anart said:
I'm not equating the two, I doubt the chips are as dangerous, but I also doubt they're harmless. It's probably a percentage game as always, most animals don't get sick, some do
I agree, it's a numbers game to me too in a way. Which is my animal more likely to be threatened by? Loss and/or separation, or the chip? From what little information I was able to dig up, approx 10 million dogs and cats had been chipped (worldwide) when I got the goats their chips. There were about 300 reported cases of adverse effects (mostly minor irritations) out of that 10 million, with 2 deaths from tumors possibly from the chip, but those were iffy because between the shoulder blades is also a vaccination site?
I balanced that against the chance that they could stray, be chased to the other side of the mountain by a predator, etc. I don't have any stats for pet loss, but not a week goes by that I don't see flyers up for a lost animal. Not just dogs and cats either, goats, pigs, even a horse (which was found)
Lilly was chipped when she was about 4, for the same reasons ...fear of loss as opposed to fear of side effects from the chip. With her, the fear was of theft more than anything else. She's 1/2 Rott and 1/2 German Sheppard, and a beautiful dog. Her breed/type was often the target of theft where we used to live.
These are hard choices, but with the info I've currently got, I think one of my babies has a MUCH higher chance of straying and injured by a predator, or a car, than they do of being sickened by the chip. Now I could be wrong, I know that, but with so many animals winding up at animal control, with no way to identify them ...I'm hoping I made the right call?
It wasn't a decision I had to make with my new kittie, she was already chipped when I adopted her, all I had to do was change the registration information. I don't know if I would have had her chipped or not since she shows NO desire to go outside, but it was a moot point.