Mail on Sunday report

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380039/Every-new-pet-dog-35-microchip-Plan-control-dangerous-animals-putting-million-pets-massive-database.html

It has been a long time comming and I am only too pleased it is being seriously considered.

Yeah, would be great for it to become compulsory......would make such a difference.

I am not sure I would believe anything I read in the press and I think they need to do a lot more work on the chips to make them more reliable and static before they start using them on all dogs and relying on them for identification - a tattoo would be much better.

LOL I think they'd need to work a LOT more on the tattoos as I have only ever seen one that was readable for the life of the dog and that was one done in Sweden. They're useless here. You can hardly even see my 11 year old ever has been tattooed, and all the others I've had vanished with age. One was unreadable a fortnight after it was done. Oh and I just remembered my 5 year old dog was tattooed by his former owner and you can't see any trace of that either. You can see some traces on my 7 year old but you could never read it.

Have you seen this picture that I posted the other day, Marianne?

Must say those I have seen have been easy enough to read and certainly easier to find if they are put in the ear 14 years later that is where they are the same can't be said for the chip.

The thing is, I have had a total of ten dogs with unreadable tattoos, and ONE with a readable one. The ten were different breeds (Cavaliers, Goldens, Malinois), done at different ages (from done before collection at breeder's up to a few years of age), done by different people (4 different tattooists), with different sizes (two different sizes) and different colour ink (black, blue and green).  I think that says quite a lot. I don't know how many microchipped animals I've had but I'd guess around 75 0r 80 at least of my own (not counting ones I've sold -I currently have roughly 50 chipped animals here), and none have failed -but one has fallen out after a few years. I could have accepted I'd been unlucky with tattoos if the same person had done them all in the same way with the same equipment and on the same breed at same age, but........

if they are put in the ear 14 years later that is where they are the same can't be said for the chip.

Far easier to scan the entire body of the dog than trying to read a tattoo that has faded so much you can't even see it's there......

That may be true but the operators of the scan equipment are inclined to give up and declare the dog unchipped, that is no problem now but if it was obligatory could lead to the dog being PTS although it was chipped and the chip was somewhere that the operator did not find or it had stopped working - I would not want to risk it and would far rather use a tattoo.

I'm sorry I am all for compulsory identification but not only one method, giving a monopoly.  Both chipping and tattooing have their pluses and minuses, and we should have free choice.

I have all mine chipped due to Pet Passport requirements, but have always had my pups (and of course adults) Ear Tattooed by the National Dog Tattoo Register http://www.dog-register.co.uk/ which is run by dog people for the benefit of dogs.

In fact mine always have all three forms of ID as of course it is a legal requirement, flouted by many, for a dog to wear an ID tag with owners name and address.

> Far easier to scan the entire body of the dog than trying to read a tattoo that has faded so much you can't even see it's there......

I have a 13 1/2 year old with a clearly legible tattoo even with my limited 20% sight.

I have of course only had 8 with tattoos, but see quite a few of my ex pups with good tattoos.  Mien have been done by three different tattooists and I admit the two eldest were done with the old equipment that made the numbers spread too much for certainty dn done in green, they were not as good as the ones done in black using small callipers which have faded to blue.

I know personally at least 3 cases of failed chips, though I think all mine are working, but not checked for a few years now, as they don't visit the vet unless ill.

> I'm sorry I am all for compulsory identification but not only one method, giving a monopoly.  Both chipping and tattooing have their pluses and minuses, and we should have free choice.

Exactly my thoughts.  Not only should there be a choice for owners but there are instances where one or the other simply cannot be done - some dogs react to microchips and cannot have them; some dogs can't be tattooed for whatever reason (my oldie isn't and won't be because her ears are just too sensitive).  My others are all tattooed.

All the tattoos are still legible - Soli is 9 now and was done at 7 weeks, I can still read hers.  Some are better than others - Saffi's is probably the least legible and she is 6 now (likewise done at 7 weeks).

