What's your opinion on your rescue dogs chip being registered to the rescue they came from?(15 Posts)
I have a retired Greyhound and the 'rehoming organisation' (as they like to be known as) rehome the hounds chipped, but the chips are registered to them and not the new owners.
I feel quite conflicted on this, on one hand, it's handy for dogs that get rehomed, returned, and then rehomed again. You don't have to keep updating the chip details. But on the other hand I'd like my details on my dogs chip. He is mine after all. My details are on his tag but I'd like to be included in his microchip.
What are your thoughts on this?
Oh, can you not just update them? Our dog is chipped and registered with pet log, we recently changed our address with them and I'm sure there was a change of owner option too. There was a small one off fee
We have two rescues, one from Many Tears who is chipped and registered to us and one from Heathlands who is chipped and registered to Heathlands. As I understand it when the new chipping laws come into force then this issue is going to have to be looked at as the chip address should be the address the dog lives at. How do I feel about it? Similar to you really, I can understand the logic of having him registered to an address that is unlikely to ever need updating but at the same time he is our dog now not theirs.
Flap We don't have any record of our dog's chip number in order to re-register him so it is not an option.
I suppose it's to stop people who may pass the dog onto a third party down the line rather than taking the dog back to the rescue if they can't cope.
I guess as long as the dog always has a tag on it won't really be an issue. If the dog got lost people are going to ring the number on the tag before arsing about getting him scanned.
And I don't think you can just update them yourself.
The chip company contact the last registered owner to ensure a change of details os ok with them. The rescue won't ok it if this is their policy.
It's not in case they're returned and rehomed btw, it's because loads and loads of owners do things like move and don't update the details and then dogs are shoved into any old pound if they get lost.
And...to stop owners passing them on privately instead of returning them, that's also surprisingly common.
I am almost certain (in that I can't find the bloody paperwork to check) that our Mutt is still the 'legal property' of the Rescue - in that I remember signing something to the effect of "if you decide not to keep the dog it has to be returned to the rescue and not sold on" which is why the chip would still be their address.
I really should find that paperwork...
I updated my rescue dog's details myself. The chip number was with the paperwork I got from the rescue. I phoned Petlog who told me dog was still registered with the previous owners (who had given him to the rescue).
Had to pay £15 for the company to write to them asking them to confirm they no longer had the dog.
So you can't assume dog's chip has rescue's address, could still be with previous owner. Definitely worth checking.
My youngest is chipped in my name with the breeder as an alternate contact. It works well as if I'm away, for instance, the breeder could get him out of 'lock up' if he wandered.
Most rescues retain ownership of the dog, you just have them on loan. The chip details are supposed to be for the registered keeper, not the actual legal owner, so its a problem.
Ideally, the chip would be registered to the keeper, and a second name permitted as a back up in case the first cannot be contacted.
One of mine is registered to the rescue only - fine by me as they are fantastic and would definitely want him back should the worst happen. The other has me as the main contact and the rescue as second contact - although he is still 'officially/legally' the rescue's property, which is fairly common.
I would ideally like to be on both dogs' registers, but don't mind the rescue being on there too, as I feel it's a failsafe. If anything happened to me (eg someone I knew had a car accident, was rushed to hospital and her dog bolted) I would find it reassuring to know that as soon as my dogs were found they would go to the right people to be taken care of.
The rescue one of my dogs came from has actually had a few dogs returned to them when they've ended up in the pound, a couple of which had been stolen from their new owners and some which had just managed to get themselves lost, so you can see why the rescues want to stay on there.
I rehomed a retired greyhound, and was told the chip was registered to the rescue and must stay that way. I rang up the chip people to ask if my details could be added as a secondary contact to the rescue's. They said yes, checked the chip number and it transpired there were no details on the chip at all. So I added mine.
They're a reputable rehoming place - I expect it was an error rather than neglect of duty, but whatever you decide, it's worth checking the chip really is registered with accurate details.
It's possible that the detail in the new legislation will force rescues to revisit this issue. My own view is that the owner's details should be on the chip register, rather than the rescue. I've said owner deliberately because most rescues don't want to fall under pet shop legislation or register as dog wholesalers, so there's this waggle dance of adoption fees and loans rather than a transfer of ownership. In practice, you, the adopter are the legal owner, and if you incur a FPN for dog fouling, or your dog bites, it will be you who's responsible not the rescue. Besides, if your dog is lost, it's important that whoever scans the dog can get it back to you promptly. Not all rescues have 24/7 contact (very far from it, in fact) so again, it's important that the owner's details are there (and it's always worth repeating that you should check and update these details regularly).
Also, if the rescue details are on the chip, it might mean the dog has a place to go, but it won't necessarily make it any easier for them to reunite the dog with you, especially if you have moved house.
Our own experience with our dogs (rescue greyhounds) is that in several cases the rescue details were wildly inaccurate, and sadly files were kept in the home of a volunteer who subsequently left the organisation without returning them. Fortunately we were able to check and correct details but this is not an unusual occurrence. This is for a long standing rescue which is well known, not a one man band. Rescues also sadly close, or become inactive.
For one of our other dogs, the file with the details is kept in the home of the rescue organiser. If anything happens to their home (fire, flood etc) the records go too.
This is not to point the finger at any particular rescue, but I've not yet seen many rescues take the issue seriously of data management and security.
It's a different picture for foster dogs - will be good to see any detail on how that will be handled.
If anything happens to our dogs, they are chipped, the greys have tattoos, they wear collars with ID and we have pre-registered them with DogLost. I also carry a card in my purse with emergency contact details for caring for the dogs, and if anything happened I'd be on social media sharing their details like mad.
The insistence that the rescue remain the registered keeper of the dog put me off adopting from those rescues. Especially as we lived at the other end of the country from many of the rescues we were considering. I didn't feel comfortable relying on the ongoing existence and accurate record keeping of a third party during the lifespan of my dog. Luckily the rescue we eventually got our lovely boy from allowed us to change his chip details to our own with no problem (although since he was previously registered in Romania thank goodness for that....not much point the police trying to contact Transylvania to get him home!)
Join the discussion
Please login first.