Compulsory microchipping of dogs.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Chris

Why is this a multi-choice poll with public results?

Thats why i posted dont care,.

[slowcoach]

I think Taf's a Vet.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Why is this a multi-choice poll with public results?

Why not?

[Chris]

Multi-choice is generally for polls where the options don't contradict each other and you might want to select multiple responses. You've used it on a poll where selecting more than one answer renders the poll meaningless.

Public polls tend to get fewer responses because they discourage people who usually lurk rather than posting their views from taking part.

[Taf]

A bit pedantic? This isn't a vote for an MP or anything that inmportant, and multiple choice in this case DOES allow voters to say what they really would like to see (eg don't care about microchipping but would like to see the dog licence return).

And why shouldn't a vote be public? Even "lurkers" have the right to vote AFAIC. But whether they vote or not is still up to them.

Back on topic: A near neighbour breeds dogs (and sometimes cats) like a factory, probably just for the income they generate. The council does not allow this, but will not take action unless urged to by the RSPCA, who seem more interested in generating income than actually protecting animals around here.

Having to licence and microchip all her dogs might put the brakes on her financial aspirations, and give the animals a more natural life.

[dilligaf1701]

Off topic - but my screen reader just glitched and read this out as microchipping clogs.

I nearly spat my tea out over the keyboard - just thought I'd share.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Taf

And why shouldn't a vote be public? Even "lurkers" have the right to vote AFAIC. But whether they vote or not is still up to them.

You misunderstand - lurkers who lurk because they are less willing to publicly share an opinion may be less inclined to vote in a poll where their choice is publicly viewable. Polls where the votes are anonymous, which is the forum default, tend to attract larger numbers of voters because of the anonymity. All members are allowed by the forum software and by convention to vote in any poll, whether or not they have a post count.

Still, it is what it is. On with the show.

[rogerdraig]

what chipping could do is help remove problem owners ( dogs ) could give the police and or RSPCA the right to remove a dog if its not chipped and fine ban extra people from having animals if they are caught again ect . which should help bring down the amount of dangerous dogs as when they are being chipped they type of dog could be assessed as well as its temperament( goodness knows if i spelled that right lol ) rather than after an attack every one arguing over wether its a dog specified under the dangerous dogs act ect

[Taf]

Compulsory microchips for dogs are to be introduced in England, under plans expected to be announced on Monday.

Ministers are expected to say that every newborn puppy should be microchipped to make it easier to trace and prosecute owners of violent dogs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17797194

I bet vets are already contemplating what to spend all that extra cash on. Fast move HMG... for once... or will there be another U Turn?

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Taf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17797194

I bet vets are already contemplating what to spend all that extra cash on. Fast move HMG... for once... or will there be another U Turn?

and how will they enforce this load of garbage ?

[Taf]

Dog wardens? Compulsary checks when the mutt goes to the vet? Police?

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Taf

Dog wardens? Compulsary checks when the mutt goes to the vet? Police?

I don't now about your neck of the woods but i can't remember the last time i saw a dog warden.Visits to the vets are a possibility, when they happen .My last dog went to the vet very rarely ,once or twice in his life and he died aged 9 .Police won't be interested untill after a complaint has been made .It may be a good idea in principle but in practice the people that this legislation is meant to stop will not be bothered .Yes it will help law abiding finding there lost dog or identifying a stolen dog but the chava with pit bulls won't give toss

[Derek]

Originally Posted by martyh

and how will they enforce this load of garbage ?

I'd imagine it would be at point of entry. Make it an offence to sell or donate a puppy without it being chipped and rely on intel to ID non-compliant breeders.

Couple that with an offence to own or be in control of an unchipped dog that can be checked with a scanner if a complaint is made would be a start.

It'll never be perfect but being able to remove a wannabe gangsters status symbol easily would be a nice bit of legislation IMO.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by martyh

and how will they enforce this load of garbage ?

How about park wardens and similar have chip scanners and a legal right to test any dog they see? Though it would be a brave warden to accost a hoodie with a pit bull and an excess of attitude.

[Derek]

Maybe I'm being a bit cynical but I get a letter every year wanting me to pay a fee to ensure my cats details are up to date on the database.

I wonder if the companies who run the databases have any links with the current government?