Can someone please explain to me how microchipping all dogs in New Zealand will stop further dog attacks? Sure it may make it easier to identify the dog and owner subsequently (assuming the dog stays around after the attack), but as I recall, this was never a real problem in the first place (I mean, it's not terribly difficult to follow the dog home...).
I have a lot of sympathy for farmers who are complaining about the extra costs for this, particularly as the chances of a farm dog attacking someone are extraordinarily low. I can see the government's point of view, that they want the same law for all dogs, to avoid possible loopholes.
But what is the point of the law in the first place? A microchip will not stop a single dog attack. And you'll probably find that a large number of those who own dangerous dogs will not bother to register and microchip them in the first place.Guitar Pro 3 ID
I have a lot of sympathy for farmers who are complaining about the extra costs for this, particularly as the chances of a farm dog attacking someone are extraordinarily low. I can see the government's point of view, that they want the same law for all dogs, to avoid possible loopholes.
But what is the point of the law in the first place? A microchip will not stop a single dog attack. And you'll probably find that a large number of those who own dangerous dogs will not bother to register and microchip them in the first place.Guitar Pro 3 ID
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.cloudsofheaven.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/60.Guitar Pro 3 ID