Daybreak ?? re microchipping laws

So did anybody see the news piece on Daybreak this morning , was a little dissapointed because they showed what looked like 2 staffys at the kennels whilst they were talking , though the man on the scene did make a little fuss. Staffys were never actually mentioned once , and for a change they threw another dog in the ring which was the Rottie (and a very nice looking one) . Thought the comments from the Rottie owner and the KC Rep were very matter of fact and just seem to reflect the opinions of everybody on here.

i just caught the end. i do agree with micro chipping xx

Same here not seen the full report but I am all for micro chipping!

yip im all for micro chipping to

I don't really understand why you wouldn't have it done tbh.

Didn't see the program though Xx

my OH auntie doesnt have her dog chipped and she had him 9 years! she said it cruel to put a dog through it and i was sat there like "are you kidding me?" best way to find them if they get lost!

never saw the program but i would really likke to see micro chipping made law

janey wrote:
I don't really understand why you wouldn't have it done tbh.
Didn't see the program though Xx

I know a lot of people (mainly GSD people, it has to be said) who won't microchip. Their dogs are tattooed, as they have to be if they want to compete in Schutzhund, or some GSD shows, and won't put their dog through both. Also, some dogs get very bad reactions to chips - the area swells & becomes very inflamed. Occasionally they have to be removed - so what would happen then?

They can also migrate, and if a scan can't find it, would they make you have it done again? Who would police it?

What about the elderly or disabled who can't afford it?

I agree that microchipping should be encouraged, but I don't think it should be law.

it's pretty stupid if u ask me....

Caryll wrote:

janey wrote:
I don't really understand why you wouldn't have it done tbh.
Didn't see the program though Xx

I know a lot of people (mainly GSD people, it has to be said) who won't microchip. Their dogs are tattooed, as they have to be if they want to compete in Schutzhund, or some GSD shows, and won't put their dog through both. Also, some dogs get very bad reactions to chips - the area swells & becomes very inflamed. Occasionally they have to be removed - so what would happen then?

They can also migrate, and if a scan can't find it, would they make you have it done again? Who would police it?

What about the elderly or disabled who can't afford it?

I agree that microchipping should be encouraged, but I don't think it should be law.

Where did I say I think it should be law? I've stayed out of those debates.

I do think that either a dog should be microchipped/tattooed, there should be identification on its body that can not be removed, why wouldn't someone want to have that done? What if the dog was stolen/lost/killed?

How many dogs do you really know that have serious reactions to it? And as for migrating yes it can but again the numbers are very low.

If you can't afford to chip then you shouldn't have a dog in the first place imo.

I think that in any way we can help to bring down the levels of byb is a good thing in my eyes!

janey wrote:Where did I say I think it should be law? I've stayed out of those debates.

Whoa, calm down. I didn't say that you said it should be law - I just said that I didn't think it should!

janey wrote:I do think that either a dog should be microchipped/tattooed, there should be identification on its body that can not be removed, why wouldn't someone want to have that done? What if the dog was stolen/lost/killed?

I agree that there should be a permanent form of ID - I just don't think that microchipping should be the only one.

janey wrote:How many dogs do you really know that have serious reactions to it? And as for migrating yes it can but again the numbers are very low.

The numbers don't matter. What I would want to know is what happens to a dog that cannot be microchipped? Would it have to be pts? Or would there be 'waivers' for certain situations? That just hasn't been thought about.

janey wrote:If you can't afford to chip then you shouldn't have a dog in the first place imo.

So, the elderly can't have a dog just because they're on a pension & can't afford the microchipping?

janey wrote:I think that in any way we can help to bring down the levels of byb is a good thing in my eyes!

It won't, though. The bybs will still produce the pups & leave it to the new owners to get whaever needs to be done, done! All it will do is make the registered owner of the dog responsible for it. However, if a dog is sold/given to someone else & the details aren't updated there will still be a problem.

i dont know why its so hard to understand bring out these thing will only punish good owners..... BAD OWNERS dont care about laws i have just about had enough.... i wont get my dogs chip, license or anything else because it's just another way of getting money off us and wont fix our dog problem.

