Microchipping dog legislation – role of veterinary profession

Regulations will come into force on 6 April making it a requirement dogs in England are microchipped by eight weeks of age.

The legislation has been introduced in an effort to permanently identify dogs and, therefore, potentially provide many benefits, focusing mainly on removing complications in reuniting strays with their owners – a problem more pressing than it seems.

This reuniting won’t happen in the way envisaged by one client encountered by the author. As a new graduate, he was disturbed early one morning by an irate owner who wanted to know where her dog was. It dawned on him because her dog had one of those “chip gizmos”, she was demanding he fire up the vet central computer network and zoom in on her dog’s location. He patiently explained the microchip didn’t have a GPS unit, but was a way of identifying dogs rather than locating them. Her idea was a better one, but technology hadn’t got that far yet.

Approximately 126,000 stray dogs were handled by the UK authorities in 2010 to 2011 and more than half (52%) were unable to be returned as they were unidentifiable (Microchipping Alliance, 2016). Microchipping assisted in the return of 19,380 dogs in 2011, down from 21,667 in 2010, showing a disappointing fall in the number of dogs having functioning, correctly registered microchips.

Statistics on euthanasia are hard to evaluate, as many local authorities inadvertently pass the responsibility to local charities; however, an 18% rise occurred in local authority euthanasia from 2010 to 2011 (Microchipping Alliance, 2016). Dogs that weren’t euthanised after their initial seven-day stay were either rehomed directly or via animal charities. The average length of stay in kennels run by the RSPCA; Dogs Trust; Wood Green, The Animals Charity; Blue Cross; and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is 30.5 days (Microchipping Alliance, 2016).

If only some of these percentages and numbers could be reduced, a good deal of time, effort and money would also be saved, never mind the reduction in suffering and stress to the animals.

Permanent method of identification

The only mandatory identification required is the obligation to ensure dogs wear a collar or tag engraved with the name and address of their keeper when in a public place (The Control of Dogs Order 1992; BVA, 2016).

If there is no such identification then this empowers a local authority officer to seize the dog as a stray under The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Microchipping Alliance, 2016). Microchipping is internationally recognised as a permanent method of identification. The EU recognises it in the Rabies Directive 2003/998/FC.

Not only does the new law require dogs to be implanted with a microchip, but they have to be registered on one of the authorised commercial databases, making the details searchable. Further to this, and, presumably, crucially in the minds of the law makers, dog owners will need to register the details of any new owner before they sell or give the dog away, seating responsibility clearly with the present owner or breeder.

Some hope exists that this will help tackle puppy farming and, in pedigree dogs, aid tracing and reduction in hereditary health problems over time by acting as a database of traceability. Owners are also required to keep their contact details up to date on the database; therefore, permanent identification with a microchip is hopefully effective at all times, impossible to alter (unless the database is abused) and tamper-proof, at least for the layperson.

Two exceptions to the rule of microchipping by eight weeks old exist. Firstly, a working dog exemption in that if a dog has its tail docked, in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the requirement for microchipping is extended to 12 weeks. There is also an exemption if a vet certifies, for health reasons, a dog cannot be microchipped. This certificate can be time-limited and, if necessary, passed on to new owners (The Kennel Club, 2016).

How these changes affect vets and nurses

Dog owners must have their animals microchipped and their details must be entered correctly on a database. How do these changes affect vets and nurses? Regulations came in operation (The Microchipping of Dogs Regulations 2015) on 24 February 2015 making it necessary for any intermittently working or failed microchip, migrated microchip or microchips that have had an adverse reaction, such as a haematoma, infection or inflammatory response, to be reported to the VMD via its online VMD microchip adverse event reporting form.

This also technically applies to owners as well, but is clearly more applicable to veterinary practice staff, though it may be owners are lurking out there with their own microchip scanners. In the, perhaps unlikely, event of an owner reporting an adverse reaction direct to the VMD, full notes must be made in the clinical record for clarity.

While, technically, it is an offence not to report an adverse microchip event such as this, Defra is unlikely to pursue prosecution in the event of a failure to report individual cases, unless there is evidence of a systematic failure to report (BVA, 2016).

Likewise, failure to report individual cases will likely not merit disciplinary measures by the RCVS, but should prosecutors be made aware by the local authorities and the police, these cases would likely be referred to the RCVS (BVA, 2016).

The rationale behind reporting adverse microchip events is to identify individuals who are improperly implanting microchips and monitor chip migration and reliability, with the aim of improving standards.

A guide on the BVA’s website illustrates how far a chip needs to migrate and answers common questions on reporting. In brief, the International Organization for Standardization site for implanting a microchip in small animals is just beneath the skin of the midline, between the shoulder blades. Vets should use their judgement on the degree of migration that warrants reporting, though Defra is seeking advice on more objective measurements in the future.