I have lots of photos where the tats can be read from the photo even with my shay camera work, and my dogs have neat smallish ears.

>That may be true but the operators of the scan equipment are inclined to give up and declare the dog unchipped

Absolutely. Chips aren't infallible (recently at work we had two that worked before implantation but were unreadable immediately afterwards), and I wouldn't want to rely solely on one; I'd rather have the tattoo as well as a failsafe.

I wouldn't want to rely solely on one; I'd rather have the tattoo as well as a failsafe.

Yes that makes far more sense. Neither method is 100 %!

I know personally at least 3 cases of failed chips, though I think all mine are working, but not checked for a few years now, as they don't visit the vet unless ill.

With a scanner only costing around £100, for anyone having several dogs it makes so much sense having your own -then you KNOW. I'd never dream of going abroad for instance without taking my own scanner. I've seen vets fail to find a chip I'd found earlier the same day, just because they'd forgotten to change the batteries in their scanner. It also helps to know exactly where each chip is, all the time. None of mine have moved more than a couple of inches, and that is only in the cats and Papillons, they have never once moved in the large dogs.

> I'd never dream of going abroad for instance without taking my own scanner.

To be fair, if a chip can't be found by a stranger with their own scanner (the dog warden who's found your dog, for example) then it might as well not be there.

That may be true but the operators of the scan equipment are inclined to give up and declare the dog unchipped, that is no problem now but if it was obligatory could lead to the dog being PTS although it was chipped and the chip was somewhere that the operator did not find or it had stopped working - I would not want to risk it and would far rather use a tattoo.

Anyone who is taught to chip is taught to always scan the entire body, nose to tail, always, no matter what. Your scenario (somewhat extreme! Even PitBulls are given the chance to BE registered these days if found to be of the type, rather than just PTS!) would be exactly the same if the tattoo were like those on my dogs, it would not be the slightest bit safer. Especially as reading a tattoo does not come down to the effectiveness of a scanner, it comes down to the person's eye sight and interpretation. A few years ago I took some photos of some of my dogs' tattoos (that then were better than the same tattoos are now) and JG looked at them. She was able to make out some numbers that I could not make out myself. Then just a few weeks ago we had the case of MsTemeraire's rescue dog who has a very unusual tattoo -LOTS of people have looked at the photos of that and there must have been ten different suggestions as to what it actually says. At least when a scanner picks up a chip there is NO question whatsoever of what numbers there are.

To be fair, if a chip can't be found by a stranger with their own scanner (the dog warden who's found your dog, for example) then it might as well not be there.

Rubbish -because like I said the stranger might not have put a new battery in. A chip at least gives you more chances. (And when going abroad you will be right THERE and can scan yourself. You won't as easily be able to convince somebody that a tattoo reads an 8 as opposed to a 3.) I read a story recently for instance in a magazine -a general magazine. A dog was lost, found by somebody, taken to rescue, rehomed. Two years later it was taken to the vet, scanned, and the vet found it was reported as lost, and the original owner contacted. The rescue either hadn't scanned or not done it right. (And tell me what vet or rescue will ever check for a tattoo?) Not to mention my friend whose Papillon was stolen and found over a year later when the new owner (possibly one of many) took him to the vet and the vet scanned him.

>You won't as easily be able to convince somebody that a tattoo reads an 8 as opposed to a 3.

You don't need to. You only need a few numbers to cross-reference to the breed, not have to read the whole number.

> I wouldn't want to rely solely on one; I'd rather have the tattoo as well as a failsafe.

Likewise and most of mine have both - Raine is the only tattoo-able one who hasn't been done yet, everyone else (apart from Tia, as I said earlier) has both because I don't want to rely on just one or the other.

Especially since I got Soli's chip scanned a few years back when I couldn't find the paperwork to transfer it to my name - a vet nurse scanned it and couldn't find it, I actually had to tell her to scan all over rather than just the usual implantation site.  The chip is down Soli's left shoulder on the side.

