Promoting Responsible Dog Ownership in Scotland: Microchipping and other Measures. An Analysis of Consultation Responses

4. Potential Benefits of Compulsory Microchipping

4.1 This section provides an analysis of respondents' views on the potential benefits of compulsory microchipping. Respondents were asked five questions:

Question 4: Do you consider that compulsory microchipping would make dog owners more responsible? [Yes / No / Don't know] Please explain.

Question 5: Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to deter dog theft? [Yes / No / Don't know] Please explain.

Question 6: Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to tackle the issue of puppy farming? [Yes / No / Don't know] Please explain.

Question 7: Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to address other dog welfare issues such as abuse / mistreatment? [Yes / No / Don't know] Please explain.

Question 8: Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to prevent dog attacks on people / animals, including on assistance dogs? [Yes / No / Don't know] Please explain.

4.2 Table 4.1 below summarises the responses to the tick-box questions. In order to make it easier to compare across questions the responses for individuals and for groups / organisational respondents have been combined in Table 4.1. The full tables, including the breakdowns by group / individual respondents, are shown below (see Tables 4.2-4.6).

Table 4.1: Summary of responses to tick-box format in questions 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Do you consider that compulsory microchipping would….

Response category	Yes %	No %	Don't know %	Total respondents (100%)
Make dog owners more responsible	58%	31%	11%	1,505
Help deter dog theft	60%	22%	18%	1,489
Help tackle puppy farming	38%	36%	26%	1,496
Help tackle other welfare issues	52%	33%	15%	1,482
Help prevent dog attacks	22%	61%	17%	1,498

Percentages do not total 100% because of rounding.

4.3 As can be seen from Table 4.1 more than half of respondents thought that compulsory microchipping would help deter dog theft (60%), make dog owners more responsible (58%) and help tackle other welfare issues (52%). By contrast, just over one-third (38%) thought compulsory microchipping would help tackle puppy farming and less than one-quarter (22%) that it would help prevent dog attacks.

Q4 Would compulsory microchipping help make dog owners more responsible?

4.4 Question 4 asked respondents if they considered that compulsory microchipping would help make dog owners more responsible. In total, 1,505 respondents answered the tick-box (closed) part of Question 4. As can be seen from Table 4.2 below, 58% said compulsory microchipping would make dog owners more responsible, 31% that it would not, and 11% that they did not know.

Table 4.2: Question 4: Do you consider that compulsory microchipping would help to make dog owners more responsible?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	51	51%	829	59%	880	58%
No	34	34%	430	31%	464	31%
Don't know	15	15%	146	10%	161	11%
Total	100	100%	1,405	100%	1,505	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

4.5 Altogether, 1,134 respondents made a comment at Question 4. Many of those who ticked "yes" offered qualifying comments which echoed the comments of those who ticked "no". Many of those who ticked "yes" emphasised that any benefits of compulsory microchipping were likely to be small.

4.6 The predominant argument made in support of the proposition that compulsory microchipping would make dog owners more responsible was that compulsory microchipping would increase the accountability (and therefore the responsibility) of dog owners. Respondents thought that if owners were identifiable, could be traced, and would not be able to deny ownership, this would force them to become more responsible. Moreover, those who were not responsible dog owners could be prevented from owning a dog and as a consequence the numbers of irresponsible dog owners would reduce. Therefore, many respondents thought that compulsory microchipping was a common sense measure.

4.7 In addition to this main argument, some respondents identified a range of other positive benefits which would follow from compulsory microchipping. In particular it was argued that compulsory microchipping would:

• Increase the amount of contact with professionals (e.g. veterinarians). Respondents highlighted the benefits which would flow from the additional contact with those who would undertake microchipping. This would allow for information exchange in support of greater understanding and awareness of the responsibilities of dog ownership, and would help establish relationships between dog owners and those concerned with the medical and other welfare aspects of their dogs.
• Relieve pressure on charities and rehoming centres. Respondents believed that the improved traceability of dogs would reduce the number of dogs being taken to rescue and rehoming centres.
• Encourage a broader cultural change which recognises the wider social implications of dog ownership. Respondents thought that introducing compulsory microchipping, with its attendant costs, might make people think twice about dog ownership and help to instil the idea that dog ownership is not only a personal issue but that it has wider social implications for others. It was felt that this might decrease the number of dogs acquired casually.

