In Italy it is also compulsory to have your dog micro chipped, it is however an extremley difficult thing to control, and not as if the police, carabiniere etc go around with scanners.
(As far as I know only the vets have scanners)
It of course doesn't stop the idiots, I do believe tho that statistically the no of dogs abandonded has gone down tho.

Sadly its not the case where i come from. Those that licence, chip & spay/neuter will continue to do so, those that don't ......

Where does the £35 come from ? Doesn't HAVE to be done by a Vet only a qualified microchipper & most charge way less that £35 & it's the chips done by the vets that are the worst for moving.

Tattooing is cheaper & you don't need a scanner to read a tattoo.

Good responsible breeders already chip &/or tattoo already & "new born"puppies cannot be chipped as the BBC think is possible !

I think, from reading the article in another paper on Sunday, that £35 is just the price they are quoting - my guess would be that they've just phoned up a local to them (ie London) vet and asked for the price.


I have no problem with permenant identification - but I would like a choice between tattoo or chip (currently 2 tattooed only, one chipped only and the escape artist has chip and tattoo) I can read the tattoos on them all easily, but the puppy's chip has slipped down her left foreleg.

I understand that the BVA/KC now requires all dogs undergoing hip & elbow scoring and eye testing to have permenant identification so for the majority of dedicated breeders this is just a non story really.

What it will affect is the "pet" breeders who do not usually id their puppies before they go... it may also have quite a high financial implication in the first instance for a lot of rescues who will also all have to permenantly id the dogs they rehome (many still don't do this).

What I don't think it will have any effect on what so ever are the irresponsible owners of status dogs and banned breeds.... which makes the whole thing just a little pointless really if their aim is to be able to identify just these people... it's highly unlikely that this type of owner is going to fork out for a chip.

The big rescues get the chips cheaper as they buy in bulk & even for a small rescue they can be obtained for less than a fiver, the NDTR have a low cost tattoo available for rescues that use tattoos

Only a small proportion of drivers and I'm sure you are not arguing that road tax, insurance and licences are not needed so your analogy doesn't strike me.

Depending on the complexity of the database it could do most of those things.

So the proponderance of the burden will fall onto bad owners (who haven't yet chipped but will now come under pressure to do so) rather than the good owners (who have mostly chipped already). Sounds like a well targetted idea.

No but puppies can be chipped before first transfer of ownership.

The analogy is not centred around whether those things are needed or not, the analogy is centred around the fact that both systems are designed to do something that they fail to

A database could do all sorts of things however it requires people to police it and manage it if it is to be anything more than a records base.

On what do you base your assumpton that the preponderance of GOOD owners have their dogs chipped?

Where are the stats to demonstrate that?

Given that that overwhelming majority of cars and drivers are insured, taxed and licenced - which would not be the case without compulsion - then it hasn't failed.

So?


What i wrote was that the proponderance of the burden would fall on bad owners. It's fairly straight forward. Chipping offers no direct benefit to the dog owner - it costs time and money therefor only those owners with a well developed sense of responsibility will opt for chipping. This doesn't mean that good owners = chipped dogs but it does mean that chipped dog = more likely to be good owner and the inverse would also hold.

I agree that chipping isn't a 100% method of identifying a dog. Bear's has gone missing - we've got the papework, but the vet couldn't find it when he tried to read it (I can't remember the reason we wanted our own dog's chip read but we did).

I think compulsary micro chipping is good but would be better if they tweeked the system a bit.

1. to keep the breeder details on the file and it will soon become clear whos pupps end up in rescue in great numbers.

2. Make it also compulsary for and change in ownership or address to be notified.

3. Make registered owner responsible for that dog and that will self police no 2.