Surely then a collar which is removable is not classed as a permanent marked piece of property as I could go and get tags made up with my details on and put it on to any dog ? I would class a chip just as if not a better of a proof of ownership as it will be registered and details kept on a database.

So scanning is excluded from all reasonable efforts?

One or two cases have been brought, but not tested all the way.

It isn't under statute law, they may treat them as proof of ownership(not in this area), as a policy statement maybe ,but if challenged in open court they would be in the wrong.

> So scanning is excluded from all reasonable efforts?
>
> One or two cases have been brought, but not tested all the way.

There is case law & what if the chip has failed ? should all "found"dogs be x rayed just in case ?

A chip can be removed without permanent damage to the dog, which is why it currently is not classed as permanent-collars do not prove ownership either. Now a tattoo cannot be removed without permanent damage to the dog

BTW Petlog have an agreement with rescues, in so much if they cannot contact the chip's registered owner, then the chip can & are transferred to the rescue. This does not happen with the tattoo register

> should all "found"dogs be x rayed just in case ?

Now that would surely not be classed as reasonable effort but I think most reasonably minded people would consider scanning to be.

> A chip can be removed without permanent damage to the dog

How could they do that?  I think it would leave a scar.

So what checks are made when you get a tattoo as I could go and dognap a dog and if it didn't have a tattoo I could go and get one done.Would it mean that I am then the legal owner?

> How could they do that?  I think it would leave a scar.

Keyhole surgery as done on my friend's dog whose chip moved to his elbow & was making him lame. 6 months on no scar or mark

How could they do that?  I think it would leave a scar.

Keyhole surgery as done on my friend's dog whose chip moved to his elbow & was making him lame. 6 months on no scar or mark

Yes if done that way but if a dog has been stolen then I doubt that a chip removed by keyhole surgery would be an option the bog standard dognapper would opt for !

> So what checks are made when you get a tattoo as I could go and dognap a dog and if it didn't have a tattoo I could go and get one done.Would it mean that I am then the legal owner?

90% of tattooed dogs are done whilst the puppies are with the breeders & then the tattooist visits the breeder & sees all the registration documentation(plus I always see the mothers)

For the remaining 10 % I personally visit the owners home, ask to see either KC documentation/adoption paperwork from a known rescue/vaccination certificate, I also check the address details, if the person isn't known to me.

However I very much doubt that the thieves who steal dogs to order would want to have the dogs permanently ID'd. After all a chip could be removed & then replaced with another registered to the thief(in fact the dog could simply be re chipped).

I've also got friend's whose dog's chips have failed & been removed by the vet & even the whippet that this happened to didn't have a scar after a couple of months

That is what you do but are all other tattooist as stringent in their checks as you are ? So if somebody had brought a dog from say a free add and no paperwork or change of ownership was produced would you then refuse to tattoo the dog ?

> That is what you do but are all other tattooist as stringent in their checks as you are ?

My tattooist didn't ask for any proof of ownership when my rescue dogs were tattooed, perhaps it's down to the individual.

Thinking about it, my vet didn't ask for any proof of ownership when I had my dogs microchipped too.

> 6 months on no scar or mark

So they would have to keep the dog hidden for 6 months :-)

> So they would have to keep the dog hidden for 6 months

Why?

> the tattooist visits the breeder & sees all the registration documentation

So dognappers will do keyhole surgery, presumably including anaesthesia, but will not attempt to do tattooing without the assistance of a bone fide tattooist :-)

>> So they would have to keep the dog hidden for 6 months
> Why?

For the incision scar to disappear, if it will.

> For the incision scar to disappear, if it will.

No need to keep the dog hidden because of that. If they were worried the dog would be recognised they'd have to keep it hidden permanently. :)

> but will not attempt to do tattooing without the assistance of a bone fide tattooist :-)

????

What would be the point of a fake tattoo ? It wouldn't be on the Database & there would be no paperwork

If microchips protect dogs so well why are there so many chipped dogs lost/stolen/disappeared without trace ?

> What would be the point of a fake tattoo ? It wouldn't be on the Database & there would be no paperwork

And there are no bent tatooists?  Other posters have pointed out even bone fide ones do not always check paperwork.

> And there are no bent tatooists?

Are you suggesting that some NDTR tattooists are in league with dog thieves ??? Be very careful what you are putting on the Internet

Are they human? :-)  Some of them seem capable of making the mistake of not asking for details.

I got Duibh ear tattooed as a puppy, and I don't recollect the tattooist asking me for paperwork - though I may have misremembered.

I'm not sure what a tattooist can do if the owner says it is not a KC registered dog or has no papers because it is a rescue for instance.