4.8 Irrespective of whether respondents ticked "yes", "no", or "don't know" at Question 4, they often qualified their comments by saying that compulsory microchipping in and of itself would not turn irresponsible owners into responsible owners. Promoting responsible dog ownership was seen as a complex issue which does not have a simple solution. Respondents suggested that a range of measures (including neutering, licensing, training, socialisation, education, etc.) would be required to achieve responsible dog ownership.

4.9 A number of more specific points were made as part of the predominant argument (see paragraph 4.6 above) including that:

• Enforcement of compulsory microchipping is extremely challenging. Respondents were sceptical about the extent to which compulsory microchipping could be enforced. It was thought that irresponsible dog owners would not comply, and would not pay fines or adhere to other restrictions which were imposed. Respondents made the point strongly that microchipping itself will not change the behaviour of dog owners.
• Keeping records up-to-date is extremely difficult. Respondents emphasised that compulsory microchipping would only deliver benefits if the address details were kept fully up-to-date. Many comments were made to the effect that this was extremely difficult to do, especially with some parts of the population who are highly mobile.
• Most responsible owners already microchip their dogs. Respondents thought that most responsible owners already microchip their dogs and the introduction of compulsory microchipping would therefore have a limited effect.
• Some responsible dog owners do not have their dogs microchipped, for good reasons, i.e. because the dog is too old and microchipping would be too stressful for them, or because the owner had health concerns about microchipping. These people were already responsible dog owners, so compulsory microchipping would not increase overall levels of responsibility.

4.10 A few respondents cautioned against the possibility of unintended policy consequences. For example, it was suggested that compulsory microchipping might result in an increase in the numbers of dogs for rehoming, or decrease the contact between professionals (e.g. veterinarians) and dogs, as those who were unwilling to comply would abandon their dog, and / or avoid contact with a vet. In addition, questions were raised about whether the microchip itself would confer legal ownership; at the moment this is not the case.

Q5 Would compulsory microchipping help to deter dog theft?

4.11 Question 5 asked respondents if they considered that compulsory microchipping would help to deter dog theft. In total, 1,489 respondents provided a response to the tick-box part of Question 5. As can be seen from Table 4.3 below, 60% said "yes", 22% said "no", and 18% said "don't know". There were no differences in the profile of responses between individual and group / organisational respondents.

Table 4.3: Question 5: Do you consider that compulsory microchipping would help to deter dog theft?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	58	60%	829	60%	887	60%
No	23	24%	305	22%	328	22%
Don't know	16	17%	258	19%	274	18%
Total	97	100%	1,392	100%	1,489	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

4.12 Altogether, 959 respondents made a comment at Question 5. Among respondents who ticked "yes", many emphasised that dog theft would be deterred by compulsory microchipping if, and only if, other measures (see below) were also in place:

• If microchips were kept up-to-date in all cases
• If a law is introduced to require a change in ownership to be accompanied by a change of the chip details
• If all the records were combined into a single database and
• If microchip readers / scanners were widely available and widely used.

4.13 Without these additional conditions being met, microchipping would not, in and of itself, have an impact on dog theft. Some of those selecting "yes" also confirmed that they thought any impact of compulsory microchipping would probably be fairly small; dog theft might be reduced slightly, but it would not be eradicated.

4.14 More broadly, comments in relation to this question focused on the specific reasons for theft. It was thought that the impact of compulsory microchipping would be different, depending on the reason for the theft. More specifically:

• Compulsory microchipping would not deter dog theft which relates to dog fighting or baiting. Respondents were clear that compulsory microchipping would make no difference to the fate of dogs which were stolen for the purposes of dog fighting or dog baiting. In these circumstances, thieves had no interest in or concern for the dogs, which would often end up dead.
• Compulsory microchipping would not deter the planned and organised theft of pedigree dogs for breeding. Respondents thought that in these circumstances, where the dog theft was a highly organised and planned activity, compulsory microchipping would make no difference as professional dog thieves who would not be easily deterred. In addition, if it was puppies that were stolen, then microchipping would be irrelevant as puppies would not be chipped until they were older.
• Compulsory microchipping would not deter cases where dogs were stolen in order to collect a ransom. Respondents thought that determined criminality such as dogs stolen for a ransom, would not be reduced if compulsory microchipping was introduced.
• Compulsory microchipping might be effective in relation to the resale of dogs. Respondents thought that compulsory microchipping might have an impact in relation to the petty criminality associated with stealing dogs for resale. It was thought that once microchipping was the norm, selling on of a stolen dog would become more difficult. However, even in this case, the point was made that it would most likely be the new owner rather than the thief, who would face the consequences of having a stolen dog, if they took their newly acquired dog to a vet only to discover it was stolen. Moreover it was possible that if a thief discovered the dog he or she was handling was chipped, they might just dispose of the dog.

