s4sugar
Well-Known Member
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4758/23/5/3
Will it help? Probably as much as Horse passports do IMO.
Will it help? Probably as much as Horse passports do IMO.
Compulsory microchipping
- Thread starter s4sugar
- Start date
Kaylum
Well-Known Member
Well whilst there are still idiots saying the found dogs when actually they owned them and couldnt be bothered to walk them then I am all for it.
I will explain.
The idiots over the road where I used to live had two GSD. They couldnt be bothered to walk them so the used to jump over the gate. They took them to the police and said they had found them.
And guess what they have two new GSD s now.
I will explain.
The idiots over the road where I used to live had two GSD. They couldnt be bothered to walk them so the used to jump over the gate. They took them to the police and said they had found them.
And guess what they have two new GSD s now.
s4sugar
Well-Known Member
That is a well known phenomenon.
The number of "strays" handed in increased significantly when rescues started making a charge to accept a pet. The current get around is "Oh I sold him a couple of months ago".
The number of "strays" handed in increased significantly when rescues started making a charge to accept a pet. The current get around is "Oh I sold him a couple of months ago".
EAST KENT
Well-Known Member
My dogs are all tattooed,I prefer that system;my puppy buyers are expected to microchip and most do under pressue from the vet.The original tattoo ios hopefully then their safeguard if things go pear shaped and the second owner cannot be found.
CorvusCorax
Justified & Ancient
Whilst I agree it is a step in the right direction, it's the same old story - the responsible people will do what they've always done (we've microchipped, tatooed and DNA'd for years of our own volition) and the irresponsible will not do what they've never done.
Dobiegirl
Well-Known Member
Its a great idea as well as bringing back the dog licence which would fund dog wardens who could check every dog they come across. Its sickening what a throw away society we are and if people had to comply with the above they might think twice about buying a cutsie puppy. I would also like to see everyone that breeds even if its an only a one off litter have a breeding licence.
Kaylum
Well-Known Member
Yes we dont have a dog warden anymore due to council cuts.
CorvusCorax
Justified & Ancient
I don't even know what our dog warden is called.
Unlike in other council areas where I have lived, know their names, have their mobile numbers, have seen them in the papers promoting responsible dog ownership.
Other council areas, licenses are checked, ours, not ever in ten years.
Unlike in other council areas where I have lived, know their names, have their mobile numbers, have seen them in the papers promoting responsible dog ownership.
Other council areas, licenses are checked, ours, not ever in ten years.
twiglet84
Well-Known Member
We had a lady that came in with a "stray dog", took the dog from her and scanned it and there was a microchip. The address was only one road from the surgery so i walked the dog back there to watch the same lady open the door of the house and go in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I knocked on the door and questioned her, it was her bf's and she didnt want it anymore so thought she get rid of him, she had forgotten about its microchip!!!!
Will compulsory microchipping help? I doubt it! x
I knocked on the door and questioned her, it was her bf's and she didnt want it anymore so thought she get rid of him, she had forgotten about its microchip!!!!
Will compulsory microchipping help? I doubt it! x
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
Why do dogs need a microchip to find out who owns it?
If they want to know the owner, simply look at the tag on the dog's collar.
All dogs are required by law to wear a collar with a tag showing the owner's details. How well that works will give a hint on how well micro chips will work.
We don't need a scanner to read a tag as, if the dog wore one, it would be there for anyone to read in plain English!
Another bit of genius thinking from the experts at DEFRA.
If they want to know the owner, simply look at the tag on the dog's collar.
All dogs are required by law to wear a collar with a tag showing the owner's details. How well that works will give a hint on how well micro chips will work.
We don't need a scanner to read a tag as, if the dog wore one, it would be there for anyone to read in plain English!
Another bit of genius thinking from the experts at DEFRA.
Toast
Well-Known Member
But surely any dog can slip its collar? Break a leather one, bust the buckle on a nylon one ect.. then what?
s4sugar
Well-Known Member
The point is that almost any dog is required by law to have a collar & tag & is this enforced?
Suelin
Well-Known Member
Laws are for the law abiding. I would be a fairly wealthy person if I had a fiver for each time I contacted the "owner" of a chipped dog only to be told, "we got rid of him some time ago to someone in the pub"
There is also the problem of "others" in the community that don't bother with horse passports and nobody will enforce it. These are the same folk who nick trailers, tack, horses etc and the police won't act because of who these people are. I can't see them bothering with microchips. Who will enforce that?
