Hattip: NZ Herald : Dog mauls cat to death then savages neighbour
The most important paragraph in this story is:
"An Auckland City spokeswoman said the unregistered dog was from Otara and was being looked after by the owner's family in Pt England."
Now - can anyone tell me any way in which this would have unfolded differently - before or after the incident - if compulsory electronic tagging was already in place? Most importantly would someone from United Future explain?
Tags: nz, new zealand, politics, dog, dog control, electronic tagging
Friday, May 19, 2006
Case in point - Compulsory dog chipping
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You make a good point. I can't see how being part of a database will stop a dog being aggressive.
Here in the UK there is a debate at the moment about the possible introduction of compulsory id cards (for people), which the government claim will stop terorist attacks. I'm not sure how this is supposed to work, may be we hold them up as shields in the event of a bomb blast.
It sounds as though the notion of dealing with problems with yet more bureaucracy is common in other countries too.
It isn't necessarily the ID that is the problem - but the lack of a cohesive plan of how it is to be used to help.
On its own a passport doesnt help security either - it is the checkpoints at which a passport is used. Similarly a national ID card COULD increase internal security - but at the cost of it needing to be checked in a systemic manner; and the privacy concerns that causes.
The issue I have with the RFID chipping of the animals is there is no plan around how it is to help - the only checkpoints are the same ones and the same times as the visual registration; and in fact there are less of them
Post a Comment