This question is inspired by Facebook.
A city shelter has a Facebook site to showcase animals found at large, in hopes of reuniting them with their owners. That’s obviously a positive thing.
There is now a dog on the site that was “returned to owner,” but a person had posted below the photo that the dog was 9-10 years old and had been lost 4 years ago. The shelter apparently returned the dog to people who had “current vet records rather than the people the chip was registered to.
The shelter replied that ownership is a private dispute and the dog was returned to people who had proven ownership for several years.
So … I guess I would’ve thought the dog would go to the registered microchip owner. I don’t know how the other family came in possession of the dog, but I always thought that the point of microchipping was kind of to establish ownership.
One of the first things I do when I have a new dog is make sure that I have the proper ownership documents and register the chip to myself, just in case.
Any thoughts? I have no knowledge of the situation and I am simply trying to understand how this should work better. I don’t have a vested interest in this particular scenario.
My dogs breeder fortunately had the opposite experience. An owner of one of her puppies reported that the not yet 2 yr old had become vicious, bit the husband and she no longer wanted the dog. The breeder was out of town but said she would be there the next day to pick up the dog. When the breeder arrived, the owner refused to release her and stated that she intended to have the dog euthanized the next day. The breeder called everywhere and left messages hoping to save the dog, but what ended up saving the dog was that her microchip listed the breeder as the first owner, so animal control refused to euthanize and ended up handing the dog back to the breeder.
Loads and loads of people have absolutely zero idea that you should, or even CAN, attach updated ownership info to a microchip. Hell, a ton of people don’t even know that you have to provide info and register the chip.
Were the original owners not contacted when the dog was found years ago?
Yes, I can see how recent vet records carry more weight than whatever is attached to the chip. It’s a matter of who owns the dog NOW.
No. The original owner’s post says he is a phantom silver royal standard poodle (which sounds like a gimmick) and was dognapped.
At the shelter I work at it goes back the registered owner.
Sounds very backyard breeder-y
My dog’s microchip has his breeders info. But my vet has it scanned and it has it recorded with my registration now.
I suppose in the case of a dispute there could be some questions. I imagine it would be pretty obvious that I am the registered owner though.
Unless the breeder is the registered co-owner it should go back to the registered owner. But I suppose there could be scenarios where that person is a loser and the breeder wants the dog back. That’s why you place puppies carefully.
I would think it would depend on how they can support that statement, ykwim?
Was there a police report, etc?
There may be a very different version of events according to someone else.
I do, I just think that the person the microchip is registered to would carry more weight with me. To me, if it had been a legal transfer of ownership, the new owner would have a signed bill of sale and changed the microchip. 
Yes, there may be people who don’t know, but I’d expect that my properly registered microchip would be more convincing.
I think it’s possible that the dog might have just wandered 4 years ago and the people just never looked for the owner.
But most people don’t know they have to change the microchip, or how to go about that. You do, but that’s not the norm.
It’s not even necessarily easy. You’ve got to know the chip number, track down the chip company, figure out how to update the info (which may require a payment), and they may require also require proof of ownership, so upload of documents, which is just one more point of friction.
If this dog was lost, found, an attempt to contact the previous owners was made, and then the dog was adopted out to new people, who have owned and cared for it for a number of years…who owns the dog?
And in the event this dog was stolen, let’s say it was even by the people who have it now…what if they did update the chip? Does the mere fact the chip reflects their info mean anything at all? No, it doesn’t–if they acquired the dog illegally, having their info on the chip shouldn’t be proof the dog is theirs.
Who’s info is attached to the chip is one piece of the ownership puzzle. There’s a lot of other info that should be taken into account when deciding ownership.
If they found the dog years ago and openly searched for the owners for the state required time period, they’d have checked for a chip.
It’s one piece but it’s a big piece. In order to change the registered owner for the microchip, you need a signed letter from the original owner or bill of sale. Changing the information to your own name would require forgery without that signature.
I was shocked that the shelter would not simplify matters and go back to the registered microchip owner. A lot of problems would be solved if all dogs were microchipped, and if the microchip owner isn’t contacted and given precedence for found dogs, I think it does microchips a real disservice.
Well just as I said though, many breeders chip the puppies at 8 weeks. It’s not uncommon. That in itself doesn’t prove ownership - when I said “registered owner” in my example I meant registers as owner with AKC.
AKC and my vet have my information as the owner even though the chip probably still says my breeder.
