microchip or not

[Dame]

I've always had all of my dogs chipped, and I will continue to do so.

There is that slight risk of "cancer" whenever you put something foreign in the body - since the body may choose to try and remove it. The odds of cancer really happening is so slim. Is it possible? Yes, but I believe the risk of my dog possibly getting loose never to be found are A LOT more likely. (Like this article!)

I'd rather live with the risk that my dog might be one of very very few who have issues with the microchip then possibly slip out the door one day or off a harness and never be found. I think its one of those things that you never expect to happen until it does.. a few years ago my other yorkie Barry got loose when our maintenance guys accidentally let him out. He somehow managed to make it over 50 miles away from my home, far outside the search range of shelters that I happened to consider. If it wasn't for the microchip that the rescue organization had put in before I adopted him I would have lost him forever. We can't account for everything, but I like to prepare for the ones that I can.

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by makhro

I am definitely getting the chipped. I know that they also used to tattoo dogs, is that still a common practice?

That's a good question. I would be more amiable towards a tattoo. Where would they put them on a Yorkie? I have been thinking I need to do something. Mine never wear their harnesses around home. I am sure the few homes on our road know where they belong, but if someone stole them, at least a chip would show up at a vet visit.

[jencar98]

Originally Posted by FlDebra

That's a good question. I would be more amiable towards a tattoo. Where would they put them on a Yorkie? I have been thinking I need to do something. Mine never wear their harnesses around home. I am sure the few homes on our road know where they belong, but if someone stole them, at least a chip would show up at a vet visit.

Yes, tattoos are still used by breeders and they are usually placed on the skin of the tummy area near the back leg. I would prefer a tattoo over chipping because it's visible and you're not relying on someone to scan your dog. Also, there are tattoo registry services just like microchip registries.

Nancy, you mentioned the cost to breeders being $20 to chip a dog. I don't believe it's anywhere near that expensive, as they buy the chips in bulk. The dog auctions chipped all of the dogs there and believe me, I'm sure they didn't invest $20 per dog.....many dogs didn't even sell for $20.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by jencar98

Yes, tattoos are still used by breeders and they are usually placed on the skin of the tummy area near the back leg. I would prefer a tattoo over chipping because it's visible and you're not relying on someone to scan your dog. Also, there are tattoo registry services just like microchip registries.

Nancy, you mentioned the cost to breeders being $20 to chip a dog. I don't believe it's anywhere near that expensive, as they buy the chips in bulk. The dog auctions chipped all of the dogs there and believe me, I'm sure they didn't invest $20 per dog.....many dogs didn't even sell for $20.

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.

[Amazing Yorkies]

I chip all my dogs and all my puppies. My Vet does it, and it costs me $30.00
but also gives me opportunity for an extra Vet check. I've had success in several ways by them being chipped. I've had humane societies and Vets call me because the chip read came back to me, since the owner hadn't registered the chip to themselves, I get the call. The dog had ran out of the door, and was lost. Someone found it, and took it to the Humane Society. The owner was there to claim the dog, but since the chip was registered to me, I had to give permission to have the dog returned to the owner..
Another thing for breeders to consider a good reason for chipping puppies... There was a deal going on several years ago that a person bought a few dogs from different breeders, and one of them had congenital problems. The lady contacted all the breeders and had a Vet report for this one dog, and presented the report to ALL the breeders. Most let her keep the sick one and replaced the pup or refunded. She made out like a bandit, and without chips there is no way to prove or disprove it is actually YOUR puppy that might be sick. That's the way she was caught.. a breeder had chipped her puppy and actually went to her house and the Vet for proof.
My older Crystal Waters boys were tatood, but really hard to read, so I had them chipped, and I worry about tattoos being more painful than the chip on my puppies, although the needle is big, and I hate that too.. The new lady that took over Crystal Waters just chips now.

[lil fu fu girl]

According to the Dec 3, 2007 AVMA Journal, two main issues complicate the decision of mircochipping our pets.
The first pertains to the currently unregulated industry of microchip frequencies here in the US. Two of the top 5 US producers of RFID microchips are currently producing them at a frequency of 125 kHz and 128 kHz. To complicate matters, these RFID microchips produced by these companies can only be read by their scanners manufactured by their company.
Another company’s scanner might detect the chip, but not be able to recover any information.
The AVMA is quoted as stating, “Nine state veterinary medical associations submitted Resolution 4, which states "a lack of standardization in RFID (microchips) for companion animals in the United States has decreased the ability of the public to regain a lost pet in spite of microchip identification.”(JAVMA/05)

The second issue deals with the adverse medical complications that are possible.
Infections, migration, swelling, and yes, cancer is possible.
Some have stated that the mice used for these experiments are “genetically engineered to produce tumors”. This rumor was actually perpetuated by the Verichip Corporation and pertains to the 1999 Blanchard study, in which the p53+/- mouse was genetically modified to have an increased susceptibility to cancer only when exposed to genotoxins or substances that damage genetic material. These mice are not known to develop spontaneous tumors in the absence of genotoxins within the first six months of life, which is when the microchip-induced tumors in this particular study arose.
This study, along with several others: the 1998 Ridgefield Connecticut study, the 2006 E. Elcock study, the M. Vascellari study, and others that negatively depicted microchips, were not reviewed in the 2005 FDA approval ruling.

FYI: the FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of VeriChip’s approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device’s FDA approval took effect on January 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corp. He was also compensated by the company with $40,000 in cash, 166,667 shares of VeriChip Corp. stock, and options on 100,000 shares of VeriChips parent company, Applied Digital Solutions; according to the SEC!

Currently, IBM holds a major stake in VeriChip Corp, and is petitioning the government with RFID technology for the tracking of humans. The two Corporations have a joint Austin, Texas laboratory used specifically for the testing of human RFID's.
When asked about RFID testing on humans, VeriChip stated that the RFID technology would definitely have to be tested out on larger animals such as dogs and cats before human trials could begin.

[Sweet Apple]

Originally Posted by lil fu fu girl

According to the Dec 3, 2007 AVMA Journal, two main issues complicate the decision of mircochipping our pets.
The first pertains to the currently unregulated industry of microchip frequencies here in the US. Two of the top 5 US producers of RFID microchips are currently producing them at a frequency of 125 kHz and 128 kHz. To complicate matters, these RFID microchips produced by these companies can only be read by their scanners manufactured by their company.
Another company’s scanner might detect the chip, but not be able to recover any information.
The AVMA is quoted as stating, “Nine state veterinary medical associations submitted Resolution 4, which states "a lack of standardization in RFID (microchips) for companion animals in the United States has decreased the ability of the public to regain a lost pet in spite of microchip identification.”(JAVMA/05)

The second issue deals with the adverse medical complications that are possible.
Infections, migration, swelling, and yes, cancer is possible.
Some have stated that the mice used for these experiments are “genetically engineered to produce tumors”. This rumor was actually perpetuated by the Verichip Corporation and pertains to the 1999 Blanchard study, in which the p53+/- mouse was genetically modified to have an increased susceptibility to cancer only when exposed to genotoxins or substances that damage genetic material. These mice are not known to develop spontaneous tumors in the absence of genotoxins within the first six months of life, which is when the microchip-induced tumors in this particular study arose.
This study, along with several others: the 1998 Ridgefield Connecticut study, the 2006 E. Elcock study, the M. Vascellari study, and others that negatively depicted microchips, were not reviewed in the 2005 FDA approval ruling.

FYI: the FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of VeriChip’s approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device’s FDA approval took effect on January 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corp. He was also compensated by the company with $40,000 in cash, 166,667 shares of VeriChip Corp. stock, and options on 100,000 shares of VeriChips parent company, Applied Digital Solutions; according to the SEC!

Currently, IBM holds a major stake in VeriChip Corp, and is petitioning the government with RFID technology for the tracking of humans. The two Corporations have a joint Austin, Texas laboratory used specifically for the testing of human RFID's.
When asked about RFID testing on humans, VeriChip stated that the RFID technology would definitely have to be tested out on larger animals such as dogs and cats before human trials could begin.

[QuickSilver]

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.

[lovelylf1]

Scooter is chipped and I am very thankful that he is. One of my neighbors dogs snuck out f their yard and was found miles away courtesy of the chip.

Many cities now have ordinances requiring all dogs to be chipped. I understand that some people claim there is a risk for cancer but if it was truly that extreme, wouldn't there be more statistics saying that it was so dangerous?

I am glad I had Scooter chipped and I will do it to every dog I have in the future.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by lovelylf1

Scooter is chipped and I am very thankful that he is. One of my neighbors dogs snuck out f their yard and was found miles away courtesy of the chip.

Many cities now have ordinances requiring all dogs to be chipped. I understand that some people claim there is a risk for cancer but if it was truly that extreme, wouldn't there be more statistics saying that it was so dangerous?

I am glad I had Scooter chipped and I will do it to every dog I have in the future.

There is NO incidence of cancers with the chips, the articles people are quoting have to do with certain strains of mice getting tumors from the chips, you can't use this to say dogs will get tumors or cancers. I think it's because of the ordinances being passed that many people are passing this bad information. Some breeders and dog owners DO NOT WANT a dog linked back to them. If you look at the people fighting the bills and ordinances, they are puppy millers and dog fighting advocates, two groups who are hardly concerned about the welfare of the dogs.

[lovelylf1]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

There is NO incidence of cancers with the chips, the articles people are quoting have to do with certain strains of mice getting tumors from the chips, you can't use this to say dogs will get tumors or cancers. I think it's because of the ordinances being passed that many people are passing this bad information. Some breeders and dog owners DO NOT WANT a dog linked back to them. If you look at the people fighting the bills and ordinances, they are puppy millers and dog fighting advocates, two groups who are hardly concerned about the welfare of the dogs.

I completely agree with you.

[manina]

I'm a ret fight attend, and i would lose my mind if either one of my babies got lost. They r good and wait until i say out or come , but u never know, and we travel alot on air and long drive down to ILLinois, and we have to stay in hotel's, so i'm happy i did it , you hear and read about dog being dog nag, so i sleep better just knowing and yes, i was in our vet office one day when someone came in with a small dog they found and wanted the vet to check if it had a chip and it didn't. We have so many storms in Orlando, so u never know better safe than sorry. but it up to u at the end and what u think is safe or not .
what ever u think is right for u and ur babies is what u should do.
bark @ u later ! Manina, Miley and Max

[wemple2]

Question: Can a dog with a micro chip have an MRI?

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wemple2

Question: Can a dog with a micro chip have an MRI?

Interesting guestion, here's one answer I found:

Oliver is chipped and had an MRI, well two actually. That is a question that is asked at the very beginning. Because the chip can contain metal, it is imperative that they are aware of it. The chip remains unchanged and is checked before and after (or should be). The biggest concern with an MRI is the magnetic aspect perhaps attracting the chip and thereby harming the dog. One will also be asked about any surgeries that may or may not contain any metal pieces. MRI ? | Dog Forums | DailyPuppy.com

[capt_noonie]

I have heard that if your baby is chipped, DO NOT put the chip # on its tags. If someone finds or steals your baby, and see they are chipped, they will look for the chip and dig it out from under their skin so they cannot be traced! If they don't know they have a chip it's pretty hard to locate it.