Stupidly,some breeds are deemed as being dangerous. But the smallest terrier can kill a child. It is not the breed of the dog that is the problem. It is how they are raised, trained and controlled.

A newly born puppy is no more dangerous than many animals (see today's story about someone being attacked by a 'buzzard'). What is their environment? How have they been raised? Was someone in 'control' of them?

Similarly, many parents of poiticians may be quite nice people. So should we microchip and monitor all their children?

And what the hells wrong with a rabies tag and name tag? This microchip stuff costs a small bundle o bucks. (and, yes, I know that dogs can break out of collars, so keep them close.)

Hey,#1-Right! There really are no bad dogs-just bad owners.

Yeah, why not microchip everything that has a pulse? It'll happen anyway so let's get it over with .... and may I breathe my last before my turn come up!!! :(

Micro-chipping a dog at a vets only cost around 17GBP. If you want to own a dog you have to accept the responsibilities that come with it. This should be the duty of the owner, as is a proper vaccination regime!

All babies to follow

Micro-chipping vandals might save a load of time as well.

#6. I agree, but it's the old story, the responsible owners will comply and the others won't, and if a dog isn't chipped or wearing a tag how are they going to trace it's owner if it attacks someone. So we end up with a situation where vicious dogs will still be out there and the dog that slips it's collar because a lorry frightened it is going to get it's responsible owner in a world of hurt.
The problem here is dangerous dogs, and giving the authorities cart blanche to descend on any dog and/or owner isn't going to solve the problem. All dog's should be chipped and vaccinated as you say, but I reckon the only chips the type of guy out to buy a pit bull is going to be interested in will have vinegar on them.

Microchipping is also irrefutable proof of ownership. Given the high numbers of animals now being stolen, it could prove essential in a pet being returned to its owner. If the 'chipping was mandatory and all changes of ownership or the eventual death of the pet recorded as a legal requirement, it should also help the Scottish SPCA track down people who abandon their animals. The excuse of "I sold the dog onto a man in the pub" would then become an offence if the change of ownership was not recorded.

Next step microchip dog owners, oh wait biometric IDs with DNA fingerprints and iris patterns, we are already there aren't we ?

Surely simply reintroducing the dog licence would be cheaper, only problem is they didnt seem capable of enforcing that or policing it which was why they dropped it.

So how will this be different ?

This is an interesting point. The current legislation in regard to dangerous dogs is poor. The wording states, "Any dog of the appearance or type of the pit bull terrier" (Also substitute Japenese Tosa.).
This is partly because it is scientifically impossible even with the advances in DNA technology to prove a dog is a specific breed.

If a veterinary surgeon sees one of these dogs, they cannot report it to police UNLESS they have reasonable cause to assume it has been used for fighting e.g. Bite Wounds. If there is no evidence the dog is being used for fighting, the vet is only obliged to inform the owner that the dog MAY be a dog with a breed covered under the Dangerous Dogs Act, advise him to contact a solicitor, inform the police and muzzle the dog in public.
I'm sure the problem here is very apparent.

I will have to check my sources, but I believe the dog which bites most often is the minature poodle.
I certainly admit I've had many more problems dealing with a lot of small dogs (With the possible exception of Border Terriers).

I agree to some extent with the no bad dogs only bad owners. However, I feel, that some breeds are inherently more dangerous than others, although I respect the fact I'm not putting up sources yet and this is opinion. I am not saying all dogs of these breeds are equally dangerous however. The bloodhound was initially bred for scent tracking, and they are fantastically good at their job. Pit Bull Terriers, like it or not were to a large extent bred for fighting, and while I accept that is not the dog's fault, it is a fact.

The law does make an allowance for individual dogs of the breeds isolated in the Dangerous Dogs Act (i.e. Pit Bull Terrier and Japanese Tosa). If an owner can demonstrate that the dog is not dangerous, the courts can allow the owner to keep it subject to being muzzled in public and precautions taken regarding supervision while on property.

However, there is an i

does that mean if the wife gets lost somebody will return her?

Consistency would have to be obtained in method of microchipping - as the readers that pick up the chip can differ. Also - some microchips have been known to migrate or be hard to find.

sam the god #13 - Only if you are unlucky!

As usual lets take a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If the bill is not worded properly, then concentrate on that, there are more responsible dog owners than unresponsible ones. Lets face it the unresponsible ones wont get their dogs chipped just like they dont muzzle them.

Mind you I would still like more wardens to concentrate on the owners who dont pick up after their dogs. These are unresponsible owners!!!!

I just lost my dog that I imported from Mauritius 2 yrs agao even when I had followed all the rules and regulations by microchipping her. I was told AFTER I lost her (being abroad during the 7 day period to come forward after she was impounded) that 'owners do not know they have to re register their details on a UK database'. So much for paying out thousands to import a dog and NOT be told you had to re register her. If she went missing before her time in quarantine was up, I dread to think what would have happened had she had rabies! These laws concerning microchipping dogs (especially when imported) really needs to be looked into to prevent people (who rescue dogs) from losing them due to the incompetence of people who can't set up a framework that covers all possibilities of a dog being traced when a dog goes astray.

I suppose it would help dogs handed in to Dalkieth Police. Hmmm, maybe not.

Dangerous dogs? How are they raised? Dangerous. Come on....Yes...Some are in terms of a different order of dangerous, and a different semantic belongs to the term I am using now. For instance...not to long ago in a town right next to me a pack of betrayed dogs attract someone and it was reported that the dogs begin to "eat him." Of course I was very sorry to learn of the event. The poor gentleman lost most of his face, ears and is now blinded. These so called wild dogs had plenty of places in that town to go for food. I view their intelligent attack as a warning. Sometimes when you abuse them them or just throw them out of home after such dedication they just comment suicide and get run over by a car; but sometimes they fight back and leave unforgettable messages. there's an interesting article on gater.com about such such attacks concerning a bears of Pennsylvania, USA that you might want to check out.
Here's a little clue: Study Carl Gustav Young's teachings just a little bit closer.

THE MICROCHIPPING IS UNSAFE TECHNOLOGY.THE CREATORS ARE AWARE OF THIS BUT IT IS A HUGE SOURCE OF FUTURE REVENUE.THE FINAL GOAL IS TO MICROCHIP ALL HUMANS. AT THAT POINT,MANKIND WILL BE ENSLAVED TO THE POWERS TO BE.THE INCESSANT BEATING OF THE DRUM ABOUT CHIPPING IS TO WEAR DOWN RESISTANCE AND YOU CAN TELL BY THESE POSTS THAT IT IS WORKING,BUT DO NOT BE DECEIVED,GOD CREATED YOU FREE,NOT NUMBERED LIKE CATTLE.ANY FORM OF SLAVERY IS AGAINST HUMAN DIGNITY.THE PET CHIPPING IS JUST A PRECURSOR TO SOMETHING FAR MORE INSIDEOUS.

#20 .... Oh Please .....!

Microchipping is not natural. Avoid it. Don't fall for this fear based BS. Think critically and listen to those who warn you. How about chipping our leaders first?