News1 min ago
Microchips for Dogs - Good Idea or Not
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17797194
If the intention was to cut down on the number of savage attacks by all breeds of dog wouldn't a better solution be to have all dogs muzzled in public?
If the intention was to cut down on the number of savage attacks by all breeds of dog wouldn't a better solution be to have all dogs muzzled in public?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pdq1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I think that microchipping dogs is a good idea as it helps to reunite lost dogs with owners. Unless the dog is scanned at the point of attack,(hang on while I pull my pocket scanner out and scan the dog that is biting me???????) I can't see how it will help to identify the aggressive dog, let alone reduce aggressive dog incidents. I really cannot see how it can be enforced, people who get their dogs chipped will carry on doing so, people who don't won't.
It may help cut down on 'hybrid' dogs.
If breeders know that they *have* to take pups to a vet to get them chipped and that any diligent vet will be able to recognise (with the usual caveats) proscribed breeds, etc., these breeders/owners may be less likely to continue to produce potentially dangerous dogs.
If there is a correlating law that any unchipped dog 'may' be destroyed it would give the authorities greater latitude when dealing with the chavs and their devil dogs.
If breeders know that they *have* to take pups to a vet to get them chipped and that any diligent vet will be able to recognise (with the usual caveats) proscribed breeds, etc., these breeders/owners may be less likely to continue to produce potentially dangerous dogs.
If there is a correlating law that any unchipped dog 'may' be destroyed it would give the authorities greater latitude when dealing with the chavs and their devil dogs.
But breeders won't "have" to do it. As I understand it, the requirement is going to be placed on owners and even if it isn't, the people with whom there is a problem may NEVER take the dog to the vet. They will whelp it themselves, doctor it themselves, do nothing and let the dog suffer or just kill it and get another one. Who is going to do "stop and scan? the police? (laughter)
If the Police have powers and cause to stop a dog/owner I presume there will be some electric wand that will be able to determine very quickly whether a dog is chipped, or not.
If the public can then be prevailed upon to 'only' purchase chipped animals then there ought to be a decrease in the number of 'attack-dogs'.
If the public can then be prevailed upon to 'only' purchase chipped animals then there ought to be a decrease in the number of 'attack-dogs'.
The idea of microchiiping is flawed from the start. Besides the comments mentioned above that many dogs owners will not go to the bother this law only applies to new puppies. So the millions of dogs already in existance will remain chip free and the life of a dog could be 15 years. So quite a long time before the idea really kicks in.
you cant put a tracker in a chip. trackers need to transmit which requires a battery which requires increased size and regular replacement. Which breeds would you limit and what about crosses/mongrels?
yes you can carry a scanner (who will pay for them all?) they aren't foolproof. If the police have cause to stop a dog owner, they why do they need to scan the dog? surely there will already have been an incident? or are we travelling towards "well he looked shifty to me"?
yes you can carry a scanner (who will pay for them all?) they aren't foolproof. If the police have cause to stop a dog owner, they why do they need to scan the dog? surely there will already have been an incident? or are we travelling towards "well he looked shifty to me"?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.