I like the idea. I think it does help out with lost pets and will help pets that are stolen (possibly). I do see the privacy issue/property thing being a problem but I also see a lot of good from it.  Also, it would help identify whose had shots which is important especially for roaming cats. My boyfriend would also like to reply to the negative statements to microchipping, "there is no negative effects when it comes to protecting your best friend and companion".

ashleigh November 12th, 2008 09:35:28 AM

But would the same logic apply to our children, for example? Or to my boyfriend? How about a GPS on his whereabouts? ;-)

btw, thanks to all of you for powering through this post's little glitches. We're still working hard to rid all the kinks from this new platform (no photo, misspellings I'm not able to edit after posting, etc.).

Dr. Patty Khuly November 12th, 2008 09:51:21 AM

Before we start mandating that pets be microchipped, let's first find out how many animals going through shelters are actually scanned for chips.

Shelly November 12th, 2008 10:08:47 AM

There is some (albeit not widespread or accredited) evidence that the microchips, themselves, can (or have), in some dogs, cause cancer at the implant site. I'm not a hysteric, by any stretch of the imagination. Both my current dog and cat are microchipped. But I wouldn't begrudge someone the right not to microchip, if he/she was worried about harming his/her pet in that way. However, on that note, I should point out that my pets' microchips are virtually useless. Implanted in 2000, the chips are now obsolete, and the registry that stored that information went bankrupt. My information was supposed to be transferred to another registry, but never was. When I discovered this, I learned that none of the existing registries recognized my pets' somewhat older chip numbers. A represenative of one of the largest existing registries instructed me to first have my pets re-scanned, to confirm those are the numbers that come up on a scanner. Check. Then I could manually register the chips with one of the newer registry companies. I haven't done so for a number of reasons. So while my pets are chipped, they are only currently "registered" with my veterinary clinic (number on their tags). ...Not too useful. I'm assuming that better standardization has solved the compatability problem. But it still doesn't address the fact that the registry information is in the private sector. (And those companies can go out of business at any time, which puts the data at risk of being lost...making the pet's chip useless.) If the government were to start its own registry (which it would have to do, in order to maintain integrity of the data), that adds another avenue of confusion for owners. Will people remember to update both their local municipality's registry and one of the national, private sector registries, with any changes? After all, dog licensing is mostly at the municipal level, and there's no reason to believe one city, or even one state, is going to keep an up-to-date, national database. That means individual, government-run, microchip databases would encompass data from their own municipality, or at the state level. Thus pet owners would need to register with national registries (to truly protect their pets), as well as their local animal control departments (to protect their pets locally, should they become lost/stolen/found locally, and to obey a new mandatory microchipping law). Inevitably, this means owners can forget to update one or the other. And if they only register with the government-run database, their pets might not be protected once outside that database's jurisdiction. My mind actually reels at the expense (and learning curve) related to the government getting into the microchip registry business. It's only useful (to pet owners who see microchips as one of the best ways to retrieve lost or stolen pets) if it's at the national level. It's not that I'm trying to poo poo the whole idea. I just know that so few people license their pets as it is (currently mandatory). When you combine the need to keep an updated, government-run database, in order to retrieve accurate information on scanned pets, with the recalcitrance of many pet owners to register and/or update their information... ...Well... I think microchipping is a nice idea. I think there are still too many problems for it to be made mandatory. It's just not "there" yet.

Marjorie November 12th, 2008 10:21:28 AM

Good grief. ;-) Yes, I know how to write a paragraph. The formatting was lost when I submitted my comment. Sorry. I know it's hard to read a big block of text like that (above).

Marjorie November 12th, 2008 10:22:57 AM

Discounting the fact that I hate any and all gov't intrusion in my life, and looking solely at the efficacy of the proposed legislation... It also should be noted that chipping your pet doesn't do a bit of good if the owner never registers said chip. Does the legislation mandate the rfid be registered, or just implanted. If the former, what purpose does the legislation serve? I got my dog through a rescue group when she was 3 years old. She was chipped as a puppy, but her owners never bothered to have the chip registered. The package of info I got with my dog included the original registration form for the chip that came with the dog when her former owners purchased her. I think there is obviously a disconnect in the fact that having the chip implanted is only step #1. There needs to be some education done in order to drive home the point that the chip doesn't do any good unless you register it and keep the information up to date. As for the efficacy of the legislation, if implemented it will be just one more piece of feel good crap that will either A.)be impossible to enforce or b.)add to the already overwhelming pile of bureaucratic red tape that animal services gets stuck dealing with.

Chip November 12th, 2008 10:31:19 AM

You're whistling my tune, Chip. But it seems mandatory registration is the case here. Failure to comply will result in a $100 fine, I've read.

