RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner
41 - 60 of 67 Posts
(I know several ‘vets’ who will not chip a Golden because of such fears and the inclination to lymphatic type tumors/cancers).

The electric shock can cause the chip to “short out” and thus become rendered useless.

Are these true and if so has anyone ever had a problem with the ecollar messing up the chip?
 
.....This system would not have to be "government controlled". It does not even have to be a "law" with fines or punishments attached for 'non-compliance'.....
When SSN's were first assigned, they had nothing to do with your bank account, drivers license, criminal record, military service record, or credit score.


.....Simply, the AKC can issue the ID number when application for registration is made. The owner can choose whether or not to use it.
They already do give you a registration number.
 
Discussion starter · #43 ·
Steph (1st retriever),
Most RFID tags contain at least two parts. One is an integrated circuit for storing and processing information, modulating and demodulating a radio-frequency (RF) signal, and other specialized functions. The second is an antenna for receiving and transmitting the signal.
There are generally two types of RFID tags: active RFID tags, which contain a battery, and passive RFID tags, which have no battery. (used in dogs).

When I unpack, I can supply reports from research done up to date.
However here are two links meanwhile.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090800997_pf.html

“Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors by Todd Lewan 9/8/07 Washington Post

Published in veterinary and toxicology journals between 1996 and 2006, the studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous "sarcomas" _ malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants.
_ A 1998 study in Ridgefield, Conn., of 177 mice reported cancer incidence to be slightly higher than 10 percent _ a result the researchers described as "surprising."
_ A 2006 study in France detected tumors in 4.1 percent of 1,260 microchipped mice. This was one of six studies in which the scientists did not set out to find microchip-induced cancer but noticed the growths incidentally. They were testing compounds on behalf of chemical and pharmaceutical companies; but they ruled out the compounds as the tumors' cause. Because researchers only noted the most obvious tumors, the French study said, "These incidences may therefore slightly underestimate the true occurrence" of cancer.
_ In 1997, a study in Germany found cancers in 1 percent of 4,279 chipped mice. The tumors "are clearly due to the implanted microchips," the authors wrote.

Dr. Cheryl London, a veterinarian oncologist at Ohio State University saw a need for a 20-year study of chipped canines "to see if you have a biological effect." Dr. Chand Khanna, a veterinary oncologist at the National Cancer Institute, also backed such a study, saying current evidence "does suggest some reason to be concerned about tumor formations."

http://www.antichips.com/cancer/index.html Microchip-Cancer Report
"Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990–2006"
by Katherine Albrecht, Ed.D.
Released November 19, 2007

Dr Charles Bortell Ph.D. (Charlie)
 
Here's a question. In a scheme where AKC issues database numbers, whether AKC numbers are used or some other number, how do you deal with dogs that aren't registered by AKC? You've got all of the other registries, plus designer mutts plus shelter dogs plus pet puppy buyers who don't bother to register.

Amy Dahl
 
Plus dogs such as the one you rescued that was malnourished probably never was vaccinated or ever even treated by a vet, much less registered.
I suggest you contact AKC about your venture and see what their answer is.
 
We have a 10 year old that recently had bloodwork done all levels were normal, microchip was operational when verified for EIC testing. He has had e-collar used. We also have a 6 and 7 year old that are also operational. Adam had them implanted about 5 years ago. I know it was before OFA was done on the 7 year old. They are all operational and all have had e-collar use. We just lost one at the age of 10 to lymphoma. She was microchipped around 2, very little e-collar use was never taken beyond basics. How many dogs without chips get it as well.

As for causing cancer, I used to say they would find a way to say sex caused it. They have done so through the Human Papaloma (sp) Virus causing cervical cancer. So on that note, is the possibe return of your dog worth the possibility of shortening the life by a couple of months?

Alison
 
I read several of the published articles. The quotations given in an earlier post, and the summaries on the antichip site, are misleading. Extremely so.

In the papers I read, the mice and rats affected were either genetically modified to be susceptible to cancer, or inbred strains with a high susceptibility. The general gist of the papers was that if you're using these susceptible animals for toxicity and carcenogicity studies, use of microchip identification can degrade your results (because you lose some of your study animals along the way). Most or all of the papers I read cited studies showing no carcenogicity in mice and rats other than from these susceptible strains.

