Latest Microchipping info

[emma_mcraf]

Originally Posted by Ozric Jonathan

I personally don't think there is any point unless the keeper intends to sell offspring. There are different views on the subject of course, but it does mean inserting a foreign body into the animal with dubious benefits.

Does anyone know of a case where an owner whose tortoise was stolen later got it back purely because of the tortoise having a microchip? I've never come across one.

Yup. My son has had two found tortoises brought into the vets where he works this year and they were reunited with the owners by their chips. A happy ending for some very anxious owners.

[Ozric Jonathan]

Thanks Emma! Just goes to show.. and I stand corrected.

I don't think that quite swings it for me but I'm open to persuasion.

[emma_mcraf]

Originally Posted by Ozric Jonathan

Thanks Emma! Just goes to show.. and I stand corrected.

I don't think that quite swings it for me but I'm open to persuasion.

To be fair I think it depends on the honesty of those finding lost torts. In this instance the torts were in a neighbouring garden having escaped with some excellent climbing skills! The owners didn't make it common knowledge they had torts for fear of thieves, but had microchipped for security reasons. They were thrilled to have their torts returned but annoyed they now had neighbours who knew they had torts!

[Pussygalore]

I think the hope is that a stolen or lost tort may end up at the vets at some point and a good vet should scan new customers animals, the other poss is that the police may end up with the animal and again should scan it, in fact anywhere that takes in found animals should do the same. I think that all pets, where its able, should be chipped, its already law with dogs, no one should be able to dump, steal etc an animal and chipping will always trace it back to the original owner how ever long ago that is. I hope that it does become law and makes owners more responsible for any animal in their care.

[sandy]

Originally Posted by Ozric Jonathan

I personally don't think there is any point unless the keeper intends to sell offspring. There are different views on the subject of course, but it does mean inserting a foreign body into the animal with dubious benefits.

Does anyone know of a case where an owner whose tortoise was stolen later got it back purely because of the tortoise having a microchip? I've never come across one.

I agree totally putting chips into a tortoise is a risk.
And out of the hundreds that go missing, most are found through word of mouth and posting posters etc in the community. Not many people actually have chip readers to know a chip has been inserted. Probably the manufacturers of chips have spread the word that "more tortoises are found with chips". To sell micro chips:0)

[Pussygalore]

so does that mean that all you people that wouldn't have a tort done also wouldn't have your other pets such as a dog/cat etc chipped as well, if you would can I ask what is the difference. I think you can have most animals chipped including birds if big enough and at least with dogs its now the law, it makes it harder for owners if in some cases you have to but 'not if' in others, as far as I'm concerned it either has to or doesn't, may if all had to be done and it was made public like it was with the dogs then it might put some off from stealing or make someone who finds a tort take it to be checked. Doesn't chipping also mean that the legal owner can be found and held responsible for that animals welfare/care or not care in some cases.

[vikki]

I think compulsory chipping only works when a "compulsory scanning" is also put in place. Most vets do not routinely scan even dogs and at present are not obliged to do so. I have not long changed vets due to moving house and my dogs are chipped but did the vet check this and check that the registered details matched -NO. I could have stolen/innocently acquired a stolen animal or any other scenario and nobody would be any wiser. Local councils are not obliged to scan and a lot will not bother scanning road fatalaties that they pick up. Most members of the public do not have access to a scanner and it has even been known for rescue centres not to scan so until such a time that it is somehow better regulated then microchips do have a limited value - as I said my dogs are done in the hope that if the worst happened and they got lost then maybe they would end up somewhere they would be scanned but no guarantees as the system is so flawed (this is also from experience of having worked in a vets for 7 years). Will I microchip my tortoises - I am not sure yet, maybe if the system improves now that compulsory microchipping is coming in for dogs I will consider it otherwise I am not sure if it is worth it??

[Ozric Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Pussygalore

so does that mean that all you people that wouldn't have a tort done also wouldn't have your other pets such as a dog/cat etc chipped as well, if you would can I ask what is the difference. I think you can have most animals chipped including birds if big enough and at least with dogs its now the law, it makes it harder for owners if in some cases you have to but 'not if' in others, as far as I'm concerned it either has to or doesn't, may if all had to be done and it was made public like it was with the dogs then it might put some off from stealing or make someone who finds a tort take it to be checked. Doesn't chipping also mean that the legal owner can be found and held responsible for that animals welfare/care or not care in some cases.

I think I understand your points here PG and they are valid. But I don't have any other pets so I don't connect with all of them. I think it's worth saying that those of us who have doubts about microchipping are not all careless owners or bad keepers; we might just think that not microchipping is the right option for our pets. I know you are not suggesting that anyone who doesn't chip their tortoises is irresponsible but I just wanted to take the chance to clarify that we're not. Or at least not always because of course it's possible to be irresponisble and not get your tortoise chipped.

[Pussygalore]

I know the flaws but surely it wouldn't be difficult to introduce certain things as law, its worked with the dogs so why not with other pets, obviously vets, rescue centers , police etc would have to scan all new patients, lost pets but that wouldn't be costly nor require a lot of time or paperwork etc. I'm sure most dog owners now know the chipping requirements it was made knowlege through the tv, papers etc and everyone given time to comply so why not all pets over a period of time. With all the dumped,lost pets etc some on purpose isn't it about time that something as simple as having to have them chipped and registered was made compulsery, at the moment as far as I'm aware its still the only way of 'marking' an animal and conecting it to an owner who can then be held responsible.

[vikki]

I agree and hope eventually it will work in practice but feel that like a lot of things those that care and look after their pets will comply but the ones who don't just wont bother and how is it going to be checked - at the moment it is the owners responsibility to make sure the details of ownership(address etc.) are up to date those that don't care/don't want to take responsibility wont bother or simply deny knowledge. In theory it is a great idea but feel it is one that is very difficult to enforce and put into practice but lets hope that eventually it will prove to work - I guess the numbers of stray (not handed in by owners) dogs in rescue will tell the true tale.