Between £25 and £30 seems average around here; many people are amazed when we tell them the price, and say they thought it'd be much more "about £100"!

So just a question then, if you were due your first litter at the start of June, would you now be chipping them in the light of this consultation to 'cover' yourself and the litter. I can't see anywhere in that document any sort of review date/implementation date?

My puppy owners were going to be provided with information from Petlog and there was a good chunk about it in my puppy information, however my vets will only register a litter of pups in the breeders name rather than leaving it blank, (I've also rung Petlog and this is what they suggest too.) However this option incurs a cost on the new puppy owner changing the chip into their name. At the moment they say its only registered rescues that can have dual names on the chip at extra cost.

What would you do if you had a litter planned?

Hello, i sent an e-mail to my MP yesterday asking him not to vote for microchipping new puppies and this is he's reply:
Thank you for your fax. I expect it is in the best interests of owners & their dogs that they should be micro chipped but of course the size of the chip should be related to the size of the dog.(?????)irrespective of its age. Caring owners will wish to insert a small chip in a puppy and replace it when it grows bigger.??????!!!!!
I am going to e-mail him back suggesting that he learns more about any subject he is voting for on my behalf.
I have also sent a copy to the dog press for inclusion in their letters page.

> Hello, i sent an e-mail to my MP yesterday asking him not to vote for microchipping new puppies and this is he's reply:
> Thank you for your fax. I expect it is in the best interests of owners & their dogs that they should be micro chipped but of course the size of the chip should be related to the size of the dog.(?????)irrespective of its age. Caring owners will wish to insert a small chip in a puppy and replace it when it grows bigger.??????!!!!!
> I am going to e-mail him back suggesting that he learns more about any subject he is voting for on my behalf.
> I have also sent a copy to the dog press for inclusion in their letters page.

This just shows how much knowledge these people who suggest these ideas have! May I cross post your MPs reply?

> You can't buy chips unless you have a qualified micro-chipper number.

You can't buy vaccines and vaccinate your own dog either but I know of people in Southern Ireland who will sell chips and vaccines and these are brought into the UK and used to treat dogs here, not by a vet but by the owners.

Hi Polly

Yes please do.

>> Agree Jeff, and it is only the good dog owners who will be getting stung for the £77 DOG TAX they re planning to impose.
> This is for Exempted Dogs only.

It is now for exempted dogs but with a proposal to review. How long before they decide that all dogs should be licensed at the same price? How long before they start increasing this fee? I can see a time coming where we will be asked to pay as much or more as we do for road tax per dog!

Thank you

Just tagging on at the end here - the topic is to be discussed today on Radio 4 You and Yours 12-1.00.

Thanks very much, just switching on iplayer now :)

The Crown Prosecutor's insights were interesting.

DOG/CAT MICROCHIP £15. PENSIONERS £5

Now theirs something my council are not offering free of charge,,, best get me old mum down to this place and get her chipped  for a fiver!! loool

I'm a journalism student and I'm doing a news package on the compulsory microchipping. I've spoken to head vet at a local veterinary hospital and also a groomer who microchips dogs. We also did 'vox pops (voice of the people) in the city centre to get Joe Public's view of the idea.

Once it's complete, I'll see if I can post it up here.

They discussed it on the BBC morning news and had the mother of a little boy who was killed by her brothers dog. She was asked did you know the dog was dangerous ? Answer no. If the dog had been chipped would it have stopped the dog killing your son ? Answer no. I saw Bill and Suzannas eyebrows lift at the last answer.

Yes, I heard it :) but I also heard someone else making the point that this is just a part of the strategy. 
The idea is to discourage the ownership of potentially dangerous dogs in the first place, or at least making them responsible for their control if they do, and this is how this sort of attack may be reduced.
I must listen to it again, there was an awful lot to take in.  A very interesting programme.

Tursula I have sent you a private message.

> I'm a journalism student and I'm doing a news package on the compulsory microchipping.

I hope you will point out that many people's objection is that the RSPCA will have access to this new register. I do not want my information spread far and wide by people I do not know. What happened to the data protection act? Why is it being ignored?

I have no problem with microchipping, all my dogs are done. However, even with the size of Goldens that I have, my Vet usually says wait for a few weeks more as it is a big needle, and yes I have had one bleed quite badly at about 6 months of age.
However, the legislation is mainly being put in place because of dangerous dogs of which Pit Bulls are a banned breed so that being the case why are we still seeing dogs of this breed out on the streets or puppies being advertised as the legislation that came into place (how many years ago) obviously hasn't worked or been followed through as technically if the neutering worked there would not be an animal of that breed alive now. No one seems to actually follow anything through and obviously as everyone is saying it is only the responsible people who follow the law to the letter. Lets get some legislation in place where to have a banned breed is punishable by a prison sentence and lets take action on it.