Some did mention certain physiological changes around the microchip, basically fibrous scar formation, and that it is a general finding that foreign bodies, including prostheses, can become sites of cancer formation in animals in general. Mention was also made of different responses in different species.

So no, it's not a good idea to assume that microchips can NEVER cause a problem. The material that's been cited, however, does not establish that a problem exists in dogs. And I really, really wish that journalists in the popular press (like the writer for the Washington Post) were more circumspect about reporting scientific findings.

Be skeptical, folks. Do not let anyone intimidate you with claims of "science."

Amy Dahl
 
I agree with Amy-lines of lab rats are bred/altered to be more suceptable to cancer.

Also on another note, statistics can "show" different things to different people all using the same data. All depends on what is wanting to be conveyed. Glass half full vs half empty is the same glass with the same amount of water.

Alison
 
Then, after AKC requires all breeders to tattoo pups prior to getting paperwork, lets make certain that the breeder also has a business license and pays sales tax on each puppy sold...........
 
Discussion starter · #51 ·
http://teamchesapeake.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/40660554/m/52610522 - Phil (Red Earth)

Post the above link because interesting DK's also use the same tattooing system.

"Then, after AKC requires all breeders to tattoo pups prior to getting paperwork, lets make certain that the breeder also has a business license and pays sales tax on each puppy sold........... " CBR KAIE

Paul, Again not a mandate!! AKC won't "force" breeders to comply. You merely would be issued a "ID #" when you register your dog. You can choose to use or not the number (tattoo). However, there are many advantages to using one centralized ID on the dog.

"Here's a question. In a scheme where AKC issues database numbers, whether AKC numbers are used or some other number, how do you deal with dogs that aren't registered by AKC? You've got all of the other registries, plus designer mutts plus shelter dogs plus pet puppy buyers who don't bother to register." Amy Dahl

As I said before, purebred dogs only to apply. Also No system will cover every dog. Those that register gain the benefits. Those who choose not to register also lose other benefits (eg AKC, etc) as well so they really don't care

Everyyone is missing the intent and larger picture here.
A ID tattoo assigned by the AKC would be Identification only - not "uncle sam" running your life. Not a "new law" or mandate that AR's can use.
Simply a consistent and across-the-board method to IDENTIFY any dog.
And a method of IMMEDIATE identification. A standardized tool for everyone to use and benefit from.
A "respected person who often posts here" mentioned (elsewhere) that often
people go to "clinics" for OFA/CERF. They "forget" their registration information. Subsequently, they only use their dog's "call name" to assign the info to. This makes tracking info difficult. A simple tattoo ID would allow the clinic to correctly assign the correct information to the correct dog. Period.
Also record keeping becomes simplified. Instead of abcxyz use for OFA, 123789 used for CERF, DM/EIC/CNM etc having yet another number, only one number can correctly alude and address the correct dog. Very clear, concise, and consistent (how we train our dogs too).
Also, proper identification of the dog in situations where it is need to be exact. Lost dog? well, owners can be easily found. Not everyone carries or has access to a "scanner device/reader". Microchips are NOT widespread and universal. Even if they were, again not everyone has immediate access.
Medical emergencies, esp if owner not available and 'new/different' vet treating. Medication allergies? Preexisting conditions? Easy to know with a standardized and uniform system of ID. An ID associated to a dog with info linked to a data base would make every aspect of dog ownership easier.
-Charlie
 
I believe that one of the reasons for the use of Microchips over tattoos was keeping "honest people honest". Ok, so you tattoo a dog with the AKC recommended number, pass all the health tests with said dog, but oh by the way, that particular dog doesn't hunt, mark, or handle. So said owner then places the SAME # on a ringer that CAN hunt, mark, and handle for titles and breeding. Now you have two dogs, same #, could possibly even have the same name (after all, all black labs pretty much look a like!) and a breeding dilemma just waiting to happen. Said owner could be using health cleared dog for some females, titled dog for others, and no one would be the wiser UNTIL/unless pups from supposedly clear stud showed symptoms of EIC or CNM. After all, marking and handling are not guaranteed genetic traits, and who gets the VIP-DNA done on their pups unless there is some question or problem?
You can't fake a microchip, there is only one number for each chip.
 
