Dog Trust and Microchipping

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Colin Cameron — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:41:53 GMT

[quote user="Julie Innes"] I can't understand why they would feel happy going along and basically taking from a charity when they could obviously afford a pedigree bulldog[/quote] This is probably simple unadulterated greed and selfishness. I called it spongeing in an earlier comment. Unfortunately this is seen in all areas of life and all sources of "free" help, financial or otherwise. It reflects badly on the society we are part of.

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Bob Russell — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:27:21 GMT

Sadly I feel there is more politics than welfare with this policy. The government see this as brownie points at little cost to the public purse. The only way people are going to keep the system updated is if there are draconian punishments for those found out.

I suspect detention of the dog, £1000 fine and euthanasia within 7 days if not paid might concentrate the mind suitably. Pigs will fly before this level of punishment is going to be considered.

The whole thing is a waste of time. Good owners will continue to chip, ignorant owners may be a little educated. Problem owners will not bother or will give false details. The lazy and the busy will forget to update details.

Perhaps dogs should be euthanased if a home cannot be found within a fixed period. Not a nice idea and I would hate having to implement it but it would help to control the numbers and might just reduce the number of rescue dogs being imported! Always struck me as daft that we import rescue dogs when we are incapable of dealing with those of our own!

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Rob Loxley — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:22:25 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]

[quote user="robloxley"]IF giving free chips away builds your client base[/quote]

It doesn't. From experience.

[/quote]

I'd be interested if anyone else's experience is the same, or different?

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Virginia Campbell — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 21:59:24 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]IF giving free chips away builds your client base[/quote]

It doesn't. From experience. We tried hard to use it as an opportunity to discuss vaccination, worming, dental care etc in those dogs that had never been in to us before, or not since puppy vaxes; largely wasted breath.

[quote user="Bob Russell"]nobody has indicated how chipped dogs are to be policed![/quote]

Here, you need to quote the chip number to get a dog license. Prob still a good few unlicensed dogs around, but at least any stray that goes to the pound or anyone who gets a visit from the animal welfare officer will have to get a license.

Chipping is a nice thing from the point of view that when strays get handed in to us at the weekend, we can usually get hold of the owner within five minutes and don't have to look after a barking husky till the dog warden can collect it. It's been in force in Northern Ireland for nearly 2 years now. I'm starting to see a disadvantage though - the dogs that have changed hands a couple of times with no re-registering of the chip. Often no answer on the phone number- as the original owner is not looking for a lost dog and lets an unknown number ring out. Had one in a couple of weeks ago. Client bought it on Gumtree, vendor sold it purported to be a 2yo. Contacted number on chip - eventually got through- original owner had sold it to vendor a year ago. Dog is 7yo. Vendor uncontactable, surprise surprise. Total waste of phonecall time, though we felt that we had to try to trace the original O in case the dog had been stolen by dodgy vendor.

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

karen jones — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 09:28:54 GMT

We've stopped doing dogs trust neutering as the amount given didn't cover costs and they wanted us to chip them for free at a the same time with their chips. I work too hard to give my time for free to people who have bought a puppy £ 700 then complain about the cost of vaccine, wormer neutering etc. We do collect food for dogs trust and cpd at Xmas and each year we chose a charity to collect for. The RSPCA is not on our list as they seem to think we are a branch of their charity. They send people down with injured cats , sick cats stray cats and tell them we have to treat them. We seem to end up with cats in kennels which we get well and then re home. Not good publicity to put them to sleep and upsets nurses.

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Neil Wheadon — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 23:58:19 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]I take this point but I don't think it applies directly because we're talking about the situation in the now whereas teaching increased responsibility is for the future (which I'm all for - but how or if you can do this is a contentious issue). Your average Joe isn't going to not get a dog because of a $5 chip issue. What the DT appear to want to do is deal with the current population to encourage tracking (and reduce pressure on their and other charities' resources) - its a sticking plaster for a crap situation. [/quote]

Well argued and a fair point.

In trying to alter behaviour you need to start somewhere.