> Lets get some legislation in place where to have a banned breed is punishable by a prison sentence and lets take action on it.

Banned breeds are not the problem, it's irresponsible owners. The lady who was killed by a dog in Dec '10 was killed by a legal breed, that was owned by a complete idiot. The baby that was killed by it's grandmothers dogs while the grandmother fell asleep was killed by legal breeds. If all of these 3 dogs were chipped whould that have stopped them doing what they did - no, becasue they would have still be owned/handled by the same people..........
The problem with dogs that are a danger is caused by people and will only be stopped when legislation is directed at those people. Targeting entire groups of breeds will do nothing,  applying the existing laws to the idiots that alow thier dogs to be a problem is what is needed, there is enough legislation in place to deal with ANY breed that is a problem.

ETA the very fact that there are dogs of illegal breeds in this country goes to show that bringing in compulsory micro-chipping will not work. If illegal dogs can be kept - that can be seen by the naked eye of any passer by and subsequently be reported, then how on earth will chipping be enforced - dogs will have to be checked, up close and by a machine, in order to see if they are legally chipped or not.

> I also heard someone else making the point that this is just a part of the strategy

That's so - here's a quote from the Defra consultation document (http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/files/dangerous-dogs-annexb-microchipping-ia-120423.pdf)

"What are the policy objectives and the intended effects?
The policy objective is to increase traceability of dogs through microchipping and provide a deterrant against
irresponsible ownership. This is an integral part of a wider package. More lost dogs will be re-united with
their owners more quickly to the benefit of owners and dogs and saving Local Authorities and charities
considerable kennelling costs. It will also be easier for those responsible for tackling abuses of dog welfare
to bring owners to account and to protect public safety.  Traceability back to breeders will in the longer term
lead to dog health improvements as poor breeding conditions and practices lead to health problems and
generic/congenital problems. "

Since compulsory microchipping has recently been introduced in Northern Ireland, it will be interesting to see how it works over the coming months, especially if it does achieve the intended effects.

It all still requires the data to be kept up to date, though, to be effective.

> many people's objection is that the RSPCA will have access to this new register.

Especially when one reads the definition of "irresponsible ownership": (http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/files/dangerous-dogs-annexb-microchipping-ia-120423.pdf page 6 section 3)

"Irresponsible dog ownership encompasses factors
such as: neglecting the welfare of the dog, breeding dogs for appearance and failing to consider
the implications for health and inability to keep dogs under control in public places."

I don't breed, but do keep dogs of a breed whose appearance has been criticised.  Given that the RSPCA has expressed itself strongly against many dog breeds, they are not unbiassed and should not have exclusive or pre-eminent access to the register.

The possible effect with regard to dogs on foster for rescue will also have to be taken into account.

I don't see the discouragement angle at all as how many dogs have killed people and the owner hadn't been traced? A very small percentage I should imagine .Even if it is a dog that attacks and the owner then scarpers how will a micro chip help then ?

To be honest I didn't listen to the woman in any great detail who was besides her after I listened to the conversation with the woman whose child had been killed and it lost the rationale to why the chips were being introduced.

It won't discourage dog ownership at all in my opinion and certainly won't instil responsibilty into the idiots that have the status dogs and use them as props rather than pets.

I was watching a program ( can't remember which one) where an animal rescue went out onto the streets and started talking to the youths and offering them free training sessions ( and I think education about ownership but not the headline of what they were trying to do ) . They sold it to them by saying just imagine how impressed your mates will be if you can make you dog behave and do tricks as it will show them how cool you are . It is working and the courses seem to be very popular

LJS I absolutely agree with your post. Aside from whether not it can be enforced,  I agree with microchipping all dogs, just like I agree that all dogs should wear a collar and tag in public places. However I don't see what it has to do with tackling the issue of dangerous dogs. All defra seem to be consulting about is changes to how the law is applied when things go wrong and how the chipping should be administrated! We need to act to prevent incidents not scramble to scan a dog than has already offended! Personally I would love to see tighter rules around dog ownership like in some european countries, but I doubt that could ever be organised here! What I feel would make a real difference would be to see the bodies with an interest in the issues investing their time and resources in setting up GOOD and accessible training schemes and ownership training for dog owners. They can start in problem areas. Battersea dogs home already is involved with this kind of work and it makes a real difference at the individual level of owner and dog. And that is where the problems exist and need to be tackled.

> neglecting the welfare of the dog, breeding dogs for appearance and failing to consider the implications for health

When you look at the entire quote rather than your emphasis it become much saner :)

> I don't see the discouragement angle at all as how many dogs have killed people and the owner hadn't been traced? A very small percentage I should imagine

I don't think that is the point, Lucy.  It is a preventative strategy, which is just what the Crown Prosecutor fella said we needed.
I think the idea is to make people more aware that they will be held accountable for their dogs and will therefore twice about having a potentially dangerous dog in the first place.  If the numbers of these dogs decrease you can expect the risk of attacks to decrease by the same percentage.  

