As the licensing debate rears its ugly head again, a number of people are asking why Dogs Trust believes that compulsory chipping is preferable to the dog licence.
Quite simply, a microchip has a benefit to both dog and owner. If a microchipped dog is lost, he's quickly reunited with his owner, saving stress and heartache all round. A dog licence has no welfare benefits whatsoever – it’s merely a tax. Dogs Trust does not believe that compulsory microchipping will solve all dog related problems. However, we do believe that many dogs’ lives will be saved if this becomes law.
Supporters of the licence ask us why the compliance rate for compulsory chipping would be any higher than for compulsory licensing. Well, the two propositions are totally different. Think of it in terms of some of our car-related laws...
We're required to pay tax on our car. That tax doesn't offer any immediate benefits to us as drivers and who knows where the money actually goes?
We're also required to wear a seatbelt when driving. This costs us a small amount when we buy a car as there's obviously a cost involved in fitting the belts. However, most of us are happy to comply with this law as we know it can be a lifesaver.
For car tax, think dog licence - an expensive annual tax.
For seat belt law, think compulsory microchipping - a small one-off fee giving life-saving protection.
And dog owners in one part of the UK already appreciate the difference. Compulsory licensing already exists in Northern Ireland – where only around a third of owners comply. Yet the Dogs Trust microchipping programme is very popular in Northern Ireland where we chip thousands of unlicensed dogs a year – because the owners recognise the benefits of chipping but object to being taxed for owning a dog.
Of course not everyone will comply (although making it mandatory to have dogs chipped before “first change of hands” will boost compliance) but most owners will not resent a law designed with the dog’s welfare in mind.
Microchips 1: Licensing 0.
Update - More from our Marketing Director
And Another thing…
It’s good to see this issue causing such lively debate on the blog and our Facebook pages.
It strikes me that dog owners may differ in their opinions but all want what’s best for dog welfare.
The anti dog brigade, on the other hand, are not so altruistic. Their main argument seems to be that dogs and their owners are a financial drain on the nation’s resources. We’re told that that an additional tax (ie a dog licence) should be introduced so that the dog warden service can be funded by dog owners. So let’s examine the facts…
A recent Mintel report estimates (conservatively) that taxes related to dog ownership (such as VAT on dog food) contribute over £450m to the public purse. Yet the combined cost of the UK’s dog warden services is in the £30-£40m price bracket. I’d say that dog owners are more than paying their way.
21 comments:
i think micro chipping is a much better idea. why should we be taxed for wanting to own a dog, will the same thing happen for folks who have a cat, a horse or a gerbil! some people may not be able to afford a yearly fee as well as the expense of owning a dog. i know that as a dog owner it is not the most expensive cost we have but with food, insurance, vet bills it is still costly add to this a yearly tax people will resent it. surely learning from our past where dog licenses didn't work well before micro chipping seems the better logical step!
I agree that micro chipping should be compulsory, and that a licence is just a tax. However if a license fee was to be paid to another organisation and the money spent on welfare officers who actually checked up on all dogs this could be very beneficial. It would be a way to spot neglected dogs of those not being care for properly. If a dog was becoming over weight for example an owner could be advised before health problems became an issue. It would be a source of information for well meaning owners to. i would be very happy to welcome an expert into my home to give me advice on the care of my dogs as they mean the world to me and I want to do the very best for them. I know people worry about the cost but it needn't be high and having a dog is expensive anyway.
"If a microchipped dog is lost, he's quickly reunited with his owner"
This is slightly woolly I think. It may still take years for a lost dog to be scanned, it may be that the dog has changed hands and the details on the chip are out of date, or the owner doesn't want the dog back.
I believe in chipping, all my dogs are chipped, but until there is a way to have all the details on ONE database, in a similar way to the DVLA, and a way to enforce people keeping the details up to date, or a way to check change of ownership *and* a way to make people abandoning their dogs in some way liable, PLUS ensuring every dog professional who comes into contact with a dog (even dog walkers, groomers etc) for the first time scanning it, and having someone to report any concerns over ownership to, I don't see what it will change.