Hate to tell you Doc but I would care less whether I saw some dog with a set of numbers tattooed on it. I would still want to see the papers form the akc or other related organizations, so would everyone else. So I ask you why would you want all this stuff put on your dog? There is a organization that does all this and there is a way to register your dog incase it gets lost. I just don't see people changeing the way it has been for quite some time now.
 
If going to tattoos, instead of microchips was an improvement over microchips, I could see where you're going with this. Tattoos are not an improvement, but a step backwards. There is no valid research to prove that microchips cause cancer in dogs. And in regards to a chip being rendered useless due to an e-collar, that won't happen if the chip is inserted in the proper place and the collar worn and used correctly on the dog. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
 
And in regards to a chip being rendered useless due to an e-collar, that won't happen if the chip is inserted in the proper place and the collar worn and used correctly on the dog. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Kind of like that episode on Victoria Stillwell where she points to the top of the neck of the bulldog and says he was abused with an electric collar?
My 11 yo still had his microchip in place as did all my other dogs.
 
You can alter a tattoo because they are difficult to read anyway, but you can't alter a microchip. I give out the registration papers with the microchip number on them. I'm not sure I see the point. AKC isn't going to mandate tattoos over microchips. They are the ones that recommended microchips over tattoos because the tattoos couldn't be read on checks. The American Dairy Goat Association always had a rule goats had to be tattooed before registration but I don't see why it can't be microchips.


Excellent point Julie. Non-compliance would be high.
The assumption here is that microchips cannot be altered.

How do you think the data gets onto the chip in the first place?

Probably just like it does any other ROM chip -- with an EPROM burner. Which means it can potentially be fried by another EPROM burner. Bye-Bye old data, hello new data. Even "permanent" chips can be altered -- you can buy an EPROM burner specifically for killing off that "unrefillable" bit on inkjet printers; how hard would it be to rig that unit for altering data on animal microchips?

Not only that, but if someone is that bent on dastardly deeds -- just insert a new chip in another location. Or conveniently forget to scan for ANY chip.

A tattoo may be more likely to fade, but it's harder to ignore, and its removal is rather more obvious.

And a tattoo is a LOT harder to get into a government database, handy for anyone bent on taking away your animals. Confiscating and SELLING legit kennels' dogs as "abused puppy mill victims" has become a popular sport in some areas, and is extremely profitable for shelters and "rescues". Mandated microchips makes that SO much easier, since they already know who has the valuable dogs.
 
Then, after AKC requires all breeders to tattoo pups prior to getting paperwork, lets make certain that the breeder also has a business license and pays sales tax on each puppy sold...........
And what happens when AKC starts handing over your data to animal control?? or worse yet, what if AKC is purchased by HSUS??

(During the PAWS debacle, I began to believe that AKC had already been infiltrated... that they might be purchased outright, given HSUS's massive war chest, is not at all out of the realm of probability.)

As to the cancer issue, I doubt it is significant in dogs; however, ANY chronic irritation can generate a tumour (witness asbestos-caused cancers), so it's worth keeping an eye on just as you would any other small but finite risk. But even at its worst, this is nothing compared to the civil rights aspects.
 
Also record keeping becomes simplified. Instead of abcxyz use for OFA, 123789 used for CERF, DM/EIC/CNM etc having yet another number, only one number can correctly alude and address the correct dog. Very clear, concise, and consistent (how we train our dogs too).
Also, proper identification of the dog in situations where it is need to be exact. Lost dog? well, owners can be easily found.
[...]
Medical emergencies, esp if owner not available and 'new/different' vet treating. Medication allergies? Preexisting conditions? Easy to know with a standardized and uniform system of ID. An ID associated to a dog with info linked to a data base would make every aspect of dog ownership easier.
So, why limit this to AKC dogs? UKC dogs, FDSB dogs, and dogs from other registries get OFAd, CERFed, DNA tested. CERF a dog lately? There are now categories for a long list of doodles. And while I disagree with you on the medical records issue, vets seeming to have such divergent approaches to everything, what makes that worthwhile for an AKC dog but not for a Champion setter or somebody's beloved mutt?

Amy Dahl
 
41 - 60 of 67 Posts