Where suspicions of a failed microchip arise, apart from double-checking the microchip scanner is fully powered and working correctly, it is worth asking the owner which country the animal was microchipped in, since some microchips used in other countries will not work with UK scanners.

A Canadian client the author met had invested in a microchip scanner to read a Canadian microchip, following a lengthy and stressful delay at a border crossing when the European scanner would not pick up the dog’s microchip.

There may well still be some way to go in achieving total coverage of microchipping, though exactly how far is uncertain. A PDSA survey in 2010 suggested 70% of UK dogs may be microchipped (Microchipping Alliance, 2016), though both a similar Dogs Trust survey (in 2008) and Petlog, the UK’s largest database, put the figures at 59%. Only 23% of stray dogs recovered are microchipped (Microchipping Alliance, 2016).

Microchips are relatively bomb-proof; the main secret to their success is they don’t contain much information at all, just a long number (Figure 1). However, an enormous database contains relevant information linked to that number, such as the animal’s name.

Therefore, the microchip can be very small, about the size of a grain of rice (Figure 2) and, amazingly, not even need a battery. Cleverly, the humble microchip is an example of passive radio frequency identification technology where it has no direct power source of it’s own, but when the scanner reads it the chip receives power inductively coupled from the scanner. This then sets up a small circuit within the chip that transmits the identification number back to the scanner.

Potential problems with microchipping

So, all positive so far, and it has been reported 83% of the public are strongly in favour of compulsory microchipping (Microchipping Alliance, 2016).

However, if only for balance, it is worth presenting some alternative views. For example, statistics from Ireland show the numbers of stray dogs reunited with their owners were virtually identical for the two years after compulsory microchipping was introduced, compared to the two years before (ChipMeNot, 2016).

Delve deeper online and widespread talk of the dangers of microchips, such as tumours, chip migration, failure of enforcement of non-compliance and the suggestion the identification methods are accurate, abounds on various websites and discussion groups.

In terms of tumours, there was one report of a fibrosarcoma developing on the site of microchip implantation in a dog in 2011 (Vascellari et al, 2006).

The tumour had the characteristics of a vaccination sarcoma, all of these particular dogs vaccines had been given in the hindlimb, which, if true, led the paper to conclude the microchip was implicated in the tumour growth.

The WSAVA reported serious complications – those requiring surgical intervention – occurred in approximately one per one million microchipping events, based on the records of 3.7 million dogs in the UK. However, this relies on correct reporting.

Isolated reports have also existed in the literature of incorrect implantation, with very rare reports of catastrophic outcomes, so it is important skilled and experienced people carry out the implantation (Hicks and Bagley, 2008; Platt et al, 2007).

While microchip migration is inconvenient for the owner, it is likely to be of little consequence to the animal, apart from the potential of being implanted again.

Infection at the implantation site seems to be a very rare occurrence as the microchips are supplied sterile (Figure 3), though a small amount of bleeding can happen initially. Nevertheless, it is a procedure well tolerated by dogs and cats of all ages, with any irritation usually ceasing the moment the insertion needle is withdrawn.

Database updating is another concern, with the National Dog Warden Association reporting 40% of the dogs they pick up are microchipped, but have incomplete or inaccurate data, meaning they cannot be returned (BBC, 2013).

However, with all of the issues, as the number of microchips implanted grows, along with proper reporting, these statistics change and improve.

Issues of non-compliance

Potentially, the main issue regarding the success of compulsory microchipping is non-compliance, since it is often argued if a stray dog is found without a microchip, even in the age of compulsory microchipping, it will still be difficult to rehome and there will be no obvious target for prosecution.

People who carelessly dump dogs as strays, or never take their dogs to the vets until they are discarded when they develop health problems, will be, potentially, similarly unaffected by the legislation.

The legislation may act as a deterrent, but it depends on how firmly and closely it is enforced to see the effectiveness of that response.

It remains to be seen who will be the eyes and ears of the scheme. Will the onus be on veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to confront owners with non-microchipped dogs? Or will RSPCA inspectors or the police be scanning random dogs on the street?

Enforcing regulations

Defra guidance suggests vets will not be expected to enforce the regulations and, for example, withhold a dog from it’s owner or send it to the dog warden in the event of finding a dog without a microchip.

However, they may report non-compliance to an officer if they have concerns (The Kennel Club, 2016). Non-compliance with the new legislation risks an initial 21-day notice to comply, with a fine of up to £500 if this is ignored (The Kennel Club, 2016).

While the legislation and surrounding issues aren’t a panacea to target everything from aggressive dogs and puppy farming, to hereditary problems, what is likely is more responsible dog owners will be reunited with their dogs if they become lost, and that has to be a good thing.