So micro-chipping is soon to become compulsory in England. Plans to be announced on Monday. Not sure that it would make owners of aggressive breeds of dogs to heel though. What's to say a false address is used on the form. When i had my dogs done i wasn't asked for proof of residence.
Would it stop dogs being stolen to order?
Opinions anyone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17797194

> What's to say a false address is used on the form.

I'm not sure why they would bother to give a false address.  Most don't see their dog as a problem until it acutally does something. 
It should help deter dog theft.
My only reservation is I really don't like tiny puppies being chipped. 
I think there will be rush of people qualifying to chip for an expanded market and these are very tiny anatomies to get to grips will all the anatomical structures involved there.  The courses seem alarmingly short compared, say, to those I have done for human adult venepuncture.

Surely the government arte not suggesting microchipping puppies as soon as they are born? that is just crazy.
And how on earth will they implement this policy?

As for the microchipping couse there is not a huge amount to learn. The chip goes just under the skin and doesn't go any where near any bones, muscles etc. I have done the course but I would still rather chip larger puppies than new born ones. and I think the risk of the chips migrating is much higher when done in tiny puppies

There has to be more consultation surely ...Some breeders dislike chipping small breed pups so young.
Some prefer tattoos .
Some have had bad experiences with certain sorts of chips that migrate , break or disappear .
The prices vary from county to county , vet to vet , charity to charity , puppy litters get a deal usually .
The status dog owners , who have dogs for different reasons than most of us on here , will not  carry out this chipping at cost to themselves , no more than certain owners  would not buy a dog licence when it was very cheap all those years ago.
Who is to carry a scanner and check these dogs ?
If they don't have a chip in , where do they go ?
Is the dog seized ? until the owner pays for it to be chipped ,plus a fine like the usual fee when a dog is impounded.

>Surely the government arte not suggesting microchipping puppies as soon as they are born?

I think it is more likely to be required to be done before sale.

> The chip goes just under the skin and doesn't go any where near any bones, muscles etc.

That's what I mean, it's a physical impossibility not to be near bones, muscles and blood vessels in a creature of this size. Courses should teach exactly where those structures are likely to be.

> There has to be more consultation surely ...

With who?  Clearly the RSPCA have been involved.  I should imagine the Government have consulted the BVA.

> The prices vary from county to county , vet to vet , charity to charity , puppy litters get a deal usually .

Actually, I am rather hoping the additional cost will help to put off a lot of BYBs.

> Who is to carry a scanner and check these dogs ?

In the instance of dogs suspected of being dangerous, the police I would imagine.  This will be a tool for them to clear the streets of this type of dog without even having to prove they were in fact dangerous.

I am not happy about this, this means i am going to have to do the thing i dread most and have it done to the biggest tit of dogs ive ever owned :-(

I have took 13 of my breed to be chipped all of variying age and it has hurt all but 2 of them, 4 of them squeeled so much and there was quite a bit of blood, regardless of what the supporters of it say it is painfull and the inserter is big in comparison to a jap spitz puppy.
I do have all but one of mine done but i really didnt want this boy to have it as he was bad enough with a vaccination let alone what he will be like with this.

>this means i am going to have to do the thing i dread most and have it done to the biggest tit of dogs ive ever owned :-(

From reading the report in the paper it seems that existing adult dogs will not have to be chipped, only puppies.

I just checked the parliamentary website, and the debate for mandatory chipping is scheduled, it has already received first reading.
You can bet that if they get this through without much fanfare that mandatory chipping will just as likely pass through easily.
I did read some weeks back that the RSPCA was lobbying parliament to allow them access to any dog chipping database created, as they feel they would be the best people to police it.
If it were any other organisation that got to be so heavily involved in a laws creation, writing and enforcement then there would be massive public outcry, but as it's for the puppies, it's ok here.
I'm going to put my cynical hat on and say that none of these laws are about stopping bad people from hurting animals, and that it's more about being able to FIND all the people who keep animals.
Because we all know how trustworthy our government is with databases...

>If it were any other organisation that got to be so heavily involved in a laws creation, writing and enforcement then there would be massive public outcry, but as it's for the puppies, it's ok here.

I would think childrens charities get involved in any legislation involved them.  It is logical for those groups that have deep involvement in something to offer information and seek to influence legislation.  It still has to go through a democratic process to be enacted.

> and that it's more about being able to FIND all the people who keep animals.
>

Why are we worried about that?  The Government has a database on where to find all the people that own road vehicles.

