Microchipping Mandatory by 2016

Lemlin

Great to see legislation start. I just hope this doesn't lead to vets putting the price up for chipping.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/all-dogs-must-have-microchip-in-bid-to-stop-cruelty-30281427.html

A radical overhaul of animal welfare legislation has been put in place introducing stringent new measures to protect animals from cruelty and neglect, with animal rights groups being given powers to police it for the first time.

The new law – announced by Agriculture Minister Simon Coveney – also includes a ban on children buying animals.

"The idea that a 14-year-old can buy a horse is no longer acceptable unless a parent or guardian is there to take responsibility for it," said Mr Coveney.

The legislation also makes it an offence to bet on or even attend a dog fight in a major crackdown on the cruel sport.

Until now, it has been very difficult to prosecute anyone in relation to dogfighting because when gardai raid them, everyone scatters and it's impossible to prove who owns the dogs. But now anyone attending can be prosecuted, Mr Coveney told an animal welfare conference in Dublin.

Database

The new microchipping requirement for all dogs mean their details will have to be recorded in a database by 2016 to make it easier to find their owners. It costs around €30 or €40 to get a pet microchipped but funding will be provided to dog welfare charities to carry out free or subsidised microchipping to those who can't afford it, he said.

The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ISPCA) and Dogs Trust both welcomed the new measures as a historic step forward.

The new system replaces outdated laws by moving away from a system where only outright cruelty could be prosecuted to one which puts the onus on owners to provide for animals' needs, said Mr Coveney.

Crucially it allows enforcement officers to step in early to issue on-the-spot fines or formal warnings against owners where there is a danger of neglect.

To ensure these new powers can be enforced in practice it also allows for animal welfare groups, vets and veterinary nurses to be registered – subject to training – as enforcement officers to police the act and issue penalties.

Fines of up to €250,000 and prison sentences of up to five years can also be imposed for serious cruelty cases, and judges will also be given the power to ban people from ever owning animals again.

A number of animal rights groups protested outside the conference in Dublin Castle saying that the new legislation failed to deal with the most pressing animal welfare issue in Ireland today – live exports to the Middle East.

"We are renewing our appeal for the Minister to stop the awful trade of sending animals for slaughter outside of the EU to countries such as Libya where there is little or no animal welfare guidelines," said ARAN spokesman John Carmody.

The new animal welfare legislation came into force in recent weeks.

SingItOut

A lot of vets are doing the micro chipping cheaper lately for the legislation and dogs trust always have micro chipping events at different times of the year, I'm sure vets wouldn't put the price up as that would deter people chipping their dogs, which would defeat the whole point.

Lemlin

SingItOut wrote: »

A lot of vets are doing the micro chipping cheaper lately for the legislation and dogs trust always have micro chipping events at different times of the year, I'm sure vets wouldn't put the price up as that would deter people chipping their dogs, which would defeat the whole point.

I may be wrong but are alot of the chipping and vaccination events run by rescues not generally for those on limited means and social welfare?

anniehoo

Lemlin wrote: »

I may be wrong but are alot of the chipping and vaccination events run by rescues not generally for those on limited means and social welfare?

No this isn't true. There are been various free chipping events and anyone can join not just people on low incomes. At the Animal Welfare conference yesterday the next nationwide chipping month will be in September.

SingItOut

And apart from free micro chipping events many vets have been having discounts regularly on micro chipping.

Lemlin

That's good to know. There's a few people in my area, elderly farmers particularly, that could do with the push.

Manach

Oh joys, more microchiping legislation to ensure people are supposed to act in a humane manner. Except that it likely end up being a complex and bureaucratic quango that is more about expanding state oversight and increasing government revenue streams with the purported walls of separation between private and body life being eroded.

SingItOut

@manach the legislation will ensure that whoever owns the dog will be held accountable for it if it is abused, roaming, picked up by a dog rescue/warden etc so there will be no chance the owner can lie about ownership as the dog will be registered to them. That is in no way a bad thing.

Manach

Yes it is. On the specific issue it effects the majority of normal pet owners so as to shift the cost and responsibility on them whilst on the general issue yet another law that increases the amount of data that is been keep on tab by the state. Laws in this country are directly influenced by short-term solutions and pushed by the lobbys that are most vocal - in this case a nice extra revenue steam for the vets.

