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

7. Support for Compulsory Microchipping

7.1 This chapter discusses respondents' views about support for compulsory microchipping, whether any sectors should be exempted from a requirement to microchip, and the preferred option(s) for introducing compulsory microchipping. There were three questions:

Question 17: Do you believe that all dogs in Scotland should be microchipped? Why? [Yes / No / Don't know].

Question 18: Do you consider that any sectors of dog ownership (for example rehoming / sanctuary charities, police, armed services, security services, guide / helper dogs, vermin control, sheep dogs or other sectors) merit exemption from any requirement to microchip? Why? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Question 19: Which of the suggested options for introducing any requirement for compulsory microchipping do you believe would work best? Do you have an alternative option to suggest? [Staus Quo / All puppies born after a specific date should be microchipped / All dogs transferred on transfer of ownership / Two-phase approach over 2 years / Microchipping of all dogs within one year of legislation coming into effect / Other] Please explain.

Q17 Do you believe that all dogs in Scotland should be microchipped?

7.2 Question 17 asked about whether respondents believed that all dogs in Scotland should be microchipped. Respondents were given the option to tick "yes", "no" or "don't know". A space was then provided for further comments.

7.3 Altogether, 1,563 respondents replied to the first part of Question 17. Table 7.1 below shows that 83% of respondents thought that all dogs in Scotland should be microchipped, 13% that they should not, and 4% said they didn't know.

Table 7.1: Question 17: Do you believe that all dogs in Scotland should be microchipped?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	79	77%	1,218	83%	1,297	83%
No	15	15%	186	13%	201	13%
Don't know	9	9%	56	4%	65	4%
Total	103	100%	1,460	100%	1,563	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

7.4 There were small differences in the distribution of responses by respondent type. Enforcement agencies were more likely to say "don't know" (17% compared to 4% overall) and less likely to say "no" (4% compared to 13% overall).

7.5 Altogether, 1,129 respondents made additional comments at Question 17. Those who said "yes" generally gave a positive endorsement of compulsory microchipping. However, a substantial minority of those who ticked "yes" at Question 17 also made comments that overlapped to a large degree with the comments of those who ticked "no" or "don't know". In particular, respondents in all three groups commented that:

• Compulsory microchipping was not a panacea and in particular would not prevent dog attacks
• Responsible owners are microchipping their dogs anyway and irresponsible owners are unlikely to comply
• Any benefits would be dependent on proper enforcement. Enforcement would be expensive and it was not clear who would fund this. Moreover proper enforcement would depend on widespread availability of scanners as well as arrangements for developing and maintaining a national database
• Some other approach (licensing, training or education were frequently mentioned) would be better.

7.6 The final point above (that training, education and / or licensing would be more effective in preventing dog attacks and promoting responsible dog ownership) is illustrated in the quotes below.

"What is trying to be achieved? This will not prevent the attacks that happen - it will only make it easier to prosecute. If information is not kept up to date it will be of no use. It should be an education and training drive - the majority of owners are responsible." (The Stewartry Veterinary Centre)

"Compulsory owner education and not microchips will reduce dog attacks." (Individual respondent)

"Only if implemented alongside compulsory licensing and insurance. Licences should only be gained after owners complete practical basic training in handling dogs including understanding all dog laws." (Individual respondent)

7.7 The Scotland for Animals campaign response (submitted by 736 respondents) also addressed the issue of compulsory microchipping. The campaign response stated that "compulsory microchipping [should] only be introduced in conjunction with mandatory licensing". This response cannot be characterised as either "yes" or "no".

7.8 The SfA response, taken together with the reservations and conditions made by some of those who ticked "yes" to Question 17, suggests that support for compulsory microchipping was not as unambiguous as might appear at first sight, given the figures shown in Table 7.1 above.

Arguments in favour of compulsory microchipping

7.9 Those who were in favour of compulsory microchipping made a number of (linked) arguments to support their view. The most widespread argument, which was used by all groups, was that compulsory microchipping would help with tracing dogs which had been lost, stolen or involved in an accident. This point was linked to comments that compulsory microchipping would be a first step towards promoting responsible dog ownership, deter owners from dumping or abandoning their dogs, reduce the numbers of strays and deter (some types of) dog theft. Responses also highlighted the welfare benefits for dogs and the financial gains to be made through improved administration and the decreased demand for places in rehoming centres. The selection of quotes below, from individual and organisational respondents who were in favour of compulsory microchipping highlight the range of linked arguments.

