Some is a subjective word.

As some one mentioned the other thread where a breeder has been contacted because although the dog has had 2 owners since it left her the new owners had not registered their ownership - so although it will let anyone reading the chip know who bred the dog it will not give the owner in many cases - so what is the point? Are they going to make breeders responsible for the change of owner, or perhaps tracking down the owner. Are you ready breeders to become a new police force held responsible until you track down the present owner no matter how many times the dog has been passed on.

> Some is a subjective word.

Indeed :) although it denies no effect.

Has anybody done a survey to see what proportion of microchipped dogs in shelters/rescue homes can actually be traced to owners?  My impression is that quite often the person whose name is recorded under the microchip records is untraceable, or claims, "Oh, I sold the dog a couple of years ago, can't remember the name of the guy who bought it."

Are irresponsible owners going to bother to transfer the microchip into their own names?

Are responsible owners going to be penalised for microchips that cannot be located?

What will the legal position be regarding a dog who develops problems around the microchip site and has to have it removed?

> Are irresponsible owners going to bother to transfer the microchip into their own names?

If a dog is scanned and the details don't match up, that will presumably be recorded and the owners made liable for updating it (or get a fine).

> Are responsible owners going to be penalised for microchips that cannot be located?

I would think that if you have paperwork proving the dog is chipped (and in your name) then that should count for something... If it can't be located or has stopped working, then you'd presumably be allowed to have it re-chipped?

> What will the legal position be regarding a dog who develops problems around the microchip site and has to have it removed?

I would guess some kind of vets letter would suffice, which can be checked with a vet. But in those cases, I'd be happier if they insisted the dog should be tattooed instead.

Presumably it will also mean any puppies coming from Ireland will have to be chipped first... let's hope they also make it a requirement that they be chipped TO THE BREEDER or the exporter at least... A lot of rescue dogs coming from Ireland are chipped by the rescue before they come over but no details are registered. This is how I found out my rescue girl came from Ireland - her chip number was on the IKC records but not registered to anyone.

If a dog is scanned and the details don't match up, that will presumably be recorded and the owners made liable for updating it (or get a fine).

But that is the point if pups are to be chipped by their breeder and the purchaser does not transfer it to their name then it will  be the breeder who's name will be connected to a dog and not the owner, this may be fine if the dog is still with it's original purchaser but if it has been handed on what happens then, is it up to the breeder to pay the fine or find the present owner?

Then the breeder should put the purchaser's details on the chip registration form when they send it off. They can always put their own phone number as an emergency contact as well. Simples. :-)

Only good thing I can see about this it may deter puppy farmers as they could be being contacted on a very regular basis about dogs they have bred but then again will they comply, I doubt it.

Then the breeder should put the purchaser's details on the chip registration form when they send it off. They can always put their own phone number as an emergency contact as well. Simples. :-)

If they know for sure when the pup is chipped and that is surely not going to be possible in some cases, purchasers drop out at the last moment, change their mind about the sex they want and you may not know which pup will be chosen. Or perhaps you are thinking that breeders will chip their own pups and withhold paperwork until the pup is leaving - big chance for a fiddle there I reckon.

We can only speculate how the paperwork system will work.  It may be like selling a car, with the onus on the seller informing of any change of ownership.

>Or perhaps you are thinking that breeders will chip their own pups and withhold paperwork until the pup is leaving

Or a vet will chip the litter and give the breeder all the registration forms to fill in on the day each puppy leaves. That's quite common practice already, the same way as they activate the free insurance on the day.

> Or a vet will chip the litter and give the breeder all the registration forms to fill in on the day each puppy leaves.

If vets are going to be the only ones allowed to chip, then my mind is boggling already.
There has to be a way for those selling on chipped dogs/puppies to make sure the authorities know it is no longer in their possession.

It can be any trained chipper, including breeders, as now, (although vets are the only people allowed to chip horses and that doesn't seem to cause too much of a problem).

Are they changing legislation regarding proof of ownership? as at the moment only visible identification proves ownership (eg tattoo).

Call me a cynic but compulsory chipping allows all local authorities etc to keep an eye on just how many dogs in each property...