As for dog wardens - more a vehicle to collect revenue that any agency for the benefit of animals.

maggiepip

I wonder though, its going to be very difficult to make people microchip. How would they enforce that? I can just see more of the responsible people getting it done and the irresponsible ones not bothering as usual.

borderlinemeath

Manach wrote: »

Yes it is. On the specific issue it effects the majority of normal pet owners so as to shift the cost and responsibility on them whilst on the general issue yet another law that increases the amount of data that is been keep on tab by the state. Laws in this country are directly influenced by short-term solutions and pushed by the lobbys that are most vocal - in this case a nice extra revenue steam for the vets.

As for dog wardens - more a vehicle to collect revenue that any agency for the benefit of animals.

Microchipping has been in place for some time now, the databases are not government run, there will be nobody "keeping tabs". All responsible rescues microchip dogs that are rehomed as a matter of course. Responsible breeders have always chipped their litters, it's puppy farmers and byb are the ones that are likely to not have their litters chipped. And the onus should always be on the breeder rather than the purchaser of the dog.

It should help weed out people that just stray their pets, those that allow them to frequently roam and push up prices for puppy farmers, or at least the ones that try and maintain a veneer of respectability. For the buyers that are foolish enough to purchase an unchipped dog, well they will deserve a fine. It should also take pressure off rescues who put a lot of resources into strays who's owners can't be identified because they either aren't chipped or the chip isn't registered.

It will be interesting to see how it will be implemented and enforced though. I've commented before on how neighbouring counties differ with cover for dog wardens and the availability and enforcement of fines and prosecutions.

ABajaninCork

It's all very well chipping the dogs. But can the owners be bothered to update the details on a regular basis? - If they bother to register at all...

borderlinemeath

ABajaninCork wrote: »

It's all very well chipping the dogs. But can the owners be bothered to update the details on a regular basis? - If they bother to register at all...

What tended to happen was the breeder chipped the litter and left the change of registration to the new owner, and many owners never bothered or were even aware they had to put details onto a database.

In order to avoid the possibility of a fine, the breeders will now have a responsibility to ensure that for every pup they sell from a litter that the details are changed as part of the contract - they should be done there and then before the pup leaves for it's new home. Again if the dog is rehomed the responsibility is on the original owner to ensure details are up to date to avoid fines and prosecution.
Rescues too, will have to ensure that dogs adopted out are correctly accounted for.

ABajaninCork

Is that included in the legislation?

borderlinemeath

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Is that included in the legislation?

I don't know, I haven't read it, but what breeder wants the possibility of being contacted by the dog warden because a dog they bred was picked up as a stray? Similarly if a dog is rehomed, the owner won't want the possibility so will ensure it's done.

If I sold a car and next thing a load of parking fines landed, it would be because I didn't send off the log book to be changed, I would have to prove I sold it as it was originally registered in my name. It won't be worth the hassle for the seller not to ensure the paperwork is present and correct.

ABajaninCork

I understand that and agree with you. But I don't think the act of registering the animals is included in the legislation and my point is it should be. Unless that is included, then unfortunately, I don't see the point of it.

Lemlin

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Microchipping has been in place for some time now, the databases are not government run, there will be nobody "keeping tabs". All responsible rescues microchip dogs that are rehomed as a matter of course. Responsible breeders have always chipped their litters, it's puppy farmers and byb are the ones that are likely to not have their litters chipped. And the onus should always be on the breeder rather than the purchaser of the dog.

It should help weed out people that just stray their pets, those that allow them to frequently roam and push up prices for puppy farmers, or at least the ones that try and maintain a veneer of respectability. For the buyers that are foolish enough to purchase an unchipped dog, well they will deserve a fine. It should also take pressure off rescues who put a lot of resources into strays who's owners can't be identified because they either aren't chipped or the chip isn't registered.

It will be interesting to see how it will be implemented and enforced though. I've commented before on how neighbouring counties differ with cover for dog wardens and the availability and enforcement of fines and prosecutions.

