Microchipping - yay or nay?

Is your pet microchipped?

An interesting story caught my attention this week. Interesting, and sad.

Oscar, the dog that blogs, wrote about his friend Molly. She escaped from her family's yard and someone picked her up. This other person kept Molly for about 2 weeks and then gave her to another family. In the meanwhile, Molly's family was searching for her. They finally found the first person who had picked Molly up and contacted her. 

This person would not give Molly's family any information and apparently felt that her family did not deserve to have her back since she wasn't microchipped. This sad case is now possibly going to court. Molly's owners have said they do love her and want her back. Molly's little girls made pleas to get her back. 

What do you think? Do you think that microchipping equals loving your pet? Is it fair to say that if your pet is NOT microchipped and gets lost that you don't deserve to have the pet back? 

For me - I think the lady who found Molly is being very stubborn and not very nice. Dogs do get out of their yards. It's a fact. Microchipping - while a good idea - is not for everyone. Molly's family tried very hard to find her without a microchip. When they did, they couldn't get her back. I hope, especially for the little girls' sake, that Molly gets to come home! 

Watch the news story about Molly here.

--Tammy 

Comments

[Laurel]

I saw this story too Tammy and thought about how upsetting it would be to learn someone had, in fact, rescued your dog only to be judged and prevented from getting your dog back! At the end of the report, they said the family could now charge the woman with theft. It's a shame it would have to come to that.

While I also feel it's a family's responsibility to always be sure their pets are safe (checking fences, never walking off-leash, taking dogs inside cars, not in the backs of pick-ups, etc.) I would never go this far if I was involved in a "rescue."

I hope Molly comes home and I hope the family learns a big lesson about keeping her safe. Both need to happen to be best for Molly.

[turtlecookie]

Oh, geez. There is so much more involved in loving and caring for a pet than whether or not one chooses to microchip. Providing love, food, water, shelter, vet care, etc. are much higher on the list. It is sad the woman who found Molly didn't have the heart to see that the family loved and missed their pet and had taken the effort to find her. Molly did not belong to the rescuer and was not her's to give away. It sounds like it was clear that Molly was not an abused or neglected animal. I don't understand such judgment and it makes me ill. I feel so sad for Molly's true famiiy.

Rica (my dog) is microchipped because she is not reliable on recall, and so is Zip (cat) because he wanders. I chose not to microchip Jazz (cat) because she stays close to the house, though it would probably be a good idea. Also, there is an annual fee (around $15) even after paying for microchipping. While I think microchipping is a good idea, I don't think it's required in the love and care of a pet, and I don't think it's for everyone.

Turtlecoookie

[Ingrid]

A big, unqualified yes to microchipping. Unless things have changed the $15 annual fee is a one time fee to register the chip with the national database. I think microchipping equals peace of mind.

As for the story about Molly, wow. How can anyone be so heartless? I think a lost pet is any pet owner's worst nightmare, and to me, it would be such a joyful thing to be able to help reunite a lost pet with her family (and I might even pay the fee so they could bet the lost pet microchipped). I simply can't fathom what the woman's rationale is to keep Molly from her family.

[Tammy]

I did look up the fees, and it seems that the registration is a one-time fee rather than an annual fee. Now, I think if you move and need to re-register, you may have to pay that fee again, but I'm not sure of that!

The other thing I found out is that there isn't a standard for micro-chipping yet, so not all chips are easily read. So - it isn't a fool-proof way to keep your pet safe. I do think, if I had pets that were outside, I would get them micro-chipped. As my cats never go out, I don't think I will do it with them!

Thanks for all the input on this one. It is a good learning opportunity - I just hope it has a good outcome for Molly and family. I'll try to find updates if they are available.

[Laurel]

Thanks for all the info, everyone. Even though micro-chipping is a good way to be sure pets are returned home, I think the bigger problem is keeping pets safe if they do get out of a yard. Micro-chipping won't do that and I'm guessing that's the woman's gripe about returning Molly.

Tammy, it would be really nice to hear how this case turns out. Thanks for watching out for updates!

[Dana]

I'm very sad to hear about this story too. I really hope that Molly's family will get her back. At our pet hospital, we do a lot of microchipping, but as Tammy said, they're not always relabile. Sometimes the scanner cannot "recognize" the chip so the owner is left with a bad situation.

I think microchipping is a good safeguard, but I agree with all of you..it's way too extreme to imply that owners who choose not to do this for their pets are neglectful in some way.

[Chris]

Certainly getting your animal microchipped is not the litmus test as to whether you are a good pet owner.

With that said I think it makes a lot of sense to do so if you can afford it. Both of our dogs are chipped. I even saw a story recently about a stray dog that was found in California that had a chip that had been registered in Saudi Arabia.