All dogs to be chipped.

Bullseye1

Just reported that all dogs will now be chipped going forward. A positive move but how will it be enforced.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/all-dogs-to-be-microchipped-under-coming-legislation-1.1340959

As a continuation on the subject should every dog owner also be asked forsake out insurance? Seems only right that you would have insurance in case your best pal needs expensive surgery or medication.

ILoveToast

That's good news about the chipping A step in the right direction for sure.

Not sure I'd agree to do the same with the insurance though. Even though mine are insured, not everyone wants to insure their pets. It is costly and the cover is not that great after the pet turns a certain age unfortunately.
Some people prefer just to put away a sum each month in case of an emergency, so either I think is fine.

Bullseye1

Do you think insurance premiums would come down to affordable levels if every dog was insured or is that pie in the sky?

ILoveToast

There are more insurance compainies to chose in between now compared to even a few years back. The competition did very little to the price, so tbh I would doubt that. Even though that would of course be nice!

time lord

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Just reported that all dogs will now be chipped going forward. A positive move but how will it be enforced.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/all-dogs-to-be-microchipped-under-coming-legislation-1.1340959

As a continuation on the subject should every dog owner also be asked forsake out insurance? Seems only right that you would have insurance in case your best pal needs expensive surgery or medication.

Chipping will be great if the law is successful. Horses are meant to be chipped at the moment, it is not a hugely successful law. We checked up to 180 last year. Less than 10% had chips.
I think laws not enforced are a waste of time for example from j walking in prescribed areas to the set time a burglar alarm may sound outside a premises to local authorities sharing dog wardens to circumvent the law.
If this new law goes down the tried and tested route of another Irish law going unenforced it shouldn't be bothered with I.m.o.

carav10

Considering health insurance for humans isn't mandatory, why on earth should pet insurance be???

Pumpkinseeds

I think mandatory micro chipping is a great idea. Realistically I don't see how it'll be enforced. I doubt most people have a dog licence and I certainly wouldn't see the people that allow their dogs to roam paying for chipping. A vet can't force someone to microchip their dog when/if they come in for treatment.

I read the other day about an off leash dog roaming my town that had attacked 2 on leash dogs, followed the owner home and jumped the fence to get at the dogs again. The next day the dog warden picked up 4 roaming dogs in one estate.

I live in a relatively nice town and its become a big problem in the last few years, the town is now a black spot in Clare for roaming dogs and it certainly isn't the first attack of this kind in the town. I think that unless there is a major change in mind set from people allowing dogs to roam the problems will just continue.

Jimoslimos

carav10 wrote: »

Considering health insurance for humans isn't mandatory, why on earth should pet insurance be???

Humans can take personal responsibility for their own health and also benefit, here at least, from free-ish emergency health care.

Pets don't have that luxury.

merdock

They cant even enforce dog licences never mind chipping of dogs.. another stupid law being brought in to try and make a few pound off the few honest citizens that will actually chip the dogs.. and yes I have my dog licence up to date.

Hitchens

some dog owners should be chipped

mymo

The chipping is a good idea, but how would it be enforced? I don't think it will work.

The insurance idea is wrong, many choose to insure pets, I choose to save and have a credit union account for my pets, I keep it topped up, my vet is reasonable and allows payment in installments.
I was quoted over a thousand euro for my pets, last year they cost €40 outside neutering and vacc's, which aren't covered anyway. I'll stick with my way, insurance is just too much.

Wibbs

carav10 wrote: »

Considering health insurance for humans isn't mandatory, why on earth should pet insurance be???

Plus many breeds are refused insurance. IMH pet insurance has served to increase vet costs across the board, just like it does with people.

Manach

A negative move. Yet more expensive state oversight than punishes the legitimate and responsible owners, who do chip anyway, by stealth taxes to fund any agency to monitor the chipping whilst irresponsible owners ignore chipping.

mymo

Wibbs wrote: »

Plus many breeds are refused insurance. IMH pet insurance has served to increase vet costs across the board, just like it does with people.

A prime example here:
2 years ago my cat broke his back leg just below the hip, the vet knew it was broken, he could feel it, but an insurance company would still have insisted on an x ray, which would increase costs, also if my cat develops arthritis later he won't be covered due to this break. The broken leg with 4 visits, and meds cost me a total of €95, initial visit, 2nd one for more meds and 2 free checks to monitor recovery. With the x ray and follow ups it could of come to hundreds, plus my vet said some insurance companies are very slow to pay and excess can be up to €100.

