Microchips and evaluating the risk
By Gina Spadafori
January 11, 2008
My former Sacramento Bee colleague Cynthia Hubert, a lifelong animal-lover and wonderful reporter, sent me an e-mail a while back asking about cancer and microchips.
Her report is out now, and it’s very well done, setting the cancer risks in proper perspective and looking at the more important issue, not of cancer but of the battle for market share among chip-makers that’s risking far more lives:
Suddenly, “microchipping” of pets has acquired something of a bad name.
Competing chip makers, each claiming their product is superior. Scanners incapable of detecting all chips, causing beloved animals to linger in shelters or be sent to death row. And, perhaps most alarming of all, a reported link between microchips and cancer in dogs and laboratory rats.
Pet owners who have long believed microchips to be the best insurance against losing their animals are understandably confused.
To chip or not to chip?
Most mainstream veterinarians say microchipping pets still makes sense.
They argue that the cancer claims are overblown and that flaws in the chipping system are outweighed by the potential benefits that the technology offers.
[...]
Some veterinarians [say] research failed to show a direct link between microchips and cancer, that studies on rats and mice cannot be accurately translated to dogs and cats, and that the number of dogs found to have cancer was too small to be significant.
“I guarantee you that the risk of your pet getting lost and never found is far higher than the risk of cancer,” says [Dr. Kate] Hurley [of the University of California, Davis]. “This is absolutely not an issue.”
[...]
The reported cancer threat is a far smaller concern, [Sacramento SPCA Director Rick] Johnson and others insist, than the lack of a “universal scanner” capable of reading microchips from all manufacturers. Currently, each manufacturer has its own scanner, which may not be able to detect a competitor’s microchips.
“All of these companies want to claim a technology advantage, and in the end all that they’re doing is harming the public,” says Paul Pion of the Veterinary Information Network in Davis. “Every scanner should be capable of reading every chip, but that’s not happening because of political issues and marketing issues.”
I’m quoted in there, too, as is our Dr. Marty Becker. All our pets are chipped — and carry ID tags. The cancer findings make sense when it comes to not legislating MANDATORY chipping for pets — which is part of some mandatory spay-neuter proposals — but pet-lovers need to look at the big picture when deciding how best to protect their animals.
A microchip — once the market-share mayhem is settled, and shame on them all for letting pets die while they fight it out — has been and remains one of the best investments you can make for the life of your pet.
***
And speaking of shelters … tip of the hat to Terrierman for the 2006 statistics on the death chambersshelter run by PETA:
In 2006, PETA took in 1030 dogs surrendered by owners and 11 strays, with 2 dogs carried over from the last few days of the previous year. A total of 25 dogs were transferred to other facilities, 8 dogs were adopted out, and 988 were euthanized.
For those who want a short cut to the math, that means PETA killed 95 percent of the dogs admitted to their shelter, transferred 4 percent to somewhere else, and adopted out less than 1 percent. Of the remaining 6 dogs, three “died in the facility” (unexplained) and three others are mysteriously allocated to “miscellaneous,” which may mean their disposition was rolled over into the next calendar year.
Here’s the link to the numbers. Why does anyone still consider these anti-pet fanatics as experts on humane issues? And why is any pet-lover still sending them money? (Much less turning over an animal!)
I spoke to my vet about microchips. She said that the biggest problem she had with them is that shelter workers in our area seem to have an aversion to scanning for them!
She told me about the shelters where she donated her services and how when she would ask for a scanner, they would invariably bring her a new-in-box scanner (one still sealed) that obviously didn’t see much use. When asked about it, they would shrug and say that it was “just not something they do”. They HAD the scanners, they just weren’t USING them!
Hopefully shelter reform will bring higher compliance rates for scanning for chips.
Comment by mikken — January 11, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Someone who doesn’t care enough about animals to check for a microchip before a pet is euthanized should not be working in a shelter.
But then … it goes back to shelters with policies that favor clean, empty cages over adoptions.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 11, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Comment by mikken — January 11, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
“they would shrug and say that it was “just not something they do”. They HAD the scanners, they just weren’t USING them!”
Well of course not! If they scanned, they might actually find a chip. And then - horrors! - they’d have to actually expend some EFFORT towards locating the owner!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 11, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
There is TOO MUCH FOCUS ON MICROCHIPS. I will come to that in a minute.
