Microchips vs. Tattoos - Page 1

What is everyone's opinion on doing microchipping or tattoos?  We've begun competing in various Schutzhund trials and both our GSDs are currently microchipped but we don't have our own reader.  We are thinking of getting them both tattoos as well becuase as we understand it is much easier to show the tattoo to the appropriate people at trials.  Also, we understand that we must provide the chip reader at trials.  Hoping to get some other input.  Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

Its a good idea to have both,but make sure its a quality tat,too many are very hard to read.

All of my puppies leave home with both a tattoo and microchip.

My puppy has a tattoo, I couldn't read it on a million dollar bet.  Then again I can't read his microchip either.  

I believe in the US any one can tattoo, am I correct??

Where as here in OZ only qualified persons are allowed to do the tattooing, I in fact have never seen a tattoo that I couldn't read.

As from 2012 I believe that tattooing will be fazed out and microchips will be the acceptable form identification but those who wish can still tattoo.

I for one will continue to do both -- not everyone wants or can afford to purchase a chip scanner and I like the fact that I can Identify dogs simply by checking their ear.

I heard that the micro chip will highly cause the dog to have a tumor.

I do both.  The more identification I have to prove it's my dog the better.  Not all microchip readers will read all chips out there.  If you have both on the dogs scorebook then either should work for a trial, so far anyway.....

gsd 101,

Yesterday at the vet practice where I work I was discharging a dog that had a lump removed form his shoulder and the owner asked if his microchip could have been the cause of the said lump as the chip had not been picked up on the scanner for a few years. I would have said possibly but the vet was standing behind me and chirped in with " NO definitely not"

I am not convinced that they don't cause tumours.

My dogs have both.  So far I've just used the tattoo because it doesn't required a reader and seems to be more comfortable for the dog.

I recommend both.

Pros and cons:  Microchips are extremely less invasive than a tattoo.  It only takes a couple of seconds to administer. Microchips are easier to update info such as moving, etc. in case if it gets lost but microchips can shift under the skin or stop reading.  Microchips do not cause tumors.  Many research facilities use microchips to track information on animals both larger animals such as dogs and primates also have tattooes.   They make an extremely small microchips now.  They make them smaller than the tiny pieces of rice designed for mice so it is less invasive.  The average size microchip is administered in a 16 gauge needle and they have them to take telemetry readings.  This is sweet because you can take vital signs of the animal with a scanner and recently with special software wifi.  One company now is making microchips clipped to the ear but only has managed to make them for mice and are working on other species.
What some people don't know is that if someone knows what they are doing.  You can reprogram a microchip to give you a different number. 

Tattooes are nice because you can easily identify the animal if the animal is properly tattooed.  Problems are that different type of inks are designed for different pigment types.  If you are getting animals tattooed ink ask if they use AIMS.  AIMS is by the far the best ink for tattooing.  Make sure the peopel are good at tattooing and using proper ink and make sure the ink is shaken 50 times.  Good tattoo gun and properly sterilized is it important and proper care.  I have seen infections from tattoos.  If they screw up, it is permanant.  Many people don't realize that the type of ink is extremely important.  I have used different types some of them fade after several months to a year.