IMO, the only use the compulsive microchipping will do, apart from what it is used for now, lost dogs etc, is if a dog is sent to rescue or found as a stray it can be traced back to breeder, but will that mean the dog is returned to breeder to take responsibility, if it doesn't what's the point?

If the breeder says no, will they recieve a fine? Will they have to pay for the upkeep of the dog in rescue? It doesn't say what will happen.

As for vets collating information from a dogs visits via the microchip re: the confidentiallity act will this have to be a lump research with no identification, if so, what is the point, the breeders in question will not be contacted, the lines not known, personally I'm not bothered about confidentiality for my animals, but that is a big thing to change, I dare say some will shout about it.

The KC are between a rock and a hard place re registrations, they don't know if an individual breeder is licensed by their LA, they present the correct documents ergo on what grounds can they refuse to register espeically in a breed with no health tests recommended?  I've spoken with a friend who happens to be a barrister about this very subject and his thoughts were let them try to refuse to register progeny of 2 registered animals - it will cost them Clarges st if I had my way.

Bateson is making recommendations but only on a non statutory level ergo no real teeth to enforce any new polices - isn't that what we've already got as pedigree breeders ie the KC?  Agreed something similar needs to be done for ALL dogs not just the KC ones but as we already employ and support scientists is there more on that front that an advisory body could do without the legal powers to enforce?

> However, personally I think all breeders should tattoo, then owners microchip.
>

Heartily agree, but I would as that is how I do it.

I know the NDTR will always contact a breeder so that is my safety net, and the chip being in new owners nae means there is something that links the pup to new owner, at least the first time.

We all know that quite a number of our new puppy owners never change the KC reg into their names and I know that hardly any of the new owners give their details to the tattoo register, so if I chipped I doubt that all would bother to update.

At least if the chipping is done by the new owner there are records initially fro the breeder with NDTR and for the new owner with the chip.

I think both the breeder and new owner have a responsibility for the dog.  If it goes to rescue both should be liable for it's re-homing costs.

As has been said the breeder has a responsibility for allowing a life to be born, but the new owners have a responsibility too, and at the moment it is too easy to get off Scot free when you decide the dog doesn't fit into your life anymore.

> The KC are between a rock and a hard place re registrations, they don't know if an individual breeder is licensed by their LA,

There is a box on the form to register a litter asking if they hold a breeders License from the LA.

Also once a breeder has registered their 5th litter in any 12 month period they are required to hold such a license and if they don't then KC should refuse the registrations.

In fact the law considers a person to be the breeder under the law if the litter is bred by them at their or any other address or by any close family member, so all those litters on breeding terms count towards a breeders total of 4 without a License five need a LA license.

Someone on this forum pointed out that someone without a License had registered more than 5 litters, and was breeding from bitches with less than a year between litters (which those requiring a license under the law cannot do).  Yet they did not refuse to register puppies, which they could have done as the breeder was breaking the law of the land.

Of course if the KC policed their records and stopped registering from volume breeders who didn't have a License many of these would simply not register puppies.  they would still breed and due to ignorance the public would still buy.

As said before the existing laws need enforcing.

Why are councils not prosecuting pet shops for not identifying the puppies and their breeders as is already required?  Why are councils not prosecuting or even checking if breeders with Licenses they have granted are breeding from bitches with less than 12 months between litters.

Now here I believe that anyone needing a Licence should have to DNA profile the parents,a and more importantly the litter, so that that it could be proven that no bitch whelped too many litters.  these records would have to go to the LA for checking before a new License was issued.

> of course new puppy goes to vet for innoculations and primary check and no microchip, vet or owner reports breeder and then heavy fine or whatever (not been said) yes, that would work.

Supposing the new puppy goes to the vet and for some reason the tattoo cannot be read or the micro-chip cannot be picked up on a scan, or perhaps the tattoo or chip cannot be read on an older dog or bitch?

I ask because last year at the eye testing I run we decided to check all dogs for ID on arrival for health testing. in February we had three tattooed dogs two could be read, one was tattooed on it's belly one in the ear and the third could not be read. Micro-chipped dogs attending were 36 present and 14 micro-chips had moved and took quite a bit of finding and two micro-chips could not be picked up by the scanners.

So what would happen to these owners or breeders? Fines? Would gossip condemn them as dodgy breeders? Suppose the dog has a chip or tattoo which has not been found, and is micro-chipped a second time, how could this be traced back to the owner? Lots of pit falls. I know at one time some states in the USA decided all dogs had to have a "stud" put in their ear to show they had been micro-chipped as otherwise nobody was sure whether or not they had been done. Should the tattoo or micro-chip be supported ny DNA registration?

Yes, there are lots of pitfalls, lots of things that can go wrong, but the good thing about microchipping and tattooing is you also have a receipt, transfer papers, some sort of record with a description of the pup, DOB etc. if all one colour slightly harder but there is a record. There will always be proof from a breeder that it has been done.

But, maybe not proof for the pup if in later life the tattoo or microchip is unreadable or not found then a dog will be untraceable to it's origins. So yes, definite pitfalls, but 100's of 1,000 more dogs with a breeder recognition.

> its no wonder the KC don't want to stop  registering puppies from puppy farms if these are the num  bers in volved. they would suffer a huge loss of income.
>
> I doubt the number of puppies registered by show/hobby breeders would pay for London offices etc.

The puppies coming in from this puppy farm are not registered with the Kennel Club if registered at all they end up registered with one of the two commercial registers which are based in the UK. If they get registered with 'a' Kennel Club it would be the Irish Kennel Club which is seperate from the UK Kennel Club. Most imported puppy farmed pups are not registered.