THE GREAT MICROCHIP DEBATE.

In April of 2012 the BBC ran a story on the proposed scheme of compulsory micro chipping of every new born puppy. The idea behind this proposal is so that it makes it easier to trace and prosecute owners of violent dogs. Northern Ireland has already introduced a law on Microchipping this year. At the moment Scotland has no plans, but that may change. There are two voices on this proposal, firstly all the major charities welcome the idea stating that in addition it will be easy to reunite dogs with their owners should they become separated or worse stolen. Well that’s not true is it? If you read July’s issue of Dog’s Today magazine they have done a piece on the subject of micro chipping and in it they highlight a case where a woman ,Faye Moore, had her Pug stolen from the garden a few years back and had been searching frantically for it ever since. To their amazement they were contacted by the micro chip company to be told the dog had turned up somewhere near Somerset. The new owner had bought the dog from someone in Manchester and when they went along to have it micro chipped at the local vet, the vet announced it already had a chip. However the new owner decided that since he was out of pocket for considerable expenses, he intended to keep the dog. Faye Moore contacted the chip company and the Somerset Police who both told her it was a civil matter and nothing could be done. So that takes care of that argument. Let’s now consider the government’s reasons for this proposal.

It will allow authorities to trace and prosecute owners of dangerous dogs. Well what about all the ‘dangerous dogs’ that are already in existence? How does it combat that? And what happen when dogs are sold on and the micro chip details are not updated? What happens if the dog changes hands two or three times? If it ends up in rescue centers are they now liable to have all the details updated? Will that not add considerable administration to organiations that are run on charitable donations? Who is responsible for making sure the details are updated, the previous owner or the new owner?

But here is the real question, if all of the above can be overcome, and that’s a mighty BIG IF, will the fact that, every dog in the land has a microchip prevent a dog from attacking another dog, or worse a human or child? The answer to that I am afraid is NO. So if that it the sole reason for doing this then it is a waste of time and money. In 1991 The Dangerous Dog Act was introduced by Parliament, it was subsequently amended in 1997. This was breed specific legislation which was introduced to reduce the number of dog attacks on humans that had become ‘Press fodder’ in recent times.

Let’s savour that for a minute, Breed specific legislation’. In human context this would be classified as racist. To suggest that every example of a specific breed of dog is dangerous and should be banned is ill-informed, dangerous and downright offensive to experienced dog handlers around the world. Every piece of literature I have read on the subject of dog behaviour and dog training says the one thing, “There are no bad dogs, just bad handlers”. Killing dogs after they have bitten won’t reduce the number of attacks. Proper socialisation and education is the only thing that will eventually bring an end to this awful situation. So what is the answer? In my opinion, a complete shake up of the whole process from “cradle to grave” is required. If the government wants to issue legislation then it should legislate that it is illegal to breed dogs unless you have a breeder’s license. So the back street breeders would be breaking the law by breeding dogs for profit. Every breeder would be registered. If it were made illegal then owners of cross breeds would be committing an offence by letting their dogs wander around unsupervised leading to unwanted pregnancies. At the moment every dog that ends up in rescue is dressed or neutered, therefore through time most if not all cross breeds would be dressed. I believe there is still a requirement for cross breeds and a niche market would emerge for breeders of cross breeds, and they could be licensed too. When a puppy is sold every new owner should be given a socialisation pack like ‘The puppy Plan’ created in collaboration by dogs Trust and the Kennel Club. This at least gives very useful information on how to begin the socialisation of the dog. At the moment the UK has enforce a dog license scheme, but it is ineffective and worthless. For it to mean something the license should come with conditions. For example, a license should only be given out initially for six months. After which the dog and the handler has to sit an exam which demonstrates that they have received proper basic obedience training and socialisation. Evidence of such should be provided by means of a certificate issued by a registered club or trainer. A list of registered clubs or trainers should be kept and said clubs or trainers should have reached a certain standard of qualification through a recognised training body, like The Kennel Club Good Citizen Scheme, The British Institute of Professional Dog Trainers or the Association of Pet Dog Trainers. An owner would then be given a full license which could be produced upon request by the appropriate authorities at any time. There are many hurdles to overcome before this blueprint can ever be realised, but if such a thing were to happen it would take care of many issues with regards to the anti behaviour of some dogs. Namely the reduction in back street breeders operating purely for profit, the removal of unprofessional and unqualified trainers and or behaviourists who have emerged during the boom years which has seen dog behaviour come into every front room in the country through the magic of television on such programmes as The Dog Whisperer, It’s Me or the Dog and Dog Borstal. I have no issue with any of these programmes and indeed I applaud them on how they have highlighted in many cases that the anti social behaviour of the dogs in these programmes are largely down to how they have been handled by their owners. However on the back of these programmes there seems to be a ground swell in the number of ‘Behaviourists and trainers’ around. In summary I believe the measures being introduced by the government will have little effect on the number of dog attacks on children and adults and as such is a shame. We should deal with this problem like we deal with other anti-social problems, at source, from the grass roots. Why is it different because we are talking about dogs??