This is a worldwide problem.

Why are Veterinary Organizations promoting pet passport schemes predicated on the lie that microchips are unique unbreakable IDs?

Is it because Bayer and Intervet make microchip implants and they heavily sponsor Veterinary Associations?

Implants are not necessarily unique; here is a video of me cloning an animal ID:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD6vAlJyjY4

Anyone with $80 of equipment can do that.

Every overt indicator suggests that Veterinary Surgeons, Veterinary Associations and Governments worry about securing the borders against diseases.

Yet the behaviour of both Government and the Veterinary profession suggests the opposite is true. Behaviour suggests Governments and Veterinary Associations worry about keeping the massive business around the animal industry happy as a priority. Safety comes a poor second.

Larry and Nita Glickman’s Purdue University–Banfield National Companion Animal Surveillance Programme for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases. attracted 1.2 million dollars in funding to run a two-year effort to establish protocols, computer systems, and databases which would enable Banfield to spot patterns in its vets’ treatment of household pets, which could help identify spreading diseases that might also threaten the human population, as a result either of terrorism or natural causes.

Isn't it a little late at that point?

Shouldn't the idea in every country be to design robust border controls?

All the money thrown at this problem centres on finding patient zero after an outbreak of disease.

Surely checking animals on entry should be the norm; we increasingly rely on gadgets for security when vigilance is a much more reliable indicator especially when the gadgets concerned are easy to fake like microchip implants.

Maybe DNA testing would be a better idea; it would have the side effect of slowing down and therefore localizing agriculture. Good for the environment, good for animals and good for people’s health and incomes.

Yet no one in the Vet, Pet or Agriculture sector wants to hear this because big business owns all the voices and controls all the narratives.

When the first massive disease outbreak happens the same companies that made the money on microchipping will provide the drugs.

So they can’t lose can they?

The reason pet passport programs on the basis of microchipping have been proposed is not because they're ideal but because there is no other reasonably affordable alternative. DNA analysis is simply too expensive, time consuming and, ultimately, subject to the same kind of fraud microchip regulators have to deal with.

However, I'm not even calling for a positive ID pet passport system. I'm asking for something much simpler at the moment: The political will to treat imported pets the same way we treat imported livestock.

And no, it's never too late to use surveillance methods like Banfield's to spot trends and fluctuations in diseases. Sure, it's best to prevent entry but I can't imagine arguing against domestic identification.

You didn't mention puppy smuggling, which is apparently common on the Mexican/U.S. border. The Border Puppy Task Force currently has its hands full.

The underlying problem is, many consumers aren't willing to pay a quality U.S. breeder the price she would need to charge in order to break even. Thus domestic and foreign puppy mills - and now smugglers - who produce puppies at a price the average consumer is willing to pay.

To further complicate the issue, like it or not, not all of those cheap puppies are diseased, inbred, or emotionally disturbed. Are they fabulous purebred specimens? Doubtful, but most people looking for a pet don't know the difference. Because many consumers are either ignorant or actually happy with their pet store puppies, the sales continue. (Before the flame war commences, no, I don't condone the sale of pet store puppies or puppy mills, but I do understand why it's profitable.)

Regulating imported puppies like livestock would be a step in the right direction. No doubt this would also inconvenience legitimate European breeders, but laws aren't designed with the law-abiding in mind.

Eventually any overregulation just means the same activities go on underground, one interesting story is that of a dog fighting ring in Northern Ireland.

You can find it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6962563.stm

Determined people traffickers, drug smugglers and even animal smugglers don’t care what laws you make because they won’t keep them. All the legislation does is tie up ordinary people who hit hard times.

Concentrate resources on educational programmes. Maybe even help people keep their dogs with financial aid, if you train someone and it sticks you have them, their children, their next door neighbour. You have increased the peace in the world.

The same animal welfare people who argue for no aversive measures being used on animals are all stick and no carrot on humans.

Just like with animals that doesn’t work.

You need education for 95%, you need enforcement on the 5%. You could do much good if you show up and do training seminars and free treatment clinics in poor neighbourhoods. You might even make some friends out of people who used to scare you. To be honest that is the animal welfare I would get on-board with. It is also the only tactics that will work in the long-term.

