A small petition

[bunn]

This petition was sent to me by the lost and found officer of our local Cats Protection League. She says:

" Currently there is no legislation in force regarding councils scanning dead cats found on the streets for microchips. They don't even have to check collars for phone numbers or addresses. The distressing thing is they are authorized to dispose of the bodies without even attempting to inform the owners of their cats sad demise. Some councils do have scanners and attempt to do the right thing but most don't. "

I think this is something that would not cost a great deal, but would make a great difference to the owners of many cats. It's grim to find out that your cat has died, but it does mean that you can celebrate his life and move on. It seems like something we should try to do.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Microchips/

Comments

[kargicq.livejournal.com]

Mm. There are many calls on council tax, many of them small enough in themselves. I would sign such a petition only if it also included the suggestion that micro-chips should incur a tax large enough to pay for this service. -- Neuromancer

[bunn.livejournal.com]

There are so many things wrong with that idea that I don't even know where to start.

Microchipping saves people enormous heartbreak if their pet go missing. It also saves councils a lot of money because they can quickly return animals that are lost rather than having the cost of kennelling and rehoming them, or killing and disposing of them. Microchips are much more reliable than any other form of identification, as they cannot be lost or removed. A lot of microchipping is done by charities running on a shoestring rather than pet owners.

Increasing the cost of microchipping would, I think, be rather shortsighted.

Funding through some form of pet licencing would be a better plan, but to be honest I believe this is something a civilised society should be doing anyway. Apart from when they are lost, pets cost society practically nothing (as very few public benefits are offered to pet owners) whereas they bring considerable well-documented health and psychological benefits.

OK, this would benefit all pet owners, but it would particularly benefit those that are psychologically fragile, to whom pets offer a huge degree of comfort. It's really hard for that kind of pet owner to accept that their animal is gone and that nobody even cares enough to tell them what happened. People go into extended grief, which can be really damaging.

It would cost about the same as, say, installing a bench, to buy the equipment - though actually probably most councils would add the requirement when they subcontracted refuse collection, and the equipment would be added to the standard setup for a collection lorry.

[chainmailmaiden]

Signed & I'll forward the link to Bacchus & to a couple of other people I know. I'd hate not to know if either of my two went missing :-(

Not that Floss is done yet, but the vet will chip her when she gets spayed, we save 10% if we get both done at the same time :-)

[chainmailmaiden]

I'd be in favour of pet licensing too, though I'd hate to be in charge of running it!

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I go through periods when I think it's a great idea, and then other times when I think the only people who would actually do it are the people whose pets are rarely a problem anyway...

I'd like it to be an exam, like a driving license!

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Most of ours were chipped by the rescues they came from, but I always get it done if I adopt privately. Even the rabbits are chipped, though I think probably cats need it more.

Discount on spay is a good idea, that way you have both checkboxes safely ticked at the same time. Sensible vet!

[chainmailmaiden]

I think the only people who would actually do it are the people whose pets are rarely a problem anyway...

I suspect you're right about that.

An exam wouldn't be a bad idea, that way you could point out to people things like milk tends to give cats the runs & that you shouldn't give them chocolate as it can poison them. Along with all sorts of other useful information.

[chainmailmaiden]

Lindy was chipped by the rescue, she's such a skinny little thing you can feel the chip when you rub her shoulders.

Our vets seem very nice and sensible. I particularly like their tablet-giving service. Obviously if we needed to medicate the cats daily it wouldn't be practical, but for a 3 monthly worming tablet I'd far rather take them to the vet and let them get scratched & nipped, than struggle to do it myself. They also weigh the cat and give them a quick once over - all for the price of the tablet. They say it allows them to pick up any problems sooner rather than later, which is why they encourage people to do it.

[kargicq.livejournal.com]

"this is something a civilised society should be doing anyway." Well maybe, but you know, I believe NHS dental care and eye tests are something a civilised society should be providing too, with higher priority than scanning dead moggies. I don't disagree with anything you say; I'm just saying that suppose our local council sent round a survey saying "We have decided to expand our budget by Xk; would you like to see:"
* better facilities for teenagers
* more home help for old people [not sure if this is actually the same pot, but make something else worthy up if not]
* more streetsweeping
* expansion of kerbside recycling to accept more types of waste
* lower council tax
* feline corpses to be scanned for microchips and the owners informed if possible
then my vote would personally not be for the last. YMM(and obviously does!)V.

"It would cost about the same as, say, installing a bench, to buy the equipment" -- but we live in an age of cheap equipment and expensive labour; the major cost would be in employing people to scan the corpses and contact the owners.

I too would like to see better services for pet owners (in my case, better-maintained bridleways for cyclists and horseriders), but given the budgetary constraints I feel it's only fair enough to pay for it. Though generally quite libertarian, I think a horse licence complete with test (e.g. the existing British Horse Society horse owner's certificate) would be a great idea. £100, say, is a small fraction of the cost of keeping a horse for a year, but I imagine would make quite a difference if ringfenced for bridleways and related issues. (I've gone onto horses because that's what is most relevant to me, and I don't want to look as if I'm having a go at you cat and dog owners out there!)

"Pets cost society practically nothing". Mm, not sure about that. You've already mentioned the kennelling and rehoming of lost ones (I didn't even know we paid for that; I thought that was only charities!!). The major cost that springs to my mind is poo -- cat poo all over gardens, dog poo all over parks. I realise the latter is not a cost imposed by responsible pet owners, but it's still a cost. I went to a forum recently about local play-areas, and the number-one complaint was the shit all over them. I also once met someone whose son was VI due to toxoplasmosis as a result. But I suppose actually the most serious cost are the rare cases where children are mauled by pet dogs. For cats, also factor in loss of songbirds which many people value. With horses, costs would include poo (considerably less offensive than carnivore poo though:), damage to bridleways (hooves make them into mudbaths in winter), and accidental injury to people and property. Obviously I'm not suggesting that the costs to society of pet ownership outweigh the massive benefits, heaven forfend, but I just think you were a bit blase in suggesting the costs were negligible!

Neuromancer (who once again has written an essay, sorry...)

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Charities do pay, whenever they can do so. Unfortunately there are far more homeless dogs than there are charity spaces. About 8,000 a year are put to sleep because there is nowhere to put them.

It's a legal requirement that councils hold dogs for 7 days before moving them on or selling them, to give the owners a chance to get them back. Councils usually do choose the cheapest possible option for doing this, with results that can be counterproductive (for example, dogs are often sold on unneutered to any buyer that wants them after 7 days. This leads to problems with bites due to inappropriate homing, and the swift production of a new generation of unwanted dogs.) Dogs not sold quickly are often euthanised.

OK, I retract my 'cost practically nothing'. I still think they cost society negligible amounts when compared with most other activities or property I can think of. Personally, I'd be happy to see this initiative funded by a pet owner licence, whether that was run by a council at a local level, or nationally.

Yes, there would be a cost to scanning and contacting, but at the moment, council phone numbers are tied up with people calling in to ask if their cat has been found - sometimes calling weekly for months on end - so I'm not convinced that would be a huge extra bill.