1) We are a nation of animal lovers, tins are shaken and houses sold in the belief that the money will help animals. The problem as many of us have seen is that much is taken by owners who don't appreciate that these are charitable donations - CPL spay vouchers, pedigree puppies on Petaid and in this case microchipping from the Dogs Trust.. I believe that it was a group of donors who were horrified at the PDSA treating so many pedigree pets that the reduction to one per household was made.

2) What we need is enfocement and inspections. Apparently in Switzerland house visits are made to dogs on the database that are considered unsuitable and action taken. If money was diverted to this side rather than microchipping dogs where an owner can clearly afford this then a message would be sent out to owners that if you keep your animal in unsuitable circumstances then action will be taken. The RSPCA get some stick for doing this, but I would prefer much of the 6 million to help increase their presence to send a proper message to the general public to start to get to the root of the problem.

Neil

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Francisco Gomez — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 21:31:01 GMT

[quote user="Julie Innes"]

the queue was MILES long, and full of expensive pedigree

[/quote] Well, that's pet charity for you nowadays in certain organisations. I did some work for PDSA some time ago. People who qualified for PDSA help would buy pedegree pups for £££ and were expecting PDSA to cover any necessary treatment. Of course managers told me I should be 'trying' to educate clients but most just didn't listen: Except a few well educated pensioners, most people would NOT listen to preventive care because 'it cost money that I can't afford' (obviously late for consult, nowhere to be seen when I called them in, as they were smoking outside). There is a rule now, you can only register a limited number of pedigree animals... Fair enough, I'll just register one of the other five when any of the registered ones die... (More likely I won't vaccinate now, otherwise they'll know I have more than 2 Shar Peis... Duh!)..............as I said before, microchips should be paid by owners...

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Julie Innes — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 19:23:09 GMT

I have no problem with DT wanting to chip before rehoming- many of the resues round here do it, but don't really understand why they don't do it themselves.

I do a free check on any dog coming from a rescue anyway, so wouldn't be too much of a pain to stick the chip in- provided DT did the blummin paperwork!!

I guess the point here, though, is that I CHOOSE to do that free check, I'm not being told/ asked to do it, and I think that is key. Similarly I offered to do all Guide Dog consults for free, I only charge for drugs, but I don't know I'd take too kindly to being told I HAD to!

I did get annoyed at a recent DT show where they offered free chipping, and the queue was MILES long, and full of expensive pedigree pups- my bugbear really was people who had only gone to the show to get their free chip. I can't understand why they would feel happy going along and basically taking from a charity when they could obviously afford a pedigree bulldog, but I guess DT have done their research and know what they are doing

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

David Mills — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 15:53:00 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]Do garages do MOT tests for free?[/quote]

A category mistake, this, because we're talking about animals, of which there is an appalling unchipped excess in shelters, which no-one, even the most hardnosed veterinary businessman, wants,

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"] However for puppies the line should be drawn, as microchipping requires an expense and the dog being looked at by a 3rd party which might make some people think before taking on an animal they cannot afford to care for properly which surely any charity would applaud?[/quote]

I take this point but I don't think it applies directly because we're talking about the situation in the now whereas teaching increased responsibility is for the future (which I'm all for - but how or if you can do this is a contentious issue). Your average Joe isn't going to not get a dog because of a $5 chip issue. What the DT appear to want to do is deal with the current population to encourage tracking (and reduce pressure on their and other charities' resources) - its a sticking plaster for a crap situation.

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Francisco Gomez — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:47:51 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"] microchipping requires an expense and the dog being looked at by a 3rd party which might make some people think before taking on an animal they cannot afford to care for properly[/quote] My thoughts exactly

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Rob Loxley — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:43:32 GMT

[quote user="Colin Cameron"] I was simply asking for opinions as to whether it is morally justified for charities in general to be giving free services to those who could easily afford to pay rather than restricting it to those who were genuinely in financial difficulties[/quote]

The Dogs Trust aims do state "To aid persons of limited means in so far as their dogs welfare is concerned" so from that standpoint your criticism of giving free chips to people who could well afford them seems justified; however I'm sure Dogs Trust are banking on publicity and increased donations and simplicity of implementing a blanket 'free chip' policy to justify it as a business decision rather than contradicting their charitable aims?