Any other way will simply stir up a hornet’s nest of resentment in harsh times. Most people in bad situations are not bad people. But box people in and leave them nowhere to go and their hackles go up, just like with dogs. Trust is a two-way street.

Start thinking more positive reinforcement and less positive punishment and a lot of animal control problems would be greatly reduced.

That is a great post. I hope you stick around, and post more. : )

"At last count, in 2006, 287,000 dogs crossed the United States' borders"

It appears that this is the same problem as puppy mills.

It my opinion, we don't need to be importing additional animals to add to the overpopulation problem. The thought of how many of these critters are probably shipped is horrifying. And the thought of how many are likely in poor health or too young is beyond horrifying.

From comments on other posts, some readers do not seem to think there's an overpopulation problem, but there is. Animals are being killed simply because no one wants them or they're being dumped at shelters to be killed because the owners cannot afford vet care. Now throw health problems into the mix from critters being imported from other countries and the problems are exacerbated.

As with puppy mill regulations, I don't think we can be so naive to think that humane breeding conditions will come about soon. Meanwhile, animals are suffering.

If there were no demand, the supply line would dry up.

Since I was the only other post on this page I guess you meant me.

I largely agree with you, we need fewer breeders; we also need less interference in legislation from large multinationals and third-party proxies in animal welfare groups. And many of the bigger groups are third party technique groups. They exist to push the corporate line for large multinational companies.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Third_party_technique

Questions to ask yourself:

1. Do Pet Passport schemes make it easier or harder to import dogs?

The same welfare people arguing against importation and pedigree breeding lobbying for compulsory registration across continents simplifying said importation?

2. Are the vested interest groups trying to solve the problem or continue it?

Something to think about.

I believe the statement that there are too many dogs is incorrect! The correct statement is that there are too many dogs that no one wants! That is why people import animals - to get something they want. I, for example, do NOT want the rotti/pitbull cross I can find at my local shelter. I do not want a dog of uncertain parentage, and especially I do not want another dog whose temperament is as screwy as the one rescue dog I do have. I drove/flew over 1,000 miles to get one of my two Borzoi even though I do not show, and I will never(!) breed. And my next dog will be a Borzoi, even if I have to fly one in from Russia because the bleeding hearts in the US have made it too difficult for even the responsible breeders.

I think that we should encourage responsible domestic breeders so we do not need to import, and we should (and I do have a number of ideas in this regard) strongly discourage/penalize breeders of those unwanted random dogs that we have in surplus.

I have yet to see any regulations that are preventing legit breeders from continuing in business. Please inform us what these are. Over regulation has been blamed for everything from the great recession to pet overpopulation while nary a whit of evidence has been presented. Please enlighten us.

My elderly mother just spent considerable time visiting rescue organizations to adopt another dog. We talked with the organizations, visited with the dogs, and asked for specific info about each dog she was interested in. If you don't do your homework you may not get what you want. By the way, there are many dogs available that are not rottie/pit bull crosses. If you don't do your due diligence, you may well end up with the situation you describe.

We shouldn't be importing period. There's an overabundance of larger and very small dogs in shelters with not much in the middle.

How about outright bans on breeding, or mandatory spay/neuter? I can't really see those not impacting "legit" breeders.

The only mandatory spay/neuter laws I've seen in my area are for animals adopted from shelters. There are also plenty of breeders here too. I believe most spay/neuter laws in other areas have not been passed.

I don't agree with the breed specific laws at all. However, there seem to be very few of these in place. I still don't see any vast amount of government regulations that would prevent good breeders from continuing in business.

There are mandatory spay/neuter laws here and there, not just for shelter animals but for pets - however, they do include and exception for breeders.

I understand that there are people who may want a certain breed and may want to import a dog from certain lines in another country and I don't think an outright ban on importing animals makes sense. But, there has to be careful regulation and health requirements.

And then of course someone will complain about too much regulation making it too difficult for them to have the specific dog they want. I say too bad, if shutting down importation of thousands of underage, sickly puppies makes it more difficult and expensive for a few healthy, well bred dogs to cross the borders so be it.

