asitis Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 According to this website DNA profiling for a dog costs £36. You'd have to have every dog on the Island tested of course as well as micro chipped - though most owners might be in favour of the latter as it helps find lost pets. Cost of micro-chipping is £20-£30. You'd presumably want to tie this all in with the dog licence, currently £16/£8, though it's probably due to go up. For the Government there would be the costs of setting up the database and maintaining it. It all adds up - even before the first poop hits the pavement. You'd also have the problem of visiting dogs and what conditions you put on them. And of course all this would require quite a bit of legislation - and we know Tynwald hasn't been that good at passing laws it can't photocopy from the UK. AND Faecal material does not per se contain genetic information i.e. anything that can be subject to DNA ! should the sample contain blood and or some cellular material from the bowel then it may be possible but this in the case of fouling is a load of crap ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 AND Faecal material does not per se contain genetic information i.e. anything that can be subject to DNA ! should the sample contain blood and or some cellular material from the bowel then it may be possible but this in the case of fouling is a load of crap ! From what I understand, the cheek swab taken to sample the DNA and record the profile contains epithelial tissue which is closely packed cells of the skin. These epithelials are swallowed and the old epithelial cells are excreted with the feces. The DNA sample test uses the epithelial cells to rebuild a profile and I believe it is claimed to have in excess of 90% success rate. You can oviously tell that I know quite a lot about shit although it's not something I like to boast about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossils Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 In any event the owners of unlicensed dogs would continue to escape detection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aghtal Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Yet more reasons to have one local authority for Rushen sheading. At present, 3 authorities (27 Commissioners?) being paid upto £30 per meeting? 3 administration centres. Lots of ratepayers money could be used more efficiently. The Commissioners in the South seem hell bent on maverick actions such as this. They should strive to reduce rates in these times. The whole area could be 'governed' by 7 commissioners. This would provide a better candidate for election and reduce costs. You really are missing the point here....The number of authorities has nothing to do with this debate, but that is another one which would be a good thread. If as the article says, island wide £60k a year is being spent on trying to enforce unenforceable bye laws, surely the method of enforcement must be questioned which is what the authority appears to be doing. If DNA is a viable proposition, then in theory the rates can be reduced. On topic of reducing the rates, the local authority can only do so much. My local authority rate accounts for approximately 50% of my annual bill, the rest made up with water & burial ground. So if the local authority can make a 5% saving it could well be more than swallowed up by water rates every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 In any event the owners of unlicensed dogs would continue to escape detection. FFS read the thread as this point has alrady been covered! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 In any event the owners of unlicensed dogs would continue to escape detection. FFS read the thread as this point has alrady been covered! Yeah, because tatooed, baseball cap wearing f&*wits who don't register their dogs already are going to give two hoops about your idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 enforcement officers who apparently havent done their jobs. I really want to know and hear why you and other people really believe and expect enforcement officers to catch people presently. The odds are stacked against them as they can only do somebody if they are caught in the act and the chances of that are very slow as the owners who let their dog foul are really cunning criminals who have sussed if you pick up when people are around but not other times your chances of getting caught is virtually zero. The only way this matter will ever be resolved is if there is some way of linking the crap left to the dog/owner or have surveillance covering every street and path in the IoM. Presently DNA testing is the only solution being offered if somebody has a better way then great lets hear it, but presently I have not heard anybody offer an alternative solution that would be better and less costly. As it stands with the chances of catching somebody are basically nil we might as well just not have the enforcement offices and say that dogs should be allowed to crap where they like. I have to admit as a parent the costs do not particularly concern me as I expect fines and the dog license should cover the costs. But if I had to pay via my rates or taxes I would have no problem as you only have to your kid step in some dog crap and tread it into the carpet at home or the car or get it on their clothes at a park etc and you would happily pay up. I used to do a bit of jogging. It was fine in the summer when it was light but in the winter the chances of coming back with dog crap stuck to our shoes were pretty high and it would be rare a week went by without it arising