A great day!!

Galway K9

About ****ing time....How well they enforce it, i don't know.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/government-plan-to-see-all-dogs-microchipped-663055.html

Nody

Not only enforce it but keep the chip information up to date... Sorry that's not my dog I sold them on to someone on DoneDeal last year. Nope I don't have their details, sorry.

peasant

What's so great about this then?

We all know that enforcement will be difficult, so will be the maintenance of the database.
We can all guess that rogue breeders and "bad" dog owners will be ignoring or circumventing the legislation anyway.

So this leaves the responsible owner /breeders the only ones actually chipping their pets ...what for?

Chips can wander in the body. Not all scanners can read/will find a chip that has moved. So your lost pet might be put down as unchipped instead of being returned to you.

A chip is no guarantee that your stolen pet will be found or returned.

Chips have potential side effects of pain, chronic irritation, inflammation, wandering into sensitive areas of the body and last but not least cancer.

I for one fail to be convinced why I should chip my dogs ...they're either securely fenced in or under control. I have no intention of ever selling or breeding them and my vet knows them without a scanner. I don't see my dogs at any heightened risk unchipped ...the chip itself does carry several on the other hand.

borderlinemeath

peasant wrote: »

What's so great about this then?

We all know that enforcement will be difficult, so will be the maintenance of the database.
We can all guess that rogue breeders and "bad" dog owners will be ignoring or circumventing the legislation anyway.

The puppy farmers and byb that try and pull the wool over unsuspecting buyers eyes by using staged pick ups or friends/relations addresses will more than likely chip their dogs to try and maintain their veneer of being responsible breeders. And they will be damn sure to tell the new owners or even put the chip in the owners details as they don't want to have ANYTHING coming back on them.

It will be the truckloads of puppies heading to the UK and the certain demographic that sell their wares at fairs (which is illegal anyway) will be the ones that will do their best not to bother.

So this leaves the responsible owner /breeders the only ones actually chipping their pets ...what for?

To be reunited with their pet on the off chance they get out, or are stolen, or a fence blows down, or the house gets broken into and the dogs wander out an open door....the list goes on.

Chips can wander in the body. Not all scanners can read/will find a chip that has moved. So your lost pet might be put down as unchipped instead of being returned to you.

Any vet worth their salt scans the entire body to see has a chip migrated. As a further safety you can state on their tag that the chip has migrated and moved to "x" part of the body. It's worthwhile getting your pet scanned at their yearly vet check up to ensure it hasn't moved.

A chip is no guarantee that your stolen pet will be found or returned.

But the chances are far, far greater if your pet has been chipped? If he has no chip then how low are the chances of getting reunited without any id??

Chips have potential side effects of pain, chronic irritation, inflammation, wandering into sensitive areas of the body and last but not least cancer.

Can you link the evidence to back this up? And veterinary scientific journal published papers rather than opinions or blogs please.

I for one fail to be convinced why I should chip my dogs ...they're either securely fenced in or under control. I have no intention of ever selling or breeding them and my vet knows them without a scanner. I don't see my dogs at any heightened risk unchipped ...the chip itself does carry several on the other hand.

So you come across as a very responsible owner, and that is to be commended. But...you haven't got your pets microchipped, yet responsible breeders and reputable rescues and pounds have been microchipping dogs for years, so one can only assume you sourced your dogs from some not so responsible resources?

Pumpkinseeds

I think it's unenforceable. I live in a town were for a lot of people, opening the door and letting the dogs out to walk themselves every day seems to be the norm. The sort of people who do that are unlikely to have had their dogs vaccinated or neutered/spayed so they aren't going to bother with microchipping and sure if the dog causes an accident or attacks someone they'll just deny that it's their dog.

borderlinemeath

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think it's unenforceable. I live in a town were for a lot of people, opening the door and letting the dogs out to walk themselves every day seems to be the norm. The sort of people who do that are unlikely to have had their dogs vaccinated or neutered/spayed so they aren't going to bother with microchipping and sure if the dog causes an accident or attacks someone they'll just deny that it's their dog.

But that used to be the norm EVERYWHERE. But it is changing. When I was growing up dogs roamed everywhere, doors were opened and dogs were let out to potter about, there was always lots of mongrels because dogs just bred indiscriminately. As I grew older it was seen less and less, and now where I live it is getting a lot more rare to see roaming dogs, and they are reported to the local rescue.

It's the same with seat belts, go back 30 years nobody wore them, now it feels strange to get into a car and not put a belt on, it has become ingrained into us.

As it becomes law and years progress, local councils will be challenged on the number of strays they are taking in and pts because of no microchip and no prosecution for straying. Statistics for pounds are released every year so it will be easy to see where are blackspot areas. They can then be targeted for a free microchip campaign. Wardens may have to go door to door and scan pets to ensure mandatory chippings. My worry would be the absolute scumbags who would try and mutilate a dog in order to remove a microchip with details. As we've seen with greyhounds getting their ears mutilated to remove their tattoo IDs.:(

Manach

More government overreach that will place a burden on the responsible dog owners and be ignored by irresponsible ones. A typical examples of the jurisprudence impetus of "something has too be done" rather that weighting the consequences or respecting the autonomy of owners.

Pumpkinseeds

But the wardens don't go door to door checking dog licences here very often and there aren't the resources to send them door to door checking microchips. There is 1 dog warden in Clare. Once, 20 years ago or so, the dog warden showed up at my parents house because their licence had expired a few months before. He only showed up because they'd bothered to get a licence for the dog, so there was a record of the licence and I doubt many people bothered with a dog licence. I'm just saying that I don't think that mandatory microchipping is realistically enforceable unless the resources to enforce it are made available.

We have our 4 cats microchipped and I'm a fan of microchipping. But until the mentality of a lot of Irish dog owners changes, which I'm not seeing happening anytime soon, then it's pointless. A lot of dogs are never even taken to a vets.

borderlinemeath

Manach wrote: »

More government overreach that will place a burden on the responsible dog owners and be ignored by irresponsible ones. A typical examples of the jurisprudence impetus of "something has too be done" rather that weighting the consequences or respecting the autonomy of owners.

Responsible dog owners have been microchipping for years and ensuring their pets details are up to date. I fail to see how something that responsible owners have been doing as a matter of course suddenly becomes a burden!

borderlinemeath

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

But the wardens don't go door to door checking dog licences here very often and there aren't the resources to send them door to door checking microchips. There is 1 dog warden in Clare. Once, 20 years ago or so, the dog warden showed up at my parents house because their licence had expired a few months before. He only showed up because they'd bothered to get a licence for the dog, so there was a record of the licence and I doubt many people bothered with a dog licence. I'm just saying that I don't think that mandatory microchipping is realistically enforceable unless the resources to enforce it are made available.

We have our 4 cats microchipped and I'm a fan of microchipping. But until the mentality of a lot of Irish dog owners changes, which I'm not seeing happening anytime soon, then it's pointless. A lot of dogs are never even taken to a vets.

I'm saying that with pound statistics released every year, it will become easy to see blackspots and areas of non compliance. Resources can be drafted in for a finite amount of time to "sweep" the areas and enforce compliance by going door to door. If Clare is seen as a particularly bad area for compliance then some council workers can be redeployed for door to door inspections until it reaches an acceptable level.

Pumpkinseeds

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I'm saying that with pound statistics released every year, it will become easy to see blackspots and areas of non compliance. Resources can be drafted in for a finite amount of time to "sweep" the areas and enforce compliance by going door to door. If Clare is seen as a particularly bad area for compliance then some council workers can be redeployed for door to door inspections until it reaches an acceptable level.

There are blackspots in this town where the dog warden won't go without a Garda escort. That's been that way for a few years now and the problem hasn't gone away, I doubt it ever will. Don't get me wrong, I think microchipping is a good idea, but you will never persuade irresponsible owners to microchip. You'd have to have people going door to door to every house in Ireland to check if people have a dog. Then you'd have to scan the dog to check for a chip and all the owner would have to do is feign ignorance of the law.

Then you'd have to send people back to check that the owner has gotten the dog chipped. Essentially you'd end up with people constantly calling to homes to try to enforce the law. Never going to happen.

borderlinemeath

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

There are blackspots in this town where the dog warden won't go without a Garda escort. That's been that way for a few years now and the problem hasn't gone away, I doubt it ever will. Don't get me wrong, I think microchipping is a good idea, but you will never persuade irresponsible owners to microchip. You'd have to have people going door to door to every house in Ireland to check if people have a dog. Then you'd have to scan the dog to check for a chip and all the owner would have to do is feign ignorance of the law.

Then you'd have to send people back to check that the owner has gotten the dog chipped. Essentially you'd end up with people constantly calling to homes to try to enforce the law. Never going to happen.

And in those blackspots the dogs are the least of the problems I would imagine, drugs, gun and knife crime would be higher on the agenda. It's about reaching an acceptable level of compliance as with anything. Do you think that 100% of the cars on the road are taxed? Yet there's a high level of compliance. It would be fantastic to have a 100% record but for every piece of legislation there's always going to be areas and certain demographics that don't or won't abide by it and that is what you're focusing on.

Pumpkinseeds

borderlinemeath wrote: »

And in those blackspots the dogs are the least of the problems I would imagine, drugs, gun and knife crime would be higher on the agenda. It's about reaching an acceptable level of compliance as with anything. Do you think that 100% of the cars on the road are taxed? Yet there's a high level of compliance. It would be fantastic to have a 100% record but for every piece of legislation there's always going to be areas and certain demographics that don't or won't abide by it and that is what you're focusing on.

Not at all. 100% of cars on the road aren't taxed any more than 100% of cars on the road are insured. Cars aren't a great comparison as we have Traffic Gardai, what we don't have is anyone to enforce dog licensing let alone microchipping. It probably sounds like I'm being argumentative, but honestly I'm not. I'm just pointing out that it's highly unlikely that compulsory microchipping is ever going to be a success. Like a dog licence it requires people to be responsible and get it done and I really don't see that the majority will.

Vets can't force an owner to microchip and the goverment isn't going to employ any additional staff to enforce microchipping. I think it's something that only works on paper.

peasant

borderlinemeath wrote: »

...you haven't got your pets microchipped, yet responsible breeders and reputable rescues and pounds have been microchipping dogs for years, so one can only assume you sourced your dogs from some not so responsible resources?

Three of our dogs are 14, 12 and 11 years old respectively. Two of them where rescues, one from a licensed breeder in the UK.
So they were acquired before chipping was the norm (and for reasons stated above I don't see why I should chip them now in their old age)

The latest member of the pack was the result of an accident. Maybe not the most responsible source, but he was well looked after, 100% healthy and already toilet trained when we got him at the age of 12 weeks ...so get off your high horse

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Can you link the evidence to back this up? And veterinary scientific journal published papers rather than opinions or blogs please.

From: http://www.vetinfo.com/the-side-effects-of-microchipping-dogs.html#b

Link Between Cancer and Microchipping
While veterinarians believe the risk is low, a few dogs have developed malignant cancer at the site where microchips are embedded. In each of these cases, the dog developed deadly cancer less than five years after the microchips were implanted. In the center of the cancerous growths were the microchips leading some researchers to think there might be a link.
Doctor Katherine Albrecht released a report in 2007 linking malignant tumors in lab mice and rats to microchipping. Upwards of ten percent of the rodents implanted with radio-frequency microchips developed sarcomas. In most cases, the tumors grew rapidly and spread to other areas of the body.
There is question over whether the microchips are truly to blame or if another contaminant may have made its way into the injection site. There is also question over whether the material covering the microchip may be at the root of the cancer.

Other Health Issues Arising from Microchipping Dogs
While extremely rare, a Chihuahua bled out following a microchip implantation. The veterinarian is uncertain what happened, but blood continued to exit through the needle site and the dog died from loss of blood. As the dog had been through a surgical procedure a few months before and did not suffer from a clotting disorder, it's a mystery as to what caused the uncontrolled bleeding.
The needle for a microchip is large and does cause pain. If a pet struggles or moves during the procedure, there is the chance that the microchip will end up in the wrong place. Again rare, paralysis could occur. For this reason, veterinarians often advice microchipping dogs when they are spayed or neutered.
Veterinarians microchip dogs in sterile offices. However, there is the chance that the injection site will become infected. Keeping an eye on the site will help. If any swelling or oozing is present, call your veterinarian.
The most common problem following a microchipping procedure is that the microchip moves. Generally, this isn't a big deal. The biggest issue involves shelters that only scan the shoulder/neck area and don't scan other areas on the pet in case the microchip is in a different location.

and another read on the subject:

http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/microchips-pet/

Another important point that pet owners must be aware of pertains to recovering their stolen microchipped pet. Specifically, if your chipped pet is stolen, the chip does not guarantee that you will find your pet. Also, recent cases in the UK reveal that the chip does not provide proof of ownership. So, even if you locate your stolen, microchipped pet, it is possible that your pet will not be returned to you. In April 2010, Dave Moorhouse was contacted by Anibase, a microchip database company, asking if he wanted to change the ownership records of his Jack Russell Terrier, Rocky. Mr. Moorhouse told Anibase that Rocky had been stolen and asked where he was but Anibase refused to provide information regarding Rocky’s whereabouts.

Steven Wildridge, managing director of Animalcare, the company that owns and operates Anibase, says: “This is not a choice, it’s an obligation under the Data Protection Act. If the individuals involved do not want us to pass on their details to the original owner then we cannot do so unless compelled to following a criminal or civil proceeding.”

Although Rocky’s microchip was registered to Mr. Moorhouse, the police concluded there was no criminal case and refused to help him find Rocky. A Huddersfield County Court judge ruled that the situation was out of his jurisdiction. Mr. Moorhouse asks, “What’s the point of having your pet microchipped if you can’t get him back?”

borderlinemeath

The first article cites "a few" dogs. What's that? 2? or 50? Out of how many hundreds of thousands of dogs chipped? Articles really mean nothing without concrete statistics. It also goes on to note there is a question mark over whether the chips were to blame or not.

The second article (an ezine) states pretty much the same as the first one, same tests on rodents, same bleed out with the chi, leading me to believe there's not a huge amount of evidence bar one test on rodents and it was stated that it may not have been the chip but the coating that caused the 10% cancer causing rate.

I read an article yesterday about a woman who died because she had a fatal allergic reaction to hair dye. The most likely cause is that she had got a henna tattoo a few years previous and it made her more susceptible. Am I going to stop dying my hair based on one fatality, and all the other articles you read about reactions? No. There's risks with everything in life, and if my dogs are microchipped then they will be easier to identify on the very slim chance they get lost or stolen. If they're not, who knows if I will ever see them again.

Actually just to counter balance another part of the article, while that man didn't get his dog back, there are plenty that do. I was watching a repeat of Paul O'Grady, For the love of Dogs last week and a family were reunited with their pet after 18 months as she was microchipped. She had gone missing during the London riots and 18 months later had turned up as a stray in Battersea Dogs home but her microchip details were still intact.

peasant

Look, if your'e happy to chip your dogs and it works for you, that's fine.

I'm not and I won't ...and I can't see anything "great" in making it mandatory.

boomerang

Well for one thing, it will force all rescues to microchip the dogs they are rehoming and that's a good start.