Everything is a trade-off. I actually laughed out loud when I read the quote about "strict new domestic breeding laws". Thousands of breeders are apparently still able to continue breeding dogs in the US. There may be restrictions in this or that county, but that doesn't mean nobody this side of the border is breeding dogs any more.

1. I live in a community in which no animal may leave any shelter, public or private, unless it has been spayed or neutered IRRESPECTIVE of age. If you have an unaltered dog, you must pay $150/year/dog. If you breed your dog, you must IN ADDITION pay $150 for a litter permit for each litter. You may not have more than four dogs. You may not purchase more than four litter permits/year. You may not purchase more than one permit per dog per year. It is illegal to advertise a puppy for sale without including the litter permit number. Pet stores may not sell dogs.

2. I was told by the local city shelter that NO dogs are put down for lack of space, and that EVERY dog put down has been assessed and found to be "unadoptable", and that every "adoptable" dog is adopted. I used the freedom of information laws to obtain and study the every animal records (25,000+ dogs, cats, turtles, birds, rabbits, etc. per year) for the city shelter for the past three years and verified that this was true. Adopting an "adoptable" dog doesn't save ANY dogs. That is why I adopted an "unadoptable" dog. I did save a life. And he is a mess!! but we love him all the same.

3. And there is a large number of people with nothing better to do than show up at every city council and/or county commission meeting to argue for stronger, more restrictive laws. It is a constant battle to just stay level.

4. As a result, there are VERY few responsible breeders in our community. Instead, we have a bunch of back yard breeders who ignore the laws and simply make more pit-bull/rottweiler/chihuahua crosses and then I'm expected to adopt them??! That is a load of B.S.

Sorry, but I do feel strongly about this!

Do you attribute the great adoption rate of shelter pets to the restrictions? Sounds like your community is doing an excellent job in keeping the pet population down to a manageable level which is the goal.

Backyard breeders will flaunt any laws to keep on breeding. There needs to be enforcement of laws to break this cycle.

Boy to I agree with you on this one. In the last few years we have seen a huge clamp down on importing agricultural animals and even movement of agricultural livestock between states or as in the case of the state I live in, Michigan, the movement of animals in the state. All of our livestock that leaves the farm, ie. Sheep, goats and cattle, have to have federal ID tags. All of this to control zoonotic pathogens and to be able to trace an outbreak to place of origin.
I do not know what the answer is but we owe it to ourselves to tighten the import of pet animals in much the same way.
I understand that any ID system has it's weaknesses. And the one implemented for agricultural animals is no exception, but we have to start somewhere before we all pay the price.

Good topic! I believe that an even greater threat than purebred puppy imports comes from the rescue groups that import countless street-dog puppies from third-world countries for rehoming here. Seems to me that as long as we are euthanizing millions of dogs here for lack of homes it makes little sense to import homeless, poorly-socialized high-disease risk puppies. And I'd suggest that these pups present and even greater disease risk than those purebred imports that you discuss in this article. Dr. Khuly - I would love to hear your thoughts on this segment of puppy imports.

I'm with you on this one, for sure.

yes, and the animals that get brought into shelters often get counted in statistics of how many animals get surrendered, another nail in the coffin of "the US has way too many unwanted cats/dogs."

Considering the number of dogs and cats that are euthanized on a daily basis in the U.S., I would make it illegal to import any dog or cat for the purpose of selling them. I would also make it illegal for U.S. buyers to purchase dogs/cats in other countries and then bring them in. However, I would NOT make it illegal for people legally immigrating into the country to bring in their pets from other countries as long as these are properly vaccinated/quarantined and I would NOT make it illegal for rescue groups to bring in dogs/cats from third world countries as long as no money has been exchanged for those animals and they are going to a permanent home in the U.S. and again, they have proper vaccinations and are properly quarantined. With this last group I'm thinking about the people serving in our Armed Forces who quite often get attached to dogs/cats in the countries they are serving in and then want to bring these back to give them permanent homes. Rescue groups are helping many of these soldiers bring their pets home. I know I would be heartbroken if I was serving in one of these countries and had spent months, if not years, with a pet and then had to leave him behind. I think the main problem with this issue as with many others is money. If there's money to be made from animals people will generally find a way of abusing them and the system. The sale I would stop - the rescuing not as much as long as it's done properly.