Compulsory microchip implants...for dogs

Today has brought the rather bizarre news that it will soon become compulsory for all dogs in Britain to be fitted with microchips which contain their owner’s details.

The new scheme, which has gained cross party support in Parliament, is apparently designed to curb the trade in stolen dogs and reduce the large numbers of stray dogs being found on British streets.

However buried within the good intentions are provisions which will force dog owners to install the microchip or face a fine; and have their pet's name, breed, age and health along with their own address and phone number logged and stored on a national database which local councils would have access to.

While the question of how to reduce the number of stray dogs on Britain's streets is pressing, this solution is yet another example of the state's desire to accrue ever more information on its citizens (and their pets).

Databases, such as the one proposed, give countless people in local authorities easy access to very personal data; which is in itself often far more dangerous than the initial problem.

By Dylan Sharpe

Comments

[David Gerard]

This is almost certainly a very good idea. Domestic cats should be registered too, in my opinion (but I'm from Australia, where cats are already required to be registered because ferals are a major ecological disaster). The current voluntary scheme is good; subsidising that would also help.

The trouble is, I have qualms about this otherwise very good idea because the behavioural evidence is that database government obsessives will try to hook it into every other database, instead of keeping it as a separate data island. And that's a damn shame.

[Lawrance]

I am asking why is Dogs Trust proposing implementing micro chipping when studies have shown on average about 2% of animals chipped get cancer?

These are peer reviewed scientific studies.

Why are they being ignored?

Studies demonstrating this include:

Le Calvez et al 2006

Elcock et al 2001

Blanchard et al 1999

Palmer et al 1998

Tillmann et al 1997

Johnson 1996

Enforcement of existing laws would be adequate as dog abusers and fighters won't register their dogs and it will hardly be a law enforcement priority. Stock of one major company selling these chips in the US dropped by 40% when these studies broke in the US news.

Why is Dog's Trust promoting this unsafe technology? Could it be because they offer the service that yields between 200% and 400% profit?

[vintage diecast cars]

Databases, such as the one proposed, give countless people in local authorities easy access to very personal data; which is in itself often far more dangerous than the initial problem.Thank you very much for that information. I liked your blog.

[buy viagra]

Hey everybody! It's me the guy with little Nascar knowledge. I got a few questions for those who have been there and done that! Why aren't there any serious Smash Up Derbies anymore? I remember as a kid I would visit friends in Indianapolis (many, many years ago!) we would go see the local smash up derby race and other stuff and I thought it was fun! I know there's probably not a lot of money involved but didn't some of the great race drivers of yesteryear get there start like this?
Last question " Who else besides me had a SSP Smash em' up derby set or a Sizzlers race car set as a kid?

[buy actos online]

it's look very cuty.... nice thought

[cialis side effects]

Enforcement of existing laws would be adequate as dog abusers and fighters won't register their dogs and it will hardly be a law enforcement priority. Stock of one major company selling these chips in the US dropped by 40% when these studies broke in the US news.

Why is Dog's Trust promoting this unsafe technology? Could it be because they offer the service that yields between 200% and 400% profit?

[ugg bailey button]

When one loves one's art no service seems too hard.

[Paper Doll]

I think this microchiping of dogs and cats is just another way of making money. Our neighbour lost their dog and it didn't have a microchip, but she still found it at the pound. However, becuase of the time it was their and it wasn't microchiped they wanted her to pay $1.000. As a result, our neighbour couldn't pay the money anyway as it was too expensive, so the poor dog was left their at the pound. I couldn't pay that sought of money either. Further, I wander what happens to the animals that are at pounds that do have owners that are unable to pay for their pets to bring them home that have spend a time at the pound if owners can't pay.