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Bob Russell — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 11:07:12 GMT

[quote user="Colin Cameron"]

I have noticed that nobody has actually addressed my original question of whether it is morally right for a charity to spend a very large sum of money to give something to people for free which most should be able to afford to pay for. Any perceived effect on practice finances is, for this purpose, irrelevant.

[/quote]

As I said in my post I suspect this is a business decision and they are expecting it to generate money, not cost money. 'Free' chips will generate footfall but I suspect little or no clent loyalty.

We will do a 'budget' chip but not a free one. Most of our patients are chipped already,

What is far more important IMO is that nobody has indicated how chipped dogs are to be policed!

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Neil Wheadon — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 10:43:07 GMT

Do garages do MOT tests for free? The analogy is their, you must do it, it is what the government requires. A compromise would be for the dogs trust to offer microchips for existing dogs in the household. This satisfies the view that an existing owner on low income doesn't face the burden of a microchip. However for puppies the line should be drawn, as microchipping requires an expense and the dog being looked at by a 3rd party which might make some people think before taking on an animal they cannot afford to care for properly which surely any charity would applaud? Neil

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Colin Cameron — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:43:31 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]investing in some new kit that will enable you to do procedures better, quicker, more efficiently and improve profitability [/quote]

Except that the client will be paying for that service and not getting it for free

[quote user="David Mills"]how does their responsibility towards chipping their pet change in any way[/quote].

They will have no choice.

[quote user="David Mills"]It may deprive vets of microchip income[/quote]

very minor income stream and not important to my underlying question

[quote user="David Mills"]largely stems from some distaste about charity in general[/quote]

absolutely most definitely not. but definitely against misuse of funds or abuse of animal charities by pet owners

[quote user="David Mills"]Ethically, it is no different to people buying an ultrasound to do more scans to improve profitability.[/quote]

you would have to buy one to do any scans.

[quote user="David Mills"] using their donors money incredibly responsibly.[/quote]

It would be more responsible, in my opinion, to make a small charge to cover actual costs which might only be a couple of pounds or so

[quote user="David Mills"] But the dilemma is, what do you do if you don't microchip for free?[/quote].

There would still be goodwill and donations generated

Do it for a small fee to cover costs or if it must be given free then it should be for those unfortunate people who are in receipt of certain benefits ( like the RSPCA and PDSA manage to do) and not for just anyone. This is part of what I was trying to get at initially

.[quote user="David Mills"]there was just a series of financial non-sequiturs and assumptions.[/quote]

again I argue that asking vets to do it for free is asking us to give up some paid work and the figures I included are based on my own charges and a price for the cheapest microchip ( I was told that they were around £2-4 each). Each free chip is an actual loss of trade, whichever way you look at it but the loss is minimal in the overall scheme of things. My point wasn't really about this but about giving something for free to people who could well afford to pay. I have no objection to the DT providing such a service to those who cannot afford to have it done privately ( see previous comment re RSPCA and PDSA) but I still object to the blanket coverage proposed

[quote user="David Mills"]'ve spent the last 3 years working for charities, and PetAid practice[/quote].

I too have spent many years working in practices with associations to animal charities and for the last 16 years have been a supporter of the PDSA Pet Aid scheme, Cat Protection, Guide Dogs, Hearing Dogs and the RSPCA. We also do work for a local animal santuary virtually for nothing and also donate to a local childrens hospice through Circus Star. This is not trying to appear Mr Goody Two Shoes but simply to counter your accusation and show that I have in fact no distaste for charity but quite the opposite. (see your comment -"some distaste about charity in general").

[quote user="David Mills"] throw around 'gross misuse' and 'morals' [/quote]

With the scheme its present form I am still of the opinion that the blanket distribution of free microchips to anyone who wants one irrespective of the ability to pay, just because the government has decided to make it compulsory, is a gross misuse of funds. I would have no objection to the Dog Trust or any other charity giving free microchips to people who genuinely could not afford to pay but making a modest charge to those who could. This could easily be based on the receipt of certain benefits along the lines of the RSPCA and PDSA almoning schemes.