I frankly can't see it making much difference to the overall problem of strays. There just isn't the money or the will by local authorities to police it.
There is also the problem of "others" in the community that don't bother with horse passports and nobody will enforce it. These are the same folk who nick trailers, tack, horses etc and the police won't act because of who these people are. I can't see them bothering with microchips. Who will enforce that?
I frankly can't see it making much difference to the overall problem of strays. There just isn't the money or the will by local authorities to police it.
CorvusCorax
Justified & Ancient
If I was stealing a dog, the first thing I would do is remove the collar. Chips and indeed ears can also be removed, but very hard to argue with DNA profile
Toast
Well-Known Member
But how would you tell who a stray belonged to if they had no collar on?
s4sugar
Well-Known Member
The point is that few bother with the existing laws or think they don't apply to them.
The responsible owners will continue as before and the irresponsible will carry on being irresponsible.
The responsible owners will continue as before and the irresponsible will carry on being irresponsible.
Toast
Well-Known Member
Ahh, im with you sorry! For some reason i thought you were saying there was no point in microchips when collar tags were a legal requirement.......................
...i'll get my coat
...i'll get my coat
MurphysMinder
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately I am sure this will be the case. When we had dog licences it was the same, only the people who cared about their dogs bothered with licences. I have always tattooed mine , but Freya and the rest of the litter are tattooed and chipped. I prefer a tattoo because I know the NDTR have my details as well as the owners, but sadly very few rescue organisations, dog wardens etc seem to check for tattoos.
FinnishLapphund
There's no cow on the ice
After reading the text in the link and in the KC's link to more info, I must say that I'm not sure if will function much better than it does in Sweden.
We've had a law about that all dogs that lives in Sweden must be ID-marked (microchip and/or tattoo) since 2001, and last time I heard anything about it, it still didn't function perfectly. Because, using purebred puppies as an example, it usually works like the following:
Preferably before the puppies are 3 weeks old, the breeder sends in the forms to register the litter with the Swedish Kennelklubben (SKK) and the puppies thereby becomes registered in SKK's purebred dog data, however only breeders that have bred 2 or 3 litters can have a SKK kennel name, and without a kennel name, the breeders name will not show up in the dog data.
Before the puppies leaves the breeder, they're taken to the veterinarians for vaccination, health test and ID-marking.
The veterinarian sends in a form to SKK that only states that this puppy have so and so ID-number.
When the puppy buyer comes to pick up their puppy, the breeder will, besides giving them the puppies pedigree papers and other papers with information from the breeder, also give them two small forms.
It is then the puppy buyer's responsibility to remember, that after having gotten home with their new adorable puppy, they have to send in the first form, free of charge (for the puppy buyer I might add, it is included in the registration fee that the breeder has paid), to register themselves as the owner in both SKK's owner register and SKK's purebred dog data, but also that they by law must likewise send in the second form, to a cost of 70 Swedish kronor, to register themselves as the owner in the Swedish Department of Agriculture's central dog register.
(I should mention that an owner also can register via the internet, but it still comes down to remembering to do it.)
Some owners remember to register themselves (you can choose whether you want your name and address to be shown for anyone that looks for it or hidden so that only police and authorities can find it), some simply forgets it, and then there is those that deliberately does not do it, because they want to avoid the responsibility that might come with being the registered owner.
So, last I heard about it, there is ID-marked dogs in the registers where the owner is UNKNOWN!
And notice that only breeders with a kennel name can be found in SKK's pedigree dog data, but even that is not to much use, because, for example, the police will most likely only look in SKK's owner register and/or in the Department of Agriculture's central dog register...
Personally I wish that the breeder always should be listed too, and that if the authorities then can't find an owner because they haven't registered themselves as owners, the authorities should give the dog back to the breeder. But I presume that there is legal technicalities that makes that impossible.
By the way, SKK's owner register is open for all ID-marked dogs and cats in Sweden, but to make it even more complicated, there is also one dog club for mongrels (the Swedish name is a short version of the Swedish word for mongrel and I don't know how to translate it, since moggy refers to cats in English) that also have received some sort of authorization to have an owner registry for dogs...
So in theory it is good, in reality it is far from perfect, but hopefully it is better than nothing.
But maybe the Kennel Club will make a better job than whatever Swedish authority it was back in 2001, that was in charge and responsible for what I've described above, because in the more info link ( http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3397 ) I read that "All puppies being traceable to their breeder thereby helping reduce the problem of puppy farming of dogs".