Dr. Patty Khuly November 12th, 2008 10:56:29 AM

btw all, I'll consolidate these comments later.

Dr. Patty Khuly November 12th, 2008 10:57:03 AM

Marjorie: Sorry for the formatting thing. Glitches abound! (and we're working on them)

Your comment speaks to the still-evolving nature of the microchip industry. Though I've seen the industry improve, a lot of it has been the result of mandates and grassroots outcries (like yours).

Dr. Patty Khuly November 12th, 2008 11:00:58 AM

Shelly: Actually, I would consider that a bonus of proposals like these. Like you, I believe many shelters  (and veterinarians) do not take the issue of scanning for microchips as seriously as they should. Some just flat-out won't do it. is seems to me that compulsory microchipping would result in some serious scanning action on everyone's part.

Dr. Patty Khuly November 12th, 2008 11:34:35 AM

I believe microchipping can be a great piece of the puzzle (along with updated tags and collars). However, there is currently a low percentage of pets microchipped and only 50% of the microchipped pets have been registered. The movement towards universal microchips and scanners is helping to alleviate some issues. AAHA created a free online microchipping course to educate staff members of veterinary hospitals, animal control facilities, and shelters about proper implantation and scanning procedures. If you are interested, the course can be accessed at www.aahanet.org/education/microchip_scanning.aspx

Jason Merrihew November 12th, 2008 11:57:44 AM

I would hope this would make shelters more diligent about scanning, but I'm not optimistic.  In the US, anyway, it's awfully haphazard.  And don't get me started about vets (sorry!) who don't scan new patients.  I've been to too many vets to count in the nine years I've had my dog, and only one of them scanned her.  One.  That's pathetic.

Which reminds me that I need to ask my vet to scan her the next time we're in.  It's been a long time, and I don't even know if the chip is viable anymore.

Shelly November 12th, 2008 12:05:16 PM

In many ways, I would be in favor of it -- it might even force the microchip process to standardize. Currently, there are multiple databases out there, so you have to check them all to see if the animal is registered and as another person pointed out, there are multiple "standards" to choose from. For example, the Trovan chips being pushed by the AKC are not readable by many of the readers currently in clinics and shelters around the country. Hardly helpful to go to the effort and expense of chipping an animal only to find out many places can't read "those chips" (ask several of the well known chip companies why they have blocked their readers from reading the Trovan chips here in the US, but basically the same readers elsewhere in the world can read them. If manditory chipping would force standardization where everybody could read all the chips, that alone would be worth it. mikey

mikey November 12th, 2008 02:41:40 PM

I largely agree with mikey- I would love to see the microchip better standardized. There are companies out there with chips that I never knew about until some client or another came in with the paperwork for them. If we scanned a chip, we'd never know to call that registry.

Homeagain will allow you to register a chip from any registry with them.

I personally have no problem with microchipping, but I don't believe mandatory chipping would be effective in reality. Oh sure in theory, but if the percentage of dogs licensed under mandatory licensing laws is any indication, there will be plenty of unchipped dogs, regardless of threatened fines.

I've seen numerous pets returned to their owners because of microchips. I've probably seen more with a chip but no registration or a chip but outdated information. It's a shame, too, because it can be a great tool to get your missing dog home.

katie November 12th, 2008 03:05:41 PM

My youngest Scottie soon to be 5 yrs. is Canadian-bred and microchipped as a puppy, required for registration. So far, I have not seen any ill effects and if it has been studied and proved to be safe, I'd go for it. And then I'd sure like it to be mandatory that animal control, shelters, and even vets upon seeing a new dog would scan (in case of theft). I expect it to be a requirement soon for AKC, with frequently-used sires, DNA testing/chipping, as it is in Canada. I have not done chipping for my older/elderly pets.

Barbara "Pocket's Story from NH" November 12th, 2008 07:09:41 PM

Already compulsory here. My cat came from a rescue centre, so while they didnt microchip him for me, strongly advised I ask a vet to do it. Got my dog chipped partly to claim him as my own (long story but I didn't steal him - just took the owner a while to relinquish ownership, so I sped things up a little).

Had the choice of country wide or state wide register, and chose state wide, since it was cheaper. takes a little longer if my dog somehow ended up in another state (unlikely anyway), but he would still be returned to me eventually. He doesnt like leaving my yard anyway, except on a lead. Australian states are larger than US states :-) and fewer of them.

It has resulted in reunited owners and pets, but owners need to remember to keep their details up to date. A cat on an rspca tv show was reunited with his family, who had given the cat away and moved, but the new owners did not update the details. Cat was returned to original owners, which involved air travel. But at least he got back home. He was picked up after reported by a neighbour in the area, and had tick paralysis. Luckily survived and recovered from it.

