Microchips

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by lil fu fu girl

Actually, it is the same thing. Read further down on your article.
RFID's(or chips) used on animals are labeled "passive or inert" because they contain no internal power source and do not act until acted upon.They contain three components; a silicon integrated circuit board which is the memory that holds the owners info, and inductor which acts as the radio antenna, and a capacitor which works with the inudcutor to essentially form a tuner.
As for their safety, I will stick with my initial stand with Dr. Benezra.
But thanks for the info.

Look at their uses; they are not used in dog's microchips. The chips they are talking about can be read from blocks/miles away, it's a completely different thing. Again, I believe some misleading information is being passed as fact, because commercial breeders don't want to have to just these. They think if they can pass enough of this propaganda, these laws won't pass. Commercial breeders aren't concerned with the safety of their dogs, they are concerned with the cost per dog, and also they don't like the fact that authorities will be able to to link dogs to breeders. The dog fighting enthusiasts are especially fighting this law, at the present time, they can be seen with a bloodied up dog, and just deny that they are the owner, microchips would be able to identity this as well. If you choose not to microchip you pet, that's your choice, the type used in dogs is different than this, and there are many studies that have proven their safety.

[Nancy1999]

From a recent study done in 2007.

http://www.verichipcorp.com/files/Ti...n-FINAL_3_.pdf

Over the last 15 years, millions of dogs and cats throughout the world have safely received an implantable microchip that can quickly and reliably document the identity of a pet. As a result of this life-saving technology, some 8,000 dogs and cats are successfully reunited with their owners every month.

Conclusions

The use of microchips in pets is a safe, effective, and durable means of identification that has been used globally in millions of animals for nearly two decades. To date, the entire global database of sarcoma development in microchipped dogs is limited to a single case-report involving 1 animal. Furthermore, though low incidences of vaccine-related sarcoma development have been documented in cats (even more rare in dogs), microchip-associated sarcoma development has never been reported in felines. In the context of millions of microchip implantations spread over many years, this near absence of adverse event documentation comprises an impressive and expansive safety record. Therefore, the benefits of microchip implantation with regard to the safety and welfare of pets should they become lost or separated from their owner have proven to be infinitely greater than the remote and unsubstantiated risk of tumor development associated with microchip implantation.

[lil fu fu girl]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999;2544510[U

]Look at their uses; they are not used in dog's microchips.[/U] The chips they are talking about can be read from blocks/miles away, it's a completely different thing. Again, I believe some misleading information is being passed as fact, because commercial breeders don't want to have to just these. They think if they can pass enough of this propaganda, these laws won't pass. Commercial breeders aren't concerned with the safety of their dogs, they are concerned with the cost per dog, and also they don't like the fact that authorities will be able to to link dogs to breeders. The dog fighting enthusiasts are especially fighting this law, at the present time, they can be seen with a bloodied up dog, and just deny that they are the owner, microchips would be able to identity this as well. If you choose not to microchip you pet, that's your choice, the type used in dogs is different than this, and there are many studies that have proven their safety.

RFID technology is the same technology used in pet microchipping.
As stated per your article, and in the JVM.
The only difference in the microchipping of dogs, versus that in cars or passports, is that the RFID does not contain its own power supply; like the ones you refer to "That can be read from miles away". Those are RFID's that contain an internal power source and can transmit information without having been scanned. The ones in animals has to be "scanned", in order to acquire the owners info, essentially that is why they are termed passive, because of this non-transmitting status.

Their safety has been of great discussion and research, and people fall on both sides of the coin when it comes to their implantation. I am not here to tell you whether it is right or wrong for you. I am just here to explain another dimension of these "chips", and why they should be investigated and researched by anyone who is making this decision for their pet.

[lil fu fu girl]

Here's another link about RFID microchipping in dogs. Hope this helps.



Link

[CouversMom]

My cats are microchipped, and Couver will be in a week when he is neutered. There is no reason not to do it. I feel that any extra way for him to be recovered is a plus. I know the feeling of losing an animal, and I do not want to have to deal with that. Couver has tags, will have a microchip and be registered with my town. This way I have all my bases covered, and will not hate myself if he manages to get away.

He is my child, and I will do anything to keep him safe.

[JMuedog]

Anyone have any idea on the ideal age for microchipping? I cannot remember how old Finnigan was, and I want Gwenndilyn to get microchipped.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by JMuedog

Anyone have any idea on the ideal age for microchipping? I cannot remember how old Finnigan was, and I want Gwenndilyn to get microchipped.

I haven't read anything about an ideal age, many people do it during a neuter or spay, and I know some breeders sell their dogs already microchipped, so it should be safe for younger puppies.

[JMuedog]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I haven't read anything about an ideal age, many people do it during a neuter or spay, and I know some breeders sell their dogs already microchipped, so it should be safe for younger puppies.

Thanks, I was thinking Finnigan was pretty young... don't want to rush and have it done too early, I think she's big enough for it though.

[Cobh1712]

Hi, I have been trying to decide if I will microchip Snoopy and have been doing some research. Here is one of the articleshttp://www.louisville-pets.com/microchip_cancer_study.html Along with the fact that the microchip can migrate, (could it migrate to heart????) I don't think I want to take the risk. However, I live in Ireland in a small town so think there is less chance of dog napping here. Also, Snoopy goes everywhere with me, even into the supermarket in a little tote bag, so he is never left on his own.

[Jemma]

When I put a deposit on Jemma, I was given the choice. I chose to have her micro chipped for a extra 20 0r 25 dollars.

[Jemma]

Originally Posted by kval07

Does anyone have their dog microchipped AND tattooed? I mean, getting your dog microchipped won't do anything if someone can't/won't call animal control or take them to the vet.

I plan on getting my dog microchipped when he gets neutered. After I breed him and he gets a playmate.

Yes I use to tattoo before microchips, but now it's just microchips. Tattooing is painful. Grateful for micro chips.

[Olivier]

Originally Posted by JMuedog

Anyone have any idea on the ideal age for microchipping? I cannot remember how old Finnigan was, and I want Gwenndilyn to get microchipped.

I microchipped mine between 9 to 12 weeks old .

[Britster]

Jackson got microchipped yesterday during his neuter - I have to go online and check it out and change some stuff. The vet did the registration for me they said.

[loveyorks]

I was just wondering what happens to the info in the microchip when a dog is rehomed and need those info to be changed. I did not know you could do that on line..

[AshSavalle]

I may sound strange but the whole idea of tattooing or inserting a microchip scares me. All I think of when I hear about it is "the mark of the beast". So I made the decision not to ever mark any of my pets. For religious reasons.
I do hope that no illness comes up down the road related to them. I would hate for "us" to be making a fatal choice for our babies.