A Magic Chip to Solve It All?

Remember when the government thought a tiny microchip would magically solve the issue of problem dogs overnight? Yeah, me too.

If you weren’t a dog owner back in 2012, this might have passed you by. But when the then-environment minister, Lord Taylor, told the House of Lords that the government was close to finalising legislation to tackle ‘irresponsible dog owners,’ he probably imagined himself as the Lone Ranger, riding in on his trusty steed to save the day.

The Sheriff’s Silver Bullet

Back then, Sheriff David Cameron’s clueless posse had finally devised a cunning, cost-effective (cheap) plan to solve the problem of dangerous dogs in one fell swoop. Their silver bullet? A microchip, the size of a grain of rice, inserted under the dog’s skin.

The problem was that each member of my pack already had one. Not because I was a particularly responsible dog owner—though I liked to think I was—but because each pack member was precious beyond price. Should the worst happen, now that the responsibility for lost dogs no longer lay with the police, I had little confidence I’d ever be reunited with my canine clan without these chips coming to the rescue.

Why Microchips Won’t Stop Bites

And this was where the government’s logic fell apart. I failed to see how these microchips would have any impact on dog bites or dangerous dogs. All my hounds were chipped, yet all had nipped me at some point.

Nothing malicious—just the odd nip when breaking up overexcited melees at postie time or getting caught in the crossfire of a toy-related border dispute. It’s what dogs do.

You see, these chips don’t have some hypnotic hold over Canis familiaris, nor will they perform Jedi mind control tricks on slavering hellhounds or determined Jack Russells—whispering, “This is not the leg you are looking for.” Unless you actually are a Jedi, microchips to stop dogs from biting are as effective as thinking, “Don’t bite,” and hoping Tyson (why are such dogs always called Tyson?) tunes in.

The Real Problem Isn’t Dogs—It’s Owners

As always, the government has completely lost the plot over problem dogs. Fitting tiny inert chips didn’t do anything. The problem lies not at the paws of the dog, but firmly with the owner. Radical change is needed, and scrapping The Dangerous Dogs Act would be a good start.

Sticking your governmental head in the sand, pretending it’s the fifties and that the populace will blindly follow orders and obey the law, is as naive as it is stupid. Like so much that previous governments have attempted to enforce, they need to stop daydreaming and accept we don’t live in The Darling Buds of May.

People don’t obey just because they’re told to. Laws don’t work unless enforced – and that won’t happen.

A Chocolate Fireplace with Toffee Tongs

Consequently, this law is as effective as a chocolate fireplace with toffee tongs. Responsible dog owners continue to get their dogs chipped. Irresponsible dog owners have carried on exactly as before this bill was passed—doing nothing, which, predictably, achieves nothing.

You didn’t need the services of a fortune teller to see that taking exactly the same approach over the issue of the XL Bully was doomed from the start—something which, quite literally, is the definition of insanity.

The Dangerous Dogs Act: A Stupid Law from Stupid People

The law has nothing to do with responsible dog ownership; I should know. For fifteen years, we had an amazing dog called Lucy in our lives—a Pit Bull Terrier and, as such, a banned breed under the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991).

For obvious reasons, we did everything in our power to stay under the radar, and she was always muzzled. Yet my opinion of the legislation stands—it’s a stupid law cobbled together by stupid people.

The pointless tinkering with the act as a response to the media outrage over the XL Bully indicates that any government’s policy over reforming the Dangerous Dogs Act consists of pandering to certain sections of the press that manufactured hysteria and real fear—ignoring the real issue that we have to scrap the act.

Why the Government’s Trousers Will Stay Wet

Anyway—and it’s a huge anyway—it’s not about legislation but enforcement. And since that takes adequate funding, it’s never going to happen.

And governments will keep pissing into the wind, forever baffled by why their trousers are wet.