UK pol touts canine chip implants Even if your beloved Westie is spending her declining years curled up by the hearth, Home Secretary Alan Johnson suggests she should be microchipped for the protection of her potential victims, and you should pony up for dog-attack insurance. So goes a proposal that Johnson has floated for consultation in response to what the …
Yes totally agree that all dogs should have an id chip.
But as the owner of three flatcoats who once greeted a "burglar" that climbed in through a downstairs window with their favourite soft toys, to play with, I am not happy with 3rd party Insurance, just see it as a "Labour Dog Tax".
Also as one of our dogs is a registered "Pets as Therapy" dog, who spends her time visiting old people's homes, one wonders what her liability is.
A sensible course might be to require all dogs to be microchipped by a local vet. A simple and cheap license should then link the microchip with an owner and their address. The police or RSPCA should seize any dog without a microchip or a current license and then give the owners a couple of weeks to resolve any discrepancy. It would probably be a good idea to ban those convicted of crimes like drug dealing from dog ownership.
The insurance idea is daft. As with cars, those with no regard for the law will simply not bother to insure their dog(s).
I think Rik and others should have read the original article more carefully (follow the "Johnson was quoted" link).
I just did and noticed it says
"The RSPCA says the number of complaints about dog fights has risen 12-fold between 2004 and 2008."
Notice the word is "fights" not "bites".
Now to me, a dog fight is usually a fight between two dogs and doesn't necessarily involve any harm to a person. Rik has translated this into "dog attacks" which may well be what Alan Johnson was hoping for. So sounds suspiciously like a politician using skewed data to push his own agenda...Naaa...they never do that do they?
Regardless of the reasons, it won't produce the result which any sane person would hope for (reduction in dog related aggression, attacks, injuries etc) because the people who are the cause of the problem simply won't comply. It is just yet another way for the government to extract extra revenue from the law abiding while those who ignore the law get away with it as usual.
Dogs often go after cyclists. I had two encounters on the same trip the other night. Fortunately no injury.
I suppose they may be thinking particularly of criminals' weapon dogs and making possession of such a dog an offence without the limitations of the Dangerous Dogs Act. Or perhaps it's about hunting dog packs, which regularly attack people, animals and property, but theoretically not foxes any more, unless they happen to find one while they're out and about. And anyway, very expensive to insure.
Don't they get a bent vet to cut the chip out of a stolen dog?
Compulsory insurance may have problems as described, but I'd expect insurers to offer cover for a lower premium if the dog is properly trained or is kept away from the general public.
I'd make the compulsory implant larger and with a stun as well as a "don't do that" function and let's say Bluetooth. Chihuahua would not require a huge device for that, German Shepherds something stronger. There are some complications so I'll let our legislators hammer out the details.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