First, and just to be redundant, let me explain relative risk.
Anything done to the body *can* and does increase the chance of tumors and/or cancer. This includes: piercing your ears, getting a vaccine, surgery, and even a hard bump to the leg (believed to be one of the leading causes of cancer to the leg).
Vaccines *can* cause tumors in rare circumstance, just as a tree *can* fall on you while you walk down the sidewalk. In practice, you have to balance risks, and in this case it is NOT a hard risk to balance.
We give vaccines because disease is about a million times more likely than a vaccine-initiated tumor. Hormonal implants (Norplant) for birth control can cause tumors as well, but pregnancy is about 100,000 times more likely to kill you than a tumor from a birth control rod implant. Ditto for microchips, which basically use even safer technology (inert silicate glass rather than a plastic that leaches out a hormone).
So get your dog microchipped. Case closed.
That said, microchips are NOT the best and first line of defense for a lost dog or cat.
A collar with a slide tag is.
Now let me say a little something about collars, because I feel VERY strong about this: DO NOT GET A “BREAK AWAY” collar.
Sorry, but folks that tell you dogs and cats routinely get hung up on their collars are talking COMPLETE NONSENSE.
This is a false fear.
My dogs go routinely go UNDERGROUND in VERY tight holes (smaller than a soup can), run thick brush piles at full bore, scramble over rocks, slide under wire fences, and are in the field ALL THE TIME.
A dog getting its collar is NOT a real risk problem to be worried about.
A collar coming off of your dog IS.
A “break away” collar is one that will “break away” when you do NOT want it to. These things are the stupidest things ever made, and in my opinion they ought to be illegal.
Let me rephrase this because I feel it is that important: Your dog is more likely to be eaten by a shark than it is to get caught by its collar and starve because it could not be found (the horror scenario routinely tossed around).
What WILL kill your dog is if it is left loose for a long time, far from you, and/or no one knows how to reach you if they find the dog.
That chance increases EXPONENTIALLY, with or wihtout a tattoor or microchip, if your dog or cat does not have a collar AND tag.
DO NOT COUNT ON A TATTOO AND A CHIP. They are a back up plan. The collar and tag are the MAIN PLAN.
Yes, get a microchip and tatooo by all means, but get a NYLON collar with a solid snap couple and put a SLIDE TAG on there FIRST . Put your home phone, your cell phone, your street address, and your email on that collar. Your web site too if you have one.
And DO NOT use a dangle tag — they come off because the holes wear out, and the rings break or bend. GET A SLIDE TAG.
I have a bit more on Microchips, Tattoos & Tags at >> http://www.terrierman.com/micr.....tattoo.htm including the phone numbers to call if you find a dog with a tattoo. I also give two sources for slide tags.
I may need to update this page — it’s been up unchanged for a number of years — but the core information is still good.
Patrick
Comment by PBurns — January 11, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
Let’s not forget a chips value in proving a dog is yours in court if needed. (Fido get’s loose and then found by a family who decides to keep him instead of looking for an owner.) Let’s face it, a photo just won’t cut it especially if you ahve a purebred or popular cross bred dog.
Comment by Marie — January 11, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
I’m with you, Patrick. Love the slide tags. I order from Boomerang.
Usually, I think my dogs are at low risk for being lost. My dog yard is double-fenced on three sides, and the fourth side is the neighbor’s yard.
Until last Friday. If I hadn’t been home sick, who knows what would have happened when 80 feet of fencing blew down in my yard and almost all of my neighbor’s yard, too. I’m sure most of the dogs (the Sheltie wouldn’t have gone out in the rain!) would have been out the dog ramp and over two layers of down fence in a flash.
Tags. Microchips. And make sure your information is CURRENT!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 11, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Sorry Patrick, can’t agree with you on the breakaway collars.
Dogs who roughhouse with each other are the greatest risk for collar accidents in my experience. We had a Lab and a mixed breed (~60lbs) screwing around when one dog got his lower jaw caught in the other dog’s collar. As he tried to free himself, it twisted and both dogs panicked.
We had three adults in the room and it took ALL of us to get them apart. If we hadn’t been right there, things would have been bad. In this scenario, often one dog ends up strangled, the other one with a broken jaw.
We had another incident where I came home to find the little terrier girl “naked”. I found her collar (breakaway, now) hanging from the recliner chair’s lever arm. The dogs must have been chasing each other around when her collar got snagged on the chair. No one was home and she *might* have freed herself just fine on her own, but then again, she might not have. She might have twisted it enough to kill herself. Fortunately, with the breakaway, it wasn’t an issue I had to worry about.
Maybe breakaways don’t work for you, but they sure as heck work for me! I’ll never go back to regular collars. And I’m sure that breakaway collars work for others as well - especially anyone who has lost a dog to a collar accident (http://www.breakawaycollar.com/yourdog.cfm).
Comment by mikken — January 11, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
I’ve been horrified by how many SPCA shelters in PA refuse to scan lost pets — even though they have the scanners!
I’ve had to get nasty with two different county SPCA shelters (ie, going up the chain to the Director) because the employees refused to scan cats — in Chester County, they refused to scan because “we only scan as a back-up to prove that it’s your pet” (Chester County is the wealthiest county in PA — once word got out about THAT, the employees backpedalled furiously because the wealthy DO expect service! and in Montgomery County, they simply told my friend “this cat matches your description — why don’t you just take him?” (No one wanted to answer the question — if you don’t scan him, how do we know this isn’t someone ELSE’s cat?????)
Collar with tag for any pet that goes outside — it’s just too risky otherwise.
Comment by Dorene — January 11, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
Comment by Dorene — January 11, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
You know, that’s just insane. Once they’ve got the scanners (which is expensive, fair enough) it takes maybe 60 seconds to use it to scan a pet. (Make it two minutes if they have to use two scanners to look for different types of microchips.)
Why on earth wouldn’t they do that? Even if they don’t care about reuniting the pet and the owner - and BTW, I still believe the vast majority of shelter workers are good folks who’d prefer to see that happen - two minutes of checking could save the shelter days of $$$ for room and board. Not to mention euthanasia and disposal.
So why wouldn’t they try it? I’m not being disingenuous - I just really don’t get it. I wonder whether the county commissioners would, either.
Comment by LauraL — January 11, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
Ummm… in a couple of these last few topics I find myself getting confused. There seems to be a doubling up of subjects. Here, we have first microchips and then the BS PETA numbers.
It would be very helpful if like the one on Mitt/Mutt Romney we could have seperate threads for them.
For me the hot topic is PETA.
I recall blogging there during the Menu debacle that the allegations from “Dr.” Fox were extraordinarily bogus and a grossly overly complicated conspiricy fantasy. As in Achem’s Razor I argued, the simplest explanations tend to be the mostly likely answer. I never heard a retraction from Fox once the real truth came out. The folks here did a much better job of getting to the truth than the vaunted Doc.
Here again is PETA and once again as with the German polar bear nonsense, dead is a pretty good option for “Ethical Treatment”. Yeah, right.
Fox and the PETA nuts remind me of that Heaven’t Gate bunch that had themselves neutered and then drank the kool-aid while wrapped in purple sheets so that the flying saucer would know how to ID them when it came for the great awakening.
If only someone would hand Fox a glass of kool-aid your lost pets might have a better chance of being restored to you. Fruitcakes!
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — January 11, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
To LauraL: — I have no idea why the two counties around me have such lousy policies — I think it goes back to Winograd talking about leadership and how a Shelter Director that actually expects accounability from a paid workforce can make a huge difference.
The stink in Chester County does seem to have made a difference — they seem to be a little quicker to pull out the scanner now than they were (a friend actually got his dog back when it got loose, got picked up and was actually scanned!), but Montco seems intractable, while Berks (which of the three, I would expect would take the least interest) actually scans and calls immediately (maybe that PA Dutch thrift means getting those animals home quickly so that the shelter doesn’t have to house/feed them! ;-D)
The problem is, scanning seems to be such a crap shoot, when it should be the first thing a shelter does with a lost pet. So, collar and tag your pets and ASK what the policy is at a shelter (and do a little observation) before pulling out the checkbook for donations.
Comment by Dorene — January 12, 2008 @ 9:39 am
Hey Gina, I took your advice and ordered some Boomerang slide tags for my dogs. In addition to being nice, they got here fast. Thanks for the tip!
Comment by LauraS — January 17, 2008 @ 11:03 pm