Compulsory Micro Chipping?

[Ian]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6850904.ece

 

Proposals are apparently being made by both Labour & Conservatives as part of election pledges for micro chipping of all dogs to become compulsory.

 

Do you feel it a good idea in principle and, if yes, is it going to prove enforceable or not?

 

(Personally I doubt it - with many chipped dogs turning up with out of date info, claims of having sold or given away their dog etc - unless it was also compulsory to have animals vet checked annually & the vet check the chip, change of details being compulsory immediately & strictly monitored etc - it therefore sounds more like a pie in the sky pledge than a seriously thought out proposal to me)

[zico's mum]

Estimated 7 million dogs in UK - just where is the money going to come from to check each and every one of these dogs to see if a) they are chipped and b)the information is up to date It's totally unenforceable in my opinion,and as usual it will be those who abide by the law/treat their dogs properly who will abide by it and most others won't

[blackmagic]

What do they propose to do with the dogs that are not microchipped?

 

Previously it was said that they would fine the owners - assuming they know who that is.

 

I think they would also have to change the law as, at present, a microchip is not proof of ownership of a dog. It is only proof of owning the chip.

[zepthedep]

Hi

as one who has been campianing for years for pets to be M/C , for me the answer is simple you make it an on the spot fine if the dog is not M/C at least a £100 fine. Also if you find a M/C'd dog that the details are not upto date then the fine is owed by the last registered owner ,lets be honest if you new you could be fined a £100 you would make sure the paper work was sorted out when you passed a dog on or moved house etc .

 

As for new pups

 

All new pups must be microchiped to the breeder before they can be sold, that way dogs are tracable all thier lives , this not only protects the breeders as it would make it virtualy impossible for people to break thier contracts and just breed with the dogs where restrictions apply and register them with the KC. Or pass the dog on into rescue with out any paper work under a different name again braking the law, good breeders would not have anything to fear from this scheme as its very rare for thier dogs to tun up in rescue and if it did they could be informed straight away

 

You wouldn't sell a car with out filling the paper work because of the come back so why should you be alowed to just pass on animals or dump them without taking the responsibility that goes with that .

[Katiebob]

I agree it might be difficult to enforce but everything new is difficult to enforce so imo it's a step in the right direction

[Rumpole]

agree with john and its got to be a good thing if it encourages more people to chip their dogs.

[blackmagic]

Estimated 7 million dogs in UK - just where is the money going to come from to check each and every one of these dogs to see if a) they are chipped and b)the information is up to date It's totally unenforceable in my opinion,and as usual it will be those who abide by the law/treat their dogs properly who will abide by it and most others won't

 

 

The database is already set up and is not government funded, so no cost there.

 

The cost of the chipping would be paid by the owner, as at present.

 

Why would all dogs be checked?

 

As with other laws, it will only be the dogs that come to the authorities attention, such as strays or dogs subject of a complaint, that will be checked.

 

Dog wardens already enforce current regulations re dog ownership. Microchipping could be an extension of a dog having to wear a collar and tag, therefore no new law as such.

 

There will always be people who ignore laws they don't like, but that doesn't mean the laws shouldn't apply. Using a mobile phone while driving is one. I see people doing this every time I am out on the road. Does that mean that we shouldn't have that law?

 

There are people who drive without insurance. Should we not bother having a law that drivers must be insured?

[Ian]

Hi

as one who has been campianing for years for pets to be M/C , for me the answer is simple you make it an on the spot fine if the dog is not M/C at least a £100 fine. Also if you find a M/C'd dog that the details are not upto date then the fine is owed by the last registered owner ,lets be honest if you new you could be fined a £100 you would make sure the paper work was sorted out when you passed a dog on or moved house etc .

 

As for new pups

 

All new pups must be microchiped to the breeder before they can be sold, that way dogs are tracable all thier lives , this not only protects the breeders as it would make it virtualy impossible for people to break thier contracts and just breed with the dogs where restrictions apply and register them with the KC. Or pass the dog on into rescue with out any paper work under a different name again braking the law, good breeders would not have anything to fear from this scheme as its very rare for thier dogs to tun up in rescue and if it did they could be informed straight away

 

You wouldn't sell a car with out filling the paper work because of the come back so why should you be alowed to just pass on animals or dump them without taking the responsibility that goes with that .

 

 

Why would all dogs be checked?

 

As with other laws, it will only be the dogs that come to the authorities attention, such as strays or dogs subject of a complaint, that will be checked.

 

There are people who drive without insurance. Should we not bother having a law that drivers must be insured?

 

But it surely isn't really that simple - in part for the reasons blackmagics quote mentions?

 

IE Unless, as I suggested initially regular checking is compulsory people who want to do so will simply flout the law - just as some people will drive without insurance & there's no anpr to catch out unchipped dogs owners!

 

It also doesn't stop thieves from removing a dogs chip - by whatever means they can & then selling to whoever they can (here or overseas)

[blackmagic]

 

It also doesn't stop thieves from removing a dogs chip - by whatever means they can & then selling to whoever they can (here or overseas)

 

I don't think it is intended to prevent dog thefts or thieves selling on dogs.

