Dr. Shawn’s Blog

Microchipping Dangerous Dogs-a Good Idea?

March 10, 2010 on 7:30 am | In General Posts | No Comments

A proposal in the UK calls for microchipping all dogs so that dangerous dogs will be more easily identified. A separate proposal calls for requiring pet insurance that would cover bodily damage to an innocent third party. The proposals are designed to make it easy to identify dangerous dogs and hold their owners responsible for their actions.

While I tend to be against numerous government regulations, I do believe that pet ownership is a privilege rather than a right, and sensible legislation (that affects all dogs rather than singling out certain breeds that are deemed “dangerous” by the government) is important.

Microchipping involves inserting a glass chip approximately the size of a grain of rice under the pet’s skin. In my practice, we offer this as an option to owners in an effort to make it easy to recover their pets if the pet should become lost or stolen. It is most easily and painlessly done while the pet is under anesthesia for another procedure such as spaying, neutering, or cleaning the pet’s teeth.

The concern I have about requiring micro-chipping is similar to gun control laws. Law abiding citizens will have the procedure done while the criminals who own dangerous dogs for the purpose of dog fighting or other criminal activity will not have the procedure done. Therefore, I’m not sure if mandatory microchipping will achieve the desired goal set forth by its proponents.

I do however, like the idea of requiring pet insurance for all owners, similar to requiring automobile insurance for those who drive cars. Once again though, how will this be enforced? Will criminals or those of low income ignore the law, not purchase insurance, and still not be able to provide financial assistance to cover the cost of medical care for a third party that might become injured during a dog attack?

I look at dog attacks similar to injuries received by a weapon such as a gun. If I’m attacked and injured by your dog, you should be forced to pay for my care. Jail time may also be imposed depending upon the circumstances of the attack. If you cannot pay for my medical care, mandatory jail time must be imposed as you knowingly kept a dog likely to cause harm to someone.

At this point, I’d like to see more debate on these issues and try to figure out if these proposals would achieve their desired results. As is so often the case with good ideas, once they become laws there are unintended consequences and often the good ideas do not achieve their desired results. If that in fact is the case, innocent law abiding pet owners would be punished or as criminals would once again continue to not be held accountable for their actions.