I'd agree re the rescues. I'd also hope it would help pounds to trace owners easily and reduce some of the pressure on them.

In regard to "puppy farmers", looking at Donedeal I don't think it will effect them at all. 90% of them are chipping their dogs so they can register the pups and charge extra for the golden nugget that is "IKC Registration".

borderlinemeath

ABajaninCork wrote: »

I understand that and agree with you. But I don't think the act of registering the animals is included in the legislation and my point is it should be. Unless that is included, then unfortunately, I don't see the point of it.

That's a bit apathetic though isn't it? "It doesn't say I have to register my details, so there's no point" The amount of dogs that rescues take in that they scan and aren't registered are huge. My own rescue dog was one. So even if the breeders ensure their details are updated by the new owners that's a whole lot of pets returned to their owners. How it's going to be retro actively implemented is what I would be more concerned about.

ABajaninCork

borderlinemeath wrote: »

That's a bit apathetic though isn't it? "It doesn't say I have to register my details, so there's no point" The amount of dogs that rescues take in that they scan and aren't registered are huge. My own rescue dog was one. So even if the breeders ensure their details are updated by the new owners that's a whole lot of pets returned to their owners. How it's going to be retro actively implemented is what I would be more concerned about.

You've missed my point. I totally agree with getting animals microchipped. My dog is and the cats before him were. But there's no push to get the registration details on the system and updated, nor are there (as I understand it) penalties for not doing so. The penalties are only in place for NOT chipping. And it should be extended to the proper keeping of records. Otherwise, as I say this is a pointless exercise.

DBB

A huge problem is that many breeders might chip their pups, but don't register the chips at all, instead waiting to allow the new owner to do it.
This means that there are many dogs out there that are chipped, but nobody knows where they came from, nor who produced them in the first place.... Which of course means that their breeders remain 100% unaccountable.
As I see it, the person who implants the chip (and it doesn't have to be a vet, which makes things more complicated if the breeder is chipping their own pups) must take responsibility for registering it to the breeder or owner. If it costs more, so be it. Anyone in possession of an unregistered dog should de liable. It's done with livestock and cars, there's no reason it can't be done with dogs too.

masonchat

Its only a matter of time before they want to microchip us

Kali_Kalika

As a responsible owner my dog is not and never will be microchipped. She doesn't roam and if she's outside I'm with her or someone is with her. As regards to getting lost, she doesn't stray, always within sight (she's a collie and loves to chase, but will drop to the spot on command even if a herd of cats were there to chase)

The reason I will never microchip her is because of all the reports of tumours being found at or near the microchip site - the insignificant chance of her being lost or needing to be linked back to me due to irresponsible ownership issues does not or ever will outweigh the chances of cancer after having her chipped.

Call me a nut, a freak, irrisponsible - whatever you want. That's fine - this is my opinion no one elses (if it happens to be yours, that's great, come set up camp over here and we'll have a grand old chat!) But I chose to get a dog, and with that choice came making responsible decisions for her. And not microchipping her is a big one.

I can understand wanting a track and trace system on your dog - things can and do happen - that's why they're called accidents. Years and years ago when microchips were just something found in science fiction stories. I was a child and had a puppy - the breeder my parents bought from wanted to keep the pups identified through life so the breeder had them tattooed. A tiny tiny series of numbers on the inside of their back leg where the hair was thin (would have been bald as a pup).

The pups were given a localised anesthetic before it was done - I've had many many tattoos done myself (in similar pain areas) and with no anesthetic - and its not painful in the least, especially as these numbers were so very tiny and brief - so being given the anesthetic they would have felt nothing at all - alternatively if you didn't wish to give such a young pup anesthetic at that age - this could be something that was done when they were already out for being spayed or neutered. There is no anesthetic or any type of pain relief given when shoving a grain of rice sized computer part into the back of their neck to begin calling cancer cells to it.

I really cannot understand why a tracking number couldn't be used instead of the microchip - ultimately it builds your same database of information - owners could be found if the dog were lost - instead of scanning the dog with a special machine, anyone with access to the internet could go onto the database and type in the number - wouldn't this be far better for assisting lost dogs?! No special trip to the vet or similar who has the magic device for scanning - lost pets could be reunited with owners much faster and efficiently.