Looking back through your posts, just about every single one of them has been on the RSPCA.  Bit of single interest action group yersel aren't you? :)

Maybe because I wouldn't want to be in a government database because I happen to own a dog, nor do I want a Charity getting access to that information.
I would also argue that plenty of people get upset about their names and details being leaked when civil servants happen to "lose" databases.
I would prefer that the government had as few databases as possible as they have not proven themselves trustworthy enough to have them, nor educated enough in security to maintain them.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
I was against a compulsory ID scheme for people, and I'm against a compulsory ID scheme for dogs.

> nor do I want a Charity getting access to that information.
>

I don't see why they should be any less trustworthy than the police accessing our vehicle data base. 

I would argue that our process isn't actually particularly democratic when the commons can push through any legislation they like, whether or not the people want it, or professional bodies for that matter.
I would also argue that seeing as how groups like the RSPCA tend to have the most clout, through sheer weight of size and money invested and history with parliament, that they have something of an unfair advantage.
I would also be very concerned about opinion in government being heavily influenced by special interest groups, I do not believe that these groups are any more expert than other organisations, and in many cases tend to do more harm than good in the aggressive ways that they wish to tackle issues.

Lol, I read a lot and post little, it is unfortunate that I have felt strongly enough to comment in regards to the RSPCA, I'm not sure that a total of 6 comments can classify me an expert or special interest group in anything!

It's all very well microchipping dogs or puppies, then they are traceable to the person who owned them at that time, and to a specific address.  What is to happen when the owner and/or address changes?  Not everyone gets round to/remembers to update the register.  The owner can update their own dog's details, no proof of the truth of what is stated is required.

The more one thinks about it, the more complexities in the administration become apparent.  What will be the mechanism to ensure that the dog's details are updated, and continue to be correct?  With a car, there is a number plate attached to the front and the rear and a licence to pay every year.  Number plate recognition systems can be used to enforce this.  Dogs are not so easily labelled, there's no annual licence - which is where a database would certainly come in - unless it is introduced to fund the administrative costs of maintaining a nationwide database. Would every dog have to be taken to a checking centre for verification?

Given that the RSPCA is reducing its staff, and the local councils who provide the dog wardens are strapped for cash, who would actually do the work of collecting and maintaining the data, and verifying that this dog belongs to that owner? 

Once again, it seems, the many good, caring owners will have the costs and hassles which the careless owners will avoid.

> I would argue that our process isn't actually particularly democratic when the commons can push through any legislation they like

Well, they could do, assuming they have a majority, but we do have a paliamentary democracy so they do have to consider the will of their voters if they wish to stay in power next time round.

> I would also be very concerned about opinion in government being heavily influenced by special interest groups, I do not believe that these groups are any more expert than other organisations

Well, I guess that is the way of the thing :)  I don't know of any better system.  I would imagine a lot of the decision process on this one has involved the police and, between those two organisations, I don't know who would be more expert on who owns these dogs, why and what might control them.

> What will be the mechanism to ensure that the dog's details are updated, and continue to be correct? 

Perhaps it will be like the selling of the car ie the seller ensures the details are updated to the new owner.

> With a car, there is a number plate attached to the front and the rear and a licence to pay every year.  Number plate recognition systems can be used to enforce this.  Dogs are not so easily labelled, there's no annual licence - which is where a database would certainly come in - unless it is introduced to fund the administrative costs of maintaining a nationwide database. Would every dog have to be taken to a checking centre for verification?

The microchip is in leu of the number plate isn't it?  I would imagine when the police have concerns about a dog they will scan it.

I'm bidding this discussion farewell, as I can see that it will not bring anything of value into being.
Nice to have chatted to you Stooge :)

As you wish :)
Personally, I think discussion is never futile as you always learn something about the others persons viewpoint even if you ultimately do not agree with it.

> It's all very well microchipping dogs or puppies, then they are traceable to the person who owned them at that time, and to a specific address.  What is to happen when the owner and/or address changes?.......

It just seems like a un-enforcable legislation. There are allready laws in place to deal with owners of dangerous dogs, a micro-chip - (even if it were possible to enfore ALL dogs were chipped with the CORRECT details at ALL times) is going to do nothing to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs.