Well, sure, but if the shelter called the breeder, the breeder has records and is going to call you. You also likely signed a contract when you took the dog home.
That’s very different than the shelter releasing your dog to an anonymous person who might have taken your dog out of your yard years ago and, in the interim, went to the vet.
Now, as they say, bad cases make bad law. I know that coated dogs can look rough after a couple of days on the loose no matter what, but the dog looks …. Unkept …. I’m the photo, so admittedly I am probably also thinking that the other family may have been better anyway.
And who’s to say they DIDN’T?
You have very little information here, and are filling in the missing pieces with a whole lot of assumption.
Because honestly my opinion is that at the shelter, the dog should be released to the person the microchip is registered to or to the person the person registered with the microchip company authorizes.
If someone else wants to later challenge that legally, then let them.
I highly doubt that the dog was adopted from a shelter because all shelters in the area check for microchips and adopt dogs only after they’re microchipped.
I also highly doubt anyone found the dog and then checked for a microchip. Sure, sometimes they migrate or don’t beep, but the shelter seems to have found it all these years later.
Now, maybe others have different opinions, which I understand. I don’t personally approve of the city shelter determining ownership with vet records rather than the microchip company. Again, JMO.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve never gotten or given a bill of sale for a dog (outside of adopting from a legal rescue).
You really have no information about these things
Sure, feel free to “highly doubt” but recognize you might be wrong. You have NO idea what’s actually happened here.
Well, contracts for quality puppies is pretty standard, but what we know about this sale doesn’t make it sounds like a quality sale - the “phantom silver royal” is not an acceptable color, which could be for a variety of reasons but often times those colors have other health risks associated with them.
I have a contract for all my dogs, but “bills of sale” are more a horse thing because of the cost.
But as I just mentioned - I did not. And the AKC would not use that in an ownership dispute. Typically the one paying the bills is the owner and it would require the other person to demonstrate some proof of ownership. Like a co-owner agreement, for example.
Honestly, this whole story could be any kind of sordid dispute or lie, so it’s kind of hard to know.
It’s a great ethics question, for sure. I’ve rescued and kept my share of dogs, cats, and some horses in my life. They all stayed with me unti, their end times and were privy to good vet care.
In my mind if the dog has been gone from the original owner for multiple years, before that owner was discovered AND the dog was enjoying a great life in a loving home, receiving the best care possible, the current owners are the owners. It would be terrible to rip an animal out of its current good home to return it to its previous owner.
Of course if the current owner is neglecting or abusing the dog, then yes, return it to its original owner if they are still able to care for it.
This particular subject is not black and white - it’s in a huge gray area of what is best for the dog and which home makes the dog the happiest.
I have had bunches of cats wind up estray here and I’ve never even thought to look for a chip. Vets never mentioned it either. Maybe that’s just cats? My FIL and MIL were dog breeders and I would bet they chip all their puppies, show quality or not.
I would not have known how to update a chip, I have a friend whose corgi bolted and was picked up, the chip was registered to the breeder and iirc they were contacted and then refused to relinquish the dog based on “lack of care”. That in itself was an ethical dilemma as a tied or kenneled dog can certainly be safer but lack interaction and quality of life.
When we purchased our current dog as a puppy, the breeder asked to be included in the microchip information, as a backup, which we did per the contract of sale.
I thought the whole point of a microchip was to return the dog to its owner, not some random person who came across the dog somehow, took it in, neglected to have the dog checked for a microchip, and claimed ownership – vet records or not.
If our dog should go missing, we’ll notify the chip company, AKC, the breeder, her veterinarian, Next Door, area shelters, post flyers, etc., everything we can think of. But she’s small and beautiful, and I can imagine that it’s very possible that a less-than-ethical person may simply decide to keep her. If, even years later, it is finally discovered that she has a microchip which traces back to me and/or her breeder, you bet that I am her legitimate owner, and she should be returned to me, vet records or not. I’ve got plenty of vet records of my own (and a contract and a bill of sale).
I’d go to court (and the last thing I am is sue-happy) before I’d accept that someone who failed to do the basic check for a microchip (the probable existence of which is by now fairly currently known, if only by the vet clinic involved) now “owns” my dog. If that is acceptable, any less than honest person can claim that they didn’t know a dog was chipped, or didn’t know to check for a chip, and it’s “finder’s keepers, loser’s weepers.”
