Mandatory Dog Microchipping and Compulsory Pet Insurance

      The recent proposals regarding revisions to the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) in the UK - making it mandatory for all dogs to be microchipped and owners to have third party pet liability insurance on their dogs - have of course sparked another lively debate between people for and those against.
The government wanted to use this law to help decrease the number of dogs that are bred and kept for the sole purpose of intimidating others, and to take action against owners of dogs which have attacked people. The logic goes that compulsory microchips will help law enforcement track down owners of dogs who have been involved in attacks. The mandatory pet insurance part would compensate victims of dog attacks. Having failed to predict the instant outcry from the majority of the nation's ten million dog owners, there has since been something of a turnaround. What has occurred though is the bringing of this complex and highly controversial issue back into the spotlight, which can only be a good thing for responsible pet owners who want see the right thing done. How this can actually be achieved will most likely be a hot topic for some time to come.
Animal Welfare organisations around the globe have supported pet microchipping for a long time. There are many European countries such as Italy, Austria, Switzerland and Norway that have mandatory microchipping laws in effect. In parts of Germany and Switzerland mandatory dog insurance is also in place. Switzerland also requires that a person who wants to own a dog has to pass a test first. This is done to make sure animal owners are prepared to take responsibility for their pets.
The reason for microchipping is primarily to help a person become reunited with a lost pet; it can also help to reduce the problem of strays and feral dog and cat colonies. The actual process is not painful to the animal and the chip is about the size of a grain of rice. It is inserted between the shoulder blades and when scanned it gives the owner's information. The cost of microchipping your animal is between ten and thirty-five pounds. Most people are in favour of microchipping their dog so they can be found if lost or stolen, but compulsory microchipping - although perhaps a good idea in theory - would be costly and very difficult to enforce.
The rise in court cases and hospital admissions as a result of dog attacks has been steadily increasing in the UK. According to the Metropolitan Police in London, court cases have risen from just 35 in 2003 to 719 in 2009. There has been an increase in the number of dog fighting complaints and about 6,000 postal workers get bitten each year.
The argument against compulsory third-party liability dog insurance mainly focuses on the financial burden subsequently placed on many innocent and responsible pet owners. People who raise and breed animals specifically to attack would get around this law anyway, as it would be almost impossible to enforce. So-called "dangerous dogs" are seen as a serious problem; in London police seized at least 900 dogs in the last year. The vast majority of people are responsible pet owners (who will most likely already have some kind of pet insurance policy in place). However, some do breed and keep dogs to intimidate others and in a sense use their animals as a weapon, and this is the issue which clearly needs addressing.
Other proposals to amend existing legislation do remain, despite governmental backtracking, including giving councils and police more power to handle "dangerous" dogs. This would be in the form of removing exemption rules in some cases and to introduce dog control notices. An important proposal involves extending the realms of private property to be included in liability cases. More about this can be found by visiting Defra's website.
Yet even imposing mandatory insurance for dogs which have already been labelled as "dangerous" or subject to Dog Control doesn't seem like an option which is viable or enforceable either. Pet insurance for certain "high-risk" breeds of dog is more expensive anyway, and certain breeds are excluded from cover entirely by many pet insurance companies.
One of the reasons this issue has been kept alive and in the news is due to several dog attacks in recent years which have killed children. Most people believe that the proposed revisions will not solve the problem with dog attacks and dogs mauling people. It has been suggested that increased preventive measures should rather be taken. Even though a dog may have been identified as being dangerous, and has been microchipped, that doesn't necessarily mean they will not bite or attack less, particularly if there has been insufficient training for the animal concerned.
People who oppose the suggested revisions to the Act would rather see a focus on public education and elimination of the source of the problem. In many cases this is the unethical practice of breeders who continue to flood the pet market with breeds considered to be more likely to be labelled as dangerous due to specific characteristics of that breed. The key to handling some of the problem - both for dogs, their owners, and the general public - lies in sufficient training and education.