Also my older cat is now 13, insurance stops at 9 or 10 for cats I believe, younger cat is that age now we think, so now insurance isn't an option for them.

boomerang

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Humans can take personal responsibility for their own health and also benefit, here at least, from free-ish emergency health care.

Pets don't have that luxury.

My dog's been insured all her life. At least she was, until she hit eight and the insurance company wanted me to pay the excess and the first 35% of any claim. It made no sense to continue to pay the premium. If she needs costly veterinary care, I'll move heaven and earth to ensure she gets it.

So no, I don't agree with compulsory pet insurance.

I'm delighted to hear that compulsory microchipping is in the works, but as it stands there are so many dogs out there with no information whatsoever recorded against their microchip, or the microchip is still registered to the breeder, who doesn't keep a record of to whom they sell their pups. That's a major problem. I also don't see how microchipping is going to implicate the culprits in cases of cruelty or neglect. Look at how many greyhound breeders/trainers are getting away scot-free in cases where dogs have been deliberately drowned/shot/have had their ears cut off. All they need say is that they sold the dog on, or that it was stolen. Most they can be done for is not registering the (bogus) change of ownership in the stud book.

iguana

Wibbs wrote: »

Plus many breeds are refused insurance. IMH pet insurance has served to increase vet costs across the board, just like it does with people.

It absolutely does. After living in the UK for many years (and the majority of my dog owning years) there are very few things that I think are better in Ireland than there. However vet costs are a huge negative over there as they are utterly extortionate. I can honestly say that apart from a house my dog's missing leg is by far and away the most expensive thing that I will ever (not) own. It cost us thousands to save it in April 09 and thousands more to have it removed the following December. We had insurance which cost us nearly STG£300pa for each dog but they only covered about 20% of the total cost of our vet bills. And the following year they wanted to nearly quadruple the monthly premium for him and double it for our other dog.

The breakdowns of the bills were ludicrous with ridiculous set ups like the dog being moved each night he was in their care to a night hospital and back to the vets during business hours, so we had to pay for each day of care at the vets, an ambulance to move him at night, his stay at the night hospital and an ambulance each morning. Then every single medication (such as STG£32 for one third of a ranitidine tablet (normally retailing at 12p a tablet, so 4p worth of medication and a mark up of 800x) and dressing he had was charged for, as were his surgeries, the anaesthetic and physiotherapy. Every follow up visit, like removal of stitches cost about £150. When we moved back here and saw a local Dublin vet he told us that he'd never have recommended the surgery to save Toby's leg as the odds of him breaking it again were just too high and he'd have removed it for an absolute total of €300. The vets in the UK, certainly in the major cities, tend to be part of huge chains and the vets are employees with large annual targets to achieve, to a huge extent their job is to maximise profits and make large insurance claims. It's not good for pet owners or the pets.

Queen-Mise

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Just reported that all dogs will now be chipped going forward. A positive move but how will it be enforced.

A nice idea but can't really see it happening. Not the legislature part, but the compliance part by people for the dog chipping. A certain portion will, but lots will not.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

As a continuation on the subject should every dog owner also be asked forsake out insurance? Seems only right that you would have insurance in case your best pal needs expensive surgery or medication.

And this is ludicrous.

iguana wrote: »

It absolutely does.

Good god iguana - that sounds horrific.

TooManyDogs

I think chipping would be a good idea but only if it's properly enforced and the chips are actually registered! The number of dogs both stray and surrendered coming into rescue that have been chipped but the chips never registered is horrendous :mad: Including dogs with papers from IKC, chipped but not registered.

As to the compulsory insurance, I 100% disagree and like many others I cancelled my pet insurances policies due to ridiculous premiums, stupid terms and conditions, unwillingness to negotiate price on multipet policies and reluctance to actually send you a check for vet treatment received. And like Iguana said, it has driven up the price of vet care in the UK unbelievably high, my sister's dog was attacked by 2 other dogs and the vet bill came to £2500stg and I treated a dog here with similar injuries (car accident not dog attack but very similar injuries) and it cost me €1000 and my vet was happy to take instalments. The only people to win if they enforced the insurance rule is insurance companies and that would make me nuts!

looking_around

I don't think chipping will be any more difficult than dog licenses to watch. SO I actually think adding it is a good idea. UK's doing the same aren't they?