Some lost pets are taken to vets for checking of chips, rather than a rescue centre or pound. and local vets might even know the pet and its owner if its a customer. I have no problem with compulsory, but it needs careful planning and implementation. collars and ear tags can come off or be removed.

by the way, editing this was weird - flashing cursor sat on top of some letters, so I didnt know where the inserted letter would end up. But being able to format is good, although meagre (bold, italics, numbers, bullets).

Robin November 12th, 2008 10:25:51 PM

We've had legislation requiring mandatory ID (either tatoo or microchip) and responsability (can't remember the correct US wording for this) insurance in dogs for more than 10 years. Futhermore the dog must be registered in the national dog registry.

This system works reasonable well - I do veterinary work at our local rescuecenter, and know for a fact, that they scan every single dog, that walks in their door - often finding a chip and therefore an owner of an apperant stray animal. Of course there are still problems - shady characters, owning shady dogs "forget" to chip and register their dogs, but these the rescuecenter are able to chip and register, before releasing to the owner, thus preventing any future "sorry, I don't know this dog" if the dog is involved in a dogfight (yes, dogfighting is sadly not a localized issue.)

From my (European) point of view this is a no-brainer, but I don't have the american fear of government control :)

Mette November 13th, 2008 01:18:15 AM

Robin: Did your area rebel in any way against the requirement? Just curious...

....and sorry for the glitches (it's getting worked out, I promise)

Dr. Patty Khuly November 13th, 2008 08:43:28 AM

I look very hard at the cancer evidence and found it completely unconvincing. If there was even a negligible benefit I would be happy to have myself microchipped right now. My main objection is that before microchipping is made mandatory the system needs to be fixed, with standardised scanner specs that will detect all chips and a single database for the associated information. The second thing that needs to happen is to make damn sure making it mandatory does not add a regulatory or financial burden that might have unforeseen consequences such as reduced levels of registration or vaccination (as seen in some communities with mandiatory spay/neuter). It is more important to acheive good results than to have good intentions IMHO.

emily November 13th, 2008 10:59:49 AM

simply put - I have pitbulls. There is currently no BSL where I live but if chipping was mandatory, then there would be a record of my dogs, their breeds, and my address and if a breed ban ever came into play, I feel it would just make it easier for the authorities to take and kill my dogs, or profile me as a law breaker etc. I'm not a paranoid person or a conspiracy theorist at all - despite how this sounds - but when law makers start telling me what type of pets I am allowed to own, then I worry about whats next.

I live in a rural place with several acres for the dogs to claim as their own. They dont often need to leave the property except for the vet, and my neighbours cant see in my yard. If BSL ever happens here, I intend to hide my dogs at home for the rest of their lives.. or move away if I cant. I think mandatory chipping just makes it so much easier for 'them' to know what my dogs are and where they live. None of my dogs is licsenced (they dont need to be here) and I choose not to vaccinate anymore, so there is no municipal record of my dogs even exsisting.

BSL scares me

carmen November 13th, 2008 12:26:47 PM

Carmen: BSL scares the bejeezus out of me, too. Small minded mental midgets are the guilty parties. And they're also likely to want to hunt you down if you register your pits. For my part, I simply write "terrier mix "on any license registration paperwork. It's not fraud; after all, pitbulls ARE terrier mixes and no one's ever called me out on it despite our county's 20-plus year pitbull ban.

Dr. Patty Khuly November 13th, 2008 03:28:32 PM

The Libertarian in me says that the government is rarely the answer and being generally unimpressed with their abilities in policing other areas, I don't think we should turn over more responsibility (and thus powers) to them in this area.

Microchipping is amazing technology and I'm all for the private sector using it for great things like animal rescue (don't you love hearing those stories of long lost animals finally getting scanned and being returned years later).

Here's one question: What should you do if your pet's microchip has moved? I've noticed that the chip in my Gemma has moved from her middle back down to the webbing near her "armpit." I don't like the idea of it traveling down her arm where it could do damage.

Christopher Landauer November 13th, 2008 03:29:36 PM

Christopher: YOU, a Libertarian? Seriously? I'd never have guessed it. ;-)

On the migration. I'm guessing Gemma has a AVID chip. I don't recommend AVID primarily on principle--their strongarm tactics are IMO, anti-pet. But I've also seen many that've migrated. Your best bet is to add another in the correct spot (HomeAgain this time? Another?).You can always have the old one removed (not difficult at all but seldom done, nonetheless).

