I have just seen a FB post saying that from April 2016. It will be law that all dogs are microchipped. This has been known since 2013 though I this is the first I have heard of it.

It's a good idea to keep down the number of strays and abandoned dogs. However I think the people who dump dogs won't be in any hurry to get their dogs microchipped.

I can't see how it can be policed either. The police won't be able to do spot checks, so unless they impound a dog each time to check. People will just dump the dog and then the police have no evidence.

I would like that legal loophole closed about the attacks on private land to be completed. I still refuse to go to one of my customers unless the dog is put away. After it bit me for no reason the last time I was working there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21345730

It wont make hardly any difference loads of dogs go to rescue and pounds that are microchipped and people say they sold it on or they no longer live at the address its registered at etc.

They need to make breeders responsible for every dog bred its the only way to stop the problem as responsible breeders sell to responsible owners. No random person off the street should be allowed to breed their dogs its a good little non taxable money earner that needs to be stopped. Breeders should pay a couple thousand for a breeding licence and anyone caught breeding dogs without once should be fines thousands and have all dogs removed from their home.

It's been in force in NI for a few years now, one of the subsequent outcomes is that you can't get a licence until you can prove your dog has been microchipped.

Dog licences were abolished in Great Britain in 1987 but are, as you say, still in force in Northern Ireland.

Agree with this completely. In addition I would like to see a stop to 'fashion' breeding to create designer dogs, with no thought to how such breeding might affect the dogs created, or those whose genetics throw up a mix that doesn't fit what is desired.

what does chipping them involve?

can't be very comfortable

It's just a tiny microchip injected under the skin. Noworse than yearly inoculations.

Although there are many reported cases of the chips being linked with fatal cancerous tumors.

I saw that on FB as well. I was completely unaware of it before.

Mine is chipped already anyway but they need to publicise this a bit more.

Indeed I had a lot I could have added to the post but it was a bit of a summary, I would also like dogs that are bred to not only be health screened in general and then more breed specific health tests like hip scoring in larger breeds, Von willebrands in dobermanns etc and I would also like temperament tests done as well.

Unfortunately it is not a real priority for the government...maybe they have no idea how much money they're losing by not taxing the breeding of animals...if there was little to no profit to be made most people wouldn't do it.

Microchips can migrate too which is problem

My dog was chipped as a puppy, it is very quick and easy for the vet to do and my puppy suffered no pain of ill-effects. I could feel where it was implanted just under the skin near the top of her shoulder

Sad to say whatever law is brought out, the deterrent penalty for not complying will not be harsh enough to make it have any effect on those who just wish to ignore it.

There have been very few such cases and there is very little chance that a chipped animal would develop a tumour because of the chip. There is a much higher chance that a non-chipped pet would be put down because it could not be reunited with its owner.

I'm not sure that's a justifiable comparison.
We certainly know how many dogs are PTS each year but are there any statistics that show how many of those animals were actually pets who the owner would have wanted returned to them?

Equally, as long as chipping is being considered "the thing to do" any reports of the risks are going to be downplayed.

As far as I'm concerned, any additional risk (however small) is unacceptable.

Unfortunately untill it's also law that dogs must be scanned I don't see the point.

My dogs are chipped. In the event they go missing neither the vets, wardens or rescue centres have to scan them. It's pure luck wether they get scanned or not.

I follow dogs lost on Facebook and the amount of dogs found by their owners in rescue centres having not been scanned is astounding. These dogs are found because their owners check rescue centres every day not because the warden, vet or centre scanned them and read their chip.

So why bother? What use is it making it law to chip the dogs but not law to scan them?

There are several owners campaigning to make it law after their dogs were chipped, not scanned then pts because they weren't claimed. All could have been avoided had the centre or vet or warden just scanned he dog. It takes ten seconds. But as of now it's not law.

I'm not saying microchips are a bad idea because obviously there's also plenty of dogs reunited thanks to scanning. But the fact they were scanned is pure luck.

All that will happen is as usual responsible owners will follow the law and scum won't.

My Impossible Princess was chipped. A waste of money.

I can't help wondering about the prime motivation for this legislation.

Are we to believe that the government is SO concerned about the plight of lost dogs, and the charities who cater for them, that they've enacted legislation to ensure they are reunited with their owners more easily?
And they're especially fond of dogs - thus explaining why this legislation only applies to dogs and not cats?

Come off it!

I'd speculate that the real reason for it is to create a legally-binding "proof of ownership" so that it's easier to prosecute people who allow them to act in any anti-social manner.

And the problem there is that a lot of the people who do those things won't be getting their dogs chipped anyway.

As a result, you'll have millions of dog owners inflicting some level of distress on their pets, creating an elevated risk of disease and spending money all in aid of something that it won't achieve anyway.

Whoever dreamed up this legislation probably only ever had visions of "poop inspectors" being able to scan a dog's chip and then send a fine to the owner through the post and little more beyond that.

Think they should do it for Dogs and Cats all of mine was chipped on the first day they could be.

I think that the big problem (bigger problem?) is with people who have their dogs chipped but forget to keep the records up to date.

When we were looking for a second dog we very nearly re-homed a lovely beagle that was found wandering. She was chipped but her owner had moved without updating the address held for her and enquiries to contact her owner at that address - which was well out of the area - failed. T

By an absolute fluke, a friend of the owner saw the dog's profile on the re-homing centre's website and recognised her which meant that her owner was able to re-claim her less than 24hours before we became her legal owners.

A very happy result for the owner and brilliant for the dog (who was lost after being spooked in an unfamiliar area and ran away) but quite sad for us because she was a lovely little thing (Luckily for us, though, we did re-home another fantastic dog shortly afterwards who is a delight)

Care to elaborate why it's a waste of money, because your terse response does seem wasteful itself.

Never saw her again.

Sorry to hear of your loss.

There is a petition about making it law vets councils ect have to scan I signed it try to find the link

I agree with this post which has also been my view now for many years.

It won't make any difference until scanning strays and roadkill is mandatory nd a chip is proof of ownership