Another question posed on facebook, thats a good starting point for a debate, this time posted by Viovet:

Dog Breeding:
Should the breeder be responsible for the dog for life?
A recent post on the Kennel Club facebook wall supports the idea that microchip details should include the details of the breeder.

With rescue centres over capacity wouldn’t it make sense if the owner who profited from the sale of the dog has a duty of care to make sure they sell to good owners?

Or do you think that once you sell a dog it is the new owner’s responsibility? Maybe their are other issues that concern you?

I like the idea behind it. Compulsary chipping I think is a step in the right direction,but it also needs the infrastructure to “police” it. Just imagine, every dog been abandoned been traced to its last keeper, and those who are guilty for neglect and wilful abandonment punished. There are those who will choose carefully who the dogs go to, do appropriate homechecks etc, and already offer to take the dogs back should the new owners have problems. As far as I am aware at the moment there is nothing in place to enforce people to notify change of ownership. (Not a word I like) So even with a chipped dog, it could have changed hands several times since leaving the breeder. Maybe if it was illegal to breed, buy or sell without the correct documentation, with stiffer penalties and a state funded animal department, it would make a difference. Yes it would be a pain for the good”owners” amongst us, and people wil say “Why should we”..I would answer “because Im willing to try anything that will have a positive effect on solving this problem” There will always be those who are responsible and those who are unscrupulous. It is the latter that will still find a way around any system. I think whatever we do, it should be made harder for people to make a “quick buck”
Call Now