"The most important reason for microchipping is to enable a lost or straying dog to be returned promptly to its owner." (Dogs Trust)

"Dogs run away, dogs get stolen and dogs get lost. Aside from the benefits of tracing irresponsible owners who have dangerous dogs out of control, microchips can reunite lost and stolen dogs with their owners." (Individual respondent)

"As I said, most dogs I come across at competitions, shows and pet dogs at the training clubs are already chipped. It would not be a dramatic change and it will help with the number of strays / abandoned dogs in rescue." (Individual respondent)

"Due to welfare issues all animals should be microchipped." (Individual respondent)

"This is from a welfare point of view. If an owner knows their dog can be traced to them, they are not going to leave it tied to a lamp post 20 miles away." (Individual respondent)

"The Kennel Club believes that all dogs in Scotland should have to be microchipped as this form of permanent identification is deemed to be the most efficient in identifying and returning stray dogs to their owners and as a result, the most beneficial in relation to welfare and cost savings." (The Kennel Club)

7.10 In addition, some respondents highlighted the fact that microchips were more difficult to remove than collars and tags. Others emphasised that the requirement to microchip might make casual owners stop and think twice, and would deter impulse buying.

7.11 However, as set out in paragraph 7.5 above, these positive arguments were often qualified with comments about other aspects which would also have to be addressed. Respondents saw compulsory microchipping as a "first step" which would "do no harm" but which "was not always necessary" and did not, by itself represent a solution to irresponsible dog ownership. For example:

"I do think they should be microchipped but I think that mandating it does not address the wider issues" (Tynewater Dog Training)

"This is the best way to identify the owner of the dog, it will benefit both the owner and enforcement agencies when dealing with strays and greatly reduce the cost of this, it may also help to address other issues, however it should be kept in mind that just because someone has their dog chipped it does not make the dog behave, that is still down to the owner. Microchipping all dogs in Scotland will also only work if all the chip details are kept up to date when the dog changes owners." (Aberdeen City Council)

"I think it is a good idea but I think it would be financially very hard to implement due to the cost of enforcement" (Individual respondent)

"If it all worked out as it should it might help the dog problems but not everyone will do it" (Individual respondent)

Arguments against compulsory microchipping

7.12 The arguments against compulsory microchipping mirrored the points already set out in paragraph 7.5 above. They covered (as already stated): that compulsory microchipping was not a panacea and in particular would not prevent dog attacks; that responsible owners are doing this anyway and irresponsible owners are unlikely to comply; that any benefits would be dependent on proper enforcement; and that some other approach would be more effective. A selection of quotes is given below which illustrate these points:

"Although there is value in this proposal we do not believe it has been thought through properly. It will not address the issues it is intent on addressing and will be impossible to police, as has been proven by the Dog Fouling Act. As an organisation we believe policing of current legislation should be looked at before adding additional requirements." (National Trust for Scotland)

"It will not stop dogs from attacking children and I would much rather see measures introduced which will keep children safe. Clearly, a microchip has no part to play in the protection of children in public places." (Individual respondent)

"The Scottish Countryside Alliance support wholeheartedly the measures afforded under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006; and further support the recommendations of the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs, specifically the recommendation to microchip. We simply do not accept that the compulsory microchipping of dogs in Scotland will translate to increased public safety, increased owner responsibility or limit the attacks on postal workers or guide dogs." (Scottish Countryside Alliance)

"It is definitely NOT the correct system to use to control dog population / attacks or irresponsible ownership in Scotland. Licensing would be a better system and perhaps more help with spaying / neutering to prevent unnecessary breeding. Training is a whole other issue and again is a choice, but any responsible owner will train their dog to be socially acceptable." (Scottish Progressive GSD Group)

"Not all owners will chip. You can't possibly police this. So whilst decent law abiding people pay, others won't."(Individual respondent)

7.13 In addition a range of other issues were raised. Most significantly those in the "no" camp felt that compulsory microchipping was a disproportionate response. These comments emphasised that the problems were confined to relatively small subgroups of owners, and that a response which specifically targeted problem owners was a better - and more common sense - use of resources. Respondents also made a strong libertarian case that owners should be allowed to choose for themselves whether or not to microchip their dogs. For example:

