I’m sure everybody knows what it is, but for those who might have been living under a rock, microchipping involves implanting a small electronic device (roughly the size of a grain of rice) under the skin for identification purposes. Whilst generally considered safe, there are some rare adverse effects possible, and several cat owners in the UK have contacted me recently regarding their concerns associated with this procedure, given that Monday 16th June is when they’re mandatory in the UK for all cats over 20 weeks old.
Some of these concerns stem from the genuine dystopian threat that microchipping represents for people, and I wholeheartedly agree on that front. I will not be accepting the mark of the beast under the skin of my hand or anywhere else for that matter. When it comes to our pets and animals, I think it is far less sinister, not least because no dog/cat/horse is going to be subjected to social scoring controls in the way that people with microchips would be vulnerable to!
Dogs
Microchipping for dogs became mandatory in the UK on April 6, 2016. The Act requires all dogs over the age of eight weeks to be microchipped and their details registered with a government-approved database. This measure was introduced primarily with the aim to help reduce the number of lost and stray dogs and ensure they can be quickly reunited with their owners, especially after events such as road traffic accidents where the dog needs to be identified and is not accompanied by its owner. Not all dogs wear collars with nametags in their house, and so escapee identification could only occur if the local vet or other person recognised the dog and knew who it belonged to. Microchipping has also facilitated dogs going abroad on Pet Passports very much more easily than they used to. This requires the certifying veterinarian to be able to definitively identify an individual dog as having been administered certain vaccinations and medications in order to complete the Health Certificate required for travel. Some dogs are more identifiable based on their coat colour markings, but others would be impossible to identify on this alone, and people have in the past, and would try to beat the system for whatever reason.
Cats
This is very much the parallel situation that comes into law this coming Monday 16th June in the UK for cats. The vast majority of owners do not let cats wear collars outside for fear of getting caught up and trapped/strangled when pushing through undergrowth or climbing trees etc. Making the microchipping of cats compulsory brings cats into line with dog legislation, and my only surprise is that it took this long for it to happen. It does mean however that veterinarians are obliged to check pet microchips very much more frequently than currently goes on routinely at all consultations where procedures are carried out, and medications given. Veterinarians are required to get permission for treatment from the registered owner. This doesn’t mean any one of the three other people the cat has adopted in the neighbourhood in order to get more food!
Horses
Horses used to be identified just from the colour, markings and whorl positions but compulsory microchipping came into force on 1st October 2020, although it had been in use for very much longer. There are very good reasons why the rest of the horse passport should still be completed too, but they often aren’t it seems. This can lead to devious practices, especially when it’s possible (or was) to order duplicate microchips – supposedly to replace one that stops working. It doesn’t take great imagination to see other dodgy and illegal uses too.
Check your animal microchips
Unfortunately, as with most systems, those who want and will do anything to bypass and/or abuse it, will. The vast majority who have no such thought or intention get caught up in the cross-fire when errors occur and things go wrong. I have encountered enough mistakes on Kennel Club ownership certificates to encourage people to make sure the microchip number on your paperwork match the microchip number in your pet. Even if there is one digit error, producing paperwork for your dog/cat/horse that doesn’t match your dog/cat/horse effectively proves to the police or whoever that you do NOT own that animal, even when it’s glaringly obvious from all other angles that you do. It’s not a situation you want to discover when it’s too late. It would be psychologically traumatic for all involved, including your pet. Check your animal’s microchip(s) today!
Adverse occurrences
Having said that adverse reactions are possible, they are very rare. Here are the possible adverse effects:
Infection and Inflammation should not result provided the microchip equipment is kept clean, a new needle is used every time and the site where it is being injected is properly cleaned too. There will be some minor inflammation of the skin from the needle wound itself, but this should be minimal. Deeper tissues will inevitably be damaged and get similar minor inflammation that should resolve in only a few days. Animals may show some irritation for a day or 2 but this usually settles down. There is no long term study or evidence that I’m aware of that microchips have had any adverse impact on longevity or overall health in any other body system.
The discomfort from being administered at such a young age isn’t necessarily the best introduction to a veterinary experience, and may potentially create issues in future, although I don’t know how much this might have been studied. It wouldn’t necessarily be an easy study to keep tabs on all the animals.
Given that even the mini microchips have to be delivered through a hypodermic needle, the needle bore is such that I don’t think puppies/kittens should be chipped until as close to the 8 week age (dogs) or 20 week (cats) mark as possible. I’ve encountered situations where a puppy being sold abroad was microchipped at only a couple of days old so that the export paperwork and vaccinations could be started so that the puppy could go to the new owner asap. It’s like sticking a javelin into a baby as far as I’m concerned and should not be allowed.
Microchip circuitry is made with silicon and copper encased in a special glass/polymer that is designed to be inert. Having said that, it is nevertheless a foreign body and reactions can occur however rarely.
People worry that the microchip emits constant EMFs but it doesn’t – it works on an induced current from the reader that is very transitory and of negligible effect from that perspective.
Microchips can move from the original implantation site, leading to difficulty in locating it during scanning. It happens more often than people are often told. Some microchips supposedly have ridges to try to reduce his happening, but ridges also give grip to facilitate moving too as far as I’m concerned. Dogs and cats are usually chipped into their scruff, but I’ve frequently found microchips over the ribcage, occasionally in a front leg and even once in a back leg! I’ve only ever heard of one that migrated into a joint, but that is incredibly rare and out of the thousands of dogs I must have checked microchips for I’ve only heard of it the once.
There have been rare reports of tumours forming at the microchip implantation site, although this is not a well-established risk. I would suggest that any such tumour in the scruff area is far more likely the result of a vaccination than from the microchip.
The only other problem with microchips that I’ve encountered is failure to be read. Occasionally, a batch of chips stops working, and another one is required. Odd ones may be faulty for some reason. If not inserted properly under the skin it could fall out, but that’s human error on the part of the person putting it in, and not an inherent problem of the microchip itself.
Expense
It’s an additional expense coming up for cat owners of course, especially for multicat households which I think are possibly more common and with bigger numbers than with dogs. At least with dogs now, they’ve hopefully been chipped individually over time to spread the cost out rather than the one big bill for all cats of multiple ages that multicat households are now facing as of this coming Monday. My advice would be to contact those who are professional microchippers in your area to hammer out the best deal you can! Hopefully they’ll come to you too which is less stressful for you and the cats compared with driving them en masse to somewhere such as a veterinary practice to be done.
Database maintenance
In cases of lost or stolen pets, the effectiveness of the microchip relies on databases being kept up to date with current owner information. Over many years, maintaining accurate records can become a challenge.
Animals that live with people who move frequently may find their new address has not been updated, or the phone number/email has changed for the owner, or when pets have to be rehomed the database isn’t informed. In some cases, it costs less to rechip the animal and start again than update an existing database, which means you can have more than one active microchip in an individual. It’s easy to see potential problems with this situation, apart from the trauma of having to have another microchip injected with a big needle.
Summary
Overall, I think the benefits of microchipping animals outweigh the possible downsides, certainly for those who have every intention to be law-abiding. More animals need to be reunited with their owners than ways in which the system is abused. All systems are open to abuse of course, but this is true whether microchipping occurs or not. To date I’ve not seen anything that concerns me regarding the use of microchips and that data that makes me regret having had Boots microchipped, although his was put in the day before it became mandatory!
There’s a bit of me that wonders if microchipping animals is part of the intended plan to value/monetise all aspects of nature to underpin currencies, but time will tell on that one. It’s a proposed way for Governments to justify the continual increase of currency, but I think it has elements of control and corruption intentions no doubt too through dodgy accountancy practices.
Whether this opens the door for the WHO to interfere with our pets through their One Health idea I guess it’s possible too, but if it comes to that I think the Government could try to interfere without the existence of microchips just as much. Hopefully nothing along those lines will come to pass. If they are unwise enough to try it, there will be thousands, if not millions who will resist, I have no doubt. If I see it coming, I’ll let you all know, so keep subscribing!
Resources
Plan to monetise nature: https://americanstewards.us/natural-assets-monetizing-the-air-we-breathe/
Nice to meet you yesterday at WCFH Roger!
My fear with WHO and microchipping, lies with the increased ‘panic’ at vet practices over brucella canis as it can be spread to humans - at work we now insist all dogs who’ve come from abroad or visited in last 2 years must be tested before we see them. Of course I have my worries over the accuracies of such tests, after the plandemic PCRs.
Heard a horror story of a pet hospitalised with brucella canis that resulted in all the animals at the practice at the time being PTS, so can’t help but worry this may be an animal depopulation agenda at play.
Imagine if the microchips were able to detect other pets that an infected animal had been in close proximity to, a la covid ‘exposure notifications’. Doesn’t bear thinking about! Hopefully I’m worrying over nothing 😬
Thanks once again Roger. The introduction was primarily to help reduce the number of lost and stray dogs. Has this been shown to be the case, thereby reuniting owners with their dogs and catching those who just get rid of their animal by letting in loose in public? I have been owned by my cats, in the past (all now sadly passed on), which roamed freely in the countryside and gardens for 17+ years, always returning home for me to dutifully care for them. I am still not convinced that chipping has solved any of the perceived problems for which they are apparently intended. Are pets which have been stolen or lost more often than not returned to their owners, because chipping has been successful?