4.15 Many respondents discussed the issue of the removal and re-registering of microchips. It was a widely held view among this group that microchips could be quite easily removed. Some noted that this could be very painful for the dogs, and so would risk becoming an additional welfare issue. In addition, re-registering of microchips was seen to be easy, and some respondents also thought it was possible to forge chipping certificates. Re-registration is currently not regulated; this would have to be addressed if compulsory microchipping were to be effective.

4.16 Police Scotland was among the 16 organisational respondents who said they 'didn't know' whether compulsory microchipping would help deter dog theft. The Police Scotland response said that:

"Since its introduction in Northern Ireland in April 2012 the instances of dog theft have remained constant and its introduction has so far not acted as a deterrent to those intent on stealing dogs. (The new legislation is still in its infancy however and it may take more time to accurately gauge its effectiveness.) Its introduction has, in some cases, assisted with reuniting stolen dogs to their owners…." (Police Scotland)

Q6 Would compulsory microchipping help to tackle the issue of puppy farming?

4.17 Question 6 asked respondents if they considered that compulsory microchipping would help tackle the issue of puppy farming.

4.18 A total of 1,496 respondents provided a response to the tick-box part of Question 6. As can be seen in Table 4.4 below, 38% said "yes", 36% said "no", and 26% said "don't know". There was little difference in the responses between organisational and individual respondents.

Table 4.4: Question 6: Do you consider that compulsory microchipping would help to tackle the issue of puppy farming?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	39	40%	522	37%	561	38%
No	38	39%	504	36%	542	36%
Don't know	21	21%	372	27%	393	26%
Total	98	100%	1,398	100%	1,496	100%

4.19 Altogether, 845 respondents made a comment at Question 6. Although the tick-box answers to this question were fairly divergent with between a quarter and a third choosing each option, there was some degree of consensus in the qualitative comments.

4.20 The term 'puppy farming' was not defined in the question, and it was not clear from the responses whether respondents had a uniform understanding of this term. In particular, individual respondents were not necessarily aware of the existing legislation on licensing of breeders or of the arrangements for small scale breeding (up to 5 litters per year) which is permitted without a licence. ^[4] Nor did they appear to be aware in all cases that large scale unlicenced puppy farming has been illegal since 1973. Notwithstanding these comments, respondents expressed almost universal disapproval for puppy farming and puppy farmers.

4.21 Respondents who thought that compulsory microchipping might play a role in tackling puppy farming, made two main qualifying comments. First, that it would be vital for the microchip to contain information which allowed the breeder to be traced. This information would have to be retained in the long term, even if the dog subsequently changed hands. Second, that sufficient resources would have to be devoted to enforcement, and harsh penalties imposed for those who did not comply.

4.22 Those who had a more ambivalent or negative view of the impact that compulsory microchipping might achieve emphasised that:

• The individuals involved in puppy farming are enterprising, and "in it for the money", which was believed to be substantial. These individuals would find a way around any legal requirement to microchip.
• Those who buy from puppy farmers are often only interested in paying the lowest price possible for the puppy they want. This could only be tackled by education about the dangers of puppy farming aimed at the general public.

4.23 Moreover, respondents thought the whole picture was substantially complicated by the large expansion of trading on the internet and overseas trade. Respondents questioned how these types of trading could be regulated or stopped.

Q7 Would compulsory microchipping help to address other dog welfare issues?

4.24 Question 7 asked respondents if they considered that compulsory microchipping would help to address other dog welfare issues.

4.25 A total of 1,482 respondents provided a response to the tick-box part of Question 7. Table 4.5 below show that 52% said "yes", 33% said "no" and 15% said "don't know". There was little difference between organisational and individual respondents in the distribution of responses.

