At long last there maybe the start of having traceabilty of all puppies and dogs which is long overdue especially in the puppy trade business,  breeder - dealer - pet shop.

http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2010/Jul2010/News300710/microchip.htm

I don't have a problem with compulsory microchipping - my dogs are microchipped but this part puts no responsibility on the breeder (who IMO should have responsibility if the rescue situation is to be alleviated) and like most laws it will be the law abiding, responsible owners that do it but those irresponsible ones won't bother - how will it be policed?  I'm sure like most on here, I take a new puppy to the vet straight away, to register it with the vet and get them examined (not that I don't trust the breeder - just as a routine), but I doubt the irresponsible will do that - it's just an expense they won't want to bother with.

>"Microchipping is part of responsible pet ownership and the BVA believes that all dogs should be permanently identified by microchip before the first change of ownership or at the first veterinary examination.

At least if the new licensing conditions are passed in Wales (has to pass 3 month consultation period) then all breeding dogs will have to be microchipped (and record books kept). All puppies bred must be microchipped before sale making this the responsibilty of the breeder. At least these will be caught in the net, hopefully. 

You wonder about the people buying from puppy farms and the like. If they the so called breeders do microchip, which i'm sure the large puppy farmers will be doing then you wonder how many new owners will be registering them in their names?
Those who don't and the dogs end up in rescue at least we'll start having some sort of record as to where they came from etc and when its recorded as to how many come from puppy farmers and byb's then maybe something more stringent may come into play?
Its a start and i'm interested as to how it'll work out..

>All puppies bred must be microchipped before sale making this the responsibilty of the breeder. At least these will be caught in the net, hopefully

Is that part of it?  - if so that's good - I only read the link where it said 'or on the first visit to the vet' which I assume means the new owner.

I'm all for permanent ID of all puppies/dogs, but think there should be choice in method. 

I have had every puppy I have owned or bred Ear tattooed, the method I prefer, especially as the tattooist visits the breeder.

My own dogs are additionally chipped, but that's mainly due to Pet Passport requirements.

The sad fact is irresponsible owners - like the guy who was just jailed for kicking his staffy - probably don't bother taking their puppies to the vets for a check up. These types of owners see their dogs purely as a fashion accessory not something to be nurtured. To rely on these people (and they're the ones that need to kept a track of) to get their puppies micro chipped at first vet visit is a vain hope. If the responsibility falls to the breeder to ensure micro-chipping is carried out then a transfer of details would need to be carried out before the puppy leaves for its new home to ensure this is done. The original breeder details should however be kept on the data base as back up.
Again, irresponsible back yard breeders will not bother and will find a way around the system.
Its such a tough one.

I'm all for permanent ID of all puppies/dogs, but think there should be choice in method.

I agree as long as the alternative ID to chipping is easily visiable. There will always be those who choose not to, but surely this would be easy to check when a dog is rescued, seen to be in difficulties, or any such problem. I know chips can go missing or become faulty but if the dog was scanned once a year at anual check up and a record kept. Prehaps it should also be a requirement that 'all' dogs are registered with a veterinary practise.

Sounds like a good idea but how would you know where the pups that responsible puppy farmer hasn't microchipped come from. 

I'm all for it, but another thought - I wonder how many of those irresponsible owners would actually be less likely to take their dog to a vet when needing treatment if they knew they weren't complying with the law on microchipping or permanent ID.

If they had to be chipped/tattooed they would have to be bought that way or if found by vet to be without permanent ID then done at that time and the breeder or owner fined. 

I am sure most owners would be more than happy to provide the breeder details to avoid paying the fine themselves.

Dog wardens could do spot checks, and the fines would be fixed penalty notices like with parking fines, half price if paid quickly, more if contested.

Same with changing details, a small fee if found to not be updated, say when dog picked up and re-claimed and details not current.

I'm a little worried by having to microchip before sale, I have a larger toy breed and have in the past microchipped them at 10 weeks and it's a big needle for such a small pup. I'd hate to try it with a really tiny breed!

> I'm a little worried by having to microchip before sale, I have a larger toy breed and have in the past microchipped them at 10 weeks and it's a big needle for such a small pup. I'd hate to try it with a really tiny breed!

Would tiny breed pups not be leaving their mum much later than other sized breeds though?

Ditto your first post Brainless.

We DO need a choice microchip/DNA/tattoo and some people do all of these. At the moment these schemes are useful as long as the paperwork is updated - one program showed a dog roaming the streets hundreds of miles away from where he'd been bred & chipped. Turned out the dog had been in several homes since then and the last person to pass the dog on didn't have the new owners address. The breeder wasn't interested in having the dog back so it went into kennels for rehoming.

With the proposed legislation will the name on the paperwork be forced (for want of a better word) to deal with the dog?  

I wonder how many of those irresponsible owners would actually be less likely to take their dog to a vet when needing treatment if they knew they weren't complying with the law on microchipping or permanent ID.

Could this not be done, by having a 'basic form' that has to be filled out before being able to buy a pup. These could be from local council where your residential addresss could be confirmed, along with a stamp/signature from the veterinary practise where pup is to be registered, with an appointment for injections ect - just a thought

That's about when my breed generally leaves. Oh well, I'm keeping my singleton and won't have any more litters until and unless she is old enough / good enough / passes health checks etc, it'll all be different again by then!

