'all mutts chipped to outlaw devil dog'....opinions

so just opened 'the sun' paper page four and on a small paragraph i see this heading and of course a staffy/bully type that people love to use snarling and snapping.........

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4781118/All-dogs-under-3yrs-to-be-microchipped-to-outlaw-devil-dogs.html

Now i agree to a certain extent on the micro chipping but am not 100% sure how this will combat the whole attacking buisness.........

whats everyone elses opinion?

Rocky was chipped before he left the rescue centre anyway. I think it's a good idea in theory but cannot see how it will be policed. Will there now be teams of scanners walking around all the parks and streets making sure every dog is chipped ??

It's a good idea but I hate the way they use staffs as the example dog. It's so bad when they give them such a bad name. Let's face it there are not many legal dogs left to pick on are there

I can't see that it'll make any difference whatsoever! The people who are responsible will get it done, but they're not the ones you're after!

The irresponsible won't bother & will just carry on doing what they're doing regardless.

Don't get me wrong, I think dogs should be chipped, if only for the return of a lost one, but it won't stop attacks.

Sooo...the people that won't get it done, if their dog gets loose, how are they going to deliver a fine without an address? I doubt people who can't be bothered with microchips or collars (seen a few before) are people who go to the vet's regularly, so no-one will ever know, really.

it is a total waste of time if a warden stopped someone scan there dog find no chip then tell owner there a £500 fine they more than likely turn round i just say found it and was taking it to the shelter .
responsibe owners would already have there dogs chipped others will not as pointed out it will do nothing in the slightest to stop dog attacks

Kathy wrote:Rocky was chipped before he left the rescue centre anyway. I think it's a good idea in theory but cannot see how it will be policed. Will there now be teams of scanners walking around all the parks and streets making sure every dog is chipped ??

thats what i thought, are we going to get random visits as well, i can not see how this will be policed either

Wendy and Mark wrote:It's a good idea but I hate the way they use staffs as the example dog. It's so bad when they give them such a bad name. Let's face it there are not many legal dogs left to pick on are there

thats what got my wick up so much was the staffy and just been looking on the website and campaign they have going and yes its full of angry staffs!!

Caryll wrote:I can't see that it'll make any difference whatsoever! The people who are responsible will get it done, but they're not the ones you're after!

The irresponsible won't bother & will just carry on doing what they're doing regardless.

Don't get me wrong, I think dogs should be chipped, if only for the return of a lost one, but it won't stop attacks.

no i dnt think this will stop attacks plus alot of the dogs who do not have a responsible owner tend to me passed form pillar to post!

Tara wrote:Sooo...the people that won't get it done, if their dog gets loose, how are they going to deliver a fine without an address? I doubt people who can't be bothered with microchips or collars (seen a few before) are people who go to the vet's regularly, so no-one will ever know, really.

I very much doubt 'the thugs' even bother with jabs etc so micro chips will be the last thing on there agenda!!

Warren wrote:it is a total waste of time if a warden stopped someone scan there dog find no chip then tell owner there a £500 fine they more than likely turn round i just say found it and was taking it to the shelter .
responsibe owners would already have there dogs chipped others will not as pointed out it will do nothing in the slightest to stop dog attacks

Exactly.

Its in the sun i don't belive a word of it.

nobody should believe what the sun paper says(re hillsborough) i cant think that this would work as many of you have said responsible owners get it done and others dont and how would you regulate a law like this

I don't see how its going to stop attacks. It was reported in the Daily Mail as well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274176/All-puppies-microchipped-plans-crack-dangerous-dog-attacks.html

And the non sensational announcement, good to know if any of your dogs are not currently chipped!

http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/az/m/microchipping/#.URJjp45BA20

Round here they are introducing Community Warden patrols to some of the parks at the moment it is to target fines for not picking up your dogs but also seems to have come to light after a few dogs have suffered nasty attacks by two off lead staffys in one of the parks on the other side of town unfortunately the owners that won't chip the dogs also wont walk them/take them to the vet so policing will be near on impossible but it may just make a few people think twice about their responsibilities. What they need to do is outlaw is sales of animals on gumtree/preloved etc

I'm pretty sure it's law in N. Ireland that your dog must be chipped anyway. But, in truth, there are probably still a large number of un-microchipped dogs. I don't see how it would lower dog attacks on postmen at homes, and it will surely not make the owner any easier to trace in these instances, as the owner most likely lives in the house!

It is a good thing to have done if your dog was to get lost. However if your dog was stolen all the microchips in the world will not help. Def not where I live anyway.

Caryll wrote:I can't see that it'll make any difference whatsoever! The people who are responsible will get it done, but they're not the ones you're after!

The irresponsible won't bother & will just carry on doing what they're doing regardless.

Don't get me wrong, I think dogs should be chipped, if only for the return of a lost one, but it won't stop attacks.

This basically sums up my opinion on the matter, I think any encouragement to get more owners to chip their dogs is great simply for lost and found issue.

But as for helping lower dog attacks LMAO yeah right, maybe it will work as well as banning certain breeds did, we all know what a great success that was, number of dog attacks have changed massively since certain breeds of dogs were banned.

I think its a step in the right direction.

The media have it out of context again. If you read the summery to the consultation it is all geard up to saving councils cash and getting dogs back home asap as they cant afford kenneling costs... We all know that is nothing to do with dangerouse dogs as its unworkable its all about saving cash. Also they slipped an ammendment to dda section three in at the same time which isnt such a bad thing. So now unless your tresspassing or burgaling someones house yiur protected by law against dangerouse dogs (useless owners) ive never understood why if your providing a service your not protected. People know when bin men or and postie arrives just keep your dogs under control or have your post thrown in your front yard and your bins not collected. bug thing ive seen today again is the misguided thinking dda doesnt affect there dogs... Dda is ALL dogs after section one

Firstly that picture they use

Secondly in Australia it has been law for a long time but like most people have said it is only responsible breeders and owners who will do it, so it really doesn't change anything.. I mean any responsible owner already has their dog chipped in case they get loose or taken, so it changed nothing

Kylie wrote:Firstly that picture they use

Secondly in Australia it has been law for a long time but like most people have said it is only responsible breeders and owners who will do it, so it really doesn't change anything.. I mean any responsible owner already has their dog chipped in case they get loose or taken, so it changed nothing

To true, my priority was jabs and chipping. Anything that could bring my babies home asap if they went awol is paramount to me