Senior canines have called upon the government to microchip dangerous human beings, who they claim to be a “menace to dog society”. The proposal was made at a Crufts round-table discussion on the future of canine-human relations.
“Basically, some of them are nutters,” said Mr Fluffy, a 6-year-old Poodle from Camberley, Surrey. “I mean, my owner’s OK – she’s in her sixties and wouldn’t harm a fly – but you see them hanging around on street corners with these things hanging out of their mouths, making all these strange noises. If I did that, I tell you what, they’d put me down!”
Rex, a 4-year-old Labrador, barked his agreement, adding that “the Dangerous Humans act should be enacted as soon as possible. I sniffed one the other day who had clearly peed himself, and he was foaming at the mouth. Drinking in public, too – these humans should be microchipped so that we can tell where they are at all times. They disgust me.”
A number of dogs were in agreement that some kind of limit to human breeding should be put in place, with a maximum of two offspring per human couple.
Rex continued: “They breed like crazy in some places – I saw one woman who had a litter of about seven or eight. I mean, I’ve never looked, but how many teets has she got? No one human can have enough milk for that many kids. What we need is some kind of control on human reproduction, and looking at some of them, I think we need to stop them from in-breeding. All those funny chins and wonky ears? Yeah, it might work for us dogs, but humans?”
The round-table discussion carried on long into the night, with proposals being made for the most dangerous humans to be muzzled, a proposal that was agreed upon unanimously, after it was revealed that dogs actually do understand swearing.
“I hate their foul language,” said Minxy, a Yorkshire Terrier from Basingstoke. “F- this and f-that, you’re a c-, you’re a w-, they should be muzzled until they learn their lesson. I go mad when they talk to me like that. And while I’m on the topic, I can’t bear human-fighting. The idea of putting two humans in a ring together to fight just makes me sick.”
One topic that remained unresolved was the suggestion from some of the bigger dogs that more dangerous humans should be subject to the same castration rules as dogs.
Mr Killer, a 7-year-old Rottweiller from Blackpool, said “they cut my balls off because they thought it would calm me down – well I tell you what – I’m in a fucking big rage about it – after 6 years without balls, I’m still seething. Some of those humans who hang around on my street corner with their cans of frothy yellow stuff and those cigarettes – cut their nads off and see how they like it. Grrrrrrrrrr.”

19 comments
karen mills says:
Mar 18, 2010
Any dog wishing to have their owner added to the exemption index must comply with the following:
1. The human must be castrated.
2. The human must have a microchip or tattoo. Microchips will be inserted under the skin, at the base of the neck, whilst the tattoo, will be located on the forehead.
3. The human must be kept gagged, handcuffed, and on a short lead whilst in any public place.Note.Any dog who believes they have an owner of the restricted type, have 3 months to apply for exemption status. Failure to apply within this time period will result in:
Your human seized and destroyed, and the possibility of up to 6 months in kennels or a slap on the paw for an offending dog.
peter carroll says:
Mar 23, 2010
brilliant
Melanie Dow says:
Mar 24, 2010
Ha! A great look at it from the other side!! Thing is, there are some humans that dogs are spot on about!!! Bring on castration for irresponsible owners!!
Dogs call for dangerous human beings to be microchipped - Pet Forums Community says:
Mar 26, 2010
[...] human beings to be microchipped Saw this on another site and it was too good not to share!!! Dogs call for dangerous human beings to be microchipped | The Daily Shame Senior canines have called upon the government to microchip dangerous human beings, who they claim [...]
PATRICIA BUTLER says:
Mar 29, 2010
VERY FUNNY, BRILLIANT, ALL TRUEXX
izabeth holmes duncan says:
Mar 29, 2010
I’m totally for the dogs!!!! they are smarter then many people i know!!!
elizabeth holmes duncan says:
Mar 29, 2010
I’m totally for the dogs!!! they are smarter then many peoI know!
jessica dunsdon says:
Mar 29, 2010
genius! i love it! and karen mills reply cracked me up
Andrew says:
Apr 1, 2010
I say that dangerous humans should MORE than be microchipped. And I am not talking about those who have soiled themselves, drink alcohol, smoke and/ or swear.
I am talking about those that intentionally inflict pain and suffering on dogs.
No muzzle will suffice. However, I think their hands and feet should be restricted so they cannot kick, step, stomp or use their feet or hands in any way against an animal, of any kind, not just dogs.
The time to stop regarding animals as “property” and as having no rights has more than come.
So, let’s identify those dangerous humans. Let’s prominently display their pictures on the windows of animal friendly stores. Let it NOT be a crime for those of us with animals who have been harmed by such humans to let others know of their propensity for causing harm and for animal/ and their human counterpart beware lest they be the unsuspecting victims of such dangerous humans.
But until society changes it’s view of animal rights, none of the above will be possible.
Let’s band together and elevate the status of the animals from “property” to “beings.” And let’s make it a crime when a dangerous human harms them.
Michael Winner says:
Apr 2, 2010
Andrew – Calm down dear!
scott says:
May 14, 2010
i fully agree with andrew! I would hapilly go on a protest rally?
Maggie says:
May 15, 2010
Go Andrew
I think we all should unte and pres for change as our animals will suffer at the hands of the authorities just becuase they cant be arsed to sort out the root of the problem which is the yob culture of our country.
Im with you all the way hunx
notsurehowifeelboutthis says:
May 15, 2010
“And while I’m on the topic, I can’t bear human-fighting. The idea of putting two humans in a ring together to fight just makes me sick.”
? Are they actually trying to compare mma/ wwe/ etc (where the people invloved know all the risk, and consent to fight), to dog fighting (where the dogs are never given a choice, they dont know any better)? Seriously comparing those things, is like comparing sex to rape. They had better be joking
admin says:
May 15, 2010
Yes, I can’t believe those made-up people said those made-up things. They should be made-up shot.
notsurehowifeelboutthis says:
May 15, 2010
well obviously dogs cant talk.
but isnt the idea of the thing, about wat would happen if human allowed their dog to do something vs what would happen if human did something?
admin says:
May 15, 2010
yes, clearly I’ve opened up an ethical can of worms here
ifonlytheycouldtak says:
May 15, 2010
I think instead of us nitpicking the details (cause, I know for a fact dogs don’t give a crap if they are neutered, Ive met adult before and afters), we see the “article” for what it is. Insight into the insanity that we as humans make for others. We feel as a species we are above the law of nature as well as the laws of man. On top of that, for us to agree is impossible – the chocolate vs vanilla debate is proof. That being said, in my opinion in order to have peace and prosperity we need to have respect and empathy for others, human or otherwise for without respect for one, you cannot respect the other. This again, is something i have witnessed specifically working in the animal field.
admin says:
May 15, 2010
…
Kieran says:
May 15, 2010
“On top of that, for us to agree is impossible – the chocolate vs vanilla debate is proof.”
Ha ha ha ha!!!!!
I’m going to assume you’re joking; otherwise this is the funniest thing I’ve ever read. Is this a metaphor for blacks and whites or are you actually talking about ice cream?