LJS, you are right.  The way forward is not to penalise 'ordinary' dog owners but the status dog brigade.  Maybe when the government stops paying drug addicts and alcoholics extra money for keeping a dog, irresponsible dog owners would drop dramatically.  I mean, these people are hardly responsible for themselves never mind a pet and usually they are a status breed.  Cut that money and I'm sure we would see a drop in dog owners!  Also, My friend bought her son a DDB for him to walk around the estate with.  He had asked her for one and she had no idea about status dogs and gangs so thought he was just wanting a pet.  Some education is needed here too.
Other than that, should the legal age to walk a dog be raised?  Maybe ban under 25's?

I've never had trouble from a dog walked by an under 25. All the vicious dogs I've had the misfortune to encounter out and about have been owned by gentlemen in their 50s with the exception of one man in his late 20s and a woman in her 30s (those are all guesses of course as I didn't have time to chat!). Are there any statistics available to the public on this issue?

The trouble is Stooge people are accountable with or without a chip so I don't think that making it compulsorily will make people think twice about having a dog. A chip is just something that goes into a dog , owning a dog and not making sure that is doesn't attack or training a dog with intent to attack is accountability and tougher sentences are needed. That is making people accountable with or without a chip. You could liken a dog as a dangerous weapon(firearm/knife) if it attacks and you haven't controlled it and it attacks it can do as much harm if not more as those types of weapons .

Tougher sentences or making sure that people will understand that they can be held responsible as a dogs owner are both ways of making them think I believe.
Only time will tell on this one as even Ireland has not had this in place long enough to say.

I think people do understand now they are responsible but the deterant of tougher sentences isn't there , that is the key to make people think twice about things.

I think they understand they are responsible, I don't think they care much about that, but the difference is this may make them feel they can be held to be responsible.

We spoke to two different vets and a trained microchipper as well as conducting interviews in the city centre and in a dog park. Noone raised this concern despite the fact that I asked questions about it. I can only work with the opinions of those I asked so this concern won't feature, however it is definitely a personal concern of mine. It is unethical journalism, however, to skew facts and figures to suit the news angle you want or to bait sources for specific answers.

By tougher sentences not by having a chip in the dog!!

Without the chip, it is too easy to say it is a mate's or a relative's.

> Noone raised this concern despite the fact that I asked questions about it. I can only work with the opinions of those I asked so this concern won't feature, however it is definitely a personal concern of mine.

Which concern are you referring to, parrysite?

> It is unethical journalism, however, to skew facts and figures to suit the news angle you want or to bait sources for specific answers.

Very commendable :)

Yes but in many cases people who have looked after the dog as well as the owners have been made accountable.

Too easy to try and blame other people but the other people won't take the wrap if somebody is seriously injured and killed.

Which concern are you referring to, parrysite?

Sorry, was typing on a busy train journey and didn't realise I hadn't included the person I was replying to! Somebody raised the concern of the RSPCA having their database and how it would relate to the Data Protection Act.

Noone that I interviewed raised this concern, even when asked if they would feel it an intrusion into their privacy. I asked a wide age range and gender range and surprisingly there were quite a few dogs in the city centre who's owners were all for the register.

Thanks, Josh, that is very interesting.

> Somebody raised the concern of the RSPCA having their database and how it would relate to the Data Protection Act.
>
> Noone that I interviewed raised this concern, even when asked if they would feel it an intrusion into their privacy. I asked a wide age range and gender range and surprisingly there were quite a few dogs in the city centre who's owners were all for the register.

Don't you think this is of more concern to those of us who are involved in activities which, whilst perfectly legal and accpetable, are on the RSPCA  agenda to be quashed?  The man in the street tends to take the RSPCA at its own evaluation, the goodys of the animal world, as portrayed on  Animal Rescue type TV programmes.   They don't give much thought to the wider aspects of the organistation, such as campaigning and lobbying against showing, pedigree dog breeding, hunting/shooting etc.   Should your questions have been  put to a selection of people involved in any of these activities I think the response would have been very different.

ETA the very fact that there are dogs of illegal breeds in this country goes to show that bringing in compulsory micro-chipping will not work. If illegal dogs can be kept - that can be seen by the naked eye of any passer by and subsequently be reported, then how on earth will chipping be enforced - dogs will have to be checked, up close and by a machine, in order to see if they are legally chipped or not.

Mastifflover, that is the point that I was trying to make. The law is doing nothing to follow through on laws that have been with us for many years now and so the microchip is a failure before it starts if being introduced to stop the illegal breeds and any dangerous dogs. If being used to help dogs be reunited with their owners quickly and therefore help rescue centres only have the burden of dogs that truly need rehoming then I am all for it.