"Given the small percentage of dogs that stray or give rise to concern compulsory microchipping could be seen as disproportionate and a tax on responsible dog ownership." (Scottish SPCA)

"It is yet another loss of civil liberty and it is dangerous to a certain percentage of dogs. If that percentage includes your dog it is a heartbreak that you will blame on the government who enforced it." (Individual respondent)

7.14 Other points made by some respondents who were against microchipping included: that microchipping was not cheap; that any system of identification should be visually obvious (and a microchip was not); that this was a cruel practice in relation to young puppies; that microchipping was not safe; that it was unnecessary for certain sectors; and that the system was too bureaucratic. Finally it was suggested that there was the possibility of unintended consequences such as an increase in the number of dogs abandoned, an increase in the costs, and a decrease in the number of contacts with vets which would have a negative impact on dog welfare. These comments echoed those made in response to earlier questions about the challenges of compulsory microchipping (see Chapter 5 above).

Other comments about compulsory microchipping

7.15 Other points were made, less often, which were not specifically associated with either a positive or a negative view of compulsory microchipping. These included: a preference for another form of identification, for example tattooing, or a DNA profile or certificate; a concern about the impact of illegal microchip removal; and a requirement for the microchip to be proof of ownership.

Q18 Do any sectors merit exemption from the requirement to microchip?

7.16 Question 18 asked respondents whether any sectors of dog ownership merit exemption from the requirement to microchip. The groups enumerated in the question were: rehoming / sanctuary charities; police; armed services; security services; guide / helper dogs; vermin control; and sheep dogs. Respondents were given the option to tick "yes", "no" or "don't know" and a space was provided for further comments.

7.17 Altogether 1,479 respondents replied to the first part of Question 18. Table 7.2 below shows that 9% of respondents thought that some sector(s) merited exemption, 84% that no sectors did, and 7% said that they didn't know. There were no major differences in the distribution of responses across different types of respondent.

Table 7.2: Question 18: Do you consider that any sectors merit exemption from any requirement to microchip?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	10	10%	124	9%	134	9%
No	82	83%	1,159	84%	1,241	84%
Don't know	7	7%	97	7%	104	7%
Total	99	100%	1,380	100%	1,479	100%

7.18 Altogether, 753 respondents made an additional comment at Question 18. Many of these comments did not relate to whether certain groups should be exempted from microchipping but rather to whether certain groups should have access to free or reduced rates in relation to microchipping. In this respect respondents particularly mentioned charities, rescue centres, and rehoming organisations; owners on low incomes; and those with responsibility for dogs involved in emergency services, as guide dogs, etc. These comments mirrored those already discussed in relation to Question 9 above and were made by respondents who agreed, respondents who disagreed, and by respondents who did not know whether exemptions were merited.

7.19 Among respondents who ticked "yes" at Question 18, there was a common view that "all owners" or "all responsible owners" should be exempt. These comments reflect this group's opposition to the introduction of compulsory microchipping.

7.20 Where respondents actually commented on categories which might be exempted from compulsory microchipping (rather than exempted from the costs of microchipping), there were two areas of consensus. These points were often made irrespective of whether the respondent had ticked "yes" or "no" to Question 18. The first area consensus was that individual dogs should be permitted an exemption for medical reasons - confirmed by a qualified veterinarian - if microchipping could have a negative health impact on the dog. The second area of consensus related to rehoming / sanctuary charities. In this latter case, respondents argued that the charities should be allowed to delay microchipping until the arrangements for rehoming were in place; at this point the dog should be microchipped (and the costs of microchipping borne by the recipient of the dog). For all other groups, there were views both in favour and against exemption.

7.21 Many respondents commented that the groups listed in the question (see paragraph 7.16 above) were already likely to be microchipped as a matter of routine. Moreover, these respondents thought that those who had a "professional role" in relation to dog ownership, should "lead by example", and microchip all dogs for which they were responsible.

7.22 In relation to the question about whether dogs used for vermin control and sheep dogs should be exempt, opinions were voiced on both sides of the argument. Some thought that since these dogs were not in contact with the public they should be exempted whilst others focused on the fact that they were expensive dogs which represented a large investment and which should therefore be microchipped. Respondents also pointed out that although these dogs are exempted from the requirement to wear a collar and tag (because it might interfere with their work), a microchip would not have a detrimental effect on their working capacity.

