Collapse bottom bar
Breeds Training

Microchipping For Pets Legislation in California a Possibility

by Angela Pham   |  August 31st, 2011 11

Shelter DogA lost dog could be more quickly found in California if Senate Bill 702 becomes a reality in California. According to the LA Times, Senate Bill 702 would require a tiny identifying microchip to be implanted in dogs and cats adopted out of municipal shelters or reclaimed at the shelters by owners who lost them.

So if your hunting dog were to be lost (time for a GPS collar, perhaps?) and later taken to a shelter, he’d be automatically microchipped before you could take him home.

What’s your feeling on this? Also, is your gun dog microchipped? The technology’s out there, and pretty inexpensive, too—about $5 to $25 dollars, or a bit more if done by a vet.

See more on the bill at

  • Angry

    I think this is absolutely discusting! Why make an owner do this? Not doing it is not abuse and to many people doing it is abuse to the animal. They are not DVD players or computers, they don't need serial numbers, and no it doesn't help people find their animals any easier than a tag with a phone number around their neck. If it's my dog, it should be my choice, other the state can care for all these sweet animals. Which of course they can't! It's just another way to track us and get us used to being under their thumb. I guess I'll have to get my pets elsewhere, which is really sad, because it's not these poor dogs' faults.

  • John Sturgess

    They are doing it cause of Vets wanting to make money as well as lobbying groups for the medical Companys that make the implant. They do not tell you that there have been quite a few dogs developing tumor mass's around the implanted chips. Lastly They have to make sure all Vet offices have the same chip reader , since not all chips are read by one scanner

  • Acceptable

    The micro chips, in my opinion, can be a life saver for some dogs. We all can guess the amount of dogs put down in our country daily but what we probably can not imagine, as pet owners, would be the accidental death of a pet. There are so many examples, like if people were out of town, where pets get out and aren't there by the time the owner can find them. Having your animal chipped may save its life and help you to never have to face lossing your pet.

  • Ellip

    Microchip is good thing for pet owner. It help to control number and identify pet information. I agree with the cost you said, it's not expensive for thing we will receive.

  • Quinn

    Microchipping will often save an animal from being put down in a shelter. Pets frequently lose their collars by the time they are found, and have no link to their home. However, the owner of a dog with a microchip (each chip is typically the size of a grain of rice) is called immediately when their dog is scanned :)

    There's plenty of microchipping information out there:

  • brown dog

    They are doing it so that municipalities can get more & higher license fees. Yes, chips can help, but so can tattoos. Also, cancers have been documented at the site of chip implantation + they can migrate. If the information only remained with the owner & the registry, that would be fine, but the intent is for it to go to local animal control. With intact dog license fees running ~$350/intact dog in Los Angeles, not everyone wants to support their local Big Brother.

  • Time4Dogs

    25% of shelter animals in California are DOA or owner-relinquished. Over 50% are ownerless cats. Very few are actually "lost" pets. Microchips don't do diddly squat to help the vast majority of dogs and cats that enter shelters, and when the cost gets passed along to new adopters, fewer animals will be adopted. Adding in the cost of a microchip to the adoption fees will reduce the animal's chances of getting adopted. Just say NO to mandated microchipping. It's a policy that will cost more dogs and cats their lives. Thank goodness, Governor Brown had sense enough to veto this very bad idea.

  • maggie b

    Microchipping or any surgical proceedure should be a decision made my the animal's owner. There is some evidence that cancers are more likely to occur at the site where microchips have been emplanted. Sometimes it is a good decision. Sometimes a bad one. Only the owner knows which is which. Anything else is just control freak agendas

  • Vet Barnes

    Want to know in detail why microchipping is a lost cause read this article at
    Bad scanners no consistency between scanners or chips and faulty registration processes plus chip traveling are just a few of the problems with this process. Also many microchips don't work because they are actually inert until the scanner activates the power to pass the information from the chip to the scanner. The problem with this is many frequencies are used and there is no standard chip or scanner. So the shelter may not scan properly or they may miss the chip because its traveled and/or they don't have the right frequency on when passing over the chip. Another problem is dog theft is on the rise and these people hunt for a chip and then cut it out. Many small breeds bleed out when the chip is inserted because of having it cut a blood vessel upon insertion. a microchip is an electronic device, and any such device does have a chance of failing. It's a fact of the laws of entropy that any mechanical or electronic object has the potential of breaking down. The American Veterinary Medical Association says that is how it is supposed to work, but it always may not work that way. They say there are shortcomings to the microchipping process.