Im all for micr chipping, but all good dog owners already have it done and the bad ones wont do it because they wont WANT their dogs traced back to them, so its a pointless thing to say this is to help clamp down on danger dog owners.

i dont have my dog chip becasue i have them undet control and they never run away does that make me a bad owner?

Its not a matter of them running away its a matter of other people taking them or god forbid your house going on fire. They would run away then (hopefully!)

Chipping is about the What Ifs not "my dog is under control and doesnt run away" because you never now what will happen really..

my dogs dont need one, how i think is you would put a tag in your kids so why a dog.

I'd be more than happy to tag my child.

Caryll wrote:

janey wrote:
I don't really understand why you wouldn't have it done tbh.
Didn't see the program though Xx

I know a lot of people (mainly GSD people, it has to be said) who won't microchip. Their dogs are tattooed, as they have to be if they want to compete in Schutzhund, or some GSD shows, and won't put their dog through both. Also, some dogs get very bad reactions to chips - the area swells & becomes very inflamed. Occasionally they have to be removed - so what would happen then?

They can also migrate, and if a scan can't find it, would they make you have it done again? Who would police it?

What about the elderly or disabled who can't afford it?

I agree that microchipping should be encouraged, but I don't think it should be law.

I hope if the government stick to this then they also do some concessions for the not so well off people . I know some people will just not do it either because they don't agree with it or because they can't be ***ed . But I would imagine as you say here with the elderly, disabled and some of the jobless ( I say some because a lot of them are jobless by choice) should be able to get it free or very cheap. Some old dears will be sitting fretting now as they do because they think they are going to have to get their dog chipped or they will be locked up and as a consequence may miss meals , heating etc and that is very very wrong

If the dog can't be chipped due to health reasons then I'd say tattoo identification.
If the chip moves then the owner would still be able to prove that the dog was chipped by providing the micro-chip number, as you have a full set of documents that go with the chipping.

Yes people who only get dogs for 'status' or for worst reasons probably wouldn't get it done, but then you can't stop putting laws into place because of a minority group.

The last I heard was the Government where looking at all breeders having to chip pups, so it should not affect anyone due to low income - and to be honest chipping cost around £20-£25 so if you can't afford that how can you afford collars, leads, bowls, dog bed/s, dog food, vaccinations and vet bills.

This is all I'm going to say as I personally believe that it is pointless saying or debating this topic any more as I've had a very similar discussion on another thread which now appears to have been removed for some reason!!!!

The problem with chipping young pups is that some vets won't do it because of the folds of loose skin. I don't know the details, but my own vet won't chip until the skin the chip goes in is fairly tight. Dempsey couldn't be chipped when I first wanted him to be because of that.

Steve wrote:my dogs dont need one, how i think is you would put a tag in your kids so why a dog.

Steve, I know and can see you feel very strongly about this but have you ever considered the what if's . Like, heaven forbid you had an accident or took ill and the dogs bolted ?? Just curious because I agree with you 100% whilst you are in control then you have 100% control of the dogs but you never know what's around the corner ............. just a thought

Why is it so negetive, there's seems there's always an excuse.

I don't even remember the old dog licence, I got my first dog age 21.

It may have not worked then for what ever reason but surely everyone must agree there needs to be a step forward in this.

We are not going to be able to change the country so that all dogs are breed and owned by responsible people, but small steps into educating new owners/breeders is a start, is it not.

And maybe one day, we'll see a change, doing something is better than doing nothing.

micro chipping and licence is not the answer. becasue it cant be enforce like have said million time and it's becoming very boring it will cost billons (where is this money coming from) and you would need a warden/copper on every street, playing fields to enforce it and that out of the question.

bad breeder or bad owner aren't going care about this they going carry on doing hte same thing why bring something like this out to punish good owners it doesn't make sense.

the only way of fix this problem is getting tougher on society.

Which isn't going to happen overnight, lead by example is what I was bought up on.

You can either sit there and do nothing, or try to make a change.

this debate could go on and on,all i know is that since i first seen it mentioned on tv on saturday most of the time it is pictures and people referring to our beloved breed,itv news tonight 2 beautiful staffies shown and dangerous dogs mentioned

like bad owner or bad breeder are going really care...

i give up this forum will never support something that is going to fail.