Arguments in favour of compulsory microchipping with NO exemptions

7.23 There were two main arguments raised in favour of compulsory microchipping with no exemptions. The first related to the importance of having a simple, straightforward, clear rule. No exemptions was thought to be the only fair way to implement such a provision, and it was thought that all dogs would have to be included if the benefits to animal welfare were to be realised. If no exemptions were allowed, this would make it easier to monitor and would ensure there were no loopholes which could be exploited. In this context, a few respondents specifically discussed the loopholes in England in relation to the banning of tail docking; it was thought that the exemptions which had been identified in this case meant that the ban was ineffective. Moreover, any dilution of the message to provide for exemptions was thought to undermine the overall message.

7.24 The second main argument in favour of compulsory microchipping with no exemptions was that "a dog is a dog". This argument emphasised that all dogs are unpredictable, and all dogs have the potential to get lost, or to become aggressive. There were no exceptions to this rule. So, there should be no exceptions to microchipping.

7.25 Respondents pointed out that many dogs change their designation throughout their life course. In particular working dogs of all kinds often became pets in later life. Therefore it was thought to be appropriate that they should be microchipped from the start.

Suggestions for exemptions

7.26 In addition to the groups already mentioned as generally meriting exemption from compulsory microchipping (dogs whose health might be compromised by microchipping, rehoming sanctuaries), exemption for all other groups mentioned in Question 18 as well as for some additional groups attracted very limited support. The category mentioned most frequently (but even this was by only a few dozen respondents) was 'working dogs'. Other groups mentioned occasionally included guide dogs; dogs bred to be hunting dogs; police dogs; armed forces dogs; those dogs involved in undertaking work in relation to national security; emergency service dogs; sheep dogs; dogs not in contact with the public; dogs not expected to be rehomed; dogs undergoing behaviour therapy.

7.27 It was also suggested that there could be exemptions "if and only if alternative controls were in place". Another view was that provision for exemption would be required for "temporary custodians" (such as rescue centres or dog fosterers) which have responsibility for the dog for only a short period of time).

7.28 A few respondents focused on exemptions that related to the information which would be recorded on the chip. In particular it was thought that some specific types of working dogs (for example, police dogs and dogs belonging to Army, etc.) should have the details on the chip anonymised.

Q19 Which option for introducing compulsory microchipping do you support?

7.29 Question 19 asked respondents for their views about which option for introducing any requirement for compulsory microchipping would work best, or whether respondents had an alternative option to suggest. Respondents were given the option to tick "Status quo", "All puppies born after a certain date", "All dogs microchipped on transfer of ownership", "Two-phase approach over 2 years", "Microchipping of all dogs within one year of legislation coming into effect" or "Other". A space was provided for further comments.

7.30 The response options offered in Question 19 were not mutually exclusive (for example, it would be possible to combine the option of "all puppies born after a certain date" with a requirement for "all dogs to be microchipped on transfer of ownership"; the 2-phase approach could also subsume other options). Some respondents explicitly indicated in their responses that some combination of the options offered was preferred, and a new code ("Combination") was therefore created for these respondents. A few respondents also provided information about which option they thought would be second best, if their first choice was not selected.

7.31 Altogether 1,449 respondents replied to the first part of Question 19. As can be seen from Table 7.3, the most popular option was to introduce compulsory microchipping within one year of the legislation coming into effect, which was selected by half (51%) of respondents. About one in six respondents (16%) selected "all puppies born after a specific date", one in seven (14%) selected "two-phase approach over two years" and one in 12 (8%) the "status quo". Other options were selected by fewer than 1 in 25 respondents.

Table 7.3: Question 19: Which of the suggested options for compulsory microchipping do you believe would work best?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Status quo	9	9%	114	8%	123	8%
All puppies born after a specific date	9	9%	216	16%	225	16%
On transfer of ownership	3	3%	53	4%	56	3%
Two-phase approach over 2 yrs	15	16%	188	14%	203	14%
Within one year of legislation	49	51%	689	51%	738	51%
Combination	7	7%	51	4%	58	4%
Other	4	4%	42	3%	46	3%
Total	96	100%	1,353	100%	1,449	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

7.32 The distribution of responses offered by enforcement agencies, and by rescue organisations differed from those offered by other groups. As far as enforcement agencies were concerned, just over a third (35%) selected the two-phase approach over two years, whilst another third (30%) selected the option to introduce compulsory microchipping within one year of the legislation coming into effect. By contrast, two-thirds (66%) of rescue organisations selected the option of introducing compulsory microchipping within one year with smaller numbers of this group choosing other options.

