Chips with everything... it's the law!
The government announced today that new born pups must be microchipped and the reason - wanting to do something about dangerous dogs.
To be honest if they were talking about potato chips becoming compulsory it would probably have just as much impact on dog bite stats.
When was the last time we had a high profile case of a dog biting someone where we didn't know who owned the dog? Isn't it usually a relative of the child savaged who is illegally breeding Pit Bulls without adhering to the already existing - but not applied - Dangerous Dogs Act?
The act that was supposed to mean these dogs should have been chipped and neutered - in fact the act that should have seen the Pit Bull disappear as it would stop being bred way back in 1991?
Finding who owns the dog that has bitten has never really been a problem.
Still I guess it makes the Government feel like they're doing 'something'.
Don't get me wrong I agree with the 58% of dog owners who choose to chip their dogs, they are a good way of getting your dog back if someone bothers to scan the dog when they find it - but if it is wearing a collar and a tag that's what most people will read first to phone you up.
But it's belt and braces should the collar fall off.
But if someone has your dog and doesn't want to give it back the chip means pretty much nothing. I would love the microchip to magically stop people breeding Staffie crosses no one wants or for it to grant intelligence and good judgement to those people who knowingly breed Pit Bulls and brag about their fighting prowess and then leave them with their old mum to look after along with her grandkids when something else comes up.
I wonder what other measures they'll announce next.
Perhaps for us all to hop on one leg if there's an r in the month to stimulate the economy.
I wonder if David Cameron thinks if we all avoided walking on the cracks in the pavement we could decrease unemployment and avoid further hosepipe bans, too.
To be honest if they were talking about potato chips becoming compulsory it would probably have just as much impact on dog bite stats.
When was the last time we had a high profile case of a dog biting someone where we didn't know who owned the dog? Isn't it usually a relative of the child savaged who is illegally breeding Pit Bulls without adhering to the already existing - but not applied - Dangerous Dogs Act?
The act that was supposed to mean these dogs should have been chipped and neutered - in fact the act that should have seen the Pit Bull disappear as it would stop being bred way back in 1991?
Finding who owns the dog that has bitten has never really been a problem.
Still I guess it makes the Government feel like they're doing 'something'.
Don't get me wrong I agree with the 58% of dog owners who choose to chip their dogs, they are a good way of getting your dog back if someone bothers to scan the dog when they find it - but if it is wearing a collar and a tag that's what most people will read first to phone you up.
But it's belt and braces should the collar fall off.
But if someone has your dog and doesn't want to give it back the chip means pretty much nothing. I would love the microchip to magically stop people breeding Staffie crosses no one wants or for it to grant intelligence and good judgement to those people who knowingly breed Pit Bulls and brag about their fighting prowess and then leave them with their old mum to look after along with her grandkids when something else comes up.
I wonder what other measures they'll announce next.
Perhaps for us all to hop on one leg if there's an r in the month to stimulate the economy.
I wonder if David Cameron thinks if we all avoided walking on the cracks in the pavement we could decrease unemployment and avoid further hosepipe bans, too.
Comments