Because I know that many chips migrate this way I usually check the armpit area, too. But I wouldn't bet on most shelters doing things this way.

Dr. Patty Khuly November 13th, 2008 04:15:55 PM

Dublin and Celeste are HomeAgain, Gemma and Mercury are ResQ. I read up on HomeAgain vs. Avid when I first did chips and agree with your comments on AVID, I didn't like the non-compatability issue especially.

My vet was excited about ResQ as it is ISO compliant and their scanner reads all the other chips and I do believe they give out their scanners for free to clinics and shelters.

Christopher Landauer November 13th, 2008 05:54:20 PM

Oh yeah, Dr. K. & Christopher, So the chip starts between the shoulder blades & can travel to the armpit? Where else can it go? That's not making me feel too wonderful about chipping.

Barbara "Pocket's Story from NH" November 13th, 2008 09:28:39 PM

Mandatory microchipping goes hand in hand with compulsory pet registration and pet number limits. Which if anyone who follows the No Kill movement will know, actually leads to MORE pets killed as the councils have carte blanche to round up all the stray and semi-owned cats.

It also makes it illegal to set up TNR colonies because each cat needs to have an owner.

As someone in Australia working to get TNR accepted here, the fact that our animal welfare groups can't see past the old models of 'killing and punishing' is frustrating to say the least...

With friends like these...

http://savingpets.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/with-friends-like-these/

shel November 14th, 2008 03:01:08 AM

I'm absolutely opposed to mandatory chipping. Though I believe in microchipping (all three of my boys are chipped), I'm wary of government attempts to dictate the personal choices owners make regarding the care of their pets. (Except, obviously, where abuse is concerned- but I certainly wouldn't consider failure to chip a form of abuse!)

Ultimately, I see such legislation as anything but beneficial for the animals. Will some pets be returned under such a system that otherwise wouldn't? I'm sure of it. However, I'd imagine that many others (who fail to chip) just won't bother attempting to recover a lost pet out of the fear that they'll be fined or such. And.. let's be honest- irresponsible owners, who constitute a huge part of the problem, aren't going to bother complying anyway.

That said.. we recently brought in an absolutely incredible stray cat that had been hanging around my parents' yard. He was chipped, and will be reunited with his owner later today. He'd been missing for over three weeks, and had traveled what would have been at least a 30 minute drive from his home... possibly crossing two highways and a major road in the process. Were it not for the microchip, we never would have located his owner.

A note about ResQ- while their scanners may read all chips, not all scanners are capable of reading their chips. The above stray had a ResQ chip. Our vet's scanner picked up on the fact that he had a chip, but it couldn't read it.. we had to find another vet with a compatible scanner. I do think that most, if not all, of our local shelters have ResQ scanners, though.

Ramen Connoisseur November 14th, 2008 08:34:33 AM

Dogs and cats today and people tomorrow!!!

b May 29th, 2009 07:07:16 PM

Here in Melbourne Australia, my local council has mandated not only microchipping, which I didnt object too, but desexing as well. I confronted my council as to why they made it mandatory and after much time waiting for answers to be sought was told, and I quote in its entirety: "After some consideration, we have reached the conclusion that the benefits of desexing outweigh the negatives - I will not be pursuing this issue further."

This comment was given to me after I emailed a 1500 word letter to the councillor detailing the results of many studies, both here in Aus and the US that concludes mandatory desexing at best, achieves nothing, and at worst has negative affects on both pets and the community. 

At least the Queenland government had the good sense to act on the results of a study they had undertaken that concluded mandatory desexing achieved nothing. The state government here in Victoria isnt so sensible. If anyone is interested, the 2008 report can be accessed here: http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosecurity_AnimalWelfareAndEthics/L-Marsden-MUCD-Report.pdf

Beware, its very long!!

Glenn of Melbourne July 8th, 2009 02:58:12 PM

AVI to MOV MAC

werw July 23rd, 2009 01:42:13 AM

Some fantastic shots here, love the emptiness in some of them.Ed Hardy clothing

Ed Hard September 9th, 2009 03:30:26 AM

Thanks for your sharing.This is a good access to Abercrombie and Fitch.

AF September 16th, 2009 09:18:04 PM

Before we start mandating that pets be microchipped, let's first find out how many animals going through shelters are actually scanned for chips. online games

AHmed October 8th, 2009 01:05:24 AM

tiffany jewelry

tiffany cuff links

JEWELRY October 26th, 2009 04:34:07 AM

However mean your life is, tiffany jewelry meet it and live it do not shun it and call it hard discount tiffany jewelry unt tiffany jewelry It is not so bad as you are.It looks poorest when you are richest.

tiffany jewelry November 12th, 2009 08:56:29 PM