Other than that, should the legal age to walk a dog be raised?  Maybe ban under 25's?

That absolutely horrifies me! I am 20 years old and I am no less responsible with my dog than anyone older than me. I am a damnsight more responsible than the majority of 30+ people I meet with their dogs when out walking. My three year old niece has more compassion for animals in her little finger than some of the adults I have met with pets.

Age has nothing to do with it- and how exactly would it be enforced anyway, I don't take my wallet when I take my dog for a walk and therefore would not have ID on me anyway.

Don't you think this is of more concern to those of us who are involved in activities which, whilst perfectly legal and accpetable, are on the RSPCA  agenda to be quashed?  The man in the street tends to take the RSPCA at its own evaluation, the goodys of the animal world, as portrayed on  Animal Rescue type TV programmes.   They don't give much thought to the wider aspects of the organistation, such as campaigning and lobbying against showing, pedigree dog breeding, hunting/shooting etc.   Should your questions have been  put to a selection of people involved in any of these activities I think the response would have been very different.

Yes, I would agree that it is a concern to those people, however, at the same time, you must understand that 'time is money' in journalism and if none of the organizations (dog training clubs, mainly) we did ask would agree to us visiting, or agree to an interview, then unfortunately we cannot show their view.

We were (it was a group exercise) also very keen not to alienate the viewer by having too many experts. No one wants to sit and listen to opinions they don't understand, and frankly people within those groups will already have their own opinion and are likely to be more informed on the issue than the info that a 2 minute news package could deliver to them. If it *was* for broadcast, it was to be aimed at an audience with no specialist knowledge on the subject, in short; a 'normal' joe bloggs dog owner, or those concerned about the issue of dangerous dogs.

Today was hand-in day, and I have a copy of the news package on a DVD here. I will get it off the DVD and onto YouTube to show you all. A few technical hitches have meant it didn't turn out quite as we hoped but hopefully gave a balanced view of the issues.

>Other than that, should the legal age to walk a dog be raised?  Maybe ban under 25's?

Is there a legal age to walk a dog?

I think a blanket age is a terrible idea; I know some 10 year olds who have more common sense than some 50 year olds!

Here is a link to the video:

http://youtu.be/O5E3mbkkP4Y

> Thank you for your fax. I expect it is in the best interests of owners & their dogs that they should be micro chipped but of course the size of the chip should be related to the size of the dog.(?????)irrespective of its age. Caring owners will wish to insert a small chip in a puppy and replace it when it grows bigger.??????!!!!!
> I am going to e-mail him back suggesting that he learns more about any subject he is voting for on my behalf.
> I have also sent a copy to the dog press for inclusion in their letters page.

Hold the press!
http://www.petcare.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=891:mini-microchip-questions&catid=162:mini-microchip-questions&Itemid=194

Josh, I am just thinking aloud(or brain farting, my OH calls it).  I hate blanket bans.  It's sort of ban the breed again, isn't it? But what are the options?  I am just trying to think of how we could get the status dog problem as this is what the MPs want to stop, not normal dog owners.  I'm just thinking that most of 'status dogs' are owner(in my area) by the older teenagers who knock about the streets.  I don't see a lot of older dudes with status dogs kicking about with them.  So that's where the idea came from. 
I absolutely know some kids have more idea with animals as I have 4 myself that I would trust to know and train my dogs.  My oldest gets to hold the leash when we are out walking as she can control them brilliantly and she is 11.
I'm sorry you felt I was 'attacking' the younger generation and I know there are brilliant YOUNG dog owners out there but are you in the minority while all your peers are bringing down your generation?

Jeangenie, I have no idea if there is a legal age. I very much doubt it. 

>I'm sorry you felt I was 'attacking' the younger generation and I know there are brilliant YOUNG dog owners out there but are you in the minority while all your peers are bringing down your generation?

Is it logical to ban someone from walking a dog when they're legally old enough to marry and have a baby?

Jeangenie, don't get me started!!lol.
What would be your thoughts/plans to stop the status dog problem?

> What would be your thoughts/plans to stop the status dog problem?

Well, that's the thing, something has to be done and I am just glad the Government is having a crack at it. 
I prefer the idea of working with identification rather than some sort of age restriction myself.

Why not treat dogs like motor bikes ? You can have one but only under a certain size/ breed etc and then if you go for an upgrade to a bigger / different breed then you gave to have a test to see if you are competent to own one. There could also be age restrictions or have a responsible adult be your guaranntor to take full responsibilty for the dog whilst it is under the ownership
of the under age owner.

That way there is a monitoring of the situation and culpability for the ownership of the dog.

I know this may have holes in the idea but it stops idiot young people going out on big bikes and killing themselves and other people so apply the same logic and it could work .