There is a man in my street, breeding litters of Mals (3rd litter now, one after the other). His dogs are not KC rgd, despite the dam not being able to produce milk, he carries on breeding from her and sells the puppies to anybody who wants one, with the angle that they will be OK with as little excersie as you want to give them etc.... People like this wouldn't even bother to have their pups chipped, let alone those people producing banned breeds or dogs of unsound temperment.
That is just from the breeders side - how will puppy-buyers be able to tcheck that the pup they have in thier hands is actually chipped, with the correct details - will breeders have to run a chip-reader over the pup, to show the new owner the chip is there and then have the owner check with the chip=log company that the correct details are registered against that chip number? Or will puppy-buyers just have to take a breeders word for it, or trust the paperwork provided with the breeder is not false....
How will puppy buyers and irresponsible dog breeders even KNOW that this new legislation is in place?????

IMO it's a huge waste of time & effort.

> Once again, it seems, the many good, caring owners will have the costs and hassles which the careless owners will avoid.

I completely agree :(

> It just seems like a un-enforcable legislation. There are allready laws in place to deal with owners of dangerous dogs, a micro-chip - (even if it were possible to enfore ALL dogs were chipped with the CORRECT details at ALL times) is going to do nothing to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs.

It would provide the police with a tool to simply pick up a problem dog on the basis it was not chipped.

Perhaps I am being a bit slow here but this proposed legislation is to combat the problem caused by dangerous dogs.
Scenario A: Some "tasty geezer" is breeding "status dogs" and does not microchip the puppies they sell - a year later one of these dogs attacks a human - how will this help the Police prove who owns the dog?
Jeff.

I saw this article and first off all I thought that it was an extremely good idea however when I thought about it a bit more I can forsee an awful lot of problems. I am very pro chipping for relocating lost dogs, my own dogs have always been chipped and I can see how scanning a dog that ends up as a stray would help there too.  However for the point of 'the finger of blame' if a dog does something they shouldnt, I can see that it all needs to be looked into more closely.  A number plate on a car is instantly seen, regular checks are done by the police (I understand that sometimes they have an automatic reader in the car that registers each plate it 'sees' and checks for insurance and tax etc)  So how would this be monitored, would there be mobile scanners a bit like tv licence vans?

Say for example you have to get the pups chipped before they leave you as a breeder, I cant see any qualified chip implanter leaving the 'registration details' blank.  This means that all the pups will have to be registered to the breeder.  Fair enough, however, what happens when the new owner finds out that there is a transfer of chip ownership fee (the same as there is with KC ownership documents) as we know, sometimes new owners do not change ownership of the puppy with the KC let alone Chip details.  If the legal liability of the dog's behaviour is the person who's name is on the chip then it will come right back to the breeder even if the dog has been owned by someone else for a long time. 

If the pups are chipped at say 7 weeks, and you have a litter of identical black pups, you are going to have to find a foolproof way of identifying each of those pups individually at all times so you dont get the chip numbers mixed up.  That is unless you have your own hand held scanner?

What is going to happen to the rescues that chip in their name and dont have dual named chips, what happens if one of their dogs does something that comes under the chipping legislation, is the rescue then deemed to be at fault?

Considering that many members of the general public are incapable of ensuring they are buying a genuine kc reg pup, I doubt they would be more successful ensuring their pup was appropriately chipped and recorded etc. Standing alone compulsory microchipping does seem pointless to me, but I hope that Monday's announcement will reveal further and sturdier plans!

Eta: I wondered the same thing about rescues because most of the troublesome dogs around my area are indeed rescue dogs! Its a big problem!

> how will this help the Police prove who owns the dog?
>

The way I think it will work is "macho poser" will tire of buying a dog from "tasty geezer" simply to have it lifted off him in the street for not being microchipped.

> It would provide the police with a tool to simply pick up a problem dog on the basis it was not chipped.

Dogs posing a problem can be picked up anyway, or shot (thinknig of a recent local case of a dog being shot for nipping a giril on the leg and leaving a scratch), regardless if they have a chip or not as there are allready laws in place to deal with such dogs & owners.

If a problem dog is picked up & NOT chipped, then no owner can be traced (from details obtained reading a chip)to be held accoutable  - can you really see these types of owners (those who would not take responsibility for thier dogs actions in the first place), bothering to ensure thier dog(s) were chipped?

> The way I think it will work is "macho poser" will tire of buying a dog from "tasty geezer" simply to have it lifted off him in the street for not being microchipped.

'Tasty geezer' wouldn't have his dog checked for a chip, unless his dog was being a problem in the first place, surely? Unless of course, the police will just check any dog for a chip that looks a certain type or belongs to an owner that looks a certain type, or if they check any dog regadless of its/it's owners looks - I can't see the police having the resources to do that.

