Good information to know if contemplating to chip or not to chip. One thing I noted - the one time you needed your chip the shelter didn't even scan for it. That is one thing people need to know - the chip will obviously help ID the pet if one scans for it, but in no way will it protect a loose animal from being killed by a car, disease or fights, or the fact that some people steal animals to sell to those that won't care if the animal has a chip or not as their intention is not to find the owners. The tumor issue adds to the bigger picture. Personally, I would not hestiate to chip an animal despite all of the possible negatives, because a lost dog (and more so for cats) are in a far worse off condition if not chipped or tatooed, in the event of loss. The statistics for lost dogs without IDs coming home is not great, and it's a worse outlook for cats. A good collar with a metal tag with name and number cannot be overlooked either. I think that increases the chances for return the most, as the average Joe, who does not have a chip scanner, can give you a call, long before an animal might make it to a shelter, that may or may not scan. My best advise - keep your dogs on a leash when walking or in a secure fenced area when loose in the yard, otherwise keep them inside. For cats - only one piece of advice: keep them inside all the time. CT

After a few lean days at the beginning of the week, the end of the week turned better for Monarchs. The number of them that I see seems mostly dependent on the weather. Warm (70 or so) and humid with a southerly breeze seems to pile them up here at the coast. They spend the day nectaring and lazing about. On the crisp, dry, fall like days, only one or two are seen all day long. Right now we have a very cold and dry air mass moving through and I won't expect many today. Hopefully, they'll all ride this front out of New England because, after all, November will be here soon. Maryann in CT

I have an Avid microchip. It was a one time registration fee. The application allows for 3 contact sources 1)owner 2)alternate contact and 3)Vet/Implanter. They have everyone's name, address, email address, home, work, cell and fax numbers. Within the pet description, there is space for medications and other data. (If you have a tattoo, you can include that on the form). If your pet has a change of ownership, they require a new registration for a $19.95 fee. (If you think your pet was stolen, you could notify them in case someone tries to change the ownership.) They charge a $6 processing fee to change the information if you move/get a different vet. If you have a shelter-chipped pet, you can add your name as the alternate for a second contact (or swap positions so the shelter is the alternate). The shelter's name should stay on there in case the animal is abandoned. That would give them a little more information on the animal. There shouldn't ever be a reason to put a different chip in unless it was faulty. My cat slithered out of the house one night last summer. (Thankfully she didn't travel away from the house and I recovered her in the morning). But, it was like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I was so afraid someone was going to find her and keep her because she's beautifully marked :(. It's an awful feeling when your pet is on the run; having a chip gives you a little more hope. I trust that this Avid company would notify me right away if my pet was found or if someone tried to change her ownership information.

From an e mail I got from the Veterinary Cancer Society: "Implanted Microchips Cause Cancer By Jane Williams GFN contributing writer--- (For Publication in the January 2007 "American Family Voice") At the National ID Expo in Kansas City, Arkansas Animal Producer's Association President Michael Steenbergen asked, "What safety studies have been conducted on the chips that are inserted into animals?" His question was met with total silence. Did these manufacturers not know, or were they unwilling to admit that research has confirmed that implanted microchips cause cancer? Melvin T. Massey, DVM (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine) from Brownsboro,Texas, brought this to the attention of the American Horse Council when he wrote, "I am a retired Equine Veterinarian and still breed a few horses. Because of migration-infection s-increased risk of sarcoids I will not want to have microchips in my horses." The Institute of Experimental Pathology at Hannover Medical School in Germany reported , "An experiment using 4279 CBA/J mice of two generations was carried out to investigate the influence of parental preconceptual exposure to X-ray radiation or to chemical carcinogens. Microchips were implanted subcutaneously in the dorsolateral back for unique identification of each animal. The animals were kept for lifespan under standard laboratory conditions. In 36 mice a circumscribed neoplasm occurred in the area of the implanted microchip. Macroscopically, firm, pale white nodules up to 25 mm in diameter with the microchip in its center were found. Macroscopically, soft tissue tumors such as fibrosarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma were detected." Ecole Nationale Veterinaire of Unite d'Anatomie Pathologique in Nantes, France, reported, "Fifty-two subcutaneous tumors associated with microchip were collected from three carcinigenicity B6C3F1 micestudies. Two of these 52 tumors were adenocarcinoma of the mammary gland located on the dorsal region forming around the chip. All the other 50 were mesenchymal in ori! gin and were difficult to classify on morphologicalgrounds with haematoxylin-eosin." Marta Vascellari of Instituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie at Viale dell'Universita in Legnaro, Italy reported examining a 9-year-old male French Bulldog for a subcutaneous mass located at the site of a microchip implant. "The mass was confirmed as a high-grade infiltrative fibrosarcoma, with multifocal necrosis and peripheral lymphoid aggregates." The Toxicology Department of Bayer Corporation in Stillwell, Kansas reported, "Tumors surrounding implanted microchip animal identification devices were noted in two separate chronic toxicity/oncogenicity studies using F344 rats. The tumors occurred at a low incidence rate (approximately 1%), but did result in the early sacrifice of most affected animals, due to tumor size and occasional metastases. No sex-related trends were noted. All tumors occurred during the second year of the studies, were located in the subcutaneous dorsal thoracic area (the site of microchip implantation) and contained embedded microchip devices. All were mesenchymal in origin and consisted of the following types, listed on order of frequency: malignant schwannoma, fibrosarcoma, anaplastic sarcoma, and histiocytic sarcoma. The following diagnostic techniques were employed: light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and immunohistochemistry. The mechanism of carcinogenicity appeared to be that of foreign body induced tumorigenesis. " Additional studies related to cancer tumors at the site of microchip implants have been conduced in China; however, at this time these studies are not available in English. At this time, no long term studies are available covering more than two years. It only seems logical to conclude that if carcinogenic tumors occur within one percent of animals implanted within two years of the implant that the percentage would increase with the passage of time. Additional studies need to be conducted, but don't hold your breath for the manufacturers of microchips to conduct such research and be leery of any such "research" they may conduct. Even the limited research available clearly indicates that implantation of microchips within an animal is gambling with the animal's well being. For additional Information: www.vetpathology.org also National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, or just google for "sarcomas associated with implanted microchips"." ~~> Also be aware not every shelter or animal hospital has a chip scanner or if they do have one they may not bother to scan an animal to find a chip.