7.33 Altogether, a total of 499 respondents made additional comments at this question. The reasons for selecting one option rather than another were fairly straightforward and were mainly made on practical grounds. As would be expected, those selecting the "status quo" option, were those who were not in favour of compulsory microchipping and saw no reason for it to be introduced. These respondents reiterated their reasons for being against the introduction of compulsory microchipping (see paragraphs 7.5 and 7.12 - 7.14 above).

7.34 Those who preferred the option of "all puppies born after a specific date should be microchipped" thought this was the most feasible option. It was thought to be a proportionate and pragmatic approach, which would be helpful in deterring "back street breeders". It was also thought to deal with issues relating to the potential unfairness of any costs involved as it would apply to new owners only, who would know in advance of the requirement to microchip; in addition, breeders could pass on costs to new owners or could withdraw from breeding altogether if they were against the measure. Respondents thought this option was clear and transparent, that it was the most logical place to start, and that it was the easiest of all the options to enforce. Respondents who supported this option did, however, acknowledge that adopting this approach would mean that it would take decades before all dogs were covered.

7.35 Only a few respondents chose the option of "all dogs microchipped on transfer of ownership". Many of those who provided comments elaborating this response, indicated that they were thinking about "transfer of ownership" in relation to puppies only. Respondents talked about the importance of chipping all dogs before sale, and of the appropriateness of introducing legislation which placed the responsibility for microchipping upon breeders. Very few comments were made about transfer of older dogs, other than a requirement to chip upon transfer of ownership would give a firm message about the compulsory nature of microchipping. Respondents who supported this approach acknowledged this option might be slow in achieving universal coverage, but speculated that it was likely to be more successful than other alternatives.

7.36 The two-phase approach was described in the consultation document as requiring all puppies to be microchipped on transfer of ownership in year one, moving to microchipping of all dogs by the end of year two of the legislation coming into force. Respondents who supported this option thought that it could run in conjunction with the option described above in relation to microchipping all puppies after a specific date. This group mainly focused on the benefits of giving people more time to adjust to the proposed change. While some respondents explicitly stated that they would prefer a quicker implementation, those who chose this option felt that two years was a realistic timetable for introducing compulsory microchipping, and thought there were benefits to introducing change at a modest pace. Thus it was thought that this option represented the best balance between realising the benefits of compulsory microchipping, and also giving people enough time to respond.

7.37 Respondents also supported what they saw as a logical sequence which started with breeders, moved to transfers, and finally covered all dogs. However, some 'tweaks' to the sequencing were suggested: for example, to start with those dogs already registered with a vet and / or those in sanctuaries. Some respondents also highlighted the benefits of incentivising the process with a "grace period" where microchipping could be undertaken free of charge. It was pointed out that enforcement of the "puppy aspect" at the end of Year 2 would be challenging because of the difficulty of providing a definitive age for the dog.

7.38 "Microchipping of all dogs within one year of legislation coming into effect" was the most favoured option. Many respondents who selected this option made clear in their comments that they would welcome an even speedier introduction (3 months and 6 months were both mentioned) if at all possible. There was strong support for the immediate introduction of microchipping of puppies (although guidance on the minimum age for microchipping of puppies would be required in advance of this), and to a lesser degree, immediate microchipping on transfer of other dogs. However, other respondents confirmed that a year was a reasonable timeframe, and that this gave everyone - including those on low incomes for whom the expense would be relevant - sufficient opportunity to comply, especially as most dogs already go to a vet on an annual basis. A time limit was thought to be important in order for the legislation to be effective; without this it could take decades to implement. The legislative certainty of this option was highlighted as a positive factor.

7.39 Those who either directly (by identifying it themselves) or indirectly (by providing comments which allowed the research team to identify it on their behalf) chose a "combination" of options most often identified "all puppies born after a specific date" alongside one of the other more general options (two-phase approach over 2 years; or microchipping of all dogs within one year of legislation taking effect).

7.40 Other comments were not directly related to the question of which option was preferred, rather they were comments about respondents' views about compulsory microchipping (for example, that compulsory microchipping would not deter attacks, or that enforcement would be expensive and / or impossible). These comments have been discussed elsewhere and so are not repeated here.