Dunc Posted December 28, 2013 Report Share Posted December 28, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25526490 Should be everywhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robke Posted December 28, 2013 Report Share Posted December 28, 2013 Is law in Holland ... pups must be chipped before they are sold... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazz Posted December 28, 2013 Report Share Posted December 28, 2013 In the US, we have so many governmental agencies, that seem more focused on self-preservation with no regard for common good. There are multiple formats for microchips here, which simply is stupid. Instead of putting responsibility of dog ownership on the owner of the dog, the US seems more interested in making the dog the fall guy. Hence, breed bans. I think if the US had a law, such as Rob described that they have in Holland, requiring pups to be chipped before sold, the sheer expense to a puppy mill, might simply be too much and they would close up shop. And that would be fantastic! Aside from that, it would help with controlling the number of abandoned and loose dogs, especially if the owner was held responsible. We need this in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike101 Posted December 28, 2013 Report Share Posted December 28, 2013 Dog licenses were scrapped in the UK a few years ago, because they didn't work, could not be policed and because the unscrupulous dog owners just didn't bother. Chipping is now a widely accepted procedure and as such is done by Most, not all, dog owners. This new thing , IMO is just to get extra revenue from responsible dog owners. it will not affect the irresponsible ones again, for the same reason as before.. they will just not bother, it will be impossible to police and even if caught ..the owners will not even bother about the consequences to their dogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny_Caity Posted December 28, 2013 Report Share Posted December 28, 2013 I definitely agree with the compulsory microchipping, and I wouldn't argue with having to have a license to keep our pups, however the compulsory muzzle regulation is a bit extreme. How long before people realise that dog education is something that needs to start with children? They are the most at risk, and they should be taught in schools AND at home, not to approach strange dogs without the owners consent, and to know the correct way to approach a new dog. Many a time kids have come bounding up to our dogs on walks, and the parents have said NOTHING other than 'aww, what a cute dog!! :wub:' Fair enough, they're a beautiful breed, but whose to say ours in particular aren't vicious? I always tell people it's okay to stroke them if they ask, but when kids come diving up to them, it excites them, which could quite easily lead to them giving an excited nip on their hands, or a scratch to the face if they jump up! The muzzle regulation means tarring all dogs with the same brush, and it will probably lead to dog owners being looked down on, because although they're a safety precaution, there's a massive stigma attached to muzzles, as though one wrong look at the dog means instant death! - Caity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammybeans Posted December 28, 2013 Report Share Posted December 28, 2013 I can understand having to chip and license the dog, but I agree that the muzzle is a little too extreme. I've thought about muzzling Champ in situations where other dogs are present because he does have some animal aggression problems but I would rather work on that through training than to muzzle him, in some cases muzzles can cause an already aggressive dog to become more aggressive. And it's not like a muzzle will keep someone from getting hurt, ever have a dog whack you with one of those things? Hurts like hell and I'm sure that if a dog really wants to hurt you the muzzle isn't going to stop it from doing so. Requiring a muzzle is a little extreme in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icewolf Posted December 29, 2013 Report Share Posted December 29, 2013 I have dogs for many years now and the times I have seen dogs pull their owners and then jump up at people or just make a be line to passer by is just not on. so I think yes to muzzles. It better to be safe than sorry, but I do think that the owners should be made to be a hell of a lot more responsable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkyries Posted December 29, 2013 Report Share Posted December 29, 2013 chip yes, license yes, muzzle hell no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BingBlaze n Skyla Posted December 29, 2013 Report Share Posted December 29, 2013 Mine would not tolerate muzzles on, I tried using one with skyla at a meet up (due to her being attacked so nervous around a lot ov dogs) and it just made her behave worse , I agree to it all but not to muzzles if they aren't needed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Val (Zebedee) Posted December 30, 2013 Report Share Posted December 30, 2013 100% yes to microchipping and licences but no to across the board muzzling. I agree it can make a nervous or 'temperamental' dog worse so having the opposite effect. Muzzling I would restrict to those who have aggression issues, whatever the cause, that I would hope are being worked on by the responsible owners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.