Hello, I have a question regarding microchipping puppy. We paid a deposit on a puppy KC registered that should be ready in few weeks. The breeder does not want to microchip it. I was wondering if anyone has an advice on this? I only found on internet it is illegal to sell puppies without chip. My worry is if the puppy is supposed to be KC registered the microchipping should be done prior to selling? Any advice would be much appreciated.

Puppies must be microchipped by 8 weeks old by law and yes it is illegal to sell a puppy without a microchip. I would pass on this one and find another breeder personally. Inform them that it is illegal to sell without one and request your deposit back.

Sunny123:  Microchipping: Totally agree with masajackrussell.  I would be very suspicious of why the puppy wouldn't be microchipped for all the reasons mentioned.
There is a lot of fraudulent activity at the moment which then begs the question, would the KC Registration Papers be false?  It's all relative. I would try to get the deposit back on those grounds.  Hope we are wrong but all sounds like a dodgy scam to me

"Puppies must be microchipped by 8 weeks old by law and yes it is illegal to sell a puppy without a microchip".
There are several legal exemptions to microchipping at 8 weeks old - 
https://www.bsava.com/Resources/Veterinary-resources/Microchipping/Requirement-and-exemption

The breeder of my dog didn't chip her litter - she just refused to!  I told her it was against the Law but it didn't bother her.  I knew the lines of this litter well and she has been breeding for years so I knew ir was all ok as far as that was concerned.

Unless you report her refusing to adhere to the Law, don't know what else you can do!

> There are several legal exemptions to microchipping at 8 weeks old -

Oh great why is nothing made obvious?!

Personally I wouldn’t take a puppy that hadn’t been microchipped. For me it is a mark of a responsible breeder. If it had been deemed necessary by a vet to leave it until a later date I would expect the breeder to keep the puppy until it was done before selling. That’s what I would do.

The excuse in the OP of the breeder doesn’t want to is not a valid one for me.

Did she explain why she did not want to ? I dont want to isn't a reason.

Thank you for all the replies! The breeder was suggesting taking the puppy at 7 weeks but I do think that the breeder needs to be the first registered keeper on the chip. It is sad as we were really looking forward to the puppy. We were so careful about picking one and thought that KC advert would be a safer choice. :(

Selling at 7 weeks is also illegal......

Goldmali:  Selling at 7 weeks is illegal: ABSObloodyLUTELY!  Sorry but everything about this situation is very fishy!!!

There are several legal exemptions to microchipping at 8 weeks old -
https://www.bsava.com/Resources/Veterinary-resources/Microchipping/Requirement-and-exemption

Blimey, what a load of rubbish. Reason one being because two laws contradict each other. The size issue is just plain stupid. I have many times microchipped small toybreeds at 5 weeks of age. They tolerate it much better than vaccinations. There's even smaller chips available now. Fair enough if the puppy is ill etc, but size really doesn't come into it. Small toy breeds shouldn't be sold before 12 weeks anyway so zero reason for a breeder to not have them chipped before sale.

> The breeder was suggesting taking the puppy at 7 weeks

Run... that is all...

I would definitely not want a pup from this breeder after what you’ve mentioned. Although I’d add that as a breeder of a large breed^, at 7 weeks they’re usually (if non have had any health problems) ready to leave the nest. My last litter was a number of years ago and when the pups went in for their microchips and health check we got the vet to write that they were healthy and ready to go to their new homes (because they could see that thy really were!). The earliest left at 7 and a half weeks - in the end the timing only worked that 3 left before 8 weeks old, so it’s not always ‘bad’. Although it wasn’t illegal then. I wouldn’t do this now, considering the law.

> as a breeder of a large breed^, at 7 weeks they’re usually (if non have had any health problems) ready to leave the nest.

I don’t disagree with you here at all but as you know and have reiterated it is illegal to sell before 8 weeks and as such, any breeder doing so is not a responsible one and therefore not one to buy from.

ETA: just re read this and seen it comes across as a bit argumentative which it’s wasn’t supposed to at all! Times change and all that!

The size thing is really stupid considering the first animals to be done were mice.

Any pup must be registered to the breeder first.

As I understand it chipping can be delayed with vet authority, but it still hasbto be done by the breeder.

The only reasoning I can see for them not wanting to do it, when it is law, is they don't want traceability to them.

While I  think this is unlikely I do know people who will not
Chip due to a belief that they can. Cause cancer in .and around the chip site
Migrate and cause other health issues.

I  have .personnaly been involved with one kitten in a litter who shortly after the chip was implanted bled out from
The site and  died. All confirmed by the vet

All mine are.chipped and I dont subscribe to  those.fears .

No idea how.a breeder with those views would deal.with it but doubt this is.the case given other factors mentioned

Was the kitten chipped at the vets? Sounds like the needle pierced a blood vessel by improper implantation.

Interested as I came across a YouTube video of a kitten chipped by a vet that was lodged in the kitten's spine & caused it to become almost immobile. It was in Australia & featured on the Bondi Vet, who didn't chip the kitten, who had to remove it. The Xray clearly showed the chip & the angle at which it was lodged indicated it had been implanted at an angle instead of horizontally into a gap under the skin produced by gently raising the skin with thumb & 2nd finger & using the forefinger between them to produce the space. The chip should then have implanted horizontally

I didn't like the idea of chipping, and knrw of at least one bad reaction.

Prior to the law change I had all my litters Ear Tattooed.

Unfortunately chipping was required in order to travel overseas.

As it is the law, we have to accept it.

Yes it was done at the vets who i know and are very experienced but I guess things can still go.wrong .no pm.was.do but best guess was a clotting disorder.
  I have no idea if  clottinge  disorder can occur  in only one littermate but that's what was accepted  the bleeding didnt show.for.many hours by which time it was too late.
I saw.the other one you mentioned ann as well.  There was also a.chihuahua in America.that had big problems but those are very rare

All the implantations I've see done by Vets, VNs etc( & I have seen 100s over the years)have been done like an injection, which of course is totally wrong sadly

I've no idea as I wasn't there but the outcome was very sad .