That's the other thing - let's say that it does become compulsory; there would have to be a drive of sorts to make sure that anyone who picks up strays etc actually scans the dogs, and knows how to scan them properly.  The first kennels I worked at took in strays and said strays were never scanned :-( Without sorting out all sides, it's pointless, and that would go for checking for tattoos as well.

Marianne - there are rescues who will check for tattoos but they are sadly very few and far between.  When I had Remy tattooed at a game fair, the tattooist told me of a rescue who'd had a weimeraner handed in - they checked the dog over and found the tattoo, the owner was traced and the dog found to be a fawn dobermann like Remy (which is what prompted the story :-)).

But on the flipside, Saffi's tattoo was never noticed or the details updated from the moment she left her breeder - she went through two homes and a rescue before I found it, updated it and contacted her breeder :-(

There are a LOT of factors that need to be addressed if any form of compulsory ID is to be implemented.

> And tell me what vet or rescue will ever check for a tattoo?

A friend bred a dog who was lost and ended up at the Bristol dogs home.  the owner had been contacting them for weeks asking about a lost Border Collie and were told they hadn't got him.

He went for a pre homing vet check and his tattoo was found.  NDTR were able to track down the breeder who had moved several times since registering that litter, they located her by her name as she had since had other dogs tattooed.

She was able to contact the owner.  it seems that they didn't recognise him as a Border Collie as he was a blue merle!!!!

The NDTR will make every effort to locate an owner or breeder, and will extrapolate every possible permutation from even partial tattoo numbers.

Chips either can be read or not at all, no half measures.  Also if databases not updated with contact details they do not make any extra efforts.  I know of one situation where the owners phone number had changed, still same address, but after failing to get joy from a telephone attempt no effort was made to write to them.

I'm all for choice, and personally prefer mine to have 3 forms of ID at all times.  I suppose I could add DNA profile as a 4th, but don't at the moment have a spare £150

> The NDTR will make every effort to locate an owner or breeder, and will extrapolate every possible permutation from even partial tattoo numbers.

And yet, I have a rescue dog with a tattoo, which isn't on the NDTR list and nobody's seen one like it, not even on foreign dog forums. It also wasn't noticed by the rescue who took her in as a stray. I am beginning to wonder if the three digits are the last figures in a registration number, LOSH for instance; if a breeder was going to tattoo every puppy it would make sense to use part or all of the reg number.

Well obviously if the tattoo is not from the registry in use in the UK it is of no use, jut the same as my ISO chipped bitch that went to USA where they don't use the scanners that read all chips.

The article reads as if compulsory microchipping is being considered as a solution for 'dangerous dogs' ..how will this work then ? ....after all those who are likely to own such dogs are hardly likely to get them chipped in the first place !!!!.....

and if this is the reason then why demand that ALL dogs are chipped  how many dangerous Cavaliers/ Pekes or Maltese are there likely to be ?   ....identification is great for tracing breeders - for reuniting pets to their owners and for collecting data but as a solution against dog attacks ...I think not !

Yvonne

I quite agree, Yvonne.
Does micro-chipping a dangerous dog make it less likely to attack  ? - can't see it somehow !  Yes it might help to track down the owner but won't prevent the damage done.

But it may just prevent that breeder from producing another litter of puppies if they could be traced.  This is something that does not occur at the moment any time a dog attacks a person/child or even another dog causing serious injury or even a fatality the breeder of the said dog is never questioned over the attack the onnus is always on the owner of the dog which maynot/is often not the breeder. 

Sometimes the fault does lie with the person that unintentionally or even intentionally bred from two or even one dog that was known to be aggressive or was genetically disposed to have an aggressive tendency or a condition that for reasons unknown is likely to attack without provocation. Having owned a dog with rage syndrome I can vouch for the latter.

