Does anyone here not believe in Microchipping?

Liesje

As for tattooing, the problem is that it doesn't really help if the dog ends up at a shelter.  It helps YOU identify YOUR dog, but it doesn't help you get him back.  There are no central databases for tattoos.  Maybe that will change.  

corgipower

There have been cases of the chips moving and embedding in a muscle, which would be the end of a working dog's career.

I'm not sure I understand this. The microchip is supposed to be injected into a muscle. It's injected into the Trapezius muscle in the shoulder. The microchip only moves when vets don't inject it properly and simply put it under the skin rather than into the muscle, which some do as they aren't really skilled in microchipping. But if injected properly, it is meant to be injected into the muscle.

I've had 4  dogs tattooed (one lab and 3 basenjis) and did not see any sign of pain or discomfort from that tattooing, but 2 seemed uncomfortable from being pinned on their backs.  One (the lab) of those, we later learned, has severe CHD.  Those 2 dogs have since passed.  Animal tattoo's are not done like human tattoos.  They don't go through as many layers of skin.  Believe me, if any of the basenjis were in pain, there would have been screaming.  And I do mean screaming like a woman being beaten to death.  (Just one of those interesting noises they make.)

I have one dog (16 month old pup) chipped and she came that way from the breeder, but the chip has moved so much that it is rather useless if someone who doesn't know where it is looks for it.  So if she winds up at the pound, it's like she's not chipped at all.

Kim_MacMillan

Having experienced both, they are both painful, no doubt, but I have found that dogs tend to find the tattooing much more painful than the microchip. One the chip is in, most dogs I have known and cared for undergo very little discomfort afterwards, whereas tattoos tend to be bloodier, and can remain quite painful for a few days, also depending on what part of the body is tattooed.

How many dogs have you had or seen being tattooed? I ask because our experience was totally the opposite. In fact, with my first dog I did not even realize that she was doing it! I was watching my dog and holding his head more than watching the tattooer. Because he was not reacting, I thought she was just putting down the numbers to go back over with the actual tattoo. When she said "all done" I was very confused. My boy did not bat an eye. My other two have also been tattooed. One reacted much the same, and my youngest acted up a little bit. That could have just been from being held down and the funny feeling, because she is indeed a "drama queen." None of them had any bleeding, swelling, or after care of any kind.

This same person used to set up a grooming table at local shows and do tattoos. A couple times we were set up nearby. Most of the dogs did not seemed bothered at all by the process. A few objected, but the very act being held down on your back while somebody runs a vibrating thing on your inner thigh is going to bother some dogs. So I can't say exactly what it feels like for a dog but it certainly is not painful. Uncomfortable at the very worst.

samshine

How many dogs have you had or seen being tattooed?

Oh, it was a while ago now, but I couldn't count the number. 50? 60? 100? I have no idea...lol. Now, perhaps tattooing methods have changed in the last few years, but I think it probably hasn't. It likely is dog-dependent, but even when it doesn't do the same number of layers of skin (yes, I do know that!), most dogs have found it painful, yes. Moreso for the ear tattoo than the flank (I've experienced both styles), and the ear was the bloodier of the two, as the ear was done with a clamp-style tattoo rather than the type they use for flanks/thighs. The puppies who had their ears tattooed screamed miserably, and bled indeed. I do remember that.

That's not to say the microchip isn't painful as well. It certainly is, but in my experience from comparisons, the dogs have found the microchip much less painful and invasive than the tattoo. And having been involved in breeding animals, I've seen my share of puppies/dogs getting their permanent identification, both tattoos and microchips. Once again, we can only share our own experiences, and let others draw their conclusions as such.

Kim_MacMillan

The microchip is supposed to be injected into a muscle. It's injected into the Trapezius muscle in the shoulder

As to the original question, I do chip all of my dogs. I'm much less worried about any potential cancer risks (I question testing such things on mice who, along with rats, are prone to getting cancers even without things injected into them) than getting my pets back.  There are universal scanners now that pick up most types of chips. The clinic I work at has one. I've heard of one dog (on another board I go to) that did develop a reaction to his chip and had to have it removed. However, as someone with dogs with odd ailments, I'm well aware of how sometimes odd things happen with what should be routine things.

I don't plan on getting Gracie microchipped, because she already has a tattoo.  A tattoo does not need any special instrument to read it (ie, scanner).   Just need a pair of eyes and a telephone.

Imagine: some random person finds my dog and wants to help her, calls the police, she goes to the pound, and they see the tattoo on her - the ACO calls the national registry and my dog is returned to me.  In my case, the Rescue she came from is listed w/the registry, as well.  I may move/change phone#s, but that rescue isn't going ANYWHERE!

Many ACOs, vets, local shelters, etc simply never shelled out the $dough for a scanner, so your dog will go thru that shelter unscanned and either adopted out, or... something else.