If it becomes law, can't be that hard to force vets, to chip dogs that aren't? Kennels etc will have to check for it.
Of course, thats not likely to happen.
___________
@Bulls: like others here, I refuse to pay insurance for my pets. An animal will rarely get into such trouble that the insurance turns out to be worthwhile.
I rather put away the money than give it to a company. It's cheaper by far and less hassle. And then most vets offer paying in installments. So you really don't need animal insurance.

gimmick

How is this enforcable? They cannot enforce dog licenses after all.

seamus

It's slightly more enforceable than licences. The law when drafted hopefully will include provisions whereby any dog found without a chip is picked up and automatically chipped. The owner is then billed and registered when they come to pick it up.

However in reality without any enforcement at the breeder level, there is simply no way that chipping by pounds or rescue organisations can stem the constant flow of puppies from farms.

In reality the law should include provisions requiring all pups to be chipped in the first four weeks, with large fines of €1k+ per dog if a breeder fails to chip or register. Include in this mandatory requirements for vets to scan all animals for chips and chip and register all unchipped animals with or without the owner's consent. If the owner refuses to register the chip, the vet should have the obligation to seize the dog and hand it over to the pound.

But of the course the greyhound guys and the farmers won't resist having a good old whinge at any attempt to curb their cruel practices.

westies4ever

There is no doubt that the micro chipping will be difficult to enforce and I do see a low compliance rate particularly at the beginning but surely this is a step in the right direction?

Bannasidhe

mymo wrote: »

The chipping is a good idea, but how would it be enforced? I don't think it will work.

The insurance idea is wrong, many choose to insure pets, I choose to save and have a credit union account for my pets, I keep it topped up, my vet is reasonable and allows payment in installments.
I was quoted over a thousand euro for my pets, last year they cost €40 outside neutering and vacc's, which aren't covered anyway. I'll stick with my way, insurance is just too much.

Agree completely.

I am 'plugged into' many of the animal rescues/pet lost and found groups and I am amazed at the number of dogs they find who are microchipped but the information is either out of date or not registered at all.

Lived for a year in Brisbane where microchipping and a licence are compulsory - the m'chip details have to be supplied when getting the dog licence (plus proof of address) and a tag was issued to show licence had been paid which the dog was required by law to wear. My JRT lost her collar while chasing a lizard up a tree (:rolleyes:) and I got a new tag issued free of charge as their system showed I had paid - they simply read her m'chip and all the details came up.

As for the insurance - I paid for the same JRT for 8 years and never made a claim. Once she got to 8 I could no longer insure her. By the time I could have really done with having insurance for her she was 15.

I have now signed up my dogs to a health care plan at a nearby vets (cost being the prime reason I no longer use my 'local' vets) where for 104 euro per year per JRT I get all flea/tick/worm treatments, 2 full nose to tail checkups per year and a 10% discount on all other treatments and food bought through them- and I can pay in installments.

tk123

Some form of 3rd party insurance might be an idea eg roaming dogs causing accidents (I've had a few near misses myself) ...but the problem is that the fools who let their dogs roam out into the road at least in the area I drive thru are above the law so it'll never be enforced IMO.

fredweena

I have a dog and a cat insured. Had to make a hefty claim for the cat last year. Had a run in with a car. The treatment came to 1500 and I paid 100. The premium didn't go up much the following year, 2 euro/ month. If not for the insurance it would have been Bye, bye cat as there was no way I could afford that. The dog is insured now as well. It was definitely worth it in my case. My vet said that the best thing to do is to insure pets up to about three years old as they're more likely to do something stupid (like mine) or eat something that gets stuck in them etc. and it's not worth it after that in his opinion. On the microchipping thing, finding a stray dog with a chip that's not registered is the most frustrating thing in the world.

stusawop

A few articles on the argument against micro chipping.
Microchipping - 7th Heaven Animal Rescue Trust
MICROCHIPS: ARE PET OWNERS BEING MISLED? | Dogs Naturally Magazine

tk123

stusawop wrote: »

A few articles on the argument against micro chipping.
Microchipping - 7th Heaven Animal Rescue Trust
MICROCHIPS: ARE PET OWNERS BEING MISLED? | Dogs Naturally Magazine

Rubbish imo.

meow

Owners are legally obligated to microchip horses. Does it happen? No. Is it enforced? No. So why would it be any different for dogs???