We've had a law about that all dogs that lives in Sweden must be ID-marked (microchip and/or tattoo) since 2001, and last time I heard anything about it, it still didn't function perfectly. Because, using purebred puppies as an example, it usually works like the following:
Preferably before the puppies are 3 weeks old, the breeder sends in the forms to register the litter with the Swedish Kennelklubben (SKK) and the puppies thereby becomes registered in SKK's purebred dog data, however only breeders that have bred 2 or 3 litters can have a SKK kennel name, and without a kennel name, the breeders name will not show up in the dog data.
Before the puppies leaves the breeder, they're taken to the veterinarians for vaccination, health test and ID-marking.
The veterinarian sends in a form to SKK that only states that this puppy have so and so ID-number.
When the puppy buyer comes to pick up their puppy, the breeder will, besides giving them the puppies pedigree papers and other papers with information from the breeder, also give them two small forms.
It is then the puppy buyer's responsibility to remember, that after having gotten home with their new adorable puppy, they have to send in the first form, free of charge (for the puppy buyer I might add, it is included in the registration fee that the breeder has paid), to register themselves as the owner in both SKK's owner register and SKK's purebred dog data, but also that they by law must likewise send in the second form, to a cost of 70 Swedish kronor, to register themselves as the owner in the Swedish Department of Agriculture's central dog register.
(I should mention that an owner also can register via the internet, but it still comes down to remembering to do it.)
Some owners remember to register themselves (you can choose whether you want your name and address to be shown for anyone that looks for it or hidden so that only police and authorities can find it), some simply forgets it, and then there is those that deliberately does not do it, because they want to avoid the responsibility that might come with being the registered owner.
So, last I heard about it, there is ID-marked dogs in the registers where the owner is UNKNOWN!
And notice that only breeders with a kennel name can be found in SKK's pedigree dog data, but even that is not to much use, because, for example, the police will most likely only look in SKK's owner register and/or in the Department of Agriculture's central dog register...
Personally I wish that the breeder always should be listed too, and that if the authorities then can't find an owner because they haven't registered themselves as owners, the authorities should give the dog back to the breeder. But I presume that there is legal technicalities that makes that impossible.
By the way, SKK's owner register is open for all ID-marked dogs and cats in Sweden, but to make it even more complicated, there is also one dog club for mongrels (the Swedish name is a short version of the Swedish word for mongrel and I don't know how to translate it, since moggy refers to cats in English) that also have received some sort of authorization to have an owner registry for dogs...
So in theory it is good, in reality it is far from perfect, but hopefully it is better than nothing.
But maybe the Kennel Club will make a better job than whatever Swedish authority it was back in 2001, that was in charge and responsible for what I've described above, because in the more info link ( http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3397 ) I read that "All puppies being traceable to their breeder thereby helping reduce the problem of puppy farming of dogs".
CAYLA
Well-Known Member
I assume the points made are, if people now are not fine (when we can visually see they have no collar or tag) then how will we enforce microchip. (sorry cant multi quote)
However to any sensible dog owner tags/collars are not enough as CC suggests anyone can remove them when stealing a dog.
A system whereby you cannot use the old "it was my dog, not now" should come with the same fine as not re registering you car to a new owner when you sell it (not sure how they would go about it, but obs there should be a penalty, as this s what we generally hear or the fact the details are wrong or number changed, or no chip at all.
I do believe all dogs should be chipped but how to regulate it ?
However to any sensible dog owner tags/collars are not enough as CC suggests anyone can remove them when stealing a dog.
A system whereby you cannot use the old "it was my dog, not now" should come with the same fine as not re registering you car to a new owner when you sell it (not sure how they would go about it, but obs there should be a penalty, as this s what we generally hear or the fact the details are wrong or number changed, or no chip at all.
I do believe all dogs should be chipped but how to regulate it ?
cbmcts
Well-Known Member
I think it's a step in the right direction. Yes, it'll take many years before it becomes effective but DWs and the like having the authority to scan a dog and having the ability to take action (fine, possible removal) could be used quite effectively against problem dog owners. In the same way that horse passports could work in a decade or so once nearly all horses are microchipped and inaccurate replacement passports will die out as a result.
Of course the above depends on the political will to make it work as a system That will probably be the bigger issue.
I can't believe I've just typed the above my default reaction is normally anti legislation as a control but it just shows how I feel about the explosion in irresponsible dog ownership.
ETA I agree with Cayla - there would have to be some penalty for not updating the register to stop people saying the dog was no longer theirs if it was picked up. But I was thinking more about the status type dog been strutted around the park costing the owner money if there was a complaint - then the DW would have another angle to enforce compliance.