Do I "believe in it" or not?  eh...it's a nice back up to every other measure one should take to protect their animals and keep them safely contained.

Liesje

As for tattooing, the problem is that it doesn't really help if the dog ends up at a shelter.  It helps YOU identify YOUR dog, but it doesn't help you get him back.  There are no central databases for tattoos. 

That's not entirely true.  Research the National Dog Registry:  http://www.nationaldogregistry.com/

and while we're at it, here's what they say about the perception of tattoos being painful: http://www.nationaldogregistry.com/nopain.html

 I would have a problem with microchipping my children or myself and the DH but I have no isses with it in regards to my dogs, both are chipped and any dog I onw in the future will be chipped.

grab01

the microchip is not supposed to be injected into the muscle of dogs and cats, chip companies actually point out to not do this in their literature.

http://www.revivalanimal.com/store/pg/729-How-to-Inject-a-Microchip.aspx

http://www.nsgsdc.com/microchip.shtml

 The chip must be injected deep enough to come into contact with tissue. Placed just under the skin, it has nothing to anchor to. It can travel virtually anywhere close to the surface of the skin and usually remains there without harming a dog.

Deep enough to come into contact with tissue...that tissue, folks, if you go deep enough (and it's not that deep) is the Trapezius muscle. 

http://www.funadvice.co.in/q/can_a_pets_microchip_move

I used to be a vet tech and yes if not properly place in the trapezius muscle it can move to other parts of the body. and no you will not be able to feel the microchip being as it is only the size of a grain of rice or smaller.

I'm not sure what literature you have, and perhaps different literature has different things. But from having many orders of microchips come to the house (the vet always inserted them), the literature I read distinctly mentioned the trapezius muscle, in fact, it was demonstrated in graphics. Perhaps different brands recommend different things, or perhaps they've changed that original literature (we switched to ISO chips, in which Shimmer was injected). If the literature has changed, my apologies. But I assure you it was said, in writing, that the trapezius muscle was the ideal injection site, and that just doing it sub-Q is what resulted in mobile chips.

miranadobe

I don't plan on getting Gracie microchipped, because she already has a tattoo.  A tattoo does not need any special instrument to read it (ie, scanner).   Just need a pair of eyes and a telephone.

Imagine: some random person finds my dog and wants to help her, calls the police, she goes to the pound, and they see the tattoo on her - the ACO calls the national registry and my dog is returned to me.  In my case, the Rescue she came from is listed w/the registry, as well.  I may move/change phone#s, but that rescue isn't going ANYWHERE!

Many ACOs, vets, local shelters, etc simply never shelled out the $dough for a scanner, so your dog will go thru that shelter unscanned and either adopted out, or... something else.

Do I "believe in it" or not?  eh...it's a nice back up to every other measure one should take to protect their animals and keep them safely contained.

Your posts makes me think the decision should also depend on locale.  I've never heard of our local shelters checking tats against a national registry, but both have several types of different chip scanners (even though they all read the others' brands) and the first thing they do is scan for a chip.

You also point out why it's important to keep the info updated.  The chip is only as good as the last update.  I keep my parents as secondary contacts b/c they have never and will never move, do not use cell phones so their home phone number does not change.  Also, my mom only works part time and my dad works from home, so they are more easily contacted than me.  Their home phone number is on some of my dog tags as well and I use their address as my address b/c we've moved 3 times already and only been married a year.  Kenya's breeder has her microchip bar code on her file and I also give one of the stickers to my vet. 

I like the 24 Hour Pet Watch chips b/c you create an online account and can access it for free any time.  You can even upload pictures and give the company permission to give someone your phone number.  For example, if someone found Kenya and did not have a scanner, her chip ID number is on her tag, as is the company's 1-800 number to call if found.  I've changed my privacy setting to allow them to give anyone who calls with her ID number my phone number, not just a shelter or vet with a chip scanner.

dgriego

 I would have a problem with microchipping my children or myself and the DH but I have no isses with it in regards to my dogs, both are chipped and any dog I onw in the future will be chipped.

I can honestly tell you (through my shelter work) that if a dog came in with a tatoo - I would have no clue where to look. Where as if a dog came with a chip - I would have no problem getting contact information. All our greys are tatooed - but most of the time you cannot easily read the numbers, and many times you cannot even find the information in the greyhound racing data base.

JME.

Emma is not chipped, and will not be chipped. I worry about complications, with her. She has severe reactions to seemingly benign objects and substances, so injecting her with foreign bodies? Not so much gonna happen

Future puppies won't be chipped, either, if it's left up to me. I don't particularly like the idea of it. My dogs also don't wear tags. I don't even know where Emma's tag is. I have her proof of current rabies vaccination in my purse, though, and it's always at hand. I have to be weird, right?

Seriously, I don't worry about Emma going anywhere, and if she did go somewhere? You wouldn't get close enough to scan her for a chip without being bitten, badly.