Microchipping Law and Tuks Law
I was surprised to read a post on social media about individuals who had taken someones pet and had the animal put down without being challenged by vet.
Follow this link to a petition about Tuks Law after the case of the unfortunate dog put down due to lack of scanning by vets. However, it turned out it this is not a isolated case as with many petitions to parliament there are a number of campaigns all at similar points such as Harveys Law and Tuks Law. However, before I go into what these campaigns are trying to achieve we need to recognise whats being done so far. Now the Kennel Club summarises the existing laws well. The UK made microchipping compulsory largely to enable a traceability of a persistent issue we have which is puppy farming. The law ensures that a registered keeper in theory should be tracked as their details are maintained on a system it also allows those whose pets have been stolen to be returned to them. The law was not a silver bullet microchips can move and shift causing them to get lost, details still get left out of date. Some still do not take the dog to the vet to get microchipped which with regret still leaves the door open for puppy farmers but it has certainly moved us further forward. Now puppy farming is being opposed by Lucy’s Law which is not the focus of todays article.
Tuks Law campaign focus on furthering the scope of microchipping laws. This campaign we goes on to further campaigns such as Harvey’s Law and Lucy’s Law. The problem as I see it is whilst there is guidance from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons it is not clear when and where to challenge. Especially in cats or other animals where microchips are not compulsory. Now whilst these campaigns are trying to make the case for vets to compulsory scan microchips when the animal is brought into their practice. Now one issue here is if the vet scans the microchip with out any law that puts responsibility on the owner or individual present with the animal. Now not all cases of treatment warrant this such as routine flea, worming, tablet reviews etc. Cases which I feel do require it are when it profoundly affects the animals life invasive surgeries, euthanasia (excluding welfare grounds).
Now if you are intending to make vets scan the pet with other animals you would need to make microchipping compulsory for all companion animals. We also need to make it then the case that you as the owner or keeper take some form of identification with you to prove the ownership of the animal. Now Tuks law argues that dual registration should be practiced on microchips and if that is the case the rescue group or in pedigree dogs cases the breeder should also be part of this decision. Whilst well intended this should only go as far as to function as an identifier or in the case of a healthy pet being presented where the owner has decided to end the animals life the rescue has the option to reclaim the animal. This should not happen in cases outside of euthanasia it should also bring in the vets judgement if the dog or pet is at the end of its life it would not be appropriate to extend this invitation to the rescue or breeder.
Now whilst these campaigns are highlighting problem they also need refining to not generate further problems. What are your thoughts? as a rescue dog owner I know its importance but how should this be executed is my question.
Links to the petition below as well as other related articles:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300025
https://www.dogmagazine.net/what-is-tuks-law/amp/
http://sighthoundezine.co.uk/news/harveys-law-passed-by-parliament/
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gove-delivers-lucys-law-to-protect-puppies-and-kittens