So, please, stop and think what you are doing to your pet and why. The answer they are giving us as pet owners is not the right one for our beloved pets. You feed them the best of foods, spoil them with treats, let them into your beds at night and share the secrets of your soul with them - then why do we give them such vast risks of life ending diseases - please for the love of your pet stop and think what you are doing! Look for a better answer! If not for you and their long wonderful life with you - then for them. Look into those adoring eyes and promise to give them better than a microchip!

ShaShaBear

A tattoo code could be done by literally anyone. Plenty of BYBs and puppy farmers would be tattooing all sorts of anything onto puppies, probably without bothering with anasthetic, to make the puppies seem more authentic and costly. Then when people steal dogs, a skin shaving is all they need to make the tattoo illegible and the dog untraceable from there on.

The argument for not chipping falls side-by-side with people who think it is cruel to deprive dogs and cats of their reproductive capability.

boomerang

The Minister said on Friday that with regards to mandatory chipping of horses, if there is a transfer of ownership and the owner details aren't updated on the database, then the original owner will be liable for any fines, penalties etc. the horse incurs. That provides a great incentive to keep the owner details up to date. Hopefully the same will be true of dogs.

DBB

boomerang wrote: »

The Minister said on Friday that with regards to mandatory chipping of horses, if there is a transfer of ownership and the owner details aren't updated on the database, then the original owner will be liable for any fines, penalties etc. the horse incurs. That provides a great incentive to keep the owner details up to date. Hopefully the same will be true of dogs.

This is how it works for cars, livestock, and in theory at least, registered greyhounds and horses. It is, as far as I can see, the most effective system there is when it's properly enforced. And therein lies a big potential problem.
But it is my understanding that Minister Coveney seems pretty determined to enforce the new laws, from what I've heard from the meeting on Friday? I couldn't make it, I had another event to attend in the name of dog welfare, but I've heard some snippets back!

As for not microchipping due to cancer risks, well, that's absolutely down to the individual owner. But, I think the risk needs to be put in context. In one set of lab tests, 1% of rats tested developed cancer around the site of the microchip. That's a pretty low risk. When placed beside the number of unchipped or unregistered dogs who die every year due to ending up in pounds unfound by unknown owners, it should help put the risk in context.
Many things we do with our dogs involve risk: putting them under anaesthesia to neuter them, feeding them bones or hard chews, throwing sticks for them.
Indeed I very lost sight my own dog, some years ago now, who was wearing her legally-required identity tag on her collar. She went for a swim in a river and the collar got tangled in a branch under the water. She was lucky beyond anything that I found her on time, I've heard of other dogs drowning under similar circumstances. So, wearing a collar is also a risk.
Tattoos are not a particularly effective ID, because they fade and become illegible.
So, whilst it's down to each individual to decide what's best for their dog, it is important that people are informed of the risk factors involved on every side before they make the choice.

Whispered

I've also heard of dogs who were tattooed on the ear having the ear removed so they couldn't be identified.

RobbingBandit

Is it easy to change the registration details on the chips, say if someone buys a preregistered dog.

DBB

Whispered wrote: »

I've also heard of dogs who were tattooed on the ear having the ear removed so they couldn't be identified.

This is nauseatingly common amongst greyhounds. In fact, dogs that are killed and dumped almost invariably have their ears cut off as a matter of course.
I remember one greyhound some years ago (some of the *ahem* more seasoned rescue people here may remember too) whose ears were cut off before he was dumped in a ditch... but unknown to the bastards who dumped him, he was still alive. It was pure good fortune that a kind soul found this dog before he died, and got him into the care of a great rescue group.

DBB

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Is it easy to change the registration details on the chips, say if someone buys a preregistered dog.

People buying pups from a breeder get a card with the microchip number, and a registration code which lets the microchip database know that the dog has legitimately changed hands.
For rescue dogs, the microchip companies will generally change the chip over on request, having built up a trusting relationship with most rescues. If the rescue did try to pull a fast one, and the real owner came forward, the rescue would be very quickly found out.
So it is easy enough to do, but it isn't a free for all