Chips with everything

When Laura Rennie was told that the cat she lost as a kitten had been found 18 years after it wandered off, she was overjoyed. An animal welfare officer turned up at her home to say the tabby had been located and traced to her, thanks to its microchip. Toby had been hit by a car, but was alive and at a local vet’s. Even if it were just to say goodbye, or take charge of his veterinary care, Ms Rennie would at least be able do the best for Toby.

What a wonderful story, you might say, and what great proof, as complaints mount over the compulsory microchipping of dogs which became law this week, that pet microchipping is a much-needed resource. Surely this heartwarming tale shows that microchipping will only help loving pet owners, while targeting irresponsible breeders and those guilty of neglect.

Well, not quite. When Ms Rennie, 39, from Glasgow, contacted the vet’s, she was told they couldn’t wait the 20 minutes it would take her to reach the surgery. They put the cat down. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals later apologised, but its attitude seems to have been more than a little proprietorial. Welfare officers judged it would be too upsetting for the owner to see the cat.

So what, you may well ask, is the point of a pet microchip?

From 6 April, all dogs over the age of eight weeks are required to have microchips which hold the name and address of the owner. The act is retrospective, so nine million dog owners need to comply now and could be fined up to £500 if they don’t. The procedure involves implanting a sterile chip the size of a grain of rice between a dog’s shoulder blades. Plenty of vets believe doing this to very small breeds could be dangerous or even fatal, but the owner no longer has a choice.