Only responsible people will keep all details up to date etc, those irresponsible people a) won't get their dogs done anyway and are rarely at the vets
with their dogs for treatment to be checked and flagged if not chipped. b)wont keep their details updated if they move or sell the dogs on
c) can see breeders being expected to pay for kennelling costs etc if the owners can't be found.
Just how far are we going to be expected to track pups - as with the recent case breeders do keep in contact with puppy purchasers by cards/letters
but at 8 years old the dog had been rehomed without the breeders knowledge despite keeping in contact with the owner.
I can see many pitfalls and what about the cases where the new puppy purchasers want nothing to do with the breeder and won't give updates.
So aren't really likely to forward new owner details on if they re-sell or rehome the dog/puppy themselves. Where does the breeder stand in cases like those?
Is it fair that they should be financially liable? I know most of us that do care would try and help find a suitable home (or have pups back ourselves whatever their age).
for any that we have bred if given the chance.

> Call me a cynic but compulsory chipping allows all local authorities etc to keep an eye on just how many dogs in each property

I can't see that would be a problem as the only people who need worry are those who are breaking any rules :)

> Just how far are we going to be expected to track pups

If the system is similar to a car registration ie the previous owner notifies that the pup/dog has been sold, then I can't see how a breeder could be held any more responsible than a previous car owner would.

> Is it fair that they should be financially liable

If a breeder has sold a pup (and has the contract to back that up), it could not stand up in court that the breeder is responsible - financially or otherwise

I can't see that would be a problem as the only people who need worry are those who are breaking any rules :-)
Quote selected text

But do the rules apply to the person held as the owner on the registration details, in other words and in most cases that will be the breeder. Hardly any pet owners bother to change the owner on the dogs registration so I can't see them doing so with the chip registration. In other words will the breeder be responsible for the dog unless they can find out and prove who the owner actually is?

But that is the point if pups are to be chipped by their breeder and the purchaser does not transfer it to their name then it will  be the breeder who's name will be connected to a dog and not the owner,

I ALWAYS register the microchip in the new owner's name as soon as they have left with their pup. What's the point of registering it in my name first? That would only demand money off the puppy buyer to change it, and we all know how unlikely that is to happen, just like so few pet buyers transfer KC registration to their name.

> In other words will the breeder be responsible for the dog unless they can find out and prove who the owner actually is? .

Perhaps the KC ought to change the registration document too so that the breeder notifies them who the new owner is ?

Perhaps the KC ought to change the registration document too so that the breeder notifies them who the new owner is ?

Excellent idea -as long as the breeder does not have to pay the £15 per pup like now. :)

> In other words will the breeder be responsible for the dog unless they can find out and prove who the owner actually is? .

You have a contract saying who you sold the puppy to - ownership/responsibility has passed from the breeder.

Perhaps - looking at this as a non-breeder - breeders should be a bit more thoughtful about their 'life-long committment'. It's all very well saying that you will always be responsible for the dog should problems arise - but 'maybe' that needs looking at again and realising that the puppy has been sold and that there is really NO legal responsibility for it :) :) :)

> as long as the breeder does not have to pay the £15 per pup like now

:) The breeder would just have to factor that into the sale price of the pup.

> But do the rules apply to the person held as the owner on the registration details

They couldn't as it is an 'informal' system really and there is, as I understand it, no current way a previous owner can get their name removed. Do the KC allow anyone to find out the owner of a dog ?

> Call me a cynic but compulsory chipping allows all local authorities etc to keep an eye on just how many dogs in each property...

Is that a bad thing?

> a) won't get their dogs done anyway and are rarely at the vets
> with their dogs for treatment to be checked and flagged if not chipped.

The KC are donating scanners to local authorities so, clearly, it is not anticipated that only vets will be the ones checking.  In fact I am doubtfully that vets will get involved with policing this other than to say "oh, no microchip would you like me to fit one?" :)

My point was that most breeders know who had the dog from them but if that person denies it or pass the dog to someone else will the breeder be responsible for any fine or court proceedings.

Contracts are signed but would they stand up in court should the purchaser have paid by cash and denies that the signature is theirs, and just how much time and trouble is it right to expect the breeder to have to spend to find the current owner, is that really to be their responsibility?

As far as I can see there will have to be a new system set up where by the breeder will inform the registry of each pups number and who they have been sold to but the breeder can't be responsible if the address is incorrect or the person does not exist at that address. Suppose there is time to sort this all out and it should help with the puppy-farm situation as I can't see them bothering to keep all this paperwork on the other hand it will be convenient for the tax people to see just how much breeding is being done by a breeding establishment or person.