Regarding "morals" I was simply asking for opinions as to whether it is morally justified for charities in general to be giving free services to those who could easily afford to pay rather than restricting it to those who were genuinely in financial difficulties and singled out the Dog Trust as this is the most recent example of this. I would still be unhappy to give up my time to assist any charity scheme and find myself microchipping some wealthy owner's dog for free, unless of course they made a suitably large donation to the charity at the time.

I am still rather offended by your original vitrioloic reply but trust that you can gain a better understanding of my comments.

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Francisco Gomez — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:32:08 GMT

[quote user="Colin Cameron"]

Is this another example to removing financial responsibility of dog owning from the owner?

[/quote] What is a charity? Do pets need chips to survive? Chips should be paid by the owner, because it is in the owner interest that the dog is chipped.

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

David Mills — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:48:24 GMT

[quote user="Colin Cameron"]I have noticed that nobody has actually addressed my original question of whether it is morally right for a charity to spend a very large sum of money to give something to people for free which most should be able to afford to pay for. Any perceived effect on practice finances is, for this purpose, irrelevant.[/quote]

[quote user="David Mills"]

Unless you have any idea about their strategy, the scope of their work, their finances then it's impossible to say. Who is anyone to tell a charity how to spend their money? If you don't like what they do, don't donate. Quite simple.

I suspect as Mr Russell says it's probably part of a marketing strategy which will increase donations. However, unless you're incredibly cynical, it's not all about that, not even majorly. Have you any idea how many dogs are rehomed through shelters every year (or indeed killed at dog wardens'), which are clearly owned (I doubt there are any feral dogs) but can't be re-united with their owners as they've no chip? Have you any idea how expensive that is in vet bills - in fact, £6 million seems an incredibly gracious and and wise investment in reducing the huge drain this places on charity resources - I suspect it is easily dwarfed by the outlay.

[/quote]

?? I'll try again.

Ethically, it may well be justified. They are a canine welfare charity, and microchipping your dog has a potentially direct positive welfare effect on individual dogs (forgetting the painful injection). They probably have done some market projections with target donations on the back of this, and this will give them 'more money to actually treat animals' as you so desire (this is ethically justified by the tough economic climate for charities, and as ethically justified as you investing in some new kit that will enable you to do procedures better, quicker, more efficiently and improve profitability off the back of it.)

Negatively, it may further engender the idea that vets are expensive (and maybe, for things like this, they are) when compared to some vets charging £30 for a chip. It may absolve pet owners of some responsibility (though which section of pet owners this will affect is unclear - if it is people who wouldn't have bothered getting a chip anyway (already irresponsible) then how does their responsibility towards chipping their pet change in any way??). It may deprive vets of microchip income in the short term (but this is regainable with some creative thinking on the back of this).

Overall, the end result will be more animals microchipped, fewer destroyed in shelters, and less pressure on charities taking in strays. All unreservedly Good Things.

Part of you consternation, I think, largely stems from some distaste about charity in general. It's a naive argument to say 'I want charity X to spend its money on actually doing YZ'. Like any business the world over large charities have to speculate to accumulate, but are hamstrung by being unable to make a profit. A way of doing this is by campaigns and publicising their successes which generates more donations. Ethically, it is no different to people buying an ultrasound to do more scans to improve profitability. [Even taking a cynical view, even if you do it purely to increase profitbaility (and I don't think the DT are), a consequence of your ultrasounded animals would be better care: A Good Thing. This consequentialist approach can be fairly easily justified given the end result isn't too nefarious.] Increasing profitability allows you to help more animals than with your initial outlay, for longer term, and to a better standard. Charities are continually trying not to eat their own tail in their pursuit of continued (and improving) service.

