Can Microchips Stop Dogfighting?

Leaders in the U.K. are proposing mandatory microchipping of dogs as the latest tool to combat the rise in dogfighting.

Microchips are a form of permanent identification implanted just beneath the skin. With a handheld scanner, an ID number can help track down the animal's owner. Microchips frequently reunite people with their lost pets, and they've been useful in ownership disputes. But can they really put an end to dogfighting?

About the size of a grain of rice, microchips are easily embedded using a large needle. They've become fairly standard at shelters and vets offices. So, the logistics of microchipping the nearly six million dogs in England and Wales isn't any more difficult than vaccinating them. Although, there are always dogs that slip under the radar when it comes to vaccinations, and people who fight their dogs are probably the least likely to follow through with any new legal requirements. They're not exactly concerned about living within the law.

That's one of the reasons breed specific legislation is so ineffective. A report released last year on the state of dogfighting in Britain said that despite a national ban on American Pit Bull Terriers, "those who were and still are determined to fight their animals have been able to retain bloodlines and it's fair to suggest that the Dangerous Dogs Act has had very little impact on those who are truly determined to be involved in this bloodthirsty activity." It's hard to believe that this crowd would react any differently to microchipping legislation.

But let's say dogs used for fighting somehow end up microchipped. How could that help put an to the bloodsport?

To be honest, I'm skeptical that it would have any real effect. There's a high burden of proof, at least in the U.S., when it comes to prosecuting dog fighting. There are only a few scenarios where you have a dog with an unknown owner and enough evidence to bring dog fighting charges. For instance, if a fight was busted and the people ran (which does happen), then you could find out who owned the dogs that were left behind. Or, if a losing fighter or bait dog was dumped, he could be scanned, though it's hard to prove how the dog was injured and who was responsible for it. Even in these cases, the microchip would only be useful if the owner's information was up-to-date. How would they enforce accurate owner information and changes of address?

If a dog fight was busted, microchips could help sort out who was the owner and who was a spectator, but a much stronger way to crack down on dog fighting is for any association with the bloodsport to be illegal. Tough laws, tougher enforcement, and prevention through community outreach, education, and pit bull training programs would be a better use of resources.

The U.K. already has public surveillance cameras and an extensive police DNA database, so some people see the proposed mandatory microchipping as yet another Big Brother tactic. Others, like postal workers, like the idea of being able find any dog's owner, especially if that dog is on the loose and terrorizing deliverymen. Microchipping can be a useful way of confirming the identity of dangerous animals, but enforcing mandatory implants in all dogs would be costly to citizens without doing much to stop dogfighting or other illegal activities. The responsible dog owners would be the ones to pay, while the criminals continued to ignore the law. 

Photo credit: greenkozi