O.F.A. To Require Verification Of Indentification - Page 1

Everyone, I just recieved the November 2007 O.F.A. E-Newsletter. For those who own dogs they plan to examine in the very near future, there is a new section for the examining veterinarian to show proof that the dog is positively identified in order for this to appear on an A.K.C. pedigree. In order to do this the veterinarian must verify the code of the implanted microchip or read the tattoo-whichever the dog has. Please note that having a DNA analysis alone will not substanciate this verification as far as the A.K.C. is concerned. They prefer it to be via scannable microchip or tattoo, as these can be quickly verified.

The new suffix that will appear after the pertinent O.F.A. number is "VPI", essentially "verification of positive identification". Dog owners are urged to download the new application forms from the O.F.A. and inform their veterinarian about the changes prior to examination. Please note that the examination fees will increase as well.

Read all about it at: http://www.offa.org/enewsnov2007.pdf

Regards,

Bob-O

That's a good thing.  Thanks for letting people know Bob-O.

When I had my dogs done, I did notice that the vets looked at the ear tattoos but it was a cursory look and I knew they could not actually read the tattoo, and they didn't look at the paperwork to see if it was the same tattoo on the ear as on the paperwork.  It appeared to me that it was just a cover their ass thing, so that they could say they did check it.  I am positive I could have went to a different vet than regulary takes care of my dogs and I could have taken a dog I knew was "good" and claimed it was a dog I had doubts about.

I did notice this flaw in the system, so the new regulation is welcome news, however, I am not sure why it would cost more as they were supposed to already be doing this since the inception of OFA'ing, weren't they?

Good idea.

Thanks Bob, but what a joke!  Who is running the OFA?  Is it O.J.?  I can't beilieve they will take the quick and very fraudulant tattoo over 100% reliable DNA.  Just to cut a few corners.    Ohh, and a raise in fees.  I love it.   Why not require DNA?  Isn't it manditory for studs used more than twice a year?  I would rather see DNA required.  I can put the same tattoo on multiple dogs.  As many people we see on this board that get busted, you have to believe that DNA would be a more reliable source.

Don, I presume they have encountered a bit of fraud concerning the submission of radiographs. I know this has happened infrequently in the past, and a handful of veterinarians and breeders have been busted. They do not state this anywhere on their website but I have read several other articles over the years that exposed this activity and the sanctions involved. Perhaps fraud has become more widespread than we know, or this may be a precursor to more requirements for A.K.C. registration. Perhaps it is a way to "justify" a slightly higher fee.

I agree that DNA is irrefutable, but of course it cannot be quickly verified as can a tattoo or microchip. Me? I use all three (3) methods of identification for a stud male, and the latter two (2) for a female. The DNA is required for studs who produce at least five (5) litters and/or are bred three (3) times or more within twelve (12) months. DNA is also required now for an dog or bitch that is imported into the U.S.A. and is to be A.K.C. registered.

I have always required the veterinarian to use his letterhead and write a short letter saying that he has identified the dog/bitch, and the registration number, tattoo number, and microchip number are all contained in this short letter. This is probably needless, but since handwriting can be difficult to read I never want mistakes on a certification or a pedigree, especially when dealing with the S.V..

Best Regards,

Bob-O

My question is my vet did my girl's microchip while he had my dog under to do her x-rays.  My girl's tatoo faded so it really couldn't be read well.  I wonder how they'll deal with that. 

What a good idea and a step in the right direction.  The first time I had a dogs xrays done for certification I was really shocked on how easy it would of been to "cheat".

I thought it was already in place.  When I just recently took Apache in for her xrays, the application had a section where you put either the microchip # or the Tatoo number down.  I, of course, wrote it in myself but assumed that my vet scanned it to be sure. 

This will help with preventing fraud on the part of the owner, now if only we could get the vets to throw out that dog in the freezer with perfect hips for the "special' clients.  (kidding, sort of)