Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy1999  Yeah, I was using the higher range, but to commercial breeders any cost put out is less money in their pockets, I actually think the main reason is that the dogs will be able to be tracked back to them. With tattoos they use their own form of record keeping, and dogs can't be traced back to them. While there are some types of painless tattoos, from some of the things I've read, they aren't as good as regular tattoos in keeping the lettering over the years. Again, these can be easily altered. I guess I would be worried about the pain produced with regular tattooing.
If someone takes a new dog to the vet, without any type of records, a vet will check to see if it has a microchip, and many dogs have been returned to their true owner through this scenario. I'm not sure if the same thing would happen with a tattoo, and from one case I read, the owner who found a tattooed dog, had no luck with any of the registries, and had difficulty actually reading the tattoo. So it does offer some protection, but there are dangers associated with tattooing as well. |
This makes sense to me. As someone who has a tattoo, I can tell you that they blur over time. And yes, they are painful, for humans at least. Also, it's just not the kind of tracking system that a chip provides. Personally, I would have a much easier time believing that a tattoo might make you more prone to (skin) cancer than a tiny little piece of metal. You could get a piece of metal that size embedded in your own skin by accident for years - skin your knees in the wrong place, and maybe end up with your skin healing over a small remnant.
It's a personal decision, but I really, really wish people would get their pets chipped, because I think the benefits are so great and the risks are to me, basically non-existent.