British dog owners may be forced to microchip their pets and take out insurance, part of a proposed crackdown on the country's dangerous canines.
Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comBritain may force owners to microchip dogs
Seeded on Tue Mar 9, 2010 2:26 PM EST (msnbc.com)
— Filed under: health, personal-finance, general-news, lifestyle, government-and-politics, industries, social-affairs, pet-health, pets, social-issues, accidents-and-disasters, accidents, government-business-and-finance, financial-services, animal-welfare, pet-insurance, personal-spending, personal-insurance, alan-johnson, paul-massey
Leave a Comment:
I wish the US would require "chipping" a pet. Too many are dumped, and they suffered terribly for it. I've seen far too many remains of cats and dogs who were just dumped along the highway, and then killed by a vehicle. I've watched cars swerve into other cars trying to avoid hitting a dog. It's dangerous all the way around. Chipping would help prevent these tragedies.
I don't know about the insurance. It would be another thing to sort through.
i understand that you mean well, but your logic is flawed.
how would a microchip prevent a dog from being dumped in the first place? if someone is trying to get rid of a dog, they will do it chip or no chip.
how would a chip prevent animal related car accidents? will it now be standard to include a "lost animal tracker" in every vehicle to find all these released animals which cause so many accidents as you claim?
chipping would NOT prevent those scenerios.
If you can be traced through your fingerprints, you can be traced through a chip. In my state cruelty to animals is illegal. Dumping them along a road is illegal (and cruel). If you can be traced back through the chip, then you can be prosecuted. This wouldn't fix everything, but it might make people think twice about dumping an unwanted pet. If a person doesn't care what happens to the animal, most areas have shelters that put the animals up for adoption. After an extended period, if no one wants them, then they are painlessly euthanized. I think that would be more preferable than to be run over by a car, but that's just me. The chip denotes ownership, and with ownership, comes responsibility. If the animal is just lost, then it can be returned. Does this fix all the problems? No, again, but it is a place to start.
The next logical step is to implant British children.
This should be a requirement so the the legal owners can be found or be charged or sue if there is an issue with an animal.
For Heaven's sake. The Brits have allowed, albeit some unwillingly, their "nanny" government to outlaw this, outlaw that, regulate this, regulate that- to the point of nonsense. Can the people of the UK do anything without government involvement? Seemingly inocuous issues like "forcing dog owners to place chips in their animals," unless challenged, will continue to perpetrate others. Will it ever end... Will they eventually have to register Cricket bats? After all, they too can be used to intimidate. Perhaps Cricket bats already are registered, I don't know. I am certain, what ever opinions there are out there, that many people of the UK will defend the fact that their rights are ridiculously restricted, despite their former, historical, pugnaciousness. And please don't wave that kitchen knife at me~!
It's only a butter knife, LOL. But really. How is getting all dogs chipped and insured going to stop attacks? All the owner has to tell the officers is they gave the dog away. As far as Cricket bats...them suckers is huge.
I totally agree with you Lianne.
Thank you Stacy!
The British commentator, Jeremy Clarkson, had a great article about this in the Timesonline. The article is called " A daft way to stop your spaniel eating the milkman".
Can't insert a link, but google him. or add the usual stuff to "timesonline.co.uk" and look for his column.
I am posting this because after reading it, I certainly couldn't have expressed myself on this any better than he did.
Someone should inform the Brits that Orwell's 1984 was not a blueprint for the future, but a critique of a futuristic society. Next thing you know, they will be implanting children, then adults, then, LOL, garbage cans, LOL-wait, they already chip garbage cans!
Guess what else? If you find a valuable item on your property, you have to report it to the government.
Woman who found coin worth £2,000 in garden becomes first to be prosecuted for not reporting treasure
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1253991/Woman-coin-worth-2-000-garden-prosecuted-reporting-treasure.html
1. The chip idea is good.
2. The insurance idea is bad.
3. The British need guns to protect themselves from the rampant violence in the country.
4. The British judicial system needs to put criminals in jail (which it generally does not).
There certainly ARE dangerous breeds - and their owners all too often have that breed for the wrong reasons. To you who insist that the owners create aggressive breeds, Google "black lab attacks" and then Google "german shepard attacks". Just for fun, try "poodle attack" and maybe "collie attacks" too. Add them all up. Now, Google "pit bull attacks" What? That can't be. Thousands and thousands of pit bull attacks. Yes, you say but the pit bull is no different than any other dog, they just must attract poor owners, huh? If so, we still should ban the breed to protect us from these violence loving owners.
Beyond IDing and mandatory insurance for these "touched" owners, I would institute a breeding and new ownership ban on pit bulls and maybe some other powerful, aggressive breeds. Just like the gun owners, your rights should stop when your behavior or poor decisions threaten myself or my loved ones. I never kill living creatures - but an aggressive pit bull in my yard will be shot on sight.
