Mandatory Microchipping or Tattooing
Unfortunately, due to the first-time bite incident by our AA in June, we recently learned we are required to have Taz micro-chipped (or tattooed) due to his "potentially dangerous" dog status. When I first learned of this, my initial thought was, this might not be such a bad thing - as Microchipping could be helpful since we now live in a much different environment than before and seems to be prevalent.
However, upon further reflection I'm not sure if that's the case. Aside from some concern about rare cases of migrating chips or unlikely event of adverse reaction, I'm bothered by the fact that that this is something we are compelled to do rather than it being our choice to do to prevent a lost dog (i.e. the animal control tracking aspect of it) - especially for a first time offense.
I'm not sure if we really have a choice at this point to do it or not, but it doesn't leave me with an easy feeling. I also feel there were mitigating circumstances surrounding the bite (recently diagnosed thyroid issue, stress/anxiety issues due to relocation & new home), which we've already explained to the hearing officer. We could contest the ruling but the end result could still be the same so I'm not sure if we could get around it.
Any thoughts, input etc would be appreciated. I'm also interested to find out if anyone's dog has had an issue with the chip. Thanks.
However, upon further reflection I'm not sure if that's the case. Aside from some concern about rare cases of migrating chips or unlikely event of adverse reaction, I'm bothered by the fact that that this is something we are compelled to do rather than it being our choice to do to prevent a lost dog (i.e. the animal control tracking aspect of it) - especially for a first time offense.
I'm not sure if we really have a choice at this point to do it or not, but it doesn't leave me with an easy feeling. I also feel there were mitigating circumstances surrounding the bite (recently diagnosed thyroid issue, stress/anxiety issues due to relocation & new home), which we've already explained to the hearing officer. We could contest the ruling but the end result could still be the same so I'm not sure if we could get around it.
Any thoughts, input etc would be appreciated. I'm also interested to find out if anyone's dog has had an issue with the chip. Thanks.
Comments
It sucks that you are being forced to do it, but I think it's generally a good idea to get the dogs chipped.
I'm not familiar with your AC rules, but remember, this is the part of the country where Diana Whipple was mauled to death by Presa Canarios.
This is also part of the country where some people value animals over humans... so that they will try to move/hide a biting dangerous animal that *should* be put down.
The AC has little way of knowing where you with your Akita falls in the range of preventative/responsible dog ownership. They don't know your ethics.
I would ask the AC if there might be a time limit when the potentially dangerous label might expire? ie. If good behavior for 3 years would lift the label, or an assessment visit by the AC would also lift the label?
You're right, it's too bad we don't have a choice in this matter but I do also see the potential benefit of Microchipping so just trying to take everything into consideration. Also, if there is a physical issue with the chip it can be removed so it's not an irreversible process.
There is a time limit exactly as you guessed, 36 months, after which the restrictions can be lifted.
I think what bothers me the most is that today, 2 weeks after the hearing, we get a phone call saying Microchipping will be required as well as a home visit. This wasn't mentioned at all at the hearing OR in the official hearing ruling letter we received yesterday. I'm just not sure if these requirements were decided after the fact, but I suppose we're at the mercy of the city now following the bite incident.
ETA: I chip and register all of my puppies before they leave my home. I know many rescues and breeders do the chips and give the owner the info they need to register it. However, I saw somewhere a statistic (no idea if its true) that 50% chips are unregistered. People just don't mail in the forms. So I do it myself for my own peace of mind so I KNOW its done. Especially if I am putting the pup on a plane, any kind of accident could happen out on the tarmac...
I can't update Mya's info because the place needs the original owners permission to update the info on "Mia". It's been a headache, but if she were registered to me and got lost, at least I know that someone can't just pick her up and change her info saying that they are the new owner.
Did they take the tattoo option off the table? If not, what do they want to put and where do they want to put it? In the unlikely event that Taz's body rejects a chip, would they do the tattoo? Shelby and Rosie have tattoos noting their spayed status. I can't see Shelby's because of her hair, but Rosie's is visible. I can post a pic if you want to see. There was really no recovery. I put A+D on it for about 2 days and they healed up and haired over just fine.
I guess I'm saying this to alleviate worries about both options. It still sucks that poor Taz has to go through all this.
As to the home visit, not sure what to say. However, maybe they are concerned about fencing and other "security measures" designed to contain your dog. You might want to look at the home visit from that vantage point. Just a thought. (Those of us with Shibas are familiar with the required security measures to contain the little escape artists!)