Good or Bad News - All Dog's To Be Chipped/Insured

[westendlass]

I understand the horror when a child is attacked / killed by a family dog and cannot understand anyone having a dog is that has the potential to kill or maim anyone, especially the large breeds, anywhere near children. Having said that, we have a large bull terrier cross that came from a rehoming centre who's only ever shown gentleness in the three years we've had him but I would never have chosen a dog like him when my kids were young. But I think you are being very harsh in saying the loss of a child in these circumstances is not enough punishment, the parents must be mortified, I can't imagine anything worse on your conscience for the rest of your life.

[Margaret Pilkington]

There are so many irresponsible dog owners.
No family dog should be left in the presence of a baby or young child.
Having dogs insured or chipped would not prevent such incidents as have happened recently.......these were not just irresponsible dog owners, but irresponsible parents too.

[westendlass]

I agree Margaret, and I think chipping and insuring dogs are, by and large, going to be done by responsible owners anyway. But there are a lot of idiots who get the so called 'status dogs' who live childish and irresponsible lives that shouldn't have the responsibility of children in the first place.

[maxthecollie]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

There are so many irresponsible dog owners.
No family dog should be left in the presence of a baby or young child.
Having dogs insured or chipped would not prevent such incidents as have happened recently.......these were not just irresponsible dog owners, but irresponsible parents too.

Here Here Margaret I fully endorse what you said. We would not leave Max alone with any child although he loves children and plays a lot with our 8 year old Grandchild.A dog is after all an animal, capable of hurting of killing.

[Accyexplorer]

I'm not sure if I agree with it or not.
Will folk keep their details upto date if they charge for updating info? Maybe some, but a lot won't bother (the scallywags of Accy certainly won't,that's if they bother to chip them in the first place).
Then there's the issue of tumours.....I'm not sure on exact facts an figures are but I won't put my dog at risk.
Here is a link for those that like a read
CHIPPED PETS DEVELOP FAST-GROWING, LETHAL TUMORS

On top of that there's policing it.I think that's going to be difficult to say the least,our government does like to do things on the cheap after all
Is it not the 'law' that dogs are suppose to have collars with contact info on? How many folk listen to that 'law'?
Will there be a exemption in the 'law' for dogs unsuitable to be chipped?

[maxthecollie]

That is a worrying thought. We have always had our dogs microchipped, and lost our last two dogs in middle age due to tumours.

[Less]

I would risk an increase in canine cancer if it helps prevent children being savaged to death by uncontrolled dogs.

[maxthecollie]

I dont see your point. If a dog has cancer they could be unpredictable. There will always be certain people who will not chip their dogs There is no easy solution to tracing ownership of dogs unless they tattoo the dogs at birth

[Less]

My point is a child's life must have priority over that of any pets.

I do understand how this could seem harsh we all consider our animals as part of the family.

[maxthecollie]

I totally agree with that.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by maxthecollie

unless they tattoo the dogs at birth

A Bulldog wearing lippy & with a fouled anchor tattoo on its shoulder? Seen a few of them wandering round the metropolis late on of a Friday/Saturday night!

Nah! Seriously though, the first dog we had was tattooed with a number inside his ear. We got him from the Dogs home late 80's. This apparently was standard in Germany prior to developing a chipping process & I'd say the rules & regs over here are far more stringent than in UK, it's very rare you'll find a Hound out & about without their human.

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by Less

I would risk an increase in canine cancer if it helps prevent children being savaged to death by uncontrolled dogs.

How exactly does chipping your dog prevent children being savaged (to death) by uncontrolled dogs?
The Dangerous Dogs Act was a law introduced in 1991 following a spate of attacks by aggressive or uncontrollable dogs.Recent headlines suggest it's not working though.

(Take a deep breath,I'm not having a go)

[Less]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

How exactly does chipping your dog prevent children being savaged (to death) by uncontrolled dogs?
The Dangerous Dogs Act was a law introduced in 1991 following a spate of attacks by aggressive or uncontrollable dogs.Recent headlines suggest it's not working though.

(Take a deep breath,I'm not having a go)

In itself it doesn't, however in conjunction with making owners responsible for their dogs, then hopefully if this and other rules for dog ownership are toughened up then maybe, just maybe, the number of irresponsible owners will reduced thus reducing the number of sad headlines we see in the papers.
Of course even if all dog owners were responsible there would still be occasional attacks even a normally good, well treated dog can suddenly turn.

As for the act, unlike the dogs, it has no teeth, it can't even nip at the problem.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

The Dangerous Dogs Act was a law introduced in 1991 following a spate of attacks by aggressive or uncontrollable dogs.Recent headlines suggest it's not working though.

The dangerous dog act is a worthless knee jerk piece of legislation brought about in response to public outcry! All dogs have the potential to be dangerous it's in their nature, but the influence of the owner can reduce or increase these responses.

The act itself covers; Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Braziliero & cross-breed derivatives, yet many bites & attacks are the result of the family pet which isn't one of those listed above. I know this from personal experience because in the last couple of years I've had the pleasure of being nipped by a Rotty in the calf (drawing blood), had my left hand punctured between thumb & forefinger by a terrier cross ( lots of blood & a trip to A&E) & the most recent, only this Tuesday just I had the hem of my right trouser leg savaged by some hairy Russel type rat! (Highly embarrassing but no blood). Like I said all of these incidents involved dogs not listed, but their actions could & should class them as dangerous.

Police & Military use Doberman Pinchers, German Shepherds, Rottweilers & Belgian shepherds, as various attack, guard or war dogs so surely these must be deemed more aggressive & as such dangerous but they aren't! Which reinforces my personal view that the governments hasty policy was more in response to outraged screaming than to an actual thought out preventative policy.

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by Less

In itself it doesn't, however in conjunction with making owners responsible for their dogs, then hopefully if this and other rules for dog ownership are toughened up then maybe, just maybe, the number of irresponsible owners will reduced thus reducing the number of sad headlines we see in the papers.
Of course even if all dog owners were responsible there would still be occasional attacks even a normally good, well treated dog can suddenly turn.

As for the act, unlike the dogs, it has no teeth, it can't even nip at the problem.

I know,I was having the crack
Maybe the powers that be should penalise those irresponsible owners rather than everyone though (it's a bit like having a motor). They hit responsible owners but those that disregard the law carry on taking the pish while we're left to foot the bill.
The way this country's going it's only a matter of time before humans are chipped (except immigrants and those how disregard the law) .
I can see some benefits from chipping ,for example I paid £450 for my dog an a extra £20+ would be a good investment if I had it stolen,they removed the collar then it was later found,but to put it at risk of cancer on the off chance....Not in this lifetime.