Another aspect (if you even skim the surface - if your mind isn't already made up) is that charities gain most income if they can generate good feeling in people: it's all very well shouting from the rooftops we do XYZ but your voice quickly becomes drowned out. Why do you think Children in Need is so successful? Comic Relief? Why are Cancer Charities who supply hospice services the biggest legacy-generators in the country? It's a bargain between donor and charity. People with animals are far more likely to give to animal charities, so the DT are being clever - and using their money wisely compared to, say, advertising in the national press - by targeting this population which I'm sure will increase income. So far from being irresponsible, there is a compelling argument that what they are doing - apart from a very Good Thing - is using their donors money incredibly responsibly.

I don't want to open the can of Ethics of Charity Vet Care, only to say that the dogs are out there, with people who can't afford to keep them. Charity care is a plaster, like emergency aid, like any charity the world over. To everyone who says people should be able to afford a microchip, yes, they should, I agree. But they either don't want to or can't, and tellign them to isn't going to change that. What charities do is work in the here and now, to help the animals, whilst also trying to prevent future problems. But the dilemma is, what do you do if you don't microchip for free? Don't say education because it doesn't work (see the number of unneutered animals for examples of that) - carry on dealing with the strays and killing those in the shelters at great expense (and to perpetuation)? What about the animals where owners can't afford care? Kill them all? Remove charity care in, say 10 years, after spending 'the money treating the animals in their care'?

[quote user="Colin Cameron"]I am being neither self interested or market protective as you say but simply question if a charity should be spending this huge amount of money on something any dog owner should be able to afford. And if you cannot see that Vets doing it for free does not cost the practice then perhaps you should rethink your ideas on finances. A vet could easily spend several hours doing free chipping with no income for the practice but while still drawing salary and incurring the usual overhead expenses when for at least some of that time they could be doing fee generating work to help keep the practice in business. [/quote]

I obviously misunderstood your original post, as follows:

[quote user="Colin Cameron"]Given that anyone who can afford to keep a dog should be able to pay £12 or so for a microchip and that charities in general are finding ther income being restricted is it morally, or from any other standpoint, right that the Dog Trust should set aside £6 Million to provide free microchips? My personal view is that this is gross abuse or misuse of charity funds which should be spent on actually looking after the animals in their care.[/quote]

Is justified only in financial terms thus:

[quote user="Colin Cameron"]They, the Dog Trust, even had the gall to ask Vets in practice to do it for free, thus costing us say £10-15 for every one provided and the Dog Trust around, say, £2-3 ( maybe they got them free, being a poor charity!).This amounts to the Dog Trust asking Vets to pay for the privilege of implanting microchips!! Is this another example to removing financial responsibility of dog owning from the owner? Why should anyone get a free microchip? Are the Dog Trust just using the advent of compulsory microchipping of dogs to gain publicity?. When microchipping does become compulsory surely each and every owner of a dog which has not had one implanted should reach into their own pockets and fork out the required sum from their own funds instead of sponging off the charities? Can we maintain respect for a charilty which throws away such a huge amount of money providing a free microchip to people who should be perfectly capable of paying for it themselves and expects Vets in practice to pay for the privilige of implanting them?[/quote]

I'm not a mind reader. If you felt strongly enough about this 'gross misuse' I just thought there was going to be a strong ethical argument, but there was just a series of financial non-sequiturs and assumptions.

[quote user="Colin Cameron"]It may come as a surprise to you but some people do sponge off the charities. I have seen numerous pedigree or designer crosses being placed, quite legitimitely on, for example, PDSA PetAid schemes after the owner has forked out hundreds of pounds for a puppy![/quote]

Thank you. I've spent the last 3 years working for charities, and PetAid practice before that.

[quote user="Colin Cameron"]

Overall your reply is distasteful, it misses my point entirely and your assessment of my motivation both inaccurate and obnoxious.

Why, oh why, is there always one person whose reply destroys the real sentiment behind a thread? Makes one wonder why one bothers at all.

I had better go now before I really give vent.

[/quote]

Come, come, we're all professionals here. Apologies if you were offended. Your original post annoyed me immensely. But if you'd explained what you meant (which I don't think you have yet) - the compelling argument why the DT shouldn't be doing this - then I wouldn't have been so vitriolic. But if people are going to throw around 'gross misuse' and 'morals' they should have a strong argument to back it up.

No biggie.