On top of that, if it is only puppies that need chipping, the thousands of current dogs can be walked perfectly legaly in public with no chip. How would the police officer, on finding a young dog had no chip, be able to be sure the dog was born before or after this legislation, on the spot, in order to be able to seize it - or would any non-chipped dog be able to be seized untill the birth date could be validated?
I suppose the police could check all puppies for a chip, but again, a rather long-winded process that will take up valuble resorces, on the off-chance they will get to seize an un-chiped puppy that may grow up to cause a problem.

When the driving test was first introduced, people with existing licences didn't need to take the test - only new drivers applying for a licence had to take it. Eventually (and there may still be one or two elderly drivers on the road who never had to take a test) everyone was tested. Just like the docking law, these things take time.

> Unless of course, the police will just check any dog for a chip that looks a certain type

I'm guessing that is the idea.

> Just like the docking law, these things take time.

Exactly and to be honest you don't often see "macho pozer" with an old dog.  One way or another I don't think they last long :(

> I can't see the police having the resources to do that.

Not to mention the cost of housing seized dogs while the details were being checked, and legal appeals made.  The rescue kennels are already crammed. 

> Unless of course, the police will just check any dog for a chip that looks a certain type or belongs to an owner that looks a certain type

This could mean that the police would either have to carry scanners (in addition to the other paraphernalia they already have hanging about their persons) and hope for co-operation from dog and owner, or have to wait for a specially-equipped dog-scanning-and-seizing van to arrive. Plus dealing with the PR-fallout from the complaints from groups of people who felt they were being picked on for having "that" type of dog or "that" type of appearance.  Easy enough to put an unlicenced car driver into a police car, a bit more tricky with Fangs and his master.

Is it just me that suspects a hidden agenda? Not necessarily bad, either - it will mean all puppy-farmed dogs will be completely traceable and statistics on health/temperament from specific farmers can be collated.

> Plus dealing with the PR-fallout from the complaints from groups of people who felt they were being picked on for having "that" type of dog or "that" type of appearance.

Won't have much to complain about if there dog is not chipped.

> it will mean all puppy-farmed dogs will be completely traceable and statistics on health/temperament from specific farmers can be collated.

I'm sure that will be on the RSPCA agenda if not the Governments and I don't know why they would hide it :)  It will make it rather less profitable to ship puppies here from Ireland too I would hope.

> If the legal liability of the dog's behaviour is the person who's name is on the chip then it will come right back to the breeder even if the dog has been owned by someone else for a long time.

If someone finds your chipped dog and keeps it, you can't do anything about it as technically you only own the chip.

Surely the same will apply in reverse? The breeder owns the chip but no longer owns the "problem" dog?

>It will make it rather less profitable to ship puppies here from Ireland too I would hope.

Oh I do hope so too.

>Perhaps I am being a bit slow here but this proposed legislation is to combat the problem caused by dangerous dogs.
>Scenario A: Some "tasty geezer" is breeding "status dogs" and does not microchip the puppies they sell - a year later one of these dogs attacks a >human - how will this help the Police prove who owns the dog?

Exactly!  You won't even be able to prove who bred the dog.

Yet another half baked idea being pushed through as law/statute with no regard to the effectiveness of implementation or the im[plications for the law abiding who are the majority of us, and completely surplus to requirements since there are already laws in place to deal with the problem.

This is nothing more than another way to collect taxes in the form of licensing which will surely follow.   Those who would flout any law will not be bothered by this, it will just affect the law abiding as usual.

>Well, they could do, assuming they have a majority, but we do have a paliamentary democracy so they do have to consider the will of their voters if >they wish to stay in power next time round.

I'm afraid there's been precious little evidence of this so far.  It's quite evident that this lot in power now really couldn't care about the man in the street - it's all about keeping their sponsors happy.    It would be interesting to know whether have been any donations from interested parties.

> Oh I do hope so too.

Me too, it would be great to see these abuses of dogs brought to an end.

However, the BBC news item linked at the top doesn't give many details of the legislation proposed, and a quick look at the Parliament website doesn't seem to show much more than a Dog Control bill which would require only dogs subject to a control order to be microchipped.

There are a couple of public talks about Dog Control planned for the near future (in Liverpool and Salisbury) http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/outreach-and-training/talks/parliament-talks-dog-control/  and compulsory microchipping of all dogs has been proposed on and off for the last few years.