Bottom line is some people just don't give a ****e about animals, and its the animal that pays the price

Bullseye1

looking_around wrote: »

@Bulls: like others here, I refuse to pay insurance for my pets. An animal will rarely get into such trouble that the insurance turns out to be worthwhile.
I rather put away the money than give it to a company. It's cheaper by far and less hassle. And then most vets offer paying in installments. So you really don't need animal insurance.

Fair point LA. My previous Ridgeback developed a heart condition at the age of 9, he lived until 11 and I had let his insurance lapse. Between medication and visits to the vet and UCD Vetenary Collage my expenses were over €5,000. Not for a second did i regret paying for this treatment or drugs but I did regret letting his insurance lapse. I do wonder if the insurance would have covered his treatment? With medication he had a perfectly normal existence but if you missed one days treatment on one of the 3 tablets he was on he could quickly disintegrate. I guess it's possible to save for such circumstances but €5,000 is no small sum.

With my new Ridgy she hurt her knee while on the beach (floating patella) and required an operation which cost €1200 plus X-rays. Thankfully she was insured.

tk123

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I guess it's possible to save for such circumstances but €5,000 is no small sum.

+1 to this - we claimed over 5k (2 ops and loads of xrays) in 2 years so glad we got the insurance. Depending on where you are in the country a bad cut to a paw = your insurance premium for the year or most of it so it's well worth the €250-€300 (can't remember how much it is this early) for us anyways. But I understand everyone's circumstances are different.

Qualitymark

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am 'plugged into' many of the animal rescues/pet lost and found groups and I am amazed at the number of dogs they find who are microchipped but the information is either out of date or not registered at all.

My dog is microchipped; the company went out of business and passed the details to a new company. I logged on to their site to check that everything was ok, and they had no record of my dog - had to get the number from the vet and give them all our details again.

looking_around

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Fair point LA. My previous Ridgeback developed a heart condition at the age of 9, he lived until 11 and I had let his insurance lapse. Between medication and visits to the vet and UCD Vetenary Collage my expenses were over €5,000.

Maybe for some insurance would be useful. But I've had pets all my life, and same with my parents.
We've always managed to get the pets treated. Sure it can be expensive, but from my experience you often won't need insurance. And can likely pull the money together if you do. At worst, I'd get a credit union loan.
I'd still believe it to be cheaper than paying insurance because something MIGHT happen. It's a lot of wasted money when nothing does. And then with everything they don't pay for..heh, no thanks.

Qualitymark

I suspect we're talking at cross-purposes here, and the person who first mentioned insurance was talking about insurance against your dog biting someone.

As for pet medical insurance, I gave that up when I realised I was paying more for the treatment with it (partly because my vet was offering treatment on the basis that the insurance would pay for it, which they did, at least for 2/3 of it).

Jen Pigs Fly

Question about this, I ave an 11 year old ab who is not chipped, should I chip her? She never leaves my side and has her ID tags.

My younger lab is chipped, don't want my older girl to get into trouble

Should mention she's not insured, too old and has severe hip dysphasia, younger lad is insured.

toadfly

I would chip all dogs, doesn't cost much and you never know when your dog will go missing.

looking_around

chip her, but dont bother with insurance, read all the posts to see why

Jen Pigs Fly

looking_around wrote: »

chip her, but dont bother with insurance, read all the posts to see why

Yea I will, need to bring her into the vet anyway, she has lumps under her skin so I get them checked every 1-2 months. Ill get her chipped next time I'm in.

UCDVet

I suspect most responsible dog owners will respect the chip law; but it will have virtually no impact on anything, since responsible dog owners are responsible

Hitchens

A tattoo artist and Army veteran from North Carolina drew criticism from all over the country after he had tattooed his 4-month-old puppy, Duchess, and posted the pictures on Facebook.

Ernesto Rodriguez said he inked the American pit bull on his belly for identification purposes. He also claims that his pet was anesthetized and didn´t feel any pain.

"Here is the final results for you haters out there. Animal control came looked at my beautiful dog and left...wow..what a waste of tax payers money, so im still gonna tattoo my dogs when ever i feel like it. Good try haters thanks for all the advertisement," Rodriguez wrote on Facebook.