Of course the above depends on the political will to make it work as a system
That will probably be the bigger issue.I can't believe I've just typed the above
my default reaction is normally anti legislation as a control but it just shows how I feel about the explosion in irresponsible dog ownership.ETA I agree with Cayla - there would have to be some penalty for not updating the register to stop people saying the dog was no longer theirs if it was picked up. But I was thinking more about the status type dog been strutted around the park costing the owner money if there was a complaint - then the DW would have another angle to enforce compliance.
Last edited:
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
Let us say Joe Bloggs has a dog which bites someone. It is scanned for a microchip and found to have none. Joe simply explains that it is not his dog.
Alternatively, if he takes the dog to the vet and no chip is found, he can explain away the missing microchip by saying that the chip must have failed as some do.
He can also say he bought the dog from Bill Bloggs who was listed in the obituary column of last week's newspaper and was told it was chipped, but he couldn't verify that because he doesn't have a scanner.
Anyone can buy a microchip and it is perfectly legal to chip your own dogs. I don't know of any legal requirement to register the chip number with a central registry (and that also applies to horses!) -- though I bet The Kennel Club would love to do that and will charge like a wounded rhinocerus as they usually do!
The whole idea is ridiculous. A scheme thought up to create more jobs for the boys. Who is going to check those chips? When the idea was last suggested, I had about 30 of my own dogs in my kennels. As far as I was concerned, they could go ahead and check them (but without any help from me!) but I would not be held responsible for any bites or injuries sustained. On the other hand, I WOULD be claiming for any damage done to the dogs, either physical or psychological. Rough handling can ruin a sensitive young working dog in training for months, possibly for life, especially if it objects to being handled by a stranger as some do.
Alternatively, if he takes the dog to the vet and no chip is found, he can explain away the missing microchip by saying that the chip must have failed as some do.
He can also say he bought the dog from Bill Bloggs who was listed in the obituary column of last week's newspaper and was told it was chipped, but he couldn't verify that because he doesn't have a scanner.
Anyone can buy a microchip and it is perfectly legal to chip your own dogs. I don't know of any legal requirement to register the chip number with a central registry (and that also applies to horses!) -- though I bet The Kennel Club would love to do that and will charge like a wounded rhinocerus as they usually do!
The whole idea is ridiculous. A scheme thought up to create more jobs for the boys. Who is going to check those chips? When the idea was last suggested, I had about 30 of my own dogs in my kennels. As far as I was concerned, they could go ahead and check them (but without any help from me!) but I would not be held responsible for any bites or injuries sustained. On the other hand, I WOULD be claiming for any damage done to the dogs, either physical or psychological. Rough handling can ruin a sensitive young working dog in training for months, possibly for life, especially if it objects to being handled by a stranger as some do.
competitiondiva
Well-Known Member
Why do dogs need a microchip to find out who owns it?
If they want to know the owner, simply look at the tag on the dog's collar.
All dogs are required by law to wear a collar with a tag showing the owner's details. How well that works will give a hint on how well micro chips will work.
We don't need a scanner to read a tag as, if the dog wore one, it would be there for anyone to read in plain English!
Another bit of genius thinking from the experts at DEFRA.
except in those circumstances where people are bored/sick etc of keeping their own dogs, they'd just take off the collar and claim they are strays! A microchip is permanent. And if a system similar to the V5 log book is set up whereby if a dog does change hands the change of ownership form must be completed or the previous owner is liable for any fines that result from that dog. It would be a much better system. No i'm not naive enough to think it's the cure for the major problem with have in this country. But I do believe it will have a big enough impact to make it a worthwhile law.
Last edited:
stargirl88
Well-Known Member
I think it's great, PURELY for dogs that get lost.
It's going to be regulated as well as the name/address tag has been - the only time mine are ever checked is when I do the good citizens tests! Even then, to get someone through once, the instructor wrote an address on a bit of paper and sellotaped it to a dogs collar!
Its a start thoug!
It's going to be regulated as well as the name/address tag has been - the only time mine are ever checked is when I do the good citizens tests! Even then, to get someone through once, the instructor wrote an address on a bit of paper and sellotaped it to a dogs collar!
Its a start thoug!
piebaldsparkle
Well-Known Member
But they aren't, they can migrate and/or fail.
Don't get me wrong, my dog is chipped, but it does worry me that responsible owners, could be prosecuted under new legislation.