Mandatory Microchipping or Tattooing

edited August 2014 in General
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.

Comments

  • Three of my dogs have chips, two with AVID and one with whatever Shigeru @TheWalrus had put into Katana when I imported him. I have never had a problem with the chips, they are still where they were put, no tumors or whatever.
    It sucks that you are being forced to do it, but I think it's generally a good idea to get the dogs chipped.
  • Welcome to the nanny state of California. :-/

    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?

  • @ Losech - thanks for your feedback. It's good to know that your dogs haven't had any issues with the chips whatsoever.

    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.
  • @ ayk - Yes, you do have valid points and I certainly can understand the city's role in balancing public safety vs. individual privilege to own/keep a potentially dangerous dog. We had the chance to explain what measures we had taken & other forthcoming preventative steps at the hearing, including working with a behaviorist and trainer, crating when guests are over, using harness and muzzle when we take Taz out. We presented documentation and photos (such as the crate we have since set up after the incident). But I understand that there is no way for AC to know if we will follow through down the line.

    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.
  • edited August 2014
    I've chipped something like 20 of my own animals and puppies I bred. Zero issues. I'm a die hard fan of micro-chipping. I know being told to do something, regardless what it is and if its something you agree with or not, can be difficult to swallow. I sympathize. But if it took this incident lighting a fire under you to get the micro-chipping done, in my opinion it is a good thing.

    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...
  • Both Mya and Shelby are chipped. Mya has a little bald dot where the chip is, and I can't find a visible spot where Shelby was chipped. We've had no problems. I registered Shelby, but Mya wasn't my dog originally, and her first owner registered the chip to her... I've been unable to change that because I can't find the lady anymore. She changed her number and moved.
  • So my whole comment didn't post.
    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.
  • I chip around 50 dogs a year. No problems so far, other than one chip that disappeared.
  • What I know they use nowadays (at least here in Finland) chips that clip to the tissue so that they don't migrate.
  • @keroline33- Microchip your dog and register the microchip. One of the first things any animal control agency looks for is a microchip for a dog (or cat). Most agencies will do their level best to track down the owners using the microchip information. Companies that do microchipping (such as Home Again) send out notices of lost dogs/cats to vets, etc. We've had lost Shibas in our area returned to their owners because they were microchipped.

    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!)

  • I've worked as a vet tech for years and have never have a reaction to a chip. Sometimes they move around a little bit (migrate) but they are still safely underneath the skin, maybe just a little to one side rather than in the middle, lol. Both of my girls are chipped, my parents' dogs are chipped and my friend just got his new puppy chipped! I don't agree with them forcing you, but there's nothing to fear!
  • It's mandatory to chip puppies here before you can register them. There are about 50000 dogs registered in finland every year and I have never heard of any reactions to chips.. I would assume it's safe to do.
  • Sachi was chipped before I got her (in Japan) but it has migrated. So when I got her I had her rechipped. We have not had issues with the migration or the re-chip. Nikki's I can feel has moved to her shoulder, but it doesn't bother her at all. I do feel that we are the exception to the rule. My vet has mentioned that its not very common.
  • I have one dog whose chip migrated to lower than the shoulder. I can't read it with my small scanner, but vets with the big loop scanners can.
  • Yeah, it's not common for the chips to reject or migrate. I was a groomer for years and people often tell us the entire history of their dog's health. Only 1 or 2 owners mentioned a migrating or rejected chip, and I believe both dogs were chipped by inexperienced volunteers at a rescue agency (not the best place... they would chip dogs in the bathroom of the Petsmart I worked at).
Sign In or Register to comment.