> But it may just prevent that breeder from producing another litter of puppies if they could be traced.  This is something that does not occur at the moment any time a dog attacks a person/child or even another dog causing serious injury or even a fatality the breeder of the said dog is never questioned over the attack the onnus is always on the owner of the dog which maynot/is often not the breeder. 

Often dogs become aggressive not because of their breeding but because of the training or lack of training and poor handling. Two examples:
A family up the road from me bought two boxer dogs, every time somebody walked past the garden these dogs would come to the edge of the property and growl and the family encouraged this. Eventually the dogs became an aggressive nuisance and the family dumped them in a local rescue.
A large family consisting of mum dad and two kids of their own plus numerous foster kids. Every time a new foster child is sent to live with them they are bought a pet dog. The last dogs homed there were two black shepherd type dogs both brothers. These were pets for a 6 year old and and 8 year old girl. Neither child could manage these dogs and as the dogs both male by the way grew bigger the child had less and less control. They were told to bring the dogs to training club and we explained to the mother and father in this family that they should take the responsibility for these dogs and train them also they should not expect the two little girls to walk these dogs on their own. The parents disagreed and never came back to us. A couple of weeks later a co-trainer from the club saw these children walking the dogs on their own by a busy main road and the children were going where the dogs took them which unfortunately included straight across the road in front of on coming traffic! Had it not been for the quick reactions of the drivers both children would have been seriously hurt or even killed. When the children eventually returned to their original homes the dogs were put into the local rescue.

> Sometimes the fault does lie with the person that unintentionally or even intentionally bred from two or even one dog that was known to be aggressive or was genetically disposed to have an aggressive tendency or a condition that for reasons unknown is likely to attack without provocation. Having owned a dog with rage syndrome I can vouch for the latter.

I can see what you are saying but I know how the world works and any breeder who breeds a dog whether intentionally or not which ends up with a bad temperament or as you say rage syndrome would be the subject of a 'witch hunt' and that would do more harm than good, as it would be more likely to drive the caring breeders out of breeding, yet once more leaving the way open for bad breeders and puppy farmers.

Perhaps the way forward is to look at who is breeding large numbers of dogs be they pedigree or crossbreeds and make them hold a licence and micro-chip all the stock they produce? Also to be included in this would have to be people whose stud dogs produce a high number of litters as I know some 'breeders' keep the stud dogs and then sell their bitches on breeding terms so that when ready to breed the bitches have to use a stud dog of the kennel. Once in whelp the bitches go to the stud dog owners home have the pups which the stud dog owner sells and the pups are registered in the name of the owner. This happens regularly to two labrador bitches which live in the village here. So the stud dog owner whilst breeding a lot is never identified as a breeder.

> Perhaps the way forward is to look at who is breeding large numbers of dogs be they pedigree or crossbreeds and make them hold a licence and micro-chip all the stock they produce?

Anyone breeding 5 or more litters of pups is already required to have a LA License and they are supposed to have all pups traceable to them.

Problem is lack of compliance and enforcement

> Anyone breeding 5 or more litters of pups is already required to have a LA License and they are supposed to have all pups traceable to them.
>
> Problem is lack of compliance and enforcement

I had forgotten about the current regs which just goes to prove your point that they are rarely complied with or enforced....

How ever lets not forget the stud dog owner as I mentioned earlier, who has bitches out on terms and not all these bitches are on terms registered with the KC.

Actually someone with bitches on terms does count toward their total.

The regulations http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/11/contents state any bitches owned by them or anyone at their premises, and any bitches kept elsewhere.

".....(4)The bitches falling within this subsection are--.
(a)the bitch mentioned in subsection (3)(a) and (b) of this section and any other bitches kept by the person at the premises at any time during the period;.
(b)any bitches kept by any relative of his at the premises at any such time;.
(c)any bitches kept by him elsewhere at any such time; and.
(d)any bitches kept (anywhere) by any person at any such time under a breeding arrangement made with him.."

Interesting because the people I am thinking of are not licensed.... so  yet again the law is not being enforced.