Created: 29/04/2015

 

In just 11 months time the microchipping regulations change but I wonder if there will be any impact for dog’s welfare or is it just a money spinner for the database companies.

  At this year’s Crufts I spoke to Debbie Matthews on the Vets Get Scanning stand. Debbie and father Bruce Forsyth are passionate about making it mandatory for vets to scan every dog that comes into their surgery and check the details on the available databases, as she said, “What is the point of making it law to microchip if scanning is optional?”. Debbie began her quest for obligatory scanning after her two Yorkshire Terriers were stolen in 2006, she was finally reunited with Widget and Gizmo but she was also shocked to find that vets do not scan or check every dog presented to them, the website and the crusade was born!

  Vets Get Scanning has robustly supported several online petitions including one which forced the Government to do a U-turn over its decision to phase out the scanning of pets and other animals found dead by the roadside. The petition was christened Harvey’s Law in remembrance of Jude Devine’s Poodle killed on the highway just 20 minutes after going missing. Jude wasn’t told of the discovery of his body until four months later; you can imagine the financial and emotional input so many people had invested over those weeks. 100,000 people supported the call for compulsory collection and attempted identification of any pet found deceased and the Government responded to pressure by over turning their plans and making it clear it would now become a requirement.

  The support for compulsory microchipping of dogs is wide spread, forming the Microchipping Alliance are the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, British Veterinary Association (BVA), Cats protection, Communication Workers Union, Dog Theft Action, Dogs Trust, Hearing Dogs, the Kennel Club, PDSA, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, RSPCA, Vets Get Scanning and Wood Green Shelter but when it comes to compulsory scanning the BVA, PDSA, Battersea and most surprising of all, the KC, are against it!
I can see why the veterinary associations would be against the idea without consulting their members, it would mean that vets or practice managers would have to set up a regime that meant any new dog would be scanned and the database checked, but I have yet to find any committed vet with the welfare of their client and their client’s pets at heart who would be averse to the few minutes this would take, surely it is offering a service that would be appreciated? Of course, if you know the dog in your arms is stolen then it would perhaps mean you may choose not to take it to a vet if it were injured. It would also put the vet in a ‘difficult position’ if they scanned a new dog to discover it was reported stolen, with the new owner having no idea of the dog’s history. But the decision to microchip by law swept far more plausible arguments against early identification by chip aside, so now chipping and scanning must work hand in hand to protect both owner and animal.

  Why on earth would the KC choose not to support compulsory scanning? The KC make it very clear that next year when you breed a litter you must microchip at eight weeks at the latest and register yourself as the first ‘keeper’, then when you sell your puppies, probably that same week, you then have to ensure the new owner coughs up a second fee to register the dog in their name.

  It’s bad enough that the new registration forms declare that they are ‘ownership forms’ as if they were a proof of ownership in some way. That isn’t the case as the law stands, neither is the registered details on a microchip database proof of ownership. I do agree that the breeder should be on the database as the previous ‘keeper’ but why not simply change the form so that the agent who chips the puppies states who the breeder is? Why would I want to pay extra revenue to, for instance, Petlog when the owners of that database (the KC) do not support obligatory scanning and therefore it makes nonsense of the initial command?

  We know that dogs are stolen to order, we also know that despite the scaremongering involving dog fighting, the majority of stolen dogs are sold on to individuals and families as ‘unwanted pets’. The new owner often doesn’t have a clue the
dog is missing. They are just glad to have a well behaved pedigree dog for a fraction of the usual price. 

  There is resistance to compulsory microchipping at eight weeks, especially for the very small breeds or those with fine skin and certainly enough evidence of microchips moving when they are put into a puppy that is virtually impossible to keep still for an hour or two afterwards. By next year I would hope that those glitches will be overcome, possibly by using the vet’s opinion that the puppy is too small and microchipping at that age would be deleterious to the pup’s health.

  Microchips move, not in all cases, but in enough dogs and cats that keeping an eye on their position is enormously important. Is it really making sense not to check the registered details as well as the chip’s position? We have the technology with the Halo Scanner linked to Scannerangel to flag up on the scanner itself when a dog has been registered as missing, and full marks to Petlog who, after coaxing, agreed to be part of
the initiative.

  There are several databases holding details regarding the animal microchips, one of the newest, Smarttrac, is undercutting the prices of the largest and oldest, Petlog. I’m all for competition in this particular marketplace because I feel that it will be good for the end user. We have a history of voting with our feet so it will be interesting to see how value for money can be re-established by other databases.

To be blunt, the people that make money from microchipping are the manufacturers of the chip, the database for the chip and the implanter of the chip, very often a vet.
How very ironic that the two who do not actively wish microchips to be read and checked as an obligation actually makes the highest percentage of the profit involved. Pardon the pun but I feel we need to chip away the excuses.