It seems there is no end to what the British government will try and use databases for. Not content with putting large amounts of an individual’s details on record, the database state now has man’s best friend in its sights. Under leaked new government plans, dog owners could be forced to make their private pets the property of the state, as a microchip would be implanted under every new-born dog and puppy sold or given as a gift in the UK.
Like most databases, the reasoning behind it is that it is for the common good. The common good here being to combat dangerously violent dogs. Whilst this is laudable, unfortunately as with many kinds of state intervention, it will end up restricting liberty whilst not tackling the root cause of the problem.
Regrettably, when it comes to the government’s proposals for the dog’s database (or as I believe it would be more accurately called the dog’s dinner database) the blanket nature of the proposals would mean that many law-abiding dog owners could be penalised. This is because under the proposals, each dog owner may have to shell out £35 for the microchip. Effectively, this would mean owners having to pay for the privilege of not being trusted. 
Consequently, if the proposals came into law, dog owners across the country would be treated as potential criminals, which seems a massively disproportionate response to the problem of dangerous dogs. John Thurso, a Liberal Democrat MP, hit the nail on the head when he said, “it's compulsion and I don't like it. People who have dangerous dogs that are against the law will take no notice of this. This will result in a disproportionate burden on the law-abiding who keep dogs, and especially those who need dogs for their work such as farmers who keep kennels. They will be stuck with another expense and piece of legislation to obey.”
Within the government’s leaked internal consultation there were some pertinent questions, such as:
- How acceptable do you think it would be to require anyone microchipping a dog to request proof of identity/address of the owner of the dog?
- What would it cost a breeder to microchip each dog? And assuming the cost would be passed on to the purchaser, would this price increase cause any difficulties?
My answers to them are simple. The level of intrusion involved is unacceptable and purchasers should not be forced to pay for it.
The last 13 years have shown us that more legislation and databases to tackle serious problems actually have no effect on crime and end up putting freedom in peril. In its defence the government has said this is only one option they are looking at in tackling violent dogs. However, it should have never have been an option in the first place. The right thing to do is to throw these barking proposals on the scrapheap.
By Stephen Hoffman
TFA Supports Better off out
Join the Mailing List
As a nation of dog lovers, this is going to be impossible because of the number of canines in the UK. For a breeder to tag dogs as well as charities that take in strays it would be completely impractical and costly to whoever has to fork out for it, be it state or private sector.
Aside from practical issues, I don’t think the state has the right to tag all dogs, perhaps a specific violent breed of dog, but that in itself would require further debate. Owners should be treated as innocent until proven guilty at the end of the day, and a far more effective way of dealing with violent dogs (which I believe the govt is trying to deal with) would be to monitor much more closely the selling and breeding of certain violent dog breeds.
For genuine security I can understand tagging and databases, but over dangerous dogs I see no reason why the state should have to monitor all dogs, a more considered and measured approach is needed. I think we ought to remember we are a nation of dog lovers, not dog haters!
It’s a dog’s life!
Thanks Tom for your perceptive comments. I agree with you that in this area, it should be innocent until proven guilty. Also, as you highlight it is another unecessary cost and regulatory burdenk, which this simply cannot afford.
Hopefully, the Government will come to its senses here. Afterall, this Government does not need more unpopularity.
Another pointless layer of bureaucracy and paperwork to the growing mountain of government waste, should we tag dangerous horses as well? or even cats? Seems a complete waste of money and effort, as well as an intrusive tool into our private homes.
This legislation is definitely barking up the wrong tree.
Spot-on proposals and the cost is relatively low considering the potential of the microchips in pursuing dogs that misbehave…and their owners
I agree microchipping won’t solve every problem with the violent or dangerous dogs, and the criminal elements that own them
However microchipping is cheap (chips cost less than a fiver and anyone can be trained to put them in); your £35 seems to be a huge number plucked out of thin air!
It is good method for repatriating stray dogs (you may care to look up how much local authorities spend dealing with stray dogs)
This is excellent news – anyone who can’t find 35 quid for a dog clearly isn’t serious about an animal. A dog SHOULD be seen as a source of significant expense AND a big responsibility instead of something that might be a bit of fun for the kids for 5 minutes until they get bored of all the walks and picking up the poo…. If you can’t find 35 quid, then you CAN’T AFFORD A DOG: how are you going to find the money for food and vets bills?? A dog is NOT a disposable commodity or a ‘weapon’ for the terminally spineless – a dog is a big responsibility and if this legislation weeds out the half-arsed idiots and lily-livered chavbags, then I welcome it.
Oh, and James Kirkwood: next time you see your postie, ask him/her when was the last time they got chased and bitten by a horse or a cat. And do share their response with us won’t you?