Why?

[Violet Turner]

Why is me not microchipping the puppies so important? I'm confused and I'm not getting a proper answer also this is a continuation from Doris' Diary...
I understand its the law but they have gone to there new homes now and i cant really do anything now.

 

[thedogsbeforetime]

I think because it's the best way to identify a dog at the moment. But, only if people who would find said dog get them checked for a chip. Tags are also good - but they could be lost if they got ripped off, taken off, or a loose dog lost their collar. Personally, all puppies I produce will be microchipped back to me as their breeder, and the once they go to their new homes it will be changed to their new owners being primary, and me secondary.

I guess the law is good enough reason, haha! But I don't know as much about that since I'm not in the UK - and you don't really have to do anything in the USA....microchip, deworm, vaccinate, nothing matters if you don't want it to here when selling puppies.

 

[leashedForLife]

.

the couple of times that i've rehomed a dog or cat directly, i always put MYSELF as primary, & the adopter as 2ndary.

That way, if they are careless about confining, leashing, supervising, etc, i find out about it when their roaming pet is picked up, & can potentially reclaim the pet. // I make no bones about it - the 1st time, they get a warning; the 2nd time, I pick the dog [or cat] up myself.
So far, i've never had to repossess a pet that i placed [there have only been 4 i've placed myself, in my 40-odd years of training], but if it came up as an issue, i wouldn't hesitate.

Only 1 of the 4 was a cat, & i had the adopter agree in writing that she was to be indoor-only; i'd got her in the 1st dam* place b/c her then-owners LET HER ROAM WHILE IN HEAT - she a young Burmese, not even 9-MO yet, it was Sept, & she was in call! On the street, a small black cat, out after dark, when over 75% of cat HBC traumas are nighttime accidents. Grrrrr - good thing i never met her owners. They'd have got the rough side of my tongue!

I caught her by baiting a crate with an open tin of cat-food; she was very hungry, & went right in. // I took her home, kept her overnight, the ACO picked her up & transported her to the Va Bch ACC [their old 1960s building], i put myself down as 1st dibs. No one went looking for her, so a week later, she was mine - & went direct to my vet.
An FLV test [neg - or i might have put her down at that appt], all her vax, a fecal float, & a chip were the immediate need; then she went to be boarded next door to a vet clinic, was given a full blood-panel, everything was nice & normal, she was spayed & spent 4 days recovering. // The kennel staff all loved her - she had a quiet voice, but loved to chatter, purred like a diesel, & was playful, sweet, & affectionate. She wasn't needy - she'd hang with U, but didn't need to climb on yer lap or pester for attn.
The lady who adopted her doubted she was a Burmese - tho i was certain; her face, large eyes, & those bat ears, plus her talkative nature. // When she'd had her for a week, she changed her mind; Noir was keeping her company in the morning by perching on the shower-curtain rod, LOL.
Burmese are often very vertical, & she was no exception.

- terry

.

 

[JoanneF]

the couple of times that i've rehomed a dog or cat directly, i always put MYSELF as primary, & the adopter as 2ndary.

@leashedForLife the law in the UK is different. When an animal is rehomed the chip details must by law be changed to to the new owner's name.

"Dog breeders, must ensure that puppies are microchipped and recorded by the time they are eight weeks old and before they are sold.

When a dog is transferred, the new owner’s (keeper’s) details must be added to the database. Moreover, if an owner moves home or changes telephone number, these details should be updated. Failure to keep these details up to date means that, in the eyes of the law, the dog is no longer considered microchipped and a fine can apply" (Kennel Club, referencing the legal position on microchipping).

@Violet Turner

Why is me not microchipping the puppies so important? I'm confused and I'm not getting a proper answer

I don't know what it is you don't understand but let me make it as clear as I can.

You have broken the law.

Now let's not make a drama out of it, nobody has died; so on a legal scale of 1 to 10 it's probably at the lowest end but please just sort it out now it has been pointed out to you.

 

[FrankieDoodle]

Violet the law is there to protect you, the new owners and the public should one of the dogs bite someone etc. You or the new owners could be fined (£500) and prosecuted if they're not chipped.

I didn't even know it was mandatory for dogs to wear identification when in public! Have ordered one though. Maybe remind the new owners they need to get it done ASAP and kindly offer to pay for it (some people are funny like that and will flat out refuse mone to pay). Violet. If the new puppy was to run off, and God forbid they got hit by a car, there would be no way to contact anyone and they would be listed as strays. Is that what you would want for one of your puppies and their owner(s)? Or if they were stolen, all the vet would have to do is a quick microchip scan and see that hang on, something isn't adding up and contact the listed person.

 

[Caro Perry]

First thing my vet did on our first vaccination visit was to scan Harri for his chip number and make a note of it on his records. I suspect all vets now do this as a matter of course. I'm absolutely sure he'd have mentioned any absence of a microchip and probably got me to do it there and then along with the vaccination shots.

 

[leashedForLife]

@leashedForLife the law in the UK is different.
When an animal is rehomed, the chip details must by law be changed to to the new owner's name.
...

.

I wasn't discussing THE LAW, @JoanneF - in the UK, the USA, or anywhere else.
I pointed out what I'd done to try to protect the life & safety of pets that i'd personally placed - few in number, but precious to me.

Microchips are life-insurance; dogs & cats without chips cannot be reunited with their owners when they are found stray; they cannot be PROVEN to belong to So-&-so if they are stray & taken in by a stranger, or worse, stolen.

Pets picked up stray / "at large" without collars & sans chips are presumed ownerless, & in the U-S, they are the 2nd group to be euthanized in municipal shelters, to provide room for incoming strays & surrenders. The 1st group to be killed are the dogs who've been surrendered - as the Admin knows that no one will be looking for them, to claim them.
[Many surrendered pets are killed the morning after they are surrendered, giving them less than 12-hours to be seen & adopted.]

My much-loved Basset x Dachs, Beau, & my BSD-Groen, Shady, were both stolen by my ex-fiancee, & i was told by the local police specifically not to pursue their recovery; ownership was too hard to prove, & they were in a distant jurisdiction.

In sum, these are all very straightforward reasons for the OP to chip any pups of her breeding BEFORE they go to their new homes. It's not just "the law" - it's a matter of doing the right thing, for lives U brought into the world.

- terry

.

 

[JoanneF]

I wasn't discussing THE LAW, @JoanneF - in the UK, the USA, or anywhere else.

Fair enough. But in the UK this -

the couple of times that i've rehomed a dog or cat directly, i always put MYSELF as primary, & the adopter as 2ndary.

- would be illegal. That's what I was trying to highlight.

 

[leashedForLife]

.

I'll further point out that there are rescues in the U-S [no shelters, so far as i know] which RETAIN ownership of the animal after U adopt her or him, so that repossessing them is legally simplified.

The adopter is listed in the contract as their guardian, but the rescue maintains legal ownership for the pet's lifetime - & should the adopter die, be arrested, be incapacitated, etc, they are to get the animal back - from the surviving relatives, thru the help of local law such as the city-PD or the ACC, etc; further, should the adopter actively mistreat or ignorantly neglect that pet, they can confiscate the animal forthwith. // This is all in the adoption contract.

Obv, microchips make this much easier - & such rescues, also, list themselves as the primary contact, & the adopter AKA guardian as the 2ndary. In their case, it's entirely legal - in mine, tho the adopter signs a contract, stipulating that if they let their pet roam, neglect or mistreat her or him, I *will* take them back -- it's a grey area.
I've never had to defend it in court; I've not even queried a Co magistrate about it.

- terry

.

 

[Violet Turner]

Fudge had his microchip today