I'm a bit surprised at the response this piece of legislation is getting, here.

Of course it's not perfect and there will be ways that people slip through the net and there are details to be finalised, but it is a fantastic piece of legislation which is going to mean that far more dogs are traceable to their owners and their owners can be held accountable for the condition they're found in. 

If the scheme has been running in N Ireland successfully we can only think that many of the 'problems' people are foreseeing here, have solutions.

Most working gundog litters have been microchipped by breeders before leaving, because that is part of the docking legislation.  There have been no problems, there... 

I agree in the main with rabid. I have no problems with it whatsoever ad think it's better to have the new law, than not. But I do doubt very much that it will make a BIG difference, as it's going to be so difficult to police. But if it even catches a few irresponsible owners out, it will be worth it.

>> Call me a cynic but compulsory chipping allows all local authorities etc to keep an eye on just how many dogs in each property...
> Is that a bad thing?
>
>

Yes, could be an issue if they go by what is registered.

Just with Kennel Club registration, it looks like I own around 50 dogs, as new owners have not transfered the registrations.  I suspect that the same will be true of the ownership details with the NDTR, or chip registries.

I prefer tattoos to chips for outgoing pups, easy to find someone, (as they have a list of tattooists) to come to your home to do it at reasonable cost, not £25 a time at the vets, and no discount when I had several done.  I contacted petlog and they do will not give out a list of licensed Micro-chippers due to data protection (don't get it, surely private chippers would like some business, why not have a list of those happy to have their details passed on).  I would not chip my own pups, my eyesight isn't good enough. 

OH could pay to go on a course, but I can't justify the time and cost of a course for the occasional litter, when there is a perfectly good alternative to ID my pups before leaving.

https://www.peddymark.com/find-an-implanter.asp

The huge problem I had with tattoos was when buying pups, the form said it would cost me £25 to transfer it to my name! Hence I never did. (That was one dog 13 years ago and another 9 years ago.)

> it looks like I own around 50 dogs

I think this will be the case with many breeders, so if they don't implement a system whereby the previous breeder/owner can notify of a change of ownership, as in car registrations, they will pretty soon be aware of that issue.

When you have a docked litter chipped, the vet comes to your house and chips the whole litter.  The vet we found does this at 6/7wks, as the chips can move about more if they are chipped at 3 days when docked. 

Our vet charges £30/pup for docking and chipping, combined.  And £30 per trip to the house (once to dock at 3 days and once to chip at 6/7wks).  I don't know what the charge just for chipping would be, but surely much less than docking. 

I'd also imagine that chippers who are not vets are going to be much more in demand by breeders now, as they will probably be cheaper than a vet visit.

Iv not read all the posts. but Chipping dose not work. To many dogs are found as strays, and also found to be chiped. but offten the chip details have been changed so that the owner cant be traced. people are simply geting there details changed to fake ones then throwing the dog out . or thay say they sold the dog months ago and new owner must have not changed it .A lie of corse as they dont want the dog back . chipping only works for those who love and care for there pets, a way to get them back if they go missing. though saying that my mum lost two cats, both chiped. never been found. And we need vets to scan all pets that come through the door as a form of identification. this will forse people to keep the chip in there name and help stop dog theft

>Iv not read all the posts. but Chipping dose not work.

At work we've successfully reunited several stray pets with their owners through their microchips. One cat had been missing for over a year, and had come from about 50 miles away. So chipping does work.

But they JG are the ones who want to be found, easy enough then but if you want to 'lose' a dog then I think it is being suggested that is easy enough as well and if that is so then I would have to agree - chipping only works if the owner wants it to.

I don't see how anyone can state that chipping does not work - it does work, when used properly (by all parties involved).

I found a Staffy bitch running the roads on new years eve, no collar, no id and no one apparently out looking for her in -3 temps.. she spent the  night at a friends (in friends bed.. friend is a staffy person!) and to the vets the next day where she then went home following them reading her chip and contacting the owners.

Of course had she had a collar and tag on, or a tattoo in her ear, she could have gone home that night (I assume if I found a dog with a tattoo i could put the tattoo into a database and find the owners details?? or not?).

But thats not really what we is intended by making chipping compulsory - whether it will work in its currently suggested guise, to make and KEEP dogs traceable to their owners, and thereby make owners traceable and responsible for their dogs actions.... is another matter entirely!

