Consultation process with regards to making microchipping dogs compulsory

Forums New posts
In my opinion microchipping won't work. Most fatal dog attacks happen at home with a dog that's familiar to the victim, so sticking an identifying chip in their necks isn't the answer.
 
Blackley said:
In my opinion microchipping won't work. Most fatal dog attacks happen at home with a dog that's familiar to the victim, so sticking an identifying chip in their necks isn't the answer.
Click to expand...

At least we will know who the dog really is though.:hmmm
 
SKII said:
BBC News - Consultation launched on licensing and microchipping dogs

Aim is seemingly to reduce the number of dog attacks.

:hmmm
Click to expand...

:hmmm

I really can't see how it will stop any future attacks though....if by a small chance the dog has a chip in it, they might be able to trace the owners, might, as obviously when "owners" found, it will belong to new owners who mustn't have registered it....,but even then, it hasn't stopped the attack...

At least they are trying to do something, but really cannot see this working, money making for some, but attacks will continue the same.
 
Hattie said:
:hmmm

I really can't see how it will stop any future attacks though....if by a small chance the dog has a chip in it, they might be able to trace the owners, might, as obviously when "owners" found, it will belong to new owners who mustn't have registered it....,but even then, it hasn't stopped the attack...

At least they are trying to do something, but really cannot see this working, money making for some, but attacks will continue the same.
Click to expand...

I can't see it working either. The owners are the problem here and that's a much wider issue. You used to have to have a dog licence to own a dog and they scrapped that because it didn't really achieve anything and was too much hassle to enforce.

A lot of vets are doing micro-chipping for nothing these days. Ours does. Have both our dog and cat chipped but purely for reasons of increasing the chances of locating them in the event of getting lost or nicked.
 
SKII said:
I can't see it working either. The owners are the problem here and that's a much wider issue. You used to have to have a dog licence to own a dog and they scrapped that because it didn't really achieve anything and was too much hassle to enforce.

A lot of vets are doing micro-chipping for nothing these days. Ours does. Have both our dog and cat chipped but purely for reasons of increasing the chances of locating them in the event of getting lost or nicked.
Click to expand...

See thats the scenario, families who care for their pets would have got a licence in the past, and like you say, are getting them chipped just now, for the reasons you state.
Imagine the muppets who want their dogs as ego boosts etc getting them chipped just to make them culpable if their dogs attack anyone....its not going to happen.

But they do need to do something though....
 
I read this earlier. But I saw the story as yet another 'vote for independence and this is what the SNP will make law' negative spin.
 
I would re-issue the licensing scheme and give it some thought this time. I suggest to own a dog you must hold a license with all dogs chipped and registered to the license. If the dog is in public the license must be carried and wardens could do spot checks. Any person discovered with an illegal dog should face stiff penalties.

I'd also license breeding and with the microchip registering to the dog owner license all dogs will be instantly traceable back to the breeder with a logged history of the sale, etc. Dog owners should pay the administration costs. This will cut out the impulse purchases, or freebie dogs and ensure that at least some dogs don't fall into the wrong hands. It will also help cut down the strays, the numbers of dogs in rescues, cruelty incidents and neglect cases.

I'd also make it illegal to leave dogs exceeding a weight class unsupervised with under 16s.

Although the so called devil dogs get all the bad press for the few fatal incidents every year, it's actually that old family faithful pet the labrador which is the biggest biting culprit.
 
Labrador the worst offender? You talk some shite! Who did you post as before?
 
Picked this up from a site....

On a related note, some more dog statistics:
Here are the most dangerous dogs, in order of bites:
1. Rottweilers
2. Pit Bulls
3. German Shepherds
4. Huskies
5. Alaskan Malamute
6. Doberman pinscher
7. Great Dane
8. St. Bernard
9. Akita


An American one, kinda similar

Pit Bulls & Staffordshire Terriers
Doberman Pinschers
Rottweilers
German Shepherds
Chows
Great Danes
Presa Canarios
Akitas
Alaskan Malamutes
Siberian Huskies
Wolf-hybrids
 
I may have been hasty in naming the labrador as a biting culprit, it's actually the golden retriever.:rascal:

But stats show you are just as likely to be attacked by a miniature dog like the chuhuahau. Bites by the so called devil dogs are much rarer but make all the headlines due to the severity of the attacks.

- - - Updated - - -

hibbybilly said:
Labrador the worst offender? You talk some $#@!e! Who did you post as before?
Click to expand...

Does it matter that you think I've been here before, or not? Why don't you stop biting my ankles and go look it up, then you'll see I'm barking up the right tree after all?

This forced attempt to make me submissive and go to my basket is silly.

Don't Google dangerous dogs, or devil dogs, search for which dogs bite most often. You're in for a surprise, and it's not a chocolate bone. :kos:

- - - Updated - - -

Dr Shrink said:
Labrador devil dog.
Oh ma sides.
Click to expand...

Nobody suggested this. Family pets, the non devil dogs, are by far the biggest culprits for biting attacks at home. That's a fact. Perhaps you can present evidence to the contrary?
 
Chip the dugs, licence the owners; you can't have one without the other.

Maybe one advantage of chipping dugs is that if, for any reason, the dug is involved in any sort of incident and is not chipped the consequences for the owner are easier in law to prosecute and/or more severe ie difficult to prove the owners negligence but black and white for a chip being/not being there.
 
Hattie said:
Picked this up from a site....

On a related note, some more dog statistics:
Here are the most dangerous dogs, in order of bites:
1. Rottweilers
2. Pit Bulls
3. German Shepherds
4. Huskies
5. Alaskan Malamute
6. Doberman pinscher
7. Great Dane
8. St. Bernard
9. Akita
Click to expand...

This list, is it UK? And is it a historical list? Can't be a current because you never see doberman and very few rottweilers these days

No staffies? and I would suggest the smaller breeds don't get reported as much.

And Jack, I agree, it's a start, next, license the owners and it will eventually weed out the bad cruel owners.
 
DM Hibs said:
This list, is it UK? And is it a historical list? Can't be a current because you never see doberman and very few rottweilers these days
Click to expand...

They're still around. Very popular with the Polish community where we are. As for attacks by them, a quick Google search shows how many attacks were reported in the press this year alone by Rottweilers. Sadly, including child fatalities.

Our vet refuses to treat any Rotty without it being muzzled, even for a simple check up. They're not allowed into the waiting room with other breeds without a muzzle on. He says they are the one breed that give no warning they are about to attack, allowing humans or other animals to make decisions about their safety. They just bite. It is also the only breed who has ever bitten him in 30 years of practice.
 
I reckon every dog owner should be forced to have insurance both liability and vet
 
DM Hibs said:
This list, is it UK? And is it a historical list? Can't be a current because you never see doberman and very few rottweilers these days

No staffies? and I would suggest the smaller breeds don't get reported as much.

And Jack, I agree, it's a start, next, license the owners and it will eventually weed out the bad cruel owners.
Click to expand...

It was a bit older tbf, so the next list i put up was 2013....from what i read SK11has it spot on, still see a lot of Rottweillers about....

- - - Updated - - -

Forzahibs said:
I reckon every dog owner should be forced to have insurance both liability and vet
Click to expand...

I agree D.
I was reading an American site, well i assumed it was American due to the terminology they were using, and it was about insurance with dogs.
A lot of insurance companies will not let you get insured yourself if you have certain dogs, and if you don't declare it your insurance will be void, house insurance, rental insurance and some with personal insurance insurance.....
But if you had a dog you must have insurance if you were renting a house for example, maybe more to it, it was late and i was tired.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom