Microchips

How many of you microchip your dogs? What are your thoughts on them?

 

I had one that had a chip, it helps if your dog would run away or something like that and then if the animalcontrol would find the dog it's easy to locate the owner. But if you use your dog for "illegal" purposes i would'nt suggest it

 

All of my dogs are microchipped. It is probably a waste of time but I do it anyway.

 

I think micro-chipping dogs is a way to brain wash us into thinking, "Look at the benefits of micro-chipping" before the government begins its plot to micro-chip our kids so they can't be stolen either...or so we can see the "benefits" of not having to keep up with our health records, bank account, SS#, driver's license, etc.

Na...it's not for me or my dogs. I prefer old fashioned responsibility and the 2nd ammendment.

 

Couldn't agree more with this statement.

 

It is a proven study that microchips can and have caused cancer in dogs. Just put dog tags on the dog. Are any of you irresponsible and let the dog roam so that it can get lost? no. Whats the point of a microchip if you have a proper containment setup and proper collar/dog tags etc. waste of money AND will cause cancer.

so the answer is HELL NOOOOOO.


Microchip maker 'hid ties to cancer'

No need for a microchip. If you are responsible, the dog should not be getting loose...Useless chip is useless. + cancer causing.

just more ways for the vets to get easy money.

Implanted Microchips Cause Cancer

By Jane Williams GFN contributing writer---
(For Publication in the January 2007 "American Family Voice")

At the National ID Expo in Kansas City, Arkansas Animal Producer's
Association President Michael Steenbergen asked, "What safety studies
have been conducted on the chips that are inserted into animals?" His
question was met with total silence. Did these manufacturers not know,
or were they unwilling to admit that research has confirmed that
implanted microchips cause cancer?

Melvin T. Massey, DVM (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine)
from Brownsboro,Texas, brought this to the attention of the American
Horse Council when he wrote, "I am a retired Equine Veterinarian and
still breed a few horses. Because of migration-infection s-increased
risk of sarcoids I will not want to have microchips in my horses."

The Institute of Experimental Pathology at Hannover Medical School
in Germany reported , "An experiment using 4279 CBA/J mice of two
generations was carried out to investigate the influence of parental
preconceptual exposure to X-ray radiation or to chemical carcinogens.
Microchips were implanted subcutaneously in the dorsolateral back for
unique identification of each animal. The animals were kept for lifespan
under standard laboratory conditions. In 36 mice a circumscribed
neoplasm occurred in the area of the implanted microchip.
Macroscopically, firm, pale white nodules up to 25 mm in diameter with
the microchip in its center were found. Macroscopically, soft tissue
tumors such as fibrosarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma were
detected."

Ecole Nationale Veterinaire of Unite d'Anatomie Pathologique in Nantes,
France, reported, "Fifty-two subcutaneous tumors associated with
microchip were collected from three carcinigenicity B6C3F1 micestudies.
Two of these 52 tumors were adenocarcinoma of the mammary gland located
on the dorsal region forming around the chip. All the other 50 were
mesenchymal in ori! gin and were difficult to classify on morphological
grounds with
haematoxylin-
eosin."

Marta Vascellari of Instituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie
at Viale dell'Universita in Legnaro, Italy reported examining a
9-year-old male French Bulldog for a subcutaneous mass located at the
site of a microchip implant. "The mass was confirmed as a high-grade
infiltrative fibrosarcoma,

with multifocal necrosis and peripheral lymphoid aggregates."

The Toxicology Department of Bayer Corporation in Stillwell, Kansas
reported, "Tumors surrounding implanted microchip animal identification
devices were noted in two separate chronic toxicity/oncogenici ty
studies using F344 rats. The tumors occurred at a low incidence rate
(approximately 1%), but did result in the early sacrifice of most
affected animals, due to tumor size and occasional metastases. No
sex-related trends were noted.

All tumors occurred during the second year of the studies, were located
in the subcutaneous dorsal thoracic area (the site of microchip
implantation) and contained embedded microchip devices. All were
mesenchymal in origin and consisted of the following types, listed on
order of frequency: malignant schwannoma, fibrosarcoma, anaplastic
sarcoma, and histiocytic sarcoma.

The following diagnostic techniques were employed: light microscopy,
scanning electron microscopy, and immunohistochemistry. The mechanism of
carcinogenicity appeared to be that of foreign body induced
tumorigenesis. "

Additional studies related to cancer tumors at the site of microchip
implants have been conduced in China; however, at this time these
studies are not available in English. At this time, no long term studies
are available covering more than two years. It only seems logical to
conclude that if carcinogenic tumors occur within one percent of animals
implanted within two years of the implant that the percentage would
increase with the passage of time. Additional studies need to be
conducted, but don't hold ! your bre ath for the manufacturers of
microchips to conduct such research and be leery of any such "research"
they may conduct. Even the limited research available clearly indicates
that implantation of microchips within an animal is gambling with the
animal's well being.