Currently there are just too many questions with no useful answers.

For pups born in commercial establishments (which are already meant to be traceable back to those establishments by the purchaser and almost NEVER are!), who is responsible for chipping, the breeder or the pet shop that sells them?

What does the law say about those responsible for checking chips?

I remember not that long back a case where a devoted owner spent YEARS searching for her pet, ended up opening a rescue of her own, randomly checked a chip database some years later and discovered her dog, who was chipped, had been rehomed by the Dogs Trust to a new family, despite her chip record stating she was missing!

The Dogs Trust did not deem it necessary to check this dogs chip as she was a hand in, from someone who claimed to have had her a number of years (and quite possibly did but no one knows how or where he got her), the chip company for whatever reason, probably because it was The Dogs Trust contacting them to change the chip details, didn't question anything either!

If the chip does not, as is currently the case, determine ownership of the dog, I really can't see the point - so that would HAVE to be changed.

The current system involves lots of chip companies and lots of databases - either we need one central database or ALL databases need to be run to the same protocol.

I would think it would entail chip records being updated but old information NOT being deleted from that record, so you could trace the dog throughout its life, from breeder to owner to next owner to rescue etc (one hopes all dogs will go from breeder to owner and no further but we all know life isn't like that!).

Thats a lot of work for the owners of the database(s), but if they charge a fee for this, how will you really ensure people do it?

I have to hold my hand up here and say that all five of my dogs now have out of date chips - I actually don't know where to start, I guess I will have to go to the vets and get every one scanned, they are probably all with different companies (and at least one now has an unreadable chip), and at least one of those companies will charge me to change the details, if all five charge (well, four plus one new chip so a fee for that).. how much will it cost me?

I have been meaning to get round to this for a year, but asking my vet nicely to borrow a vet nurse and their chip scanner and computer for the likely 25 minutes or so it takes, plus clog up a small vets office with five dogs.. or pay a consult fee? for all five????

Obviously,  it needs doing and I'll do it but I can see why some people don't - as someone else said its invisible, its out of mind, forgotten and you move house (as I did) and lose paperwork....

I am deeply uncomfortable about this really, I highly suspect that this is not the finished article but this will open the way for other things. Now if they tighten up this microchipping idea and make it actually useful (and i still can't really see how)... mm. What if its used to keep a track on all dog owners and enforce some sort of dog tax? What if local authorities will be permitted to fine those keeping more than x number of dogs (I have seven right now, two are borrowed though) or demand they pay an annual licence??

I am rambling and in danger of getting a bit conspiracy theory on this, but mmm me no likey!

And I can remember when 'the government' said that banning fighting dogs and particularly pit bulls would keep us all safe - that proved to be about as useful as the proverbial chocolate teapot!

I for one think its a good idea, I think we need to be looking outside the box rather than thinking they are out to get the good guys here.
Chipping does work and think of all those strays who wouldn't of been reunited with their owners, how about all those on dog lost who aren't chipped and who possibly might of now been reunited with their owners.

We had a cat find itself on our farm, cat taken to vets, it was chipped, an old moggy at that and owners located like in JG's case over 50 miles away.

My sisters dog was stolen and was reunited after he and others were found and he was scanned to confirm his chip details.
There will be ones who shirk this and don't conform like there are with other laws too, we can't make everyone do it but if people are found not to be complying then there are consequences.

We could all find scenarios and situations which fit the bill of it not working and people being made responsible when they aren't, highly unlikely this would be the case at all...
Simply some people don't like change and for those on the ABS this is a must anyway, what's the difference?

>I assume if I found a dog with a tattoo i could put the tattoo into a database and find the owners details?? or not?

No, you would have to ring the NDTR and probably they (because you're a random member of the public and not an authorised person such as a vet or rescue kennel) would contact the owner from the details they hold. I doubt very much whether they'd be allowed to give personal details to you.

> The current system involves lots of chip companies and lots of databases - either we need one central database or ALL databases need to be
> run to the same protocol

We moved a few years ago and it was a nightmare trying to find where my two were currently registered (originally registered 13 and nearly 11 years ago). I was passed from one company to another and had to chase replies from some people. Both dogs had been on different registers originally and one had changed registers at least twice since then, the other once. It was not a good experience, nor was finding out how much the charge was to change the address :( :(

>I actually don't know where to start, I guess I will have to go to the vets and get every one scanned, they are probably all with different companies (and at least one now has an unreadable chip), and at least one of those companies will charge me to change the details, if all five charge (well, four plus one new chip so a fee for that).. how much will it cost me?I have been meaning to get round to this for a year, but asking my vet nicely to borrow a vet nurse and their chip scanner and computer for the likely 25 minutes or so it takes, plus clog up a small vets office with five dogs.. or pay a consult fee? for all five????