> It's quite evident that this lot in power now really couldn't care about the man in the street

That's what the last lot thought.  It does work :) 

Stooge,
I would HOPE it might work like that but, in reality, I suspect after the first flush of such seizures the focus of the Police will inevitably have to move due to funding/manpower. After all pick any copy of Exchange and Mart up for the last ten years and there is a good chance there will be Pit Bull or PB crosses advertised with no attempt to hide the fact - whether true or not. :-)
I am in favour of id for dogs but we can't enforce the rules we have now let alone new ones. It needs a lot more thought.
Jeff. 

i cant see it working there isnt anough police to sort crime out on the streets so im sure this isnt going to work!! they may show ppl to be doing it for the 1st year and that would be it :(

Here in Spain all dogs have to be micro chipped and we are issued with a card the size of a credit card with the dogs name, breed, sex, colour, dob, micro chip number, my name address and the name of the vet we are registered with.  As my dogs are classed as dangerous dogs I am supposed to carry this, proof of rabies jab and proof that I have libability insurance to the value of 175,000 euros as well as the dog being registered with the police.  Dangerous dogs here are also supposed to be muzzled at all times when in public places.

There is already a law (The Control of Dogs Order 1992) in place that requires all dogs to wear a collar with the name and address (house number and postcode) engraved on it or on a tag. Failure to comply could result in a fine of up to £5000.

It is very easy to visually look at a dog's neck and confirm it is wearing a collar and whether there is a tag present with the required information.

I have no recollection of anyone recently being prosecuted for having a dog in a public place without the legal identification, certainly many 'status dogs' do not appear to have tags - many don't wear collars even. Would wearing a collar an tag prevent the dog from attacking someone? I think not. Have any of the dogs that were destroyed after an attack been wearing collars and tags? How many of us even here can truthfully say our dogs always wear collars and identification tags in public places, for example when at shows?

I do wonder if such an easily checked requirement can be so blatently flouted, what hope is there for something 'hidden'. I honestly cannot believe that if a police officer stops a suspicious looking youth with a dog he will consider checking for a microchip to a priority. A scanner is a bulky piece of kit - will every officer be required to carry one or keep a scanner in the patrol car? If not then presumably 'suspicious' owners and dogs will have to be taken to the station - a time consuming excersise that will cost money and take an officer off the streets for a 'trivial' matter.

As to puppy farmers, it's a nice idea that this will curtail their activities but the reality is that many sell to dealers and pet shops. Unless there is a change in law requiring pet shops to sell only microchipped puppies then it will not necessarily mean puppies are traceable to breeders, any more than they are supposed to be under current legislation, which again is reguarly and blatently ignored. Puppies sold from these premises should have paperwork that identifies the breeder and yet very, very few breeders are prosecuted for being 'puppy farmers' or even selling sickly puppies. It is too difficult to conclusively prove and I cannot see compulsory microchipping making any significant difference. Pet shops and dealers are adamently opposed to selling puppies that can be traced back to 'puppy farmers' and it is likely some means of circumventing this will be found. Some pet shops microchip the puppies they sell themselves and may argue this is sufficient.

While the RSPCA may have access to the database and been a contributing force, don't forget that the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust and Dog Advisory Group among many others are all in favour of compulsory microchipping. The veterinary organisations also support it and claim that there isn't a significant welfare issue with the chipping of very small/young puppies.

Why is this just for dogs? If it is as much about irresponsible owners and strays then cats should also be required to have a microchip unless confined to the owner's property. Any number of cats go missing, are picked up as strays or killed and injured on roads and surely a microchip therefore would be invaluable?

My dogs are all microchipped, I had the latest one done while he was under anasthetic for something else as it seemed prudent with this proposed legislation looming. It can be a painful proceedure even in larger dogs so undoubtedly would cause a degree of pain in young puppies. Potentially this could trigger a fear response during the critical development period, resulting in a phobia of vets or being on the table.

If the microchip migrated or failed, as some do after implantation, would an owner be liable for prosecution unless they could prove the dog had been chipped?

I am not against microchipping and believe it could have its uses for dealing with irresponsible owners and bad breeders, but I cannot really believe that the structure or even the motivation exists to ensure this is effectively and fairly implemented and policed. Unfortunatly it will yet again probably be the responsible breeders and owners who comply while the irresponsible ones carry on regardless. :-(

>Puppies sold from these premises should have paperwork that identifies the breeder and yet very, very few breeders are prosecuted for being 'puppy farmers' or even selling sickly puppies. It is too difficult to conclusively prove and I cannot see compulsory microchipping making any significant difference.