The present system is not and can not work. If DNA testing etc is the best alternative on the table then I am happy for it to be given a go. Either that or the IoM should ban all dogs except working dogs including guide dogs etc I would of though it was bleeding obvious for someone with such an awesome intellect as yours. You identify an area which has a history of dog poop being left. You clear the area so it is a fresh environment. You observe for a couple of days. I will bet you will catch someone in no time. Rinse and repeat, word will get around that if you leave your shit in that area you will get find. Then switch to another area. Repeat the process. Move to a new are....and so on and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I would of though it was bleeding obvious for someone with such an awesome intellect as yours. You identify an area which has a history of dog poop being left. You clear the area so it is a fresh environment. You observe for a couple of days. I will bet you will catch someone in no time. Rinse and repeat, word will get around that if you leave your shit in that area you will get find. Then switch to another area. Repeat the process. Move to a new are....and so on and so on. All that will happen is that for that period the owners will pick up or go somewhere else. Afterwards they will go back to there old habits or just look out more carefully for anybody who might be around. Yes one or two might be fined but that is the case now and it does not stop it happening. From memory they have also had blitzs in the past along Marine drive. It has not worked This is not having a go at dog owners it is just a reflection that any law where you have to actually catch somebody in the act rather than use other evidence is very very hard to enforce. The current system is not and has not worked so an alternative, whatever it may be, needs to be considered. The only way of stopping fouling as I said is if you have constant surveilance or all paths and roads which is not going to happen or you can identify the fouling someway back to the dog/owner. DNA might or might not work but presently it is the only suggestion on the table. On that basis it should be seriously looked at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 In any event the owners of unlicensed dogs would continue to escape detection. FFS read the thread as this point has alrady been covered! Yeah, because tatooed, baseball cap wearing f&*wits who don't register their dogs already are going to give two hoops about your idea. I appreciate that you do not but if they take such animals publicallu out on the street they would risk having them taken away. To check an animal has been chipped takes seconds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Controversially,i don't think it is a terrible idea to DNA test humans at birth. Not so we can monitor their public defecation habits, but i suspect that it would help with petty breaking and entering style crimes. Now that is a sneaky attempt at trolling. Away with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossils Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 In any event the owners of unlicensed dogs would continue to escape detection. FFS read the thread as this point has alrady been covered! Repetition to reinforce a point may be more powerful than repeated swearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 In any event the owners of unlicensed dogs would continue to escape detection. FFS read the thread as this point has alrady been covered! Repetition to reinforce a point may be more powerful than repeated swearing. Duely admonished. It should not surprise me, but it always does the lengths some will go to when people make a suggestion to try and find reasons why something should not be done rather than reasons for. This thread is the same, to some unless it is guaranteed to work 100% and nobody can avoid then it is not a workable solution. Well that is the case in virtually every wall in the land. No law gets 100% compliance or where those who do not comply everybody is caught. If most comply and there are means and mechanisms to try and catch those that do not that is good enough for nme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Controversially,i don't think it is a terrible idea to DNA test humans at birth. Not so we can monitor their public defecation habits, but i suspect that it would help with petty breaking and entering style crimes. Now that is a sneaky attempt at trolling. Away with you. Hee hee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 [...] It should not surprise me, but it always does the lengths some will go to when people make a suggestion to try and find reasons why something should not be done rather than reasons for. [..] Not wanting to go off topic, but if more people tried to "find reasons why something should not be done" the Isle of Man might have had less grand and expensive projects (inset your own list here) in the last few decades. There might even have been some solutions that fitted real problems, rather than problems being invented to force the go-ahead of some pet "solution" that someone wanted to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossils Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Not wishing to go off topic either, but here's one for your list. May I also suggest that you start a new topic for this list? As has already been mentioned elsewhere, the proper enforcement of a 30mph speed limit on Richmond Hill could have achieved better results a lot more cheaply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.