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

3. Current Situation in Scotland

3.1 This section provides an analysis of respondents' descriptive accounts about the current situation in relation to microchipping in Scotland. With few exceptions, microchipping a dog in Scotland is currently at the discretion of the dog owner, and the consultation document explained that information on the number of dogs microchipped, and the reasons for choosing to microchip (or not) are therefore not generally known. Respondents were asked the following questions:

Question 1: Are all, some or none of the dogs / puppies in your care already / routinely microchipped? [All / Some / None / Don't know] Please explain.

Question 2: Do you offer a microchipping service to the general public? If you do, what geographical range do you cover, how many dogs did you chip in Scotland in 2012 and how much do you charge? [Yes / No / N/A] [Number] [Fee] Please explain your answers.

Question 3: If you run a rescue / rehoming centre, do you ensure that all, some or none of the dogs are microchipped prior to rehoming? [All / Some / None / N/A] How many dogs did you microchip / arrange to be microchipped in 2012? [Number microchipped in 2012] How many dogs came to you in 2012 that were already microchipped? [Number arriving microchipped in 2012] Please explain your answers.

Q1 The microchipping of dogs / puppies

3.2 Question 1 asked respondents if all the dog / puppies in their care were routinely microchipped. In total, 1,498 respondents answered the tick-box (closed) part of Question 1. Of these, 77% said "all" the dogs / puppies in their care were microchipped, 8% that "some" were and 6% that "none" were. (See Table 3.1.) Those who answered "N/A" (9%) included non- dog owners, organisations which do not have dogs in their care (or only for very short periods), and those whose puppies are currently too young to be microchipped. There were large differences between the distributions for organisational respondents as compared with individual respondents. To a large extent these differences are the result of the high proportion of organisations (one-third) who answered "N/A".

Table 3.1: Question 1: Are all, some or none of the dogs / puppies in your care routinely microchipped?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
All	41	41%	1,113	80%	1,154	77%
Some	21	21%	97	7%	118	8%
None	3	3%	79	6%	82	6%
Don't know	-	-	8	1%	8	1%
N/A	34	34%	102	7%	136	9%
Total	99	100%	1,399	100%	1,498	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

3.3 Altogether 553 respondents made a comment at Question 1. The comments from respondents who said "all" the dogs / puppies in their care were microchipped emphasised that they saw themselves as responsible dog owners, and that microchipping was one aspect of responsible dog ownership that was particularly important as it ensured their dog could be returned safely to them if it was ever lost or stolen. In their comments respondents also anticipated some of the questions that were dealt with later in the questionnaire. (For example, they said that microchipping should be compulsory, or that it helped to reduce the chances of their dog being stolen, or that there were health risks associated with microchipping.)

3.4 Less than half of the organisational respondents (41%) selected "all". This was mainly for two reasons. First, many organisational respondents did not have dogs in their care. Second, where they did (for example welfare / rescue organisations) many of the dogs were not microchipped on arrival. However, the point was often made that dogs were chipped "on exit" from these organisations.

3.5 More broadly, the reasons and explanations offered for why all dogs / puppies were not microchipped, included:

• Microchipping does not make owners more responsible. Respondents emphasised that microchipping itself was not "the answer" to issues of lack of responsibility. Other measures - for example, mandatory training - were more likely to promote responsible dog ownership.
• Microchipping is not effective even for returning lost dogs. Respondents said that dogs are not always routinely scanned, and even if they are, details are often out-of-date.
• Some specific types of dog are not chipped. Respondents highlighted some groups (e.g. owners show dogs, working dogs, etc.) which they said they did not microchip.
• Some specific objection to microchipping. Specific reasons for not microchipping included: that dogs are very old, that the expense is too great, that this is unwanted interference by the state, that there are negative health effects, that it won't solve the problem of vicious dogs, that tags are more effective than microchips, and that there is no clear rationale for its use.