That's where I think a change in the law will have a major difference. This is the one area where the new regulation will be incredibly easy to police.

Existing legislation requires that puppies in pet shops (bred by licensed breeders) should wear a collar and tag with the breeders' details on it. Very few actually do and this is even easier to police. Even if the breeder can be traced, it will still be difficult to conclusively prove they were responsible, if for example it is sold with parvovirus or camphylobacter. There are too many links in the chain. As others have also said, false details could be used, especially if the breeder is doing the microchipping themselves with no external adjudicator such as a vet.

By itself, microchipping will probably be little more effective than existing identification requirements to counteract irresponsible owners and bad breeders.

>Existing legislation requires that puppies in pet shops (bred by licensed breeders) should wear a collar and tag with the breeders' details on it.

I think (haven't checked recently) the law says that the puppies should be supplied with a collar and identifying tag. That could be interpreted as being supplied to the pet shop with a collar and tag, not to the purchaser.

>Some breeders dislike chipping small breed pups so young.<br />

That would be me then!  :-)

Anyone who insists on buying pups already chipped would not buy from me.  (However, I rarely have pups available, so no big deal.)

At 12 weeks, when my breed is ready to leave home, some only weigh 500gms so the needle is almost as big as them!  When I have my pups vaccinations, my vet does a really good deal if the microchip is paid for at the same time as the jabs.  I have my pups first jabs around 10 weeks, pay for the lot, but don't actually have them chipped.  The chip is paid for and costs me £7.

They get a free puppy health check at 6 months, and I have the chip put in then.  It's one vet visit which costs nothing!  :-) 

It really wouldn't be worth me learning to chip myself, as I breed so few pups. 

From the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999:

"The keeper of a licensed breeding establishment is guilty of an offence if he sells to the keeper of a licensed pet shop or a licensed Scottish rearing establishment a dog which, when delivered, is not wearing a collar with an identifying tag or badge.

The keeper of a licensed pet shop is guilty of an offence if he sells a dog which, when delivered to him, was wearing a collar with an identifying tag or badge but is not wearing such a collar when delivered to the person to whom he sells it."

It is a good question, who is going to enforce this when the laws we already have are not enforced, particularly as Tricolourlover has pointed out here, the regulations regarding identification/traceablility of puppy farm/pet shop pups.

The ONLY way this is going to be of ANY use, is if like with cars, the onus is on the seller to ensure the details are changed when the pup is sold on, or possibly the seller AND the buyer are jointly responsible (ie both or either can be held liable).

If that doesn't happen (or if it does but its never ever enforced or the penalties are meaningless) then we will have the same situation we have with many dogs in pounds around the country - the person whose details are on the chip claims they sold the dog on, its now nothing to do with them  yadda yadda.

Then theres the thousands of dogs whose chip details are out of date and the owners have just forgotten - in all honesty I don't remember which company some of my dogs chips are from and they STILL all relate to the property I moved from six months ago. I need to get to the vet and get them all scanned and change the details but thats a pretty big trip with five dogs, not to mention the cost of it AND then changing all the details as I don't think all companies are free?? (Im not completely irresponsible, they are all tagged to the right address and the people living at the old address are my best friends, I still own the property!).

Then what about dogs whose chips have either gone faulty or moved - I have two of these - what happens if im stopped and my dogs are checked.. and THATS when I become aware that the chip is no longer being read, or has moved? Does my dog get confiscated (over my dead body!), do I get 7 days to get it chipped? If so then if I was a dodgy  geezer thats 7 days to vanish the dog if I have a reason not to want it identified to me so renders the whole thing pointless...

Are we in ten years time, 20 years time.. going to see  another law that says dogs that are NOT chipped are taken and destroyed?

I cant see any qualified chip implanter leaving the 'registration details' blank. I have my puppies tattooed and my tattooist leaves forms blank so I can add the new owners details when final decisions have been made and I then send off for registration once all have gone to their new homes.  I have used her several times now over many years so I suppose we do have trust in each other.

The Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 doesn't apply to Irish puppy farms, so pups from there don't have to have collars and tags, so the pet shop owner doesn't have to supply one when he sells the pup, according to the wording of the Act.

If the law here is changed so that every puppy sold must be chipped, then the responsibility for that is on the pet shop owner, giving them a permanent connection to the puppy - they won't be able to just wash their hands of it once it's left the premises.