Dutch Shepherd Forum

Just wondering how many/if any of the breeders on the forum microchip their entire litter before it is sold? Would it be beneficial in getting some of these dogs back and placed into appropriate homes? Would the cost be prohibitive if you bought the tools and did it at home--possibly sent up a registry of chip numbers within the breed somehow?
I think when Dianne tried to start the breed club registry, they were all required to be tattooed -tho I may be wrong about that-it was a long time ago. (being that I'm so OLD I tend to forget things)
It was just half of a thought.

I have no idea what the answer to your question is, but I wouldn't want a puppy I would be getting to be chipped before I got her. Tatooed, yes, but not chipped.

I don't like the migrating these chips do more frequently than one might guess would happen, and also, the possibility of tumors at the injection sites.

Other than those two things, it would be a great idea

Tumors at injection site? I have never heard about that? (Are there any reliable data about it?)

Most good breeders will permanently ID a pup, if only because they want to be told when their dog is lost.
I recovered two (adults) via chip. Both severe weather victims. One got away during hurricane Ike (and don't ask me why she was still in the kennel, when the owners were somewhere in a storm cellar) and one got out when a tornado blew down a fence in (OUCH) Joplin Missouri. But that was a few weeks before the big one hit. During the last storm, she rode it out with her new owner and she is fine.

I am sure that not all breeders will permanently ID a dog. Some may not care beyond cashing the purchase check. Others may think it to be the job of the (new) owner and yet others may just not have given it any thought, since it does, indeed, cost a few dollars to ID a dog. It is the ones that don't care, and the buyers that don't think it's needed that are most likely to lose that pup somewhere. I don't think that it will ever change either.

vneerland wrote: Tumors at injection site? I have never heard about that? (Are there any reliable data about it?)

I'll look it up when I have a few minutes...

I read about it too. Here is the link to the article:
http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/microchips-pet/

I have microchipped every puppy that I have sold.

For me, as breeder,its the lesser of 2 evils. I have known of several dogs being returned because a microchip was in place. After 10 years as a vet tech, I have never had a personal occurrence of injection site carcinoma from a microchip. So I would gamble on getting my puppy back if anything should happen.

With regard to tattoos, to my knowledge, there are many tattoo registries and most people don't register them anyway. Breeders use it for ID purposes and to keep track of their dogs and the owners that they maintain contact with. But they usually mean nothing for IDing strays if the breeder doesn't know to look for them.

Schlussdibusti wrote:I read about it too. Here is the link to the article:
http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/microchips-pet/

Intresting article.
However it provides no links to any studies proving the link between microchips and health issues.
It's just an article saying *these things happened to these pets*, nothing to back up what is posted.
Very sad about the kitten that died instantly while being chipped but honestly that sounds like an implanter error. A wiggly squirming kitten can be a challenge to correctly insert a needle into no matter the procedure.
Yes, I am speaking from experience ( wiggly squirmy kitten experience, not kitten dying when injected - just to clarify ).

I've been in the veterinary field 21 years and have yet to see a complication from a microchip. Not saying it couldn't happen, anything is possable, but I haven't seen it.
I've personally been part of the posative side, numerous strays returned to their owners thanks to microchips.
Since the early 1990's my dogs and cats have all been microchipped. No issues for anyone.

There may be a risk ( low ) of health issues related to microchips but in my mind the benefits far outway the risk. So far, I've not seen any documented proof that microchips are causing issues.

There are many risks related to vaccinating your pet and those are proven.
So should we stop vaccinating ?
How about dry/canned petfood ?
Been a lot of recalls with that due to contaminants poisoning our pets.
Lets all switch to raw, it's safer and 'more natural' ..... oh no ... wait ... they could choke on a bone, get salmonella, doesn't feeding raw meat make dogs aggressive ????


You get my gist
There are risks and benefits to everything in life. For us and our pets.
It's up to us to do our research and make informed decisions for ourselves and our critters.

Force is microchipped and has a tattoo.
Wonder what risks are associated with tattoo ink ?

Brindle wrote: I've been in the veterinary field 21 years and have yet to see a complication from a microchip. Not saying it couldn't happen, anything is possable, but I haven't seen it.
I've personally been part of the posative side, numerous strays returned to their owners thanks to microchips.
Since the early 1990's my dogs and cats have all been microchipped. No issues for anyone.