I too don't use collars in the house; a dog escaping is unlikely with our set up however, Sheba did get out once when we were doing the back garden fencing.  She walked out the back, round the house and in the front.  One got tangled in the other's collar while playing years ago and Sheba got trapped at the bottom of the stairs when her collar got hooked; she was only a youngster.  Luckily, she had the sense not to struggle; we got up the next morning and there she was.  OH's always said that if anyone broke in, the dogs would be at a disadvantage having a collar on.

Our dogs used to wear their collars all the time, but when I added my youngest (now 4) she kept chewing the collars up, which was expensive as we had rolled leather ones, or even worse pulling them off over their heads! After the second time I came home to find a collar lying in the dog basket, they all stopped wearing them. They are microchipped, which I know wouldn't help a casual passerby, but as Madam still chews the occasional collar on long car journeys, it's not worth the risk or expense for me!

I recently heard of some one who got their dog back several years after it was lost. It had been rehomed and everything just never scanned.

My dogs wear their collars when out and about only, not in the house. They do have their own bandanas in the house, but these are not ID collars.
I have two tags on each collar when out and about. One states my phone number and postcode, the other says 'I am chipped, please scan me'

x

Always here except when being bathed and waiting for coat to dry.

I live on a very busy road with a Bus route, and I have a very short hall, so even with baby gate on hall and kitchen door I am always worried about a dog slipping past a careless visitor (my Dad principally).

They are chipped and tattooed also.

As I understand the law, it is a legal requirement for a dog to wear a tag with the owner's address on it (can't remember re: name) when in a public place, unless they are working. May not be quoting exactly as doing from memory - think it's a 1992 law if anyone feels like looking it up. :-) But I have found having mobile number on there as well to be very useful. ;-)

>think it's a 1992 law if anyone feels like looking it up.

Here you go! Control of Dogs Order 1992. Name and address of owner are mandatory.

That's the one I was thinking of JG, thanks. :-)

>That is what you do but are all other tattooist as stringent in their checks as you are ? So if somebody had brought a dog from say a free add and no paperwork or change of ownership was produced would you then refuse to tattoo the dog ?

Interesting question.  We didn't pay anything for my boy, and he's a mutt so no registration papers. He IS microchipped but apparently that only proves that I own the chip and not the dog

To go back to the OP, my dogs only wear their collars when out and about.  They used to have them on all the time but the can play very rough and having watched them on a number of occasions drag each other around by their collars, I took the decision to remove the collars indoors to prevent accidents.

Their tags have my name, full address and mobile no. on one side and 'microchipped' plus vets tel. no. on the other.  They also wear their license tag as is required so if they find their way into the hands of the dog warden/council pound, they can trace me through the license no. 

> It doesn't as a chip is neither a mark nor permanent, it doesn't prove ownership of anything other than the chip itself

If you have such a poor opinion of microchips, why did you train to become a microchipper yourself and do your own animals?

http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/cgi-bin/board/topic_show.pl?tid=103021;pid=891548;rvl=1#pid891548

Interesting point Moonmaiden, but again, as you haven't answered Munrogirl, WHY do you chip and do so for payment if you don't believe in the chips??

Also, in the case of Pet Passports, why do DEFRA/Government insist/accept microchipping as a permanent proof of identity if they are so unreliable? I have had quite a lot of doggies chipped myself and 5 of mine have Pet Passports, none of which are tattoed, and I have never, ever had a problem with chips no matter who the maker/producer!!

I chip other people's dogs because they ask me to, especially the breeders who would rather have their puppies done by me than a vet or other microchipper.

I chip my dogs as a belt & braces measure

My only dog that I did not chip has a Pet Passport & his pet port has had to be amended because the chip has moved(done by the vet on rabies booster)

Why did the government choose the chip-Well all I can say is the chip companies sell chips to rescues at a much lower rate than non rescue & they supplied te RSPCA/Dogs Trust with free scanners etc. Add this to the very big businesses that run the chip companies who do have the "ear"of those civil servants whose final decision it was too choose the chip as ID(& this is not just hearsay BTW) & you have the real reason that the chip was chosen.

Once a tattoo is visble it stays were it is put & I know personally that chips can & do move

I used to take my dogs collars off when in the house, but after finding a couple of loose dogs on the road outside I found it so easy to get hold of them and look at their tags to contact their owners, if they had no collar it would have been difficult probably impossible and then if they were not chipped there would be hardly any chance the dogs would be returned.

I deliberated because I have heard of all the stories about dogs choking and getting caught on something or hurting themselves if they are playing etc with collars on.  So, they now have a leather buckle collar and tag on in the house and for walks they also have leather half choke collars and tags (so 2 collars and 2 tags) they are both microchipped and although I have read of the side effects microchips can cause, I still think there is more chance of getting your dog back if they went missing and microchipped than if they were not chipped.
Here endeth this sermon............