I didn't know you had to pay for a seat belt. Don't they come with the car?
I agree that the current licencing system is completly flawed.
I personally would put it through with a test, maybe a practical and theory test, like with driving, before the potential owner gets the dog.
People(generalisation) have no respect for animal welfare, this is true with pets, farm animals and wildlife. How many cats or badgers are seen at the side of roads and people don't bat an eyelid. How many people will buy free range eggs but then buy a whole chicken from a factory farm? a heck of a lot. We're in too much of a throw-away society, and people will do that with anything they're bored with or can't handle anymore.
I personally feel that paying for a licence (maybe a pet licence not just a dog licence), which then gives the potential owner lessons about animal welfare, a theory test, then a practical dog/pet walking/training session, will give people the ability and knowledge for the animal, and respect that it's a sentient being and not a commodity. It's also a chance to monitor those who actually want a pet and for what reason, if they are up to it and have the time and money to care for the animal. A potential owner would not be able to aquire a pet without a licence, and if they do, they and the person selling the animal (who too must have a pet selling/breeders licence) would be heavily fined and banned from keeping pets, maybe some community service at a rescue centre.
Obviously the biggest problem is enforcement, with so many back-yard breeders, dogs that have 'accidents', and people that really don't give one i.e status dog owners, I'm fully aware that a lot will slip through the net to start with. But isn't that the same with everything. It wasn't that long ago that microchipping was introduced; and not every dog is microchipped or indeed tattooed even now, but it's a lot more widespread and recognised as its filtered through the system, vets, responsible breeders and rescue centres.
I personally think the kennel club have a lot to answer for, there should be registered breeders who receive home checks on a regular basis, the dogs should be regularly health checked by a vet - there needs to be new standards on breeding too, to get the hereditry problems out of breeds, big dogs with hip problems as one example- an alsation should not have it's back end virturally scrapping the floor, this leads to so many hip, knee and back problems, if anyone saw the BBC documentary on Crufts will know what I'm talking about.
It would stop (or slow down) the back-yard breeders, but to follow on with that, the welsh government needs to take dogs off their list of stock animals, they are not farm animals yet they are pretty much on the same list. There are plenty of rescue centres in wales that take on ex-breeding bitches for the final years (if they get that many) of their lives, but it doesnt stop the fact that the puppies they have are badly bred, with many serious problems that just leads to years of pain and problems - I know, as mine was a rescue picked up from one of these wretched places.
I also think that animal welfare education should start at schools, with these academies opening up all over the place, and the fact they can change the syllabus to what they want, its a perfect opportunity to introduce animal welfare and behaviour to schools at all ages. The younger they are, the more likely attitudes will change as they grow up, you can take Jamies school dinners as an example, granted its only at the 5 year mark but those kids who where 5 at the time its started, and are 10 now are more likely to have a positive attitiude to healthier foods than the now 15 year olds who were 10 at the time.
Peoples attitudes need to change, that is fundementally where the problem lies and where the changes need to start.
I'm warbaling on a bit now so I shall leave!...
I'm actually in favour of the dog licence, but think the conditions of having a dog licence (and therefore the benefits of having a dog) should include a number of measures including compulsory micro chipping, along with regular veterinary checks, de-worming etc. In other words, if dog owners did not comply with the conditions, then they would not be granted a licence. I would also suggest that everyone with a dog licence is visited at least once or preferably twice a year by an animal welfare officer as suggested by Sue Rowley. These visits would ensure that the dog was being cared for properly, and could offer advice on behaviour, grooming and health checks. I would not want to see anyone penalised for wanting to have a dog, and appreciate the expense involved, so would like to see either a reduced licence fee or waiver of fees (but still a licence in place) for anyone suffering financial hardship. I would also like very stiff penalties introduced for people to do not comply with the licensing laws. I pretty much agree with most of the points made by batmandi. I know these views may sound strict and would take a lot of manpower and will to enforce, but if we love our dogs and care about their welfare, surely we should be willing to comply? The reason so many dogs suffer and we have such a problem with abandoned/unwanted dogs is because many people are irresponsible. Yes, it will not prevent all bad dog ownership, but I'm pretty sure it would go a fair way to creating a better place for our dogs to live in.