>Would tiny breed pups not be leaving their mum much later than other sized breeds though?

Just popping on the end here....

Also consider dogs who CAN'T be microchipped...my boy had a chip developed a reaction and had to have it removed...I wouldn't for example want move and change vets and possibly face a fine or be forced to chip him. They would need to offer an exemption for dogs like mine. The more you think about it the more questions arise and it becomes clear....while it is a good idea in theory putting it into practice is not going to be easy.

That is why we need choice of permanent ID.

>> Also consider dogs who CAN'T be microchipped...my boy had a chip developed a reaction and had to have it removed...I wouldn't for example want move and change vets and possibly face a fine or be forced to chip him. They would need to offer an exemption for dogs like mine. The more you think about it the more questions arise and it becomes clear....while it is a good idea in theory putting it into practice is not going to be easy.

Yes there are dogs who react to a micro-chip and I have seen dogs with tumours on their shoulders where they were implanted. I have photographs of them too and a letter from the RCVS saying these tumours in two cases the size of a large melon were caused by the micro-chip. As Jemima is so fond of telling people flatcoats get cancer and a tumour would worry the hell out of me. I have in the past had my dogs id permanently recorded through tattoo and DNA registration.

My other concern is that MPs seem to like to have fingers in 'popular pies' and I wonder how many have shares in micro-chip companies or the related technology. They are probably voting for this thinking that this is what the public want because the RSPCA told them so and that it will get them votes next time we have an election.

Did anyone hear the interview on Radio4 today with Sheila Crispin, the new Advisory for Dog Welfare person?
It is worth a listen.... starts about 11 minutes in. She is against BSL and DDA, and also licensing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00t6fjf

The article I read in our dogs said the microchipping wouldnt be going ahead...

Urgent calls for deed not breed as government defer decision

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG), made up of the UK's leading animal welfare organisations, veterinary professionals and local authorities, last week said it welcomed an urgent plea by Romford MP Andrew Rosindell to radically overhaul current dangerous dogs legislation.

Andrew Rosindell echoed the aims of the DDASG by calling for the Dangerous Dogs Act to be scrapped and replaced by new laws, highlighting the need for "new laws that address this problem with owners properly held to account".

The DDASG has lobbied against the inadequacies of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for many years and believes that current legislation has failed to protect the public and instead caused a significant welfare issue whilst creating the problem of so called 'status' dogs.

Freedom of choice

Speaking during his Ten-Minute Rule Bill, Mr Rosindell said the freedom to choose to own a dog had to go "hand in hand" with the responsibility that came with it.

A new Dog Control Bill designed to do just that and deal with the other end of the lead, the dog owners themselves, is currently making its way through the House of Lords after successfully passing its second stage this month.

The Bill also looks to remove breed specific legislation to better focus resources on dealing with all dangerous dogs instead of specific 'types'. Andrew Rosindell's Bill mirrored this, emphasising the DDASG's principle of "deed not breed" and stating that banning a handful of breeds would not solve the problem of dangerous dogs.

Caroline Kisko said "We are grateful to Andrew for continuing to keep this issue on the parliamentary agenda and in the public consciousness. The Dog Control Bill will go a long way towards improving legislation on 'dangerous dogs' by focusing on prevention rather than cure, by better protecting the public and emphasising responsible dog ownership'.

However, on Tuesday this week the new government said it had scrapped plans to microchip every dog, so that owners can be held to account for attacks. Dog Asbos also could be ditched.
For more information on DDASG, Lord Redesdale's Dog Control Bill and current 'dangerous dog' legislation visit http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/928

> I'm a little worried by having to microchip before sale, I have a larger toy breed and have in the past microchipped them at 10 weeks and it's a big needle for such a small pup. I'd hate to try it with a really tiny breed! <IMG class=qButton title="Quote selected text" alt="Quote selected text" src="/images/mi_quote.gif">

I agree with you Lucy.  Every dog I own is chipped, but I always have them put in at 6 months with their puppy health check.

I certainly wouldn't want to microchip 2 of my current litter.  At 9 weeks they are only just reaching 1lb in weight.  Although they are strong little critturs, and racing round like hooligans, I don't think I want a needle put in that is almost as big as they are.

Damn rules!  When I had to buy dog licenses, I always did.  For all of them.  Every pet owner that I knew with only one dog, had never bought a license in their lives.

Only the genuine dog people will be penalised soon.

> Only the genuine dog people will be penalised soon.

Unfortunately that applies to any form of legislation, but surely what is more important is that all dogs through some form of permanent ID are accountable. I understand the concerns regarding tumours, reaction and especialy of small/toy breeds when micro-chipping but there surely is an alternative?

I'm not sure what alternative - tattooing wouldn't work on my breed, long hairy ears which must remain untrimmed inside and out for show.

Why don't they start with chipping the breeds that are abused, such as Staffie's to maybe help control their welfare.  i know many dogs need help but this breed is very vunerable.  I don't even like seeing them walking in the streets at the moment with some thug at the end of the lead and not knowing if the dog is going to attack.  And I have years of experience with Staffie's, they have grown up in my family so I do actually know about the breed (before anyone takes it the wrong way lol).

I agree there needs to be alternatives to the chip.