Ok, but I support a change, as do the vast majority of all owners.

you can but not on here!!

this website and forum will only support proper change not papering over cracks.

the mother of the young lad that was killed by his uncles pit bull hit the nail on the head when she said micro chipping a dog will not stop a dog attacking its veting of owners and tougher enforcment of owners that let there dogs be aggresive that needs to happen

instead punish good owner the goverment should be looking at society becasue only humans are makingthis mess.. just common sense

But its a start.

Apart from changing the entire way our country is run, all of the people opposing it, what would you do to make a start in changing things??

All opinions are welcome Xx

tougher on bad parents who made this problem in the first place. if you bring someone up without care or love them not going be good teachers themselfs
tougher on problrm kids.
tougher on foreign gangs (Jamaica, turkeys and so on)

That is not going to happen as you know unless the law of the country is changed, which isn't going to happen.

So for now, what would people opposing it like to see happen?

why wont it happen?

national service cant happen while we stay in the human right act

Steve, why so negative and aggressive all the time? Every post i ever read of yours on every thread is always putting down everyone elses opinion?

I agree with you on the most part, we do need to be tougher on society, however it IS possible to police the Microchipping/License suggestion in the same way that vehicle licensing is policed. Random checks, at random times in random locations, if your dog is not tattooed/chipped and you dont have a license, you get fined. Simple!

I honestly think that making permanent identification of dogs is a great idea, I had Leo done as soon as he was old enough, it didnt cause him any real discomfort. I am a very responsible owner, he listens to me and does what he is told (most of the time) he is well socialised and very friendly with all dogs, children and adults. Unfortunately there are people out there that are not responsible, not just with Stffies but with all breeds. I think that by bringing in some kind of law whereby owners can be held more accountable for the actions of their dog is the ultimate answer and i think that compulsory licensing/chipping/tattooing is a good step forward!

IMO microchipping/dog license isn't going to work.. there no way of enforcing it there would be a police up roar about it my sister is a PCSO and they all say they wouldn't be happy if these to came about.

i haven't seen a dog warden for years so who going enforce it?

I agree it would be difficult at 1st, but my Brother in Law, who's Police Officer said he wouldnt mind policint it if it meant that fewer healthy dogs were being pts.

Like i have said previously, i do agree with most of what you have said. I think that National Service is a great idea and should definitely be brought back. I think that we do need to be tougher on bad parents, bad kids, and also bad teachers. If i had my way i would bring back corporal punishment in schools, it wasnt around when i was younger, but i know a lot of my school mates would have benefited from it as they are now wasting their lives as they were allowed to get away with what ever they wanted at school.

I do maintain though that it would be possible to police a licensing/chipping/tatooing law and it would be a good first step towards helping to fix the problem.

I do not think it is the ultimate solution, but if something like that was introduced alongside new laws where the owner was held accountable for their dogs actions, as well as our society reverting back about 2 decades on a lot of things, then we may have a start.

I've nothing against a permanent way of id-ing a dog to its owner. But the government is saying that it must be microchips. Why? As I said before, many people have a genuine dislike of microchips - I'm not keen on them myself, for the reasons I've mentioned.

There should be a choice - microchipping or tattooing. There should be a digital National Register for both, just like there is for car tax/insurance.

But it won't stop bad breeders/owners. It won't stop dog bites. It'll just match the dog to the owner - great, but the damage will still be done.

our council holds regular chipping sessions for free to those on low incomes
and to responsible owners they dont exclude you if your working they also
offer vouchers towards neutering/spaying so the town isnt over run with unwanted puppys who end up in rescues or worse pts, bit i saw of programe was guy saying chipping is fine but there should be basic dog ownership/care trsining to

appollo13102000 wrote:our council holds regular chipping sessions for free to those on low incomes
and to responsible owners they dont exclude you if your working they also
offer vouchers towards neutering/spaying so the town isnt over run with unwanted puppys who end up in rescues or worse pts, bit i saw of programe was guy saying chipping is fine but there should be basic dog ownership/care trsining to

Thats a good responsible attitude , personally I don't mind paying for all of this , but if i thought i was bleeding a charity i wouldnt do it because i can afford it and would not want a dog to suffer because the owner couldn't afford it

Well, I agree with caryll, people should have the option of a chip or a tattoo, it also isn't going to stop a dog from biting someone but I think the new law is all about prosecuting when there's been an attack so being able to identify a dog and it's owner is going to make this easier.
Maybe the thought process is that people will keep their dogs under better control if they know there's a higher chance of a court case coming their way.

