was thinking more along the lines of the benevolent ones (re-uniting lost dogs with owners etc), if this is trying to stop dangerous breeds, dog fighting etc then it will fail and cause more suffering for those animals as illegitimate owners will avoid people like vets.
The road to hell... and all that.
Yet another example of people sticking their noses in and screwing it up (aka politicians) IMO.
Jasandjules said:
Turn7 said:
Any caring dog owner will have already chipped their dogs.
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..
I know they migrate around, and maybe tattooing is better, but Im all for trying to control the lowlife scum who use dogs as status symbols.
Same old problem tho, those that are creating the problem dont comply with any law...
Jasandjules said:
Mojocvh said:
The chips migrate around the body I am reliably informed. Could be a laugh finding that when he's in for his next MOT.
They certainly do. I know of one which moved significantly and had to be surgically removed. 
) and they said it was important to know as the standard check is the back of the neck where it is originally placed but it could migrate towards the back or, more usually, to either of the front thighs and so a more thorough check would be required. I must admit that I had not heard about the moving around the body thing before, up until now I thought it seemed like simple common sense to have a dog or cat chipped.
The problem is that those breeding dangerous dogs will ignore the law, so all this will end up being is another admin piece for law abiding pet owners.
The problem is that those breeding dangerous dogs will ignore the law, so all this will end up being is another admin piece for law abiding pet owners.
Turn7 said:
I know they migrate around, and maybe tattooing is better, but Im all for trying to control the lowlife scum who use dogs as status symbols.
.
How on earth will chipping "control the low life scum who use dogs as status symbols"?? .
As for cancer, well, there are research papers here IIRC.
http://www.antichips.com/cancer/
There are good reasons for doing this but ultimately it does seem like the usual wishy washy solution to a social problem.
We need to step away from the practice of in essence taxing the law abiding as a way of trying to regulate the non abiding and just enforce the law with brutality on the real targets.
The solutions to dealing with the antisocial never lies in taxing and regulating the law abiding.
We need to step away from the practice of in essence taxing the law abiding as a way of trying to regulate the non abiding and just enforce the law with brutality on the real targets.
The solutions to dealing with the antisocial never lies in taxing and regulating the law abiding.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff