If you think microchipping & other mandatory junk is safe and protects your pets then read this…
By Shadrach on Jun 15, 2007 in Natural Dog & Cat Health
Grrrrrr, hackles raised up into the neck wrinkles here, WOOF! Think that this easy, safe microchipping is all about protecting us animals - better think again! I can’t stand this human poop anymore…I’m going to have to go to sleep and dream nice dog dreams for a change… I’m in a BlueDog State of mind ALL the time, WOOF!
Outsourcing Pet Owner Privacy for Profit
Hip, hip, hooray for ARIZONA - you guys could teach NM a lesson in sanity!!!
Arizona First State To Prohibit Mandatory Animal Identification
NAIS - PA Farmer Files First Lawsuit Challenging Mandatory Premises Registration & ID
MICROCHIP IMPLANTS CAUSE FAST-GROWING, MALIGNANT TUMORS IN LAB ANIMALS
Have a pawsitively tail waggin, microchipLESS, remain free day, WOOF!
Bark ‘N’ Blog is brought to you by Aspenbloom Natural Pet Care
RSS feed
3 Comment(s)
By Carol on Jun 20, 2007 | Reply
Hmmm… Well, I’m going to have to disagree with you on the microchipping thing. Political ramifications aside, it was a microchip that brought our stolen dog home to us after almost two years. More importantly perhaps was that this same microchip enabled us to prove ownership on this same dog.
So, it might not be perfect, but every single dog in my house has one by five weeks, and always will.
You can read about Ruby’s return here:
http://bullmarketfrogs.com/articles/ruby.htm
Mandatory microchipping might be - and indeed probably is - a civil liberties issue, but I can’t see why anyone wouldn’t want to use every tool possible to bring home their pet.
Carol
By Shadrach on Jun 20, 2007 | Reply
Hi Carol,
What I’m against is microchipping being mandatory -this is a civil liberty choice and should remain so. Also microchipping is known to cause cancer at the site of injection. Here is a little bit of reading for you. I don’t discount the dogs that are returned home, yours is a case in point and I understand why many are for this. I have other reasons I’m against it but I won’t go into that here and turn this into an entirely different discussion. I am against “mandatory” - it should be a choice as part of our freedoms or are we still free? Also this blog is all about dog health, and if this is causing cancer, why would I want to do this?
http://www.Noble-Leon.com
http://www.louisville-pets.com/microchip_cancer_study.html
http://aspenbloompetcare.com/2007/04/to-microchip-or-not-to-microchip.htm
Have a tail waggin’ day!
Kim & Shadrach
By Carol on Jun 20, 2007 | Reply
Hi Kim:
I was aware of the Leon case, but still am not convinced that it wasn’t related to vaccines, as opposed to his chip. I’ve known of several Frenchies who had adverse reactions to inoculations, including site fibroids, cysts and fibrosarcomas. I also can’t conceive of doing both a chipping and shots on the same day, and can’t imagine a responsible vet who would not only do so, but use the same injection site.
At any rate, my point was that while I am against mandatory anything - be that inoculations or microchips - I still am convinced that chips do more good than harm. I’ve been chipping my dogs since 1992, and other than a migration in a first generation chip I had implanted in one of my mastiffs, I’ve never had an issue.
Collars can be removed, tattoos fade or can’t be traced to their registries, but chips are easily implanted, easily updated, and becoming universally accepted. For us they are the right choice, although I always respect that this might not be true for others.
Carol