I also agree with Janey and co, small changes are a start in the right direction.

I stand by my point made in a previous post, if something becomes law, ie every puppy should be licenced, then the general "puppy buying" public are going to start realising the difference between buying from a good breeder who licences their pups and a back yard breeder who does not.

Ultimately you'd expect to find that the demand for pups from back yard breeders is going to fall due to their non compliance

Finally I do also think we have a major problem with society, theres a shocking benefits culture where people know they can earn more sitting on their fat backsides then they can going out to work like the rest of us mugs

benifits are only a small problem in our soceity, our biggest problem is parents are not bring up their kids the right ways & kids have far to many rights these days with is totely wrong in my eyes.

I cant see how bring licence and mircochipping goin stop byb it didn't before what as change to make you think it will work these days when our soceity with 1000s worse?

*Karen* wrote:I stand by my point made in a previous post, if something becomes law, ie every puppy should be licenced, then the general "puppy buying" public are going to start realising the difference between buying from a good breeder who licences their pups and a back yard breeder who does not.
Ultimately you'd expect to find that the demand for pups from back yard breeders is going to fall due to their non compliance

In an ideal world, you're right. But I'm afraid that even now, after many years of the government pushing for more responsible dog buying/ownership, most people are none the wiser as to where they should be buying from, and what they should be looking for. Bybs will still breed & be cheaper than licensed breeders & people will still want to buy the cheaper pup.

Steve wrote:I cant see how bring licence and mircochipping goin stop byb it didn't before what as change to make you think it will work these days when our soceity with 1000s worse?

I'm not against licensing & permanent dog id (microchipping or tattooing), but it won't solve the problem. It may be a step in the right direction, but it's a tiny step that, on its own, won't make things any different. If it was part of a 'greater plan' then I'd support it 100%, but it isn't. Once again, it's a poorly thought-out strategy to make it look as though the government are doing something when in reality they're doing absolutely nothing.

Oh dear, I didnt see that prog. Pixee is micochipped, by the blue cross. The dogs I grew up with, never were. However I dont have a problem with the micochip, for the facts, should something happen to me on a walk, knowing pixee, she wouldnt leave my side, but if she went for help, like going home, someone could pick up her thinking she is a stray, so she would be returned to me. although she does have a tag on her collar, this is her second one, as her first one was lost, think it got caught on some branches as she was running round the woods, so if the worse had happened, and her tag came off again, as least they will find the micochip. In my books, its up to us how we want our dogs to show who they belong to. We are all a loving responsible lot on here. I have no problem with those that dont want their dogs micochipped, each to their own, but as I have pointed out, name tags can get lost, and then your dog, should anything happen could be lost for ever too. They are so precious to us.

Staffy lover wrote:I have no problem with those that dont want their dogs micochipped, each to their own, but as I have pointed out, name tags can get lost, and then your dog, should anything happen could be lost for ever too. They are so precious to us.

I think permanent id for dogs is essential. However, I don't think that people should be forced to use microchips. Tattooing is also permanent & if done properly is easily visible in either the ear flap or inside of the thigh.

I have no problem with micro chipping (both of my dogs already are) and to be honest, I will follow any law they decide to bring out as long as it means they will not ban staffies or take Buster away from me!

I can see people's points of view though, but how could we solve the dog problem? Every country has one and no one has found a solution yet.

The price of a pup will always come into it totally agree with you, people will always go for the cheaper option unfortunately.

It would help if they could shut down all these puppy farms for good, again in an ideal world they would ...

They should also ban sites like e pupz, pets 4 homes etc and gum tree - dont get me started.

Cutting down on people's means of advertising dogs would also be a small step...