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

6. Financial and Other Impacts of Compulsory Microchipping

6.1 This chapter considers the financial or other business impacts of compulsory microchipping. Question 16 of the consultation questionnaire asked about whether compulsory microchipping would have a positive or negative financial or other impact on owners, enforcement agencies, animal welfare organisations etc. Respondents were given the option to tick "positive", "negative" or "don't know". A space was then provided for further comments. Five respondents explicitly said in their answers to the tick-box question that there would be both positive and negative impacts and a separate code was created for this answer.

6.2 Altogether, 1,461 respondents replied to the first part of Question 16. Table 6.1 below shows that 45% of respondents thought that compulsory microchipping would have a positive financial or other impact on certain sectors, 21% thought it would not, and 34% said they didn't know.

Table 6.1: Do you believe that compulsory microchipping would have a positive or negative financial or other impact on [certain groups]?

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

6.3 Respondents who were involved in animal rescue and welfare, and those involved in enforcement were slightly more likely to identify positive financial and other impacts of compulsory microchipping (58% and 52% respectively, compared to 45% overall).

6.4 Altogether, 752 respondents made comments at Question 16. The comments showed a large degree of overlap in the views of those who ticked "positive", those who ticked "negative" and those who ticked "don't know". Large numbers of respondents in all three groups explained in their answers that they felt the impacts would be different for different sectors, and that there were likely to be both positive and negative impacts. This suggests that the figures in Table 6.1 above should not be taken at face value.

6.5 In relation to positive impacts, the main beneficiaries of a policy of compulsory microchipping, as identified by respondents, were microchip companies - including microchip manufacturers, implanters, and database designers. There would be extra work for these companies. To a lesser degree, veterinarians (and others who implant microchips), enforcement agencies (as long as additional resources were made available for enforcement) and rehoming organisations (perhaps not immediately, but maybe in the longer term) were also identified as beneficiaries.

6.6 As far as negative impacts were concerned, many respondents identified the additional costs for owners, for animal welfare organisations / rehoming charities, and for enforcement agencies as the main negative impacts. Owners on low incomes (e.g. the elderly, homeless, pensioners and the unemployed) were frequently mentioned in this context, as were individuals / organisations (including animal welfare organisations and rehoming charities) who dealt with a large number of dogs. It was suggested that these latter groups could be offered free or discounted rates.

6.7 In many cases respondents went on to give more nuanced accounts of how they felt these impacts might affect different sectors:

• Owners. The point was emphasised that the costs of microchipping pale into insignificance when set against other costs of dog ownership; if owners cannot afford to microchip their dogs, they would not be able to care adequately for their dog. (These comments echo those made at Question 9, discussed in paragraph 5.8 above.)
• Welfare organisations and rehoming charities. It was thought that after an initial period where costs would rise, this might settle and ultimately be financially beneficial to this sector as the costs associated with lost and abandoned dogs would reduce. Access to the information contained on the microchip was also highlighted as a benefit for these organisations.
• Enforcement agencies. Some respondents thought the costs of enforcing the policy made it an unrealistic proposition especially at a time of financial austerity, whilst others thought the resources could be made available. A few respondents suggested that costs might reduce over time as implementation was rolled out.

6.8 In general, respondents thought the costs of microchipping were inconsequential specifically in relation to the cost of buying a puppy. They believed that any costs incurred by dog breeders for microchipping would simply be passed on to the buyer. The question had specifically identified "pet shops" as a group that might be affected; however, respondents were strongly of the view that pet shops should not sell dogs.

6.9 Views were divided about whether a policy of compulsory microchipping would increase or decrease the cost of microchipping. Some respondents thought the increased competition would bring down microchipping fees, whilst others anticipated that the compulsory nature of the policy would result in companies charging a higher rate. A few respondents suggested that rates for microchipping should be "capped".

6.10 As in other questions, some respondents made more general comments about the policy of compulsory microchipping, for example that it would improve animal welfare, that it would not impact on dog attacks or other serious offences, that responsible owners would microchip their dogs anyway, that it should be introduced as an adjunct to dog licensing, that commercial breeding should be regulated or stopped, and that without proper enforcement (which would be very expensive) the policy was "pointless".