Chipped Pets develop fast-growing, lethal tumors

http://www.antichips.com/press-relea...pped-pets.html

Take what you want from the article, the name of the website probally isn't the best to share something like this I'm still thinking about it myself, but thought it was worth the share.

some thing else to worry about...

Do they use the same type chips as here ?

I'm not sure, I hope not.

If you go to the last section before the references there is more info about this topic.

http://www.avma.org/issues/microchip...pping_bgnd.asp

Two out of millions? Our 9 year old Sampson is microchipped as all the dogs in the dog guide program have been for a long time. I am not sure what brand, we don't have the paper work transferring the chip to my name yet. None of the dogs I am familiar with in the program have had tumors like that. I am sure if the school had to replace very many dogs dieing from such tumors, they would have quit chipping the dogs, advised people to have the chips removed, and removed all the ones from their breeding stock.

In addition, I have been active on many forums for over 10 years and I have never heard of this before. Far too little evidence to panic.

Working in rescue I've seen dogs passing through us that have turned up with no collar or collars with no tags. Those that are chipped can be returned to their owners, those that aren't we advertise "Found" for awhile and then look to rehome them. More often than not they are rehomed. Those are the lucky ones, others land in the pound and if we are too full to get them out it's PTS at the end of their 5 days.

I'd rather take the risk of millions to one with a tumor than risk one of mine going missing and ending up on death row in a pound tbh.

Theres no doubt that chips save lives, but I do think that owners should be able to decide themselves whether they want their dogs done, and weigh up the risks and the benefits of them, but I have heard and seen dogs that have more then one chip, as the chip has migrated, and can't be found, so another gets put in, and tbh I don't think I would at that point.

I do though think that people should hear about the benefits and the risks, as too many people do things like this as a matter of course, and I think that they should be able to weigh things up, and decide about it themselves.

I think that if people are panicked into backing away from micro chipping on the basis of a couple of cases which may or may not have directly been caused by the chip, then it is a huge retrograde step.

Our own newly rehomed little dog came from Ireland, to the Dogs Trust in Evesham. He is elderly and has clearly been used to a loving and comfortable life - yes, he might have been chucked out because of his medical problems, but conversely being a Jack Russell x he could equally have just run off after a rabbit or gone down a hole. When rescued, a chip would have reunited him with his owners, and if they are indeed missing him dreadfully then it would have saved him and them a great deal of distress. This is just one tiny example, and as has been pointed out, many other dogs end up being pts.

I myself would always always go with micro chipping - collars can be torn off (or in our little Jimmi's case, he cannot wear his at the moment as he reacted badly to the clippers and alcohol on his neck for his blood test.....still too sore to tolerate a collar).

Hooey I say! Two out of millions, and no real proof that the chip was the actual cause. Still safer to chip than not.