Microchipping

[BlackShadowCaneCorso]

What is your opinion on a breeder that micro-chips their puppies but requires said micro-chips stays in their name?

 

[jpw0025]

While I've never bought from a breeder, the idea of microchipping is an awesome idea. That being said, if I were not permitted to put the chip in my name after purchase I would be quite put off, after all it does become "my" puppy at that point. I understand the breeder's point of view (not everyone is reliable in returning pets if they do not work out- you guys definitely don't want your carefully selected progeny in shelters or unapproved homes!), but at the same time my dog may escape my fence, leap from the car in a parking lot, etc, and it would be frustrating to have to play telephone with the microchip company in order to find my beloved family member.

 

[Dreadz]

From 2016 all dogs in the UK will be required by law to be microchipped and for the owner contact details to be kept up to date. How exactly they plan to police it or how severe the penalty for noncompliance will be I have no idea but would certainly be incompatible with a breeder keeping their details attached to a pup.

 

[Smokeycat]

I'd be ok with it as long as the breeders name and info was kept as a secondary contact and not as the primary contact.

 

[mountainfila]

I am all for microchipping , it would hold every single person/s accountable that have a litter of puppies, whether they are purebred or mixed bred. It is to easy to have a litter and get rid of the pups to anyone with cash and not have to worry about where they end up in the long term. There are just as many purebred dogs in rescue as there are mixbred. I feel if these people where held accountable for pups they have put on the ground, they would think twice about breeding their "family pets". As well as the breeder that has a kennel full of breeding dogs and has it set up that they have a litter born every month, is that any better then mom and pop that want to breed Susie so little Johnny can witness the miracle of birth??? Lets say they have 10 pups in that litter, they sell them for 1000 a piece , now they just made 10000 with minimal effort, do you think they care what happens to those pups as soon as they leave the driveway??? I would say maybe half the litter ends up in rescue or shelters and who is held accountable for them......not the "breeder" cause no one knows where the dog came from, if they were microchipped it is easy to track them back to the person who bred them. I like smokeys idea of having the breeder as secondary contact, where both would be called in case the dog turned up lost.

Dreadz, I think they would police it the same way they do dog licence , maybe hire more manpower to enforce it. Out here in Kelowna, they hire a few extra animal control people to walk around the parks and beaches, and stop people with dogs and ask if they have their dog licence , if they don't they will be fined.

 

[BlackShadowCaneCorso]

Ahhh but here is the problem that I have been told, rescues/shelters are only obligated to contact the initial person on the micro-chip and not the secondary. From my friend who did work in a shelter, their policy was to scan for the chip, if the first name on the chip was the person surrending then it never went any further than that.

I also think that the micro-chip is a way to keep breeders accountable for the dogs they have. If someone were to dump one of my dogs, but they were the registered owner on the micro-chip then I would be none the wiser should they not bother to contact the second name on the chip. This bothers me and it is something I am mulling over before my next litter.

 

[Penelope's Mom]

As a secondary contact, absolutely. As primary, no way.

 

[Iymala]

I understand the need for it, and now the issue with the being the second contact, but I still would never accept them being the primary contact on the microchip. I love my dogs like people (more than most people) and feel 110% responsible for anything that happens to them or by them, but they are still my property. I would have no issue with the breeder being the second contact, but as you mentioned that does nothing to help the situation as they would not bother to contact you.

 

[Smokeycat]

Ahhh but here is the problem that I have been told, rescues/shelters are only obligated to contact the initial person on the micro-chip and not the secondary. From my friend who did work in a shelter, their policy was to scan for the chip, if the first name on the chip was the person surrending then it never went any further than that.

I also think that the micro-chip is a way to keep breeders accountable for the dogs they have. If someone were to dump one of my dogs, but they were the registered owner on the micro-chip then I would be none the wiser should they not bother to contact the second name on the chip. This bothers me and it is something I am mulling over before my next litter.

Then the policy needs to be changed. All registered owners should be consulted before a dog can be surrendered. I understand that most shelters have staffing shortages but not contacting everyone on a microchip seems counterproductive to their goal of making sure all animals have a home.

 

[BlackShadowCaneCorso]

Then the policy needs to be changed. All registered owners should be consulted before a dog can be surrendered. I understand that most shelters have staffing shortages but not contacting everyone on a microchip seems counterproductive to their goal of making sure all animals have a home.

I don't disagree with you, but working in shelters and rescue we all know is not an easy job. I also understand how most people feel about their dogs but I am also responsible for what I produce for the life of the dog. So it is a catch 22 for me, while I like to believe that having an application, several phone interviews, and meeting in person you would have a good sense of people, some are good at saying exactly what you want to hear. The growing number of dogs ended up in shelters and rescues shows a hugely growing number and that scares me and shows that a growing number of people think of their animals as disposable.

 

[DennasMom]

I wouldn't mind a bit.

Considering people move and forget to update information, which renders the chip useless. As long as the breeder had my current information on file and kept tabs on me to make sure it was always up to date, so they could call me if the puppy went awol.

It would make for a BIG job for the breeder to update everybody's records if THEY decided to move, though.

 

[glen]

I personally think its a great idea,we do it with our rescues that we have had,i dont want them ever to end up with them being in a bad place again,I think if i was buying from you and you was doing this it would show me how comitted and caring you are for the breed and your dogs.

 

[Cobalt]

If dealing with a reputable breeder that I had established a good rapport with it wouldn't bother me. Part of that understanding, of course, if for whatever reason my dog had become lost/stolen and returned to the breeder - well as long as it was again returned to me that'd be fine.

 

[Rugers-Kris]

I am definitely a believer in microchipping, both of mine are done and I would have no issue with it as long as I was the primary contact and I agree that the breeder should not only be the secondary but should be contacted as well in the event that the dog is being given up.

 

[cayeesmom]

interesting thread, guess I never looked at it from a breeders point of view. We had a lost/found Dachshund come in at work a few month ago, the number we got from the chip took us to the breeder who in return gave us the owners name and number, happy ending. I'm on the fence on this one but leaning towards breeder being secondary, maybe someone need to suggest a specific line on the form to put breeders info on, other then just secondary contact. Of course Luke is chipped, with my work as secondary contact, Moe will be if.....

 

[BlackShadowCaneCorso]

I understand the owners take on it (had rotties before that were chipped) so isn't that I am not sympathic to their plight either, but I also have to view it from my side as well and it is not an easy spot to be in as I don't take bringing any puppy into this world lightly and as much as I would love for people to do as they say or follow what they sign, I have heard and had an owner that did not. So it is something that I am struggling with in regards to decisions for next litters.

 

[WalnutCrest]

Interesting thread.

Quite separately ... I know someone who is absolutely convinced that microchips cause cancer. They say they've had two animals develop cancer in the area of the chip (they say the low-frequency does something to the muscles / bones). Has anyone experienced anything like this?

 

[irina]

Ajax was microchipped before we got him at 9 weeks, so the chip had all of the breeder's information. I had to ask her to add ours as well, since she was the only one who had access to the file. I am actually not sure who is primary and who is secondary. Need to check. But I agree that the policy needs to change. What's the point of having two contacts if the second one is never contacted. But Ajax is also co-owned until 2 years old.

 

[sjdavenport]

Interesting thread.

Quite separately ... I know someone who is absolutely convinced that microchips cause cancer. They say they've had two animals develop cancer in the area of the chip (they say the low-frequency does something to the muscles / bones). Has anyone experienced anything like this?

There have been at least two published papers demonstrating a believable link between neoplasia and microchips in rats and mice. And these were believed to be a foreign body type tumorigenesis or a mechanism similar to the injection site fibrosarcomas in cats (so nothing to do with frequencies). That being said, dogs and cats are not rodents, and other than a few anecdotal reports, there has been no established link between microchips and cancer (even with all the interest in studying it) in dogs. An oncologist I heard speak (from a referral center) said they have yet to see a case associated with a microchip. With all the millions and millions of pets that have been microchipped, I think that even if there is a chance they could cause a cancer, the chances are EXTREMELY low, while the risk of potentially escaping/getting lost/getting stolen is a much more significant one. Having weighed the benefits with the low possibility of negative effects, I have had every single one of my pets chipped (as have the breeders I've gotten pets from).

 

[WalnutCrest]

Interesting. Thank you.