 

It is to make owners responsible for their dogs.

[zepthedep]

But it surely isn't really that simple - in part for the reasons blackmagics quote mentions?

 

IE Unless, as I suggested initially regular checking is compulsory people who want to do so will simply flout the law - just as some people will drive without insurance & there's no anpr to catch out unchipped dogs owners!

 

It also doesn't stop thieves from removing a dogs chip - by whatever means they can & then selling to whoever they can (here or overseas)

 

Ok I admit it would create a bit of work for some D W's etc but we have to start somewhere. At the moment you have pups/dogs being sold /given away in free add papers , pet shops ,dodgy internet sites all with no control etc, owners dumping dogs left right and center .If it was made ileagal to sell /part with or swap a domestic animal that was not micro chiped , surly this would stop some from jumping in and taking on an animal on a whim and others from sherking their responsibility towards animals when they get fed up of them . Im not saying it would stop the problem but it may go a little way to helping to eleviate it.

 

jon

[Nettie]

It is law in France that a dog must be tattooed or microchipped, puppies cannot be sent to new homes without being micro chipped first. I think its an excellent idea and with reference to only the dogs that are strays or have a complaint against them would be checked aren't those precisely the dogs that need checking?

 

Another way of checking dogs is that it also becomes law that all dogs that register at a vets must have their micro chipped checked,recorded on their records and that vets must make sure that address details match and perhaps checked every year as part of their health check and vaccinations.

 

Wandsworth Council have a by-law now that means all dogs living in Council accommodation must be micro-chipped, they funded several free micro-chipping days on various estates.

 

Its got to be a good thing, there will some that slip through the net but in the long run it is especially a good idea in helping getting dogs back to their owners, vets having to check microchips of newly registered pets (cats included) would also help locate stolen animals.

[zico's mum]

But I can go to my pet's records and update them,so if someone wants to dump a dog what's to stop them doing the same,just making up a fictitious address - do the microchip companies keep records of all entries or just the current one does anyone know.

And who is going to impose these fines - the Police,Dog Wardens - that has to cost money,where will funds come from to do so initially,will money from fines go back into the scheme or into that great money pot of the Treasury?

Vets currently won't pass on details if a dog shows a chip that doesn't correspond to the person presenting,are they planning to change that?

What about rescues who chip dogs to the rescue,not the owner,if a dog that they rehomed is dumped do they pay the fine?

[ranirottie]

Hi

as one who has been campianing for years for pets to be M/C , for me the answer is simple you make it an on the spot fine if the dog is not M/C at least a £100 fine. Also if you find a M/C'd dog that the details are not upto date then the fine is owed by the last registered owner ,lets be honest if you new you could be fined a £100 you would make sure the paper work was sorted out when you passed a dog on or moved house etc .

 

As for new pups

 

All new pups must be microchiped to the breeder before they can be sold, that way dogs are tracable all thier lives , this not only protects the breeders as it would make it virtualy impossible for people to break thier contracts and just breed with the dogs where restrictions apply and register them with the KC. Or pass the dog on into rescue with out any paper work under a different name again braking the law, good breeders would not have anything to fear from this scheme as its very rare for thier dogs to tun up in rescue and if it did they could be informed straight away

 

You wouldn't sell a car with out filling the paper work because of the come back so why should you be alowed to just pass on animals or dump them without taking the responsibility that goes with that .

ditto x

[merledogs]

agree with john and its got to be a good thing if it encourages more people to chip their dogs.

Wot she said

 

Just because something is difficult to enforce, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. The positives for me will outweigh the difficulties.

[zepthedep]

But I can go to my pet's records and update them,so if someone wants to dump a dog what's to stop them doing the same,just making up a fictitious address - do the microchip companies keep records of all entries or just the current one does anyone know.

And who is going to impose these fines - the Police,Dog Wardens - that has to cost money,where will funds come from to do so initially,will money from fines go back into the scheme or into that great money pot of the Treasury?

Vets currently won't pass on details if a dog shows a chip that doesn't correspond to the person presenting,are they planning to change that?

What about rescues who chip dogs to the rescue,not the owner,if a dog that they rehomed is dumped do they pay the fine?

 

Hi Zicos mum

I take on board what you say and yes for this to work things would need to change, but for me that would be for the better , owners changing their details on line would need to stop, for the reasons you have stated ,MC companys do keep records , it may sound strange but you already can trace a chip back to the implanter who implanted and they should realy keep records of the chips they implant , realy vets are not the people to contact over lost or stolen dogs your first port of call should be the chip company who hold the details . As for rescues who chip dogs to themselves [ourselves included ] that is something the rescues would have to look at themselves if this law was past .

As an implanter myself through the rescue and our free M/C schemes we run localy I probably implant about 200 dogs/cats + every year and then dealing with lost dogs etc I know the system and how it works and how it could/should work as already stated the system is already there in place and imo just not used to its full potential.

 

As for the fines and who collects them and where the money goes is a different thing as with any government it will be not where it is needed or will do the most good