…how exactly will they police this?

We haven't even got the manpower to police uninsured drivers, and a dog is a bit easier to hide than a lump of steel on wheels!

dog cams

The sort of people who own 'dangerous breeds' are, I suspect, also the sort of people who drive uninsured cars and carry offensive weapons etc. In otherwords, they'll ignore this much the same way they ignore other laws.

Why the existing laws can't simply be enforced is beyond me – but then the government does seem to find it easier to introduce new legislation than take steps to ensure existing laws are enforced.

I own two dogs (collies) and they're already chipped, registered and insured. Most responsible dog owners I know are in a similar situation.

Yip! More cameras, chip dogs, chip owners etc

Not that this is a *ahem POLICE STATE *ahem!

I think their point is that if they force tagging and registering (and possibly insurance, but tat's another matter) then any dog found without the above is illegal. Currently any dog may or may not be and the police arent individually trained to know, a simple chip scanner would allow PC joe bloggs to go "blip", is this dog registered to you/insured, no?, we need to look into this more. Whereas now there are all sorts of loopholes.

I'm fairly sure that the police won't need to see it as another thing to police, rather a tool to allow their policing to be easier.

I don't have problems with violent/status dogs in my area. If I did I might want it to come about fairly quickly. Listening to some of the radio interviews with dangerous dog owners I'd hope someone keeps and eye on them as they seem to have the reasoning ability and sense of responsibility of a 5 year old.

would have been good at weekend – stupid mutt caused me to flip the bars and knock my missus off her bike – all on the road not on a trail of any kind !

Couldn't we do the same thing to kids to help curb the threat from all the paedophiles roaming the streets in packs looking for kids to abuse?

My dog isn't dangerous(*). Why should I have to pay for the mistakes of others?

(*) Unless you count horrible farts.

My dog isn't dangerous(*).

Most dog owners think the same thing, and then say "ooh it's never done that before" 😉

Couldn't we do the same thing to kids to help curb the threat from all the paedophiles roaming the streets in packs looking for kids to abuse?

I think you'd be better off tagging the paedophiles, rather than the kids. Something I'd say was a fairly reasonable idea.

Microchipping I have less of a problem with to be honest, my concerns were about the requirement to have insurance to cover 3rd party damages; given the claim-happy nature of Britain today, I'd have serious concerns about encouraging the pathetic, risk averse, victim mentality that's a feature of so much of life at the moment.

My dog isn't dangerous(*). Why should I have to pay for the mistakes of others?

I've never crashed my car, but that doesn't mean I can get away without 3rd party insurance. Just becasue you dog isn't dangerous, it doesn't mean that is can't cause damage eg. running out in front of a car /bike for example. Insurance and tagging are a good idea imo.

I agree that all dogs should be chipped, and would guess that many / all responsible owners will have done this anyway.

Not keen on the extra tax / registration / licensing bit that would easily be linked to compulsory chipping though.

Regarding insurance, and changing the law to apply to private property – this is an area where problems would quickly arise. IIRC most "pet" insuarnce covers vet bills etc, rather than 3rd party damages (although household insurance should provide 3rd party liability cover). A specific "dog injury damages insurance", combined with extending legislation to cover private property would provide intruders with carte blanche for suing owners. Any owner should quite rightly expect a dog to defend it's home territory against an uninvited intruder

my 2 are chipped, registered and insured – and whilst big are pretty much harmless softies..

except mebbe to jojo on here.. who they like to take out whenever they come out with us on rides.

IMO it's just a means of burying bad news – public sector workers striking maybe – just release a contentious story to hide another one.

All it'll target is the responsible dog owners, the ones who own them for status / protection / sport will just go underground, and it'll encourage illegal breeding. Lets face it, alot of areas where the "dangerous" dogs live the feds won't get out the car if they can help it.

It's just another – self financing – job creation scheme

Didn't they scrap the humble Dog Licence ages ago because it was impossible to police it?

I'm wondering if the 3rd party insurance thing is a misinterpretation of the proposed legislation. Registration in the form of the abandoned dog-licence would make sense, especially when backed up by a chip. This would allow law enforcement to identify which dogs need to be insured, if they are, etc.

Currently the small number of dogs that are required to be insured are difficult to find, as officers trained in breed identification are required. Mandatory chipping and registration would make that a lot easier.

And hey, if my dog does have to have 3rd party insurance, then it'll be totally safe to take it to a trail centre, eh coffeeking??

the swiss dont muck about
http://geneva.angloinfo.com/countries/switzerland/animals.asp

If permission to keep a dangerous dog is granted, the holder must fulfill the following requirements:

the dog must be taken at least 3 times per month, until the puppy is 24 months old, to education courses offered by an approved instructor
a quarterly report of the dog's progress at it's education course must be submitted to the cantonal veterinary offices
every year after the dog is 3-years old, the owner must submit an assessment report detailing the owner's control of the dog. This report must be prepared by a licenced educator.
the owner of the dangerous dog may not own another dog of any breed, without written authorisation from the canton.

my concerns were about the requirement to have insurance to cover 3rd party damages; given the claim-happy nature of Britain today, I'd have serious concerns about encouraging the pathetic, risk averse, victim mentality that's a feature of so much of life at the moment.

