[SNUfR8uI]

The RSPCA are calling for microchipping to be a compulsory legal regulation - in a bid to keep track of owners and dangerous dogs after the number of dog attacks continues to rise in the UK. At the moment it is very hard to prove who owns a dog and therefore the dog ends up getting punished but the owners often end up evading punishment.

"Every day, 12 Royal Mail workers are attacked by dogs. In the year to March 2011, 6,005 adults and children were admitted to hospitals in England after they were "bitten or struck by a dog", the fifth successive year-on-year increase. Six children and two adults have been killed since 2006. In London, where status or weapon dogs are a common sight and there appears to be an arms race to create ever more menacing hybrids, A&E admissions for young people with bite injuries have increased by 119% over five years."

There's an article on it here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ja...t-in-spotlight

What do you think?

If you're not in the UK, how would you feel if this was being discussed for your country? Are dogs out of control due to irresponsible owners a problem worldwide and will this clear-legal link between owners and their dogs make them behave more responsibly?

[antiggill]

Sounds like a good thing to me. I don't know who would refuse to microchip their dog unless they had something to hide.

[SNUfR8uI]

I know I've always microchipped mine, I think most owners do. On one occasion my front door was left unlatched and my border collie escaped - the dog warden had picked him up within the hour and actually brought him back to our address for us. If your dog did get lost - and accidents do occasionally happen - even a nametag on a collar can get lost, but a microchip is permanent. If a dog is stolen, it may actually be the only way to conclusively prove the dog is yours should the police find it!

[www.forumsovetov.ru]

I wouldn't want them to require it for all pet species but ones which leave the house on a regular basis it's not a bad idea. I don't think dog attacks are a leading cause of injuries in the UK but it still makes sense, especially if it's actually getting worse.

[Jannet.K]

I think they should with dogs.
I would say dog thefts would be easier to handle too!

[letittbe]

Wow I didn't know that aggressive dogs were such a problem in England. This sounds like a good scheme to protect both the dogs and the public. I have to apply in advance for a registration for dogs in this state, if you do not have a license to own a dog you will lose your dog and if you do anything such as neglect or cruelty - or your dog attacks someone etc. you can lose your license permanently.

[slimsex]

I need to get my baby microchipped. When I had her fixed, along with her shots and stuff, it was getting expensive. But I will be getting it. I know I am responsible for what my dog does. It is wrong to hide it like that. Some dogs are being mistreated, making them dangerous. Then the owners have the nerve to not secure them properly. Poor dogs. They get put down for nothing.

[Mymnnarry]

I think it is a good thing for traceability and ultimately accountability. I have mine microchipped for my piece of mind, just in case he gets lost. A collar can be removed very easily so an ID tag is not the only option. Microchipped and dog tag together are the best combo. As for accountability if your dog causes an accident/ attacks someone when out of your care then you should be able to be traced and held accountable for your dogs actions as you are the owner and the legally responsible party.

Some people complain about a police state and breaching civil liberties, I dont see it that way myself, but then I was all for the national ID card scheme here in the UK as well!

The only reservation I have about microchipping is the increased risk of tumours and cancerous masses forming around the injection site around the microchip later in life but the statistics still make microchipping favourable to not doing so in my opinion. Between 1996 and 2006, researchers found a link between implanted microchip transponders and cancer in laboratory animals.

"Between 1% and 10% of mice and rats implanted with the chips for identification purposes were later afflicted with sarcomas, fibrosarcomas, and other invasive cancers surrounding or attached to the implants. The fast-growing, malignant tumours often metastasized (spread) to internal organs, lymph nodes, and musculature and frequently resulted in the death of the animals." - www.chipmenot.org.uk

Here is a report on the cancer issue: http://www.antichips.com/cancer/index.html

[oplapofffe]

Yes I think all dogs should be microchipped. Certainly a help with re-uniting dog and owner but I guess irresponsible owners would just flout the law and not microchip anyway. Would probably be quite hard to police as you'd have to scan to see if the dog was chipped. I suppose vets could check that every dog that they see is chipped but then again irresponsible owners rarely take their dogs to the vets.
Bart got out one time while we were on holiday and the dogs were being looked after by a relative, he ran up the lane and down the slip road onto the M4! Luckily a couple of kind motorists stopped and managed to catch him, his collar had come off somehow. They managed to get him in the lady's car, he's a very stressy dog and was apparently quite hysterical by this time. The police didn't want to know and it was Saturday afternoon and no local vets open. The woman ended up driving all the way to her own vets in Llanelli about 50 miles away. As he was chipped they soon managed to get in touch with us and he was re-united with us. If he hadn't been chipped god knows what would of happened to him as we would never of thought of looking for him that far away from home.

[Soulofpostar]

Wow I didn't know that aggressive dogs were such a problem in England. This sounds like a good scheme to protect both the dogs and the public..

Agreed. The laws in my city are if there's a dog bite/attack/etc, then the dog is automatically microchipped before being returned to owners, regardless of if there are charges or major injuries. That doesn't do anything for if the owner doesn't admit ownership, though.

So would all dogs be required to be chipped as puppies then? Or would all current dogs have to be chipped/registered, too?