Jim,
#1 "Pit bulls" are a type based on their head, yes, there is one dog that is called a pit bull, and that is the American Pit Bull Terrier. All of that red nosed, blue nose, gator head, and crap is a selling point. All they are are mixed breeds showcased around, like doodles, to bring in more money FOR A MUTT!!!! There are several other breeds that get lumped into the pit bull category, including presa canarios and american bulldogs, even thought they are mastiffs, NOT terriers.
#2 Pits and mixes thereof make up for 20% of the dog population, and 30% of shelter dogs. So with common sense applied, since they are the most commonly found dog, yes, there would be more bites by them!
PS. a boxer lab mix will most likely turn out to look almost exactly like a pit bull, google the images.
#3 The biggest common factor to bites? Well, in a study done between Jan. 2000, and Dec. 2005, by the National canine Research Council, 92% of all dog bites were done by unaltered dogs, with an overwhelming percentage of them being intact males. And, 81% of the dogs that attack, were kept in semi- isolated conditions, meaning that that spent most of their lives stuck in pens, at the end of a chain, or in yards, with little to no socialization with the outside world. With such little to no socialization, fear aggression develops, and that is the most dangerous type of aggression.
#4 Look at the stats in Canada, and guess what? Even with BSL, there are STILL the same number of attacks, fatal as well, that do not involve pit bull type dogs, as there were with pit bull types being legal.
#5. Numbers of attacks by more, well, "family" oriented dogs are on the rise. In fact, Goldens are starting to gain popularity in the "dog that bit my child's face off" category.
When you boil it down, it alwasy the owners' fault. Spay/Neuter, PROPER breeding practices, socializing, and training are the keys to lowering dog attacks, not banning specific breeds. I personally know of three goldens that attacked, two attacking and killing smaller dogs, and one ripping apart a child's face, and one severe cocker spaniel attack, that lead to 4 surgeries, and the forced retirement of a mail man, due to the severity of his leg injuries. I have known, and still know, many, many pit bulls and rotties, and not one has had a vicious bone in its body. Then again, the people who have these dogs also have raised their dogs properly.
the Brits already have to have passports and keep meticulous medical records on their horses because all horses are considered meat. You may opt out, there is no guarantee they will not go to slaughter for meat for human consumption and you still have to keep those records of where you go and what you did with your horse
and do not think it cannot happen here...check out a USDA program called NAIS, currently on temporary hold because of the huge outcry against it...if in effect this is what every one who owns even one livestock type animal, pets included, will have to do....
These are the regulations as set forth by the National Animal Identification System.
In order to own a horse or other livestock under the NAIS program you must...
1. premises identification-you register your premises and pay a yearly fee (no guarantee it will not go up and up).
2. animal identification- micro chips ($400-$500 for scanner, chips cost too, but can be easily tampered with) Some horses may develop cancer from chips and they can migrate through a horse's body. And the chosen chip is reprogrammable?!?!?!?
3. animal tracking--every time you take your horse off property to shows, vet, trail ride, parades, horse events of any kind, you must file report with in 24 hours where you have taken horse and where you have been with horse they must file report horse has been there. You must also file reports as to other horses that your horse comes in contact with, say on a trail ride, or if your horse gets out and commingles with other horses or if other horses come to your place.
4. depopulation-if animal disease suspected all animals in 6 mi radius killed
all this just so corporate ag can say the meat raised on factory farms is safe!
outlaw anything you want but these criminal types would still get 2 animals together to fight, even if they had to use chihuahuas or beagles. Don't ban a whole breed. Google children drowning in home simming pools and you will find it is 10x the amount of kids killed by dogs...why don't they ban swimming pools?
People need to stop comparing having pets chipped to having kids chipped. Kids are going to grow up into adults and be able to think and reason for themselves, and know it is a bad idea to dig under the fence or slip the leash; pets won't. A pet can't walk around with a picture I.D. and tell someone their phone number, parent's names, or address. Military bases have been requiring pet chipping for years with a great success rate. Of course, it won't prevent dog attacks or traffic accidents, but if a dangerous dog is captured a chip can lead authorities to the owner. Simply saying 'I gave the dog away' won't work; places that mandate chipping also require pet owners to notify the microchip company and change the owner information for the chip, so claiming to have given the pet away without changing the information will result in legal actions as well. Microchips have also allowed the reunions of countless pets and their families. The expense is minimal, and if they start requiring chips the prices will go down. When microchipping started, a chip was $300 - 400; now they are $50 or less. I paid $16 for my dog to have one. Many shelters and rescue groups offer chipping at discounted rates.
The microchips can cause cancer. I wouldn't put one in my dog. Here's a quote from http://www.antichips.com/cancer/: "In almost all cases, the malignant tumors, typically sarcomas, arose at the site of the implants and grew to surround and fully encase the devices. These fast-growing, malignant tumors often led to the death of the afflicted animals. In many cases, the tumors metastasized or spread to other parts of the animals. The implants were unequivocally identified as the cause of the cancers."