Table 4.5: Question 7: Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to address other dog welfare issues?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	46	47%	721	52%	767	52%
No	32	33%	455	33%	487	33%
Don't know	19	20%	209	15%	228	15%
Total	97	100%	1,385	100%	1,482	100%

4.26 Altogether, 883 respondents made a comment at Question 7. As with previous questions, many respondents who selected "yes" offered some qualifying comment to the effect that compulsory microchipping might help to address other dog welfare issues if, and only if, some other condition (for example, better enforcement, all microchips being kept up-to-date, etc.) was also met. Of those who offered no qualification, the main point made was that improved traceability would enable action against abusers to be taken more easily.

4.27 Amongst those who selected "no" two main reasons were given. First, that compulsory microchipping was not a behavioural intervention - it is simply a tool to improve traceability. Compulsory microchipping will not alter the behaviour of someone who mistreats their dog. Moreover, those who mistreat dogs are unlikely to get their dogs microchipped. Second, that enforcement of compulsory microchipping would be very difficult and would require substantial resources.

4.28 Other points, linked to the main arguments above, and raised less often, were that:

• Compulsory microchipping might help at the margins. It may deter a few individuals, or enable a few more prosecutions to go ahead. However it would not impact on the vast majority of those who mistreat dogs.
• Compulsory microchipping would only be useful if linked to a system of licensing and registration, as well as to training and / or educational initiatives which dealt with animal welfare in a broader social context. These other measures were seen as being potentially more important and more effective.
• Current legislation is not enforced and the addition of compulsory microchipping without other changes would be ineffective. Current penalties, even when enforced (which is rare) are not severe enough to deter mistreatment. It was asserted that many abusers are already known to the relevant authorities, but no action is taken.
• Compulsory microchipping would only be useful if the information held was fully up-to-date. Respondents were unclear how this would be achieved, as it was easy to change details, remove microchips, and deny ownership if confronted.

Q8 Would compulsory microchipping help to prevent dog attacks?

4.29 Question 8 asked respondents if they considered that compulsory microchipping would help to prevent dog attacks on people / animals, including assistance dogs.

4.30 A total of 1,498 respondents provided a response to the tick-box part of Question 8. Table 4.6 below shows that 22% said "yes", 61% said "no" and 17% said "don't know". There were no differences in the distribution of answers to this question between organisational respondents and individual respondents.

Table 4.6: Question 8: Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to prevent dog attacks on people / animals?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	22	22%	309	22%	331	22%
No	58	59%	853	61%	911	61%
Don't know	18*	18%	238	17%	256	17%
Total	98	100%	1,400	100%	1,498	100%

* Includes one respondent who ticked both "yes" and "no".
Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

4.31 Altogether, 946 respondents made a comment at Question 8. Irrespective of whether respondents ticked "yes" or "no", they did not, in general, believe that compulsory microchipping would help to prevent dog attacks on people and animals. Indeed, many were dismissive that this had been suggested. How, they asked, could the presence of a microchip in a dog prevent an attack? The microchip is not a behavioural intervention, it is simply - if properly implemented - a tool for traceability. The idea that compulsory microchipping could prevent attacks was seen as ridiculous by substantial numbers of respondents.

4.32 Respondents noted that microchipping would be irrelevant in cases where the attacks took place in the dog's own home, where the identity of the owner was known. More broadly, the identity of owners was considered to be almost always established in the case of an attack, whether or not a microchip had been implanted. Many respondents made the point that any benefit would therefore relate not to the prevention of an attack, but in assisting the identification of the owners following an attack.

4.33 The key themes discussed in relation to this question focused strongly on training and education, both of owners and the general public (including, particularly, children). It was thought that only by improving the training and education of dog owners, and by raising the awareness of the general public about how to understand dog behaviour, could attacks be reduced. Many descriptions of appropriate training, and what elements it should cover, were offered.

4.34 Respondents also stressed the importance of enforcing existing legislation. They repeatedly stated that little enforcement of current measures was undertaken. Some offered detailed accounts of situations where they had attempted to raise issues of dangerous dog behaviour with local authorities or police, to no avail.

4.35 Among those who ticked "yes" at Question 8, compulsory microchipping was seen to have a more indirect impact on preventing dog attacks through increasing the level of responsibility and accountability of dog owners overall. Any improvement would, however, require prosecutions to be undertaken, with severe punishments imposed for offenders.