Microchipping: Should it be mandatory?
June 6, 2008 · Print This Article
In the United Kingdom, they are considering making it mandatory to have all dogs microchipped.
Government officials suspect that mandatory microchipping will reduce the number of strays, as well as making it easier to prosecute those irresponsible owners who neglect, starve, or fight their dogs.
My personal opinion: microchipping is great for getting your dog returned if he has run away. However, if you are going to fight your dogs (already committing a crime), are you likely to comply with the law to get your dog chipped? My guess is no.
I tend to get a little nervous when anybody starts using the word “mandatory”. Who will pay for it? Can I no longer buy a dog or take in a stray if I don’t have the money to get it chipped? If I do get it chipped, why should I also pay a licensing fee to accomplish the same objective? And if I don’t have to buy a license, how is the dog pound funded?
Just a few of the questions I have.
Please feel free to post your comments below and let us know your thoughts about mandatory microchipping!
Until next time,
Good day, and good dog.
Personally I believe ALL dogs should be microchipped. It is the responsible thing to do. I learned the hard way what can happen when you do not have a dog microchipped - my dog was in a high kill shelter for 7 days, and had I not shown up when I did, he was about to be neutered and adopted out to someone else.
Also due to the high incidence of strays this should also be a means to have the dogs returned to owners. Personally if you can not afford to get the chip, then do not get the dog. Collars do not always stay on dogs, tags can get lost. Tattoes are useless, unless you know the exact location. So yes I am pro micro chipping for these reasons. And yes it should be mandatory/
Thank you for your time.
[...] of you wrote to me with strong feelings one way or the other when I posted about microchipping last month. See what you think of this [...]