That's fine, but I suspect a large number of those who have dogs wont own up to the damage they caused and pay for repairs/injury caused. Same with cars, if everyone who crashed stopped and paid up for whatever they caused we'd not need insurance.

And hey, if my dog does have to have 3rd party insurance, then it'll be totally safe to take it to a trail centre, eh coffeeking??

No, safety and spoiling a day on the trails are two totally different matters, but at least if it got in the way and smashed up a wheel or two you'd not be out of pocket if I wanted my bike repairing!

Didn't they scrap the humble Dog Licence ages ago because it was impossible to police it?

Yep

And re the insurance – most people who have house insurance will already be covered for public liability anyway*.

(*according to my wife who works in insurance!).

tmm-interesting, I was lead to believe that 3rd party liability cover from your house insurance only covers people actually on your property, not everywhere else.

Why not spread this to all 'pets', I would then gladly buy a chip reader so I know who's cat has shat on my garden/drive/border then I can post the turd through the appropriate letterbox 😀

And re the insurance – most people who have house insurance will already be covered for public liability anyway

I think the folk that this legislation is aimed at may not have any – you know, the chavvy flood victims you see on the news who tell you they didn't have insurance as it was too expensive etc yet are standing in front of a 50" plasma tv with Sky +HD, Xbox, PS3, home cinema kit & Bose hifi.

yes you are covered for public liability wherever you are, whether that stretches to your pets i dont know
the insurers may have a 'no claws clause' 😉

anyway the chipping thing is a good idea
though im willing to bet anyone serious about breeding dogs for dodgy purposes would be able to get fake ones etc

it will require a large database and all the delays, cock-ups and overspends that civil serviants seem to do so well

It smacks entirely of 'be seen to be doing something but not thought properly through as proposed by a Lobbying group).

Idiot stupidness. Chip a dog? Right. How are you going to Police just that? Let alone the insurance side.

People who own dangerous dogs- do they all live in one place, if they own a dangerous dog dont you think they will remove the chip or breed the dogs underground (basically not change- just continue as they are).

So to Police this you'll need newly created pet teams, more council tax increases to fund etc etc. Along with more jobs created in the insurance industry due to the uplift in funding.

**** stupid. Sick of Labour, what next? Add VAT to all food?

Just another pathetic measure that is going to cost tax-payers and law-abiding citizens millions of quid and be completely ignored by anybody who doesn't care about breaking the rules.

"STOP Dangerous dogs" is a great manifesto grabber. They'll actually go throguh with it though. Idiots. Sick of it.

yes you are covered for public liability wherever you are

That's interesting, maybe I don't need 3rd party car insurance or kitesurfing liability insurance either. This could save me a fortune 😆

Can I just say my dog is called Hope and she's got an Avid chip.

All I can add to the discussion really 😐

stoner i like the swiss way.

i have owned so called dangerous dogs and it's not the dogs that need controlling but the owners!

All dog owners in England and Wales would need insurance against their animals attacking people under Labour proposals.

FREEDOM!!! etc*.

* similar bill on backbenches at Holyrood.

my dog is chipped, registered, neutered and insured which includes £2M third party liability – does that make him dangerous?

Im all for comulsory 'license' for all dogs and breeders. I dont know a responsible dog owner who disagrees. Insurance companies will quickly offer a 3rd party only policy for those owners who still want to take the gamble on vets bills etc

still its easier to put through a bill that bans tail docking!

(ok so, my mutt will break your arm if you dont play nice)

How about a law that says dogs must have their tax discs displayed at all times, with the general public having the right to shoot the dog on sight if untaxed.

More laws! Just what we need, more tax payers' money being spent, tsk.

they will employ an army of wardens/cameras/police/pco's/anything else they can think of, paid for by us, while continuing to ignore all the existing problems in sociaty
dog owners will be the new moterist
i got 9points on my staffie
6points on the lab
but the poodles are clean 😆

More laws! Just what we need, more tax payers' money being spent, tsk.

More dogs! Just what we need, more shit being spread, tsk.

Our dog is chipped (the wife paid £500 for him!), no insurance – either 3rd party or vet.

And just how will they actual enforce chipping and/or insurance – if as said previously the authorities can't actual enforce the taxing and insuring of cars…

And he's a Spanial, he might lick you to death.

as has been said whilst in principle its a good idea in practise its pointless, look at all the uninsured cars….

How do the Swiss decide which dogs are dangerous? I read a study a while back that showed that Daschunds were the most aggressive dog breed.

we got our mutt 4 years ago from the rescue centre, a cross staff terrier. Cost us £75 and a few tins of food and a couple of old duvets as a donation, we got her chipped and 'done' into the bargain.
Can't get insurance for her because she's a rescue dog and we can't prove her age (wife saves up the family allowance to cover any vet stuff)
She's been great, totally house trained and friendly. She's like a house cat TBH.

I see this as another way to raise cash, there'll be more of these crazy ideas in the coming months (tax revenues are way down) No.11 downing st needs all the £'s it can get.

Dog owners, the new law abiding car drivers.

Government Backs Crocodile Insurance

😉