    There are various brands of chips and they work on a variety of frequencies from 125 to 134.2 kilohertz. Each company makes its own scanners, and they can’t always read other scanners.
    “If an animal is scanned with an inappropriate reader that doesn’t read the frequency of the chip that’s implanted in that animal, it may either indicate that there’s a microchip present but it can’t read the number or it may not indicate that there’s a microchip present at all,” Dr. Rosemary LoGiudice, of the American Veterinary Medical Association, said.

    Dog Bleeds to Death After "Routine" Microchip Implant Procedure
    Grieving owner calls for an end to mandatory microchipping in Los Angeles

    A fluffy bundle of life, love, and enthusiasm named Charlie Brown was laid to rest last week, the victim of a microchip implant gone horribly wrong. The long-haired, purebred Chihuahua bled to death in the arms of his distraught owners, Lori and Ed Ginsberg of Agua Dulce, California, just hours after undergoing the controversial chipping procedure.

    "I wasn't in favor of getting Charlie chipped, but it was the law," said Lori Ginsberg, citing a Los Angeles county ordinance that requires all dog owners to chip their dogs once they reach four months of age. Dog owners who refuse to comply face a $250 fine for the first offense and up to six months in jail for continued non-compliance. "This technology is supposedly so great until it's your animal that dies," she said. "I can't believe Charlie is gone. I'm just beside myself."

    Dr. Reid Loken, the board certified veterinarian who performed the chipping, confirmed on Friday that Charlie died from blood loss associated with the microchip. He cited "an extreme amount of bleeding" from the "little hole in the skin where the [microchip implant] needle went in" as the cause of death. He said he was both saddened and puzzled by Charlie's death.

    "I just don't know what happened to him. We put the chip in the back in the shoulder blades, the standard place where we put them, and there really aren't any major blood vessels in that area," he said. "I don't think it went in too deep; it was a pretty routine chipping."

    Dr. Loken suspected the needle may have nicked the muscle around the scapula, causing blood to ooze from the muscle. However, his efforts to stem the bleeding with pressure bandages were unsuccessful. The bleeding could not be attributed to a congenital clotting problem, he said, since Charlie had undergone a neutering and tooth extraction without incident just weeks before.

    Charlie's owners were devastated by the loss. "Charlie loved to play and cuddle. He brought so much joy and life to our home," said Lori. "We loved him and took such good care of him. He meant everything to us."

    This happens many times since this story mostly to small dogs.

  • Loves dogs

    Although pet owners are led to believe micro-chipping is completely safe, modern research shows a different story.

    Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a Harvard trained researcher, has studied pet and human microchips and published a startling report based on years of scientific studies. Between 1996 and 2006 research has shown a link between implanted microchips and cancer; research has concluded that the microchip implants induced the malignant tumors. All tumors were found at or near the implantation site on the study animals.

    Researchers provide the following explanation for cancerous tumors found around microchip implants in animals:

    1. Foreign-Body Tumorigenesis: The presence of a foreign body under the skin may cause cellular changes that lead to cancer.

    2. Post-Injection Sarcoma: Inflammation from the chip-injection procedure may give rise to cancer.

    3. Possible Genotoxic Properties of the Implant: The microchip may have carcinogenic properties or cause the body to produce carcinogenic byproducts.

    4. Radio-Frequency Energy Emissions from the Transponder or Reader: The radio-frequency energy involved with the device may contribute to tumor formation.

    For more information on Dr. Albrecht’s research, visit

    To listen to Dr. Albrecht and the Ginsberg's interview visit:

  • Antichip

    If the all-mighty creator thought that micro chipping was important, then they would have been born with them already installed!

back to top