Q2 Microchipping services to the general public

3.6 Question 2 asked respondents if they offered a microchipping service to the general public. Sixty-six respondents said that they did. See Table 3.2 below. However, on closer examination, 11 of these respondents (3 organisations and 8 individuals) did not in fact offer a service. ^[2] Thus the total number of respondents who provide a microchipping service of some kind to the public in Scotland was 55 (20 organisations and 35 individuals). Three organisational respondents explained that the service only began in 2013. Moreover, six of the organisational respondents explained that the service was offered on a limited basis at shows and public events to promote responsible dog ownership, and so cannot really be described as a "service to the general public".

Table 3.2: Question 2: Do you offer a microchipping service to the general public?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	23	23%	43	3%	66	5%
No	44	44%	388	29%	432	30%
N/A	32	32%	916	68%	948	66%
Total	99	100%	1,347	100%	1,446	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

3.7 Thirty-five respondents provided details of the numbers of dogs microchipped in 2012. Respondents stated that some of the numbers were approximate, as complete records were not available. Table 3.3 provides details of the numbers of dogs microchipped.

Table 3.3: Number of dogs microchipped in 2012^[3]

Number of dogs microchipped in 2012	Group / organisational respondents	Individual respondents	Total respondents	%
0	3	0	3	9%
1-10	1	3	4	11%
11-50	3	4	7	20%
51-100	2	4	6	17%
101-500	1	7	8	23%
501-1000	2	2	4	11%
1001-2000	3	0	3	9%
Total	15	20	35	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

3.8 The median number of dogs microchipped by the 35 respondents offering a service in 2012 was 100.

3.9 Forty-six respondents provided information about the fees charged. These were often presented as ranges. (See Table 3.4.) Respondents commented that the fee varied depending on: whether microchipping was undertaken at the same time as routine surgery or at the same time as vaccinations; whether it was one dog or a litter; whether the individual was eligible for discounts; and whether there was a special promotion.

Table 3.4: Costs of microchipping

Cost of microchipping	Group / organisational respondents	Individual respondents	Total respondents	%
Free	2	1	3	7%
£0 - £10	5	5	10	22%
£10 - £15	5	12	17	37%
£15 - £20	5	8	12	26%
£20+	1	2	3	7%
Total	18	28	46	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

3.10 Three respondents said their microchipping service was free. The most expensive fee quoted was £29 and the median was £15. A few organisations commented that they (sometimes) microchip for free and ask instead for donations to a charity to be made.

3.11 Not much information was provided about the geographical coverage of services. One respondent said they covered the whole of Scotland, another that they worked out of the four large cities, and one that they covered Fife, Tayside and Edinburgh. Two respondents said they covered (parts of) Fife, three that they worked in the Lothians and / or Borders, one that they covered a 40-mile radius from Castle Douglas, one that they worked in East Renfrewshire, one in Badenoch and Strathspey, one in Ayrshire and one in Tayside.

Q3 Microchipping before rehoming by rescue / rehoming centres

3.12 Question 3 asked about the situation with respect to microchipping in rescue and rehoming centres. A total of 47 respondents provided a substantive response to this question. Overall, more than half of these respondents (55%) said that "all" dogs were chipped prior to rehoming, one-sixth (17%) said "some" were, and the remaining one-quarter (28%) said "none" were. Group / organisational respondents were more likely than individuals (80% compared to 37%) to say "all" dogs were chipped prior to rehoming. See Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Question 3: If you run a rescue / rehoming centre, do you ensure that all, some or none of the dogs are microchipped prior to rehoming?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
All	16	80%	10	37%	26	55%
Some	2	10%	6	22%	8	17%
None	2	10%	11	41%	13	28%
Total	20	100%	27	100%	47	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

3.13 On further examination, one of the organisations does not operate in Scotland, and one individual response was a misunderstanding, as the person did not in fact provide a rescue / rehoming service. One of the organisations was set up in 2013, and so no data were available.

3.14 A total of 22 respondents provided some quantitative information in response to the questions about the numbers microchipped in 2012 and the numbers arriving already microchipped. For these respondents, the number microchipped in 2012 ranged from 0 to over 1,600, with a median of 40. The numbers arriving already chipped ranged from 0 to 395, with a median of 20.