I've never had a problem with the black Ink.  the green I would have problems with, but I don't think they use Green anymore???

I think if something is hard to see it would be logical to try to clean it to see if it made it clearer.

But surely not in a spotless ear? This dog was bathed and groomed just a few days ago, his ear flap couldn't be cleaner and has no pigmentation, and nobody looking at it could ever imagine it could get cleaner whatever you did.

Its not about it being cleaner it is that the ink stands out more on a wet ear

It's fitting that on the day my friend is finally bringing her puppy home after redoing her passport I got a reply from DEFRA.

"Thank you for your email received on 30th October 2014.



Please be advised that we would not recommend a dog having a second pet passport for a second microchip. Having multiple passports will cause issues when presented to pet checkers, and may possibly arouse suspicion of fraud.



Although it could cause confusion on entry, it may be possible to have a second microchip inserted if your vet is willing to do so, and have this recorded in the original pet passport. Please note that only one microchip number must be recorded in section III of the pet passport. If you do decide to go ahead with this, the procedure below may be carried out to maintain your pets compliance:

·         The vet must firstly obtain a reading of the original microchip.

·         Having gained a reading, the vet may then insert a new microchip.  This chip should be scanned both before and after insertion to ensure functionality.

·         The vet must then add a comment in the Others section of the passport, stating:

"On (date) I scanned and read microchip number (original chip number).  Having gained a reading, I then inserted chip number (new chip number) on the same day, and in accordance with Defra requirements."



·         This statement should be signed and stamped by the vet.

·         When travelling, pet owners should advise portal staff to check the Others section, in order that they can be assured a new microchip has been inserted to requirements.

Please note that the original microchip number should still be shown in the front of the passport and should not be amended or lined out. "

So, for anyone who regularly travels abroad and is concerned about a chip failing it is possible to ahve a second chip implanted now as a backup, the question remains would you want to, I'll be giving it some serious thought. A second of discomfort for the chip implant versus never having to leave my dog for 3 weeks in a foreign country.

>The vet must firstly obtain a reading of the original microchip

That seems an odd thing to say as surely the whole reason for having a new microchip is because the old one has failed. Daft DEFRA.

>The vet must firstly obtain a reading of the original microchip
>That seems an odd thing to say as surely the whole reason for having a new microchip is because the old one has failed. Daft DEFRA

No, this email was in response to me asking DEFRA if you can have another chip put in while the 1st chip is still working, a backup in case it fails.

If the chip fails (and they only have one) then the dog has to go through the whole passport procedure again, including staying out the UK for minimum 3 weeks.

Ah, ok, understand now.

>including staying out the UK for minimum 3 weeks.

Alternatively they can go into Quarantine until compliant.

When I had a dog imported through Quarantine the daily cost was no more than boarding charges, so really a better option in case of failure would be to board the dog for three weeks in Q.

>Alternatively they can go into Quarantine until compliant.

But how do you get them into the country? The ferry won't let them on if there is a problem with the chip/passport

>so really a better option in case of failure would be to board the dog for three weeks in Q.

Even if we could have got her into the country the cost of a specialised courier and then 3 weeks in a kennel wouldn't have been as good for pup or owner as leaving her with friends in The Hague. If we didn't have good friends half an hour from the ferry port things would have been an awful lot harder.

Yes if you have friends they can be left with, then that is the better option.

As I understood it they can be booked into Quarantine so I assume the ones checking would have to have contact details, so your animal gets picked up in Dover..

This is the HARC (Heathrow Animal Reception) advice
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/port-health-and-animal-health/animal-health/heathrow-animal-reception-centre/importing-your-dog-cat-or-ferret/Pages/pet-travel-scheme-common-problems.aspx

So if you don't have friends I would think it prudent to have a number for your local Quarantine kennels to arrange to bring them in.

A change in the rules to allow for a secondary ID like tattoos would help.

It seems easier if you fly in to book the dog in quarantine, I'm not sure about the channel crossings but at Hook they wouldn't let the dog on the ferry, maybe you could kick up and insist I don't know? A second chip seems easier to me :-)

>A second chip seems easier to me :-)

I think a second alternative method would be better.

We don't know why chips fail it may not be inherently the chip, but something the chip and dog come into contact with, so both chips potentially could fail

I'm thinking strong EM fields, etc.

>I think a second alternative method would be better

But there is no other alternative! I agree that tattoos would be great, but there's no point saying that, they are not accepted so I need a safety method that is.

>they are not accepted

Only if done before 2011, we should campaign for them to be recognised as back up (not primary) ID in case of chip failure. 

The Pet Passports do/did have a place on the front page for both chip and tattoo numbers, so no need to search in the back.