You can change your details online easily with Petlog, if your dogs are registered with them. 

As it seems to be perfectly manageable for people to buy and sell cars and keep track of who owns what car, when, I think it's also possible to transfer ownership of dogs via chips and to keep that up to date.  Perhaps hard once it has gotten out of date and you don't know who the chip is registered with, but if kept up from the start it shouldn't be difficult.

> but if kept up from the start it shouldn't be difficult

How do you keep it up to date from the start ?? Nobody notified me that the registrations had been changed to another company ? I input the details into the database and it just didn't recognise the chip number. Older dog's chip was first registered in 1999, younger dog 2002 - we moved (I got around to changing the details) in 2011. Took many emails etc before I sorted out which dog was registered with which company :)

> It seems to me that there needs to be serious work done as to how ownership is defined, is it to be the person named on the microchip register? the person the dog has lived with for n years but who has never changed the microchip details? or who?  Should there be a historical element, so that all the previous owners can be identified?

Now that I think would be a good idea and increase the traceability of the owner a lot - even if the present one hasn't registered the chip, if the dog has changed hands then the previous owners might sitll have info about who the dog was given/sold too.  Wouldn't work every time of course but I think it would at least increase the chances of finding owners.

> and for those on the ABS this is a must anyway,

No it's not we have the choice of permanent ID by chip or tattoo, and DNA profile (though for health tests it's chip or tattoo).

> Nobody notified me that the registrations had been changed to another company

Yes I only discovered this recently, when I had peni chipped last year, as I wanted Safi put on Petlog and found that most of my others were no longer there.  that has now been rectified, but no-one ever informed me that they had been moved to another database.  Unfortunately Pettrac who Safi's chip is registered with won't allow it to be mvoed to Petlog, so not a happy bunny.

Great idea, all dogs should be microchipped

Great idea, all dogs should be microchipped

Yes, idea is fine - it is how it is enforced that I find very hard to comprehend. Can anyone explain how it will be possible to enforce a rule that says all pups are to be chipped, who will do the enforcing, and how will it be done. Not even the police can enter our homes without a search warrant so how will it be possible to confirm that each and every pup born in the UK or brought into the UK will be chipped. It isn't, the responsible will do it but the rest will not so just how is this going to help with anything.

Yes sadly too true, unfortunately people will always ignore whats best for their animals :(

unfortunately people will always ignore whats best for their animals :-(

Too true, it will only help the animals if the registration is updated every time the animal is passed on to someone new, and this we both know will not happen, pups will be sold unchipped and the new owners will not bother to have them done people do not even bother to register their ownership when they have taken care to buy a KC registered pup so what hope those who are only interested in buying it cheap or the latest designer cross.

It doesn't really matter if EVERYONE doesn't do it.  MANY MORE people than currently do it, will be doing it!  So it will be much better.  Alas, nothing is perfect.

Lol don't even get us started on the fact that new owners do not bother to reg the KC reg doc in their own name - the shock we had when we came to use the online litter reg service to discover how many dogs were still in our name dating back god knows how long! One or two I remember (out of interest I looked them up) having given us an enormous amount of drama way back when the KC took ages to reg a litter, especially around August time for some reason, maybe holidays?? These people were given a signed letter by us stating that we were sorry the reg were not back in time to leave with the puppy but we will forward them on asap, then they didn't even bother to reg the pup in their own name - sometimes I just have to admit that I am at a loss with some peoples reasoning lol!!!

Do think its great that dogs must be microchipped to have health screening because after all the vet only knows its the dog u say it is & has to take your word for it! Although on a down side we have noticed alot that some now dont even bother to health screen but then I can only presume they have something to hide so were they health screening the correct dog in the first place - does make u wonder......... :/

> Do think its great that dogs must be microchipped to have health screening

No they don't have to be chipped tattoos are equally acceptable.

I am finding with a less well known breed where peopel have to make an effort to reserch etc, only half transfer