First of all, Mina there is a central base for registering microchipped pets. It is called PETLOG and is run by the Kennel Club. I am one of the many people around the country who are notified if a microchipped pet is reported missing within a 30 mile radius of my home and have a scanner in order to check any animals that are picked up by the local police.
Secondly batmandi. The cost of a seatbelt is built into the price of the car.
A lot of elderly people have animals as their only companion but do not have the finances or ability to take part in pet ownership courses. I agree that educating the pet owning public is a good thing but it should not be forced on them enmass.
As for health tests before breeding from dogs this is a requirement that has been introduced by breed clubs and the Kennel Club for a number of years now and any self respecting breeder complies with the variety of checks that are required for each specific breed. Puppy farming is indeed a problem that organisations like the Dog Trust and the Kennel Club as well as responsible breeders like myself are trying to educate the dog buying public about. As a breeder all my puppies are microchipped and registered at PETLOG before they are sold therefore they can be traced back to me if there is any problem in the future.
I am behind the dogs trust one hundred per cent. Micro chipping should be law so that puppies are mocro chipped BEFORE sale. that way all dogs can be tracked back to owership. It should be law that if a dog changes hands the owner should inform the register just as we have to inform the DVLA when we sell or dispose of a vehicle. Keep up the wonderful work you all do. God Bless
Mina, there is a central datbase for microchipped pets, it is called PETLOG and is run by the Kennel Club. They also have volunteers around the country who are notified if a micrchipped pet is reported lost within a 30 mile radius of their home.
batmandi you are warbaling a bit and should verify your facts. The Kennel Club and Breed Clubs have been promoting health checks before breeding from dogs for many years now It is part of the rules of membership that the health checks partaining to your particular breed are carried out before you breed from a bitch or use a dog at stud and under the Kennel Club Accreditted Breeders Scheme home visits are carried out. As a responsible breeder all my puppies are microchipped and registered with PETLOG before they are sold so that they can be traced back to me in the future if neccessary.
Compulsary Micro chip has got to be best.
How many dogs end up in rescue centres because the owner has 'changed their mind' after seeing the cute puppy grown into an adult. It is quite possible they would purchase a licence to begin with, but once that dog has been chucked out, a licence isn't going to give any info of who or where it belongs, but a chipped dog would easily be traced especially if it is law to notify the data base of any changes.
The only people likely to break the law and not notify of changes, will be the same folk who wouldn't buy a licence either.
If microchipping were compulsory,it wold probably lead to more strays being scanned which ultimately would mean more lost dogs would be reunited with their owners, which can only be a good thing.
Licencing, on the other hand, is merely just another tax to give more money to the government. It would be no more than another tax on law abiding citizens, whilst the people that get dogs as status symbols, and train them to be aggresive would not buy a licence anyway.
Re PETLOG. This is not ONE database that covers ALL chips. Otherwise when I updated my new dog's chip details PETLOG would have done it, instead of sending my cheque back and telling me it needed to go to Identichip. That does not sound like ONE database to me.
@ Anonymous, I'm sure you are a responsible breeder and get your dogs micro-chipped before going to a new home. Curiously, are they spayed or neutered too? Because someone may buy their pedigree dog from you but not have the best intentions for it.
My facts are indeed straight, too many pure bred dogs are being taken to vets - I live very close and have contacts with, University of Liverpool's vets clinic and their Leahurst surgery, where time and time again pure bred dogs, such as Newfoundland’s, Neo Mastiffs and Alsatians with severe hip dysplasia and arthritis, King Charles Spaniels with brain damage, Bulldogs with breathing difficulties, to name just a few, are being taken in at incredibly young ages to have major surgery, or indeed to be put to sleep. Where are the checks going on for those dogs that have had to suffer incredible pain in their very short lives?? I have seen those breed checks lists for hip scoring, they are moronic. If I decided to breed humans, and knowing that one suffered from osteoporosis, and the other from MS, people would call me a fool for continuing those heredity lines through to the next generation. Why should it be any different for an animal? Why should the likes of Crufts have such a say in the breeding of dogs? The animal may be physically fine, no severe problems health wise, but you wouldn't breed a dog with an aggressive streak or severe behavioural problems, would you?
