"Dog owners who have not had their pets microchipped could face a fine of up to £500, as a new law comes into force." This is how it'll work (or not?): responsible and law-abiding owners will have their dogs chipped, so 'end of'. But those who can't afford to have it done will be the very ones who will be fined in default, but they won't pay it because er, because they won't be able to afford to. Welcome to the madhouse that is today's bureaucrat-driven United Kingdom. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35972480
“Charities such as the Dogs Trust, some local authorities and some vets will microchip dogs without charging.” I also doubt that the standard fee, where it is charged, would be all that significant in the context of the wider cost of owning a dog.
It costs the same as two packets of cigarettes. If you can't afford that, you can't afford the food or vet fees involved in responsible ownership.
It costs between nothing and little. There is though an issue we have spotted in our research that makes the whole thing a waste of time. That is the database. There is no single database where all of this will be stored, instead, there are a mass of private ones that a person can register, so, keeping a track of any dog is almost impossible. Yes, a dog might be microchipped, and a scan can read the chip. But the number is pointless as there is no way of knowing which database (if any) the dog is registered on. In fact, in theory, a person could get the chip, create a spread sheet at home, enter the chip details and claim it is registered. We discovered this a couple of weeks ago as we have just returned from Australia with out already chipped dog
Many of those I'm talking about can't afford to keep themselves, never mind a dog or two - or three. And they won't bother to get them chipped anyway.
No, you were initially talking about people who couldn’t afford to have their dogs chipped – we’ve established that shouldn’t be a factor. Now you’re talking about those who won’t bother, which will include plenty with no real money issues at all. Most dogs will never be checked – only those found stray or causing other issues. I doubt many people will actually be fined, especially in the first instance, where they’ll be given the opportunity to get their dog chipped to avoid the fine completely (which we’ve established they should be able to do for free). If they still don’t bother then there’s frankly nobody to blame but themselves. It seems from places that have already introduced this, there are measurable benefits in things like the recovery of strays and no outcry over any innocent people facing unpayable fines. No system is perfect but in this one seems well balanced.
Dogs today, who tomorrow ? How about convicts and criminals on parole ? That may be a great way to track them ?
I am conflicted on chipping dogs myself. Hey why bother trying to catch my dog that just ran out the door, somebody will eventually find him and bring him home?
I don’t see many people making sure a flawed rationalisation. Anyway, chipping doesn’t guarantee a stray dog will be found and if they are and identified as yours, they wouldn’t be delivered to your home but you’d be expected to come and pick them up, after paying kennelling and any vet costs.
Why is my dog going to need a vet just because they got out the door? I could see it benefiting in that it would curb underground puppy mill breeders. I could likewise see it being a deterrent to poor people from having pets if they knew they were going to be slapped with a big fine if they went to get their mutt from the dog pound. More generally, I do not like the idea of forcing something to be implanted into an animals body, no matter how small the device is.
But spaying and neutering is ok? There are far worse things that happen to a pet than a little chip implant.
I think that is an issue for the individual owners to make. I am not aware of any benefit other than birth control when it comes to neutering as I have had many people say it did not affect their dog's behavior. Female dogs do get some degree of health benefit from spaying such as reducing cancer risks or risks of potentially fatal infections when they get older. I have read recently that some research suggests it is better to wait until the dog is at least 18 months before doing either.
We have mandatory dog microchipping in Melbourne, I think it's responsible dog ownership and microchip details are kept with the local council. I can't remember how much I paid I think it was only $99 which is probably $130 US .. uh sorry no it's probably US$65.. or somewhere in the vicinity
Well I subsequently thought of owners who use dogs for gain, such as those seen squatting in streets and shopping malls begging when the reason they're short of money is because they have a dog or two to feed and keep healthy. And those who use them as an 'Up yours!' to authority and the rest of us by allowing them off-lead activity in parks, safe in the knowledge they can infringe the by-laws under your own expression 'causing other issues' without consequences by A) refusing to have the dog chipped in the first place, B) failing to give a dog warden a valid name and address, C) (if they can otherwise be traced in some way) ignoring the demand for a fine for that infringement, or D) ignoring a demand for a fine for not clearing up their dogs' faeces, all of which makes them 'untouchables' aka sociopathic to those whose lives they're adversely impacting upon; for example, would you let your child play in a park where there are a few off-lead rottweilers or terriers? Of course you wouldn't! As a matter of fact that's why there are no dog wardens these days - responsible owners abide by the restrictions because they know there will be consequences for their pockets or possessions, but there's nothing anyone can do about the irresponsible ones, thereby rendering the position redundant, hence the amount of dog mess everywhere. So all in all, and to get back to the point of the thread, there's really no point whatsoever in having the legislation? Also you have no way of knowing what effect, positive or negative, this has had so far, even in the trial areas - unless you can provide a source? I have a feeling there's more to this legislation than facilitating the return of strays to their owners.
I wish I could triple like this comment because it's spot on. I adore dogs and I fully support this measure. I would go further and make every dog owner pay insurance every year to cover i) health insurance for the dog and ii) insurance against damage caused by the animal. - - - Updated - - - Then that needs to be addressed but it doesnt discount the principal involved in any way at all.
1) stray dogs are almost always found. We don't have unclaimed strays roaming the streets so all dogs are picked up. It would mean that they are always trackable 2) of course you would pick them up. There is a charge of about 30 Quid for doing so. - - - Updated - - - poor people should not have pets if they can't afford to look after them.
The fine is for NOT getting the dogs microchipped, not for getting them lost. Fines are applied according to means anyway. a first time offender who immediately remedied the situation would get a caution in any case
They wouldn't get fined unless their dog got lost. It is how they would know it was not microchipped.
I think there should be an exception made for those who need their dogs for companionship, such as the elderly, clinical recluses, and those with personality disorders who can't form relationships, such as Asperger Syndrome.
Anyone who cannot afford to have their dog chipped should be able to get it for free. Celia Hammond Foundation neuters pets for free, I'm sure that such things will become available. however we still need compulsory insurance for pets