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

karen jones — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:42:36 GMT

The RSPCA in north wales held a free chip day in the face of a large parvovirus outbreak, who are the most likely to attend this? Of course unvaccinated dogs!

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:12:12 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]I think you're missing a subtlety here.[/quote] No, you are not advertising your practice you've admitted you're giving away free chips to get people in, in the hope that that will buy another service - nothing subtle there. Nothing wrong with this to us, its the fact that Joe Public will see it if he reads this forum that counts as hypocrisy.

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

David Mills — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:07:16 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Why would I take a degree off a cat that reads 101.5F? [/quote]

You wouldn't. Working in old money, you'd have to add (thanks Mr A) on a lot more, original study was in celsius.

So we have two people routinely using them, one correcting and one not and both claim that they're accurate enough. Given we're talking about a fairly large adjustment here (1 degree celsius) bit of a chance to take?

[quote user="Bob Russell"] so I don't expect them to make a diagnosis for me[/quote]

So what are they used for then? Because, say, a dog reading 38.2 in Mr A's practice is actually pyrexic, but not in Mr R's. The point I'm trying to make is that they are inaccurate at both normothermic and hyperthermic ranges so telling between them becomes a bit of a lottery.

Putting it another way, would you use a diagnostic test (and make the client pay for it, albeit a small amount here per reading) routinely at 60% sensitivity?

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

David Mills — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:54:00 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]David is being a hypocrite by saying that the public would be upset if they read on here about us charging them to implant a chip to make a profit but then forgetting that the same people would be equally bothered if they read he was enticing them in with free chip just to get bums on seats.[/quote]

I think you're missing a subtlety here.

Complaining because an overall Good Thing - a big push to have every dog microchipped, with the incentive of it being free, by a charity committed for years towards canine welfare - is taking money from (what are usually) heavily marked up products in a profession that is, generally, seen as being expensive. This comes across as greedy and money-grabbing.

Vs.

An opportunity to show off your practice. I'm pretty sure everyone knows businesses need to advertise, and this is a free way of doing it and impressing the client. This needn't be sneaky or underhand. What a great way of generating good will - free chip, we're not paid to do it, etc etc. It's not an opportunity to rinse people of their money, but at the very least it will leave people with a warmer feeling of CSR about the veterinary profession. And hey, for some people they may prefer our practice to their own and switch?

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:42:51 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]You are being hypocritical by them saying give 'em free chips to get 'em through the door so you can sell 'em something else[/quote]

But that's business? IF giving free chips away builds your client base then it has value, surely?

[/quote] I think you're missing the point here Rob. I have nothing against getting the punters in with a free chip then flogging them another service. My point was that David is being a hypocrite by saying that the public would be upset if they read on here about us charging them to implant a chip to make a profit but then forgetting that the same people would be equally bothered if they read he was enticing them in with free chip just to get bums on seats.

PS Don't forget that David is only trolling and playing Devil's Advocate to wind us all up, he's just lulled us into a false sense of security my being 'normal' for a few weeks.

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

mariette asselbergs — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:38:33 GMT

Obviously.

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Colin Cameron — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:37:00 GMT

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Colin Cameron — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:29:16 GMT

[quote user="mariette asselbergs"] So it is actually a great opportunity that it will become obligatory, and if vets don't do it then the petshops and charities will grab the advantages of a campaign.[/quote] A double edged sword that. It may increase practice footfall but may also initiate the feeling that the Vets are only doing it because it is becoming compulsory. It would all depend on how it was handled.

Re: Dog Trust and Microchipping

Colin Cameron — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:18:33 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]with a few free chips[/quote] just how many do you expect? The last cheap ( half price) microchip session run by another charity, and generating some funds for them, down here resulted in the implanting of over 360 chips in 1 day..........and not one new client for any local practice ( but none lost either ). If you insist on talking money this was a potential loss of trade of a few thousand pounds to local practices but nobody actually bothered about it as the owners had to pay something and the income went to a good cause. They all wanted it done on the cheap but still had to maintain some responsibility and fork out something although it could be argued that having it microchipped at all showed some responsibility. I have no argument with that approach.