There may be a risk ( low ) of health issues related to microchips but in my mind the benefits far outway the risk. So far, I've not seen any documented proof that microchips are causing issues.

Brindle wrote:There are many risks related to vaccinating your pet and those are proven.
So should we stop vaccinating ?

No - but should we seriously reconsider the current recommendations made by most vets??? YES!!!

Brindle wrote:How about dry/canned petfood ?
Been a lot of recalls with that due to contaminants poisoning our pets.
Lets all switch to raw, it's safer and 'more natural' ..... oh no ... wait ... they could choke on a bone, get salmonella, doesn't feeding raw meat make dogs aggressive ????

AWESOME - so THAT's why my dogs bite so well!! If only I had known that all along!

Again - another cost vs. benefit analysis for every pet owner. Personally, I'm on the other side of that one. I think the benefits of raw FAR outweigh the risks for normal animals and people.

I agree with the microchip being more beneficial than chancing infection, Sadie has a chip... maybe thats why she is goofy????

Jenny - did you tattoo Force's ear? Vada has a tat inside her leg and so does Copper but I don't plan to tattoo Letty.

All of my dogs and cats (house cats) are chipped. We chipped all of Karl's dogs too (although one was already done by one of her previous owners and luckily we caught it before we chipped her again). I wish the stray dogs that we seem to find often were chipped so we could get them back home sooner.

k9katet wrote:Jenny - did you tattoo Force's ear?

Yes.
We get lots of comments on how clear it is. No issues with the judges being able to read it that's for sure

Thalies tattoo is hard to read but the judges were happy there was one there, it was in her book so they were fine. I havent chipped Thalie. Not to worried about her going anywhere.

dutchringdog wrote:Thalies tattoo is hard to read but the judges were happy there was one there, it was in her book so they were fine. I havent chipped Thalie. Not to worried about her going anywhere.

Maybe consider changing your mind about not chipping. It is done in case the fecal matter hits the fan.
Let's say, God forbid, you are driving with your dog in the car, and get into a wreck. Dog, all shaken and stirred, gets out and away. Or let that horrible, untypical storm hit your backyard and blow the fence down on the day that you were not there to get her in the house in time? It is not only to make sure that Rover finds his way home, but also for the ones that stick close, but get into the unexpeced?

I tend to overkill on ID'ing my dogs. They are all chipped, one has ear tatoo and they all wear thick leather collars with brass ID tags braded on. I know a lot of people dont leave collars on their dogs but I always have for several purposes, mostly as leverage to grab if there is indeed a scuffle between them and also for ID.

All our pups are chipped, in Holland and Germany, and as far as I know all of the UK, pedigree dogs MUST be chipped. Only dogs that are stransported to the UK or USA get an additional tattoo, because the US chipreaders cannot read the european chips, and the UK, well, thay always want it done differntly

I thought there was now a "universal" scanner? Trying to find it again on the internet. Maybe just for the chips that are manufactured in the US?

alspyce wrote:I thought there was now a "universal" scanner? Trying to find it again on the internet. Maybe just for the chips that are manufactured in the US?

No, I heared that rumour too, so they no longer need to chip AND tattoo

Marjolein wrote:

alspyce wrote:I thought there was now a "universal" scanner? Trying to find it again on the internet. Maybe just for the chips that are manufactured in the US?

No, I heared that rumour too, so they no longer need to chip AND tattoo

There is such a thing, but it is only as good as the person that handles it? In other words euro-dog gets away. Scanner at the shelter is not universal. Euro-dog will be deemed not to be chipped after all.

vneerland wrote:
There is such a thing, but it is only as good as the person that handles it? In other words euro-dog gets away. Scanner at the shelter is not universal. Euro-dog will be deemed not to be chipped after all.

I was only aiming for the pedigree related check of the chip, this is now possible. You no longer have to tattoo the dog before transport, it can be identified overseas by eu chip, where you can than inplant an american ID chip
First the dog could not be identified without the tattoo overseas, now it can.

Marjolein wrote:First the dog could not be identified without the tattoo overseas, now it can.

I do not know where you got that info. I have been importing for quite a while and chips were always acceptable as a means of ID for the pedigree (if they had one) The reversed has been true though, that I could not export pups with just a chip, but that they had to have a tatoo for that purpose. Or a paper requirement anyway. I don't think anyone ever checked, but they did have to have that visible ID prior to boarding that airplane, and you just don't want to get turned away from the check in counter when some pencil pusher decides that he needs to see proof.