For additional Information:
www.vetpathology.org
also
National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health,
or just google for "sarcomas associated with implanted microchips".

 

NOPE, mark of the beast!

if we all condone microchipping our dogs it wont be long before we are all microchipped!

 

I don't agree with license. ( formal permission from a governmental or other constituted
authority to do something )

 

*sigh* microchipping kids, we are always looking for some reason to be afraid of the "government" lmao

I do microchip my dogs, for permanent identification purposes. I do not usually register them, but I keep the numbers on file. If I lose one, I would call and pay the registration. I think it is an excellent means of permanent identification.

Mistakes happen, and even the most perfect of us may lose a dog sometimes. I don't personally keep anything I wouldn't want to have back if it got away.

 

Good way to prove ownership should your dog be stolen or an ownership dispute arise.

 

well it helped return my cousins lost boxer after a year that they had stole him from them so I do see a benefit in this yet more of a negative impact because I don't agree with implants of any kind within myself or my dogs.

 

I agree. A friend of mind saw someone walking her stolen dog. He said it was his dog and the chip proved it was her dog and she got it back. \


Besides that It is kind of useless.

 

No need to microchip, i can keep track of my animals and indenify them on my own... i can contain my dog on my own and don't need any outside help to grab my dog for me and indenfiy him as my own.

 

No microchip here and never will :cool:

 

Those of you that support it...let's see if you still feel that way in 10 years. Don't you love the way the current health care proposal got voted down not once, but now twice and now Nancy Palosy and Obama want to "deem" it into law without passing a vote depite the fact that America overall doesn't support these 2000 page proposal with a lot of hidden content...and rush it through to force it down onto our lives, meanwhile politicians are unconstitutionally EXEMPT from this "public option."

People need to learn more about the constitution before we give our rights entirely away to a much too large govenment that is now buting controlling interest in supposed to be PRIVATE bamks and business. Yet, I and those like me are "needlessly worried about government." The fact is I prefer to care for myself and to give to those I choose to help when I see needs from others instead of having a government take care of me or tell me which special interest group I am taxed for. I suugest you get an education on why we have a constitution.

 

Sorry about the typing errors. I posted that from my blackberry.

That should have stated "buying controlling interest..." not "buting."

I think everyone can make out the other errors ok...sunh as bamks being banks and suugest being suggest. My bad.

 

ok lets be honest, the main reason to chip a dog is if you live in an area with high crime and you have the risk of the dog being stolen. i know a lot of us would be crushed if our dogs got stolen. other than that i cant think of any reason to put lo-jack on a dog.

 

Oh no need for a excuse or reason to be wary of big government, By the sounds of things I would say you fall into the sheeple category. Which if you feel safe and think they will always take care of you then good for you, But when things get to a certain point your not going to be looking for folks that think the way you do.

And to both of you I say that there are two forms of permanent identification that can accomplish about the same thing without being chipped and tracked, You can tattoo the dog or you can brand them. And before you both start hooting and hollering about branding, There is a cold brand method that is painless and causes no harm. You can also make the brand the proper size to suit the animal be it from a longhorn bull all the way down to a chihuahua.

And also remember they get you used to the idea they want using animals first, Then they "Transition" or find the "Benefits" and it crosses over to people.

Prime examples of this are:

(1) Cloning

(2) In-vitro fertilization

(3) Genetically engineered feed

And most recently it has turned over to this microchiping mess, But now the microchips are not as good as these new RFID's that they are pushing for cattle ranchers to put in all their livestock so they can keep track of their cattle and streamline paperwork and such. I know of this firsthand due to people from the USDA coming out to a cattle ranch I am part owner on trying to sell us on the benefits of the RFID, Not only would it help around the ranch but during the trucking, Delivering, Slaughter of our cattle and all the way down to which stores they are headed to and how they are selling our meat, "From conception to digestion you will know what your animals are doing and so will we" was their exact words. And what alarmed me most was the lady from the USDA stated that they are going to start implementing them in your ID's and even down to your grocery shopping within the next 10 years.

So just think about that for a minute before you try and say we need a "reason" to be wary of government and the like.

 

Hate the idea myself and swore I would never do it. But its needed if I want to take my dog to Europe so in the chip went.

 

I would much prefer the tattoo option. My boerboel has tattoos inside her ears that I assume she got when in South Africa. But I don't know of anyone who does it around here. And both my dogs were already micro-chipped when I got them. But when I get a new dog, I would rather just tattoo.