Please don't come across all mightier than thou; with your comments because you feel that your part of the elite group of kennel club members, who to be honest, all come across as a bunch of nitwits. Enjoy your dog for being a dog, with their own unique personality, they are not show things or at least to them you are a member of the family, to you they seem like a way to win awards or earn money. Dogs just want to be loved, not paraded.
@ Anonymous, I'm sure you are a responsible breeder and get your dogs micro-chipped before going to a new home. Curiously, are they spayed or neutered too? Because someone may buy their pedigree dog from you but not have the best intentions for it.
My facts are indeed straight, too many pure bred dogs are being taken to vets - I live very close and have contacts with, University of Liverpool's vets clinic and their Leahurst surgery, where time and time again pure bred dogs, such as Newfoundland’s, Neo Mastiffs and Alsatians with severe hip dysplasia and arthritis, King Charles Spaniels with brain damage, Bulldogs with breathing difficulties, to name just a few, are being taken in at incredibly young ages to have major surgery, or indeed to be put to sleep. Where are the checks going on for those dogs that have had to suffer incredible pain in their very short lives?? I have seen those breed checks lists for hip scoring, they are moronic. If I decided to breed humans, and knowing that one suffered from osteoporosis, and the other from MS, people would call me a fool for continuing those heredity lines through to the next generation. Why should it be any different for an animal? Why should the likes of Crufts have such a say in the breeding of dogs? The animal may be physically fine, no severe problems health wise, but you wouldn't breed a dog with an aggressive streak or severe behavioural problems, would you?
Please don't come across all mightier than thou; with your comments because you feel that your part of the elite group of kennel club members, who to be honest, all come across as a bunch of nitwits. Enjoy your dog for being a dog, with their own unique personality, they are not show things or at least to them you are a member of the family, to you they seem like a way to win awards or earn money. Dogs just want to be loved, not paraded.
Do you not think that some stray dogs are stray for a reason? Is it not possible to think that someone doesn't want the dog back, it may or may not be premeditated in terms of getting the dog microchipped, but some people, for whatever reason get rid of their dogs by simply letting them go, that dog would not be wanted back by the owners, if they were found.
The problems are never with the responsible owners, its with the ones that don't care.
Exactly the cost of the seatbelt is in the price of the car, you don't actively go out looking for seatbelts, unlike microchipping, which isn't in the price of the dog. Depending where you go of course.
I don't see why this debate is Microchip Versus Licence! I think there should be BOTH! I think if people can't afford the meagre licence fee, then they obviously can't afford to own a pet. I think the laws of animal ownership should be tightened in many ways.
A good news story involving chipping.
Even if it does take 2 years it's still a major benefit being reunited.
http://tinyurl.com/34qsq8f
While microchipping has many advantages, it does have several disadvantages. For instance, microchips have been known to get lost inside an animal's skin. Also, not enough research has been done to determine whether there are long-term effects to microchipping. For more on the subject of microchips, see http://thepetwiki.com/wiki/Microchip_ID
have a look at chip me nots website and then tell me micro chipping is still ok the main people to benefit will be the drug companies who make the chips .seventh heaven animal charity has an extensive site too on why not we shouldnt microchip citing several cancer doctors views on the effects of chips along with several other rational arguments against
have a look at chip me nots website and then tell me micro chipping is still ok the main people to benefit will be the drug companies who make the chips .seventh heaven animal charity has an extensive site too on why not we shouldnt microchip citing several cancer doctors views on the effects of chips along with several other rational arguments against
There are many microchips providers but you have to make sure you insert a chip which will work for a life time. If you do not want to jeopardize the security of the pets your clients bring you, get the best from Microchip Direct.
microchip direct
Post a Comment