
23-09-2011, 05:20 PM
|
|
Pet Forums VIP Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 2,324
|
|
|
Re: Tattooing?!!!
I haven't heard of tattooing cats for ID, but I know its not uncommon in dogs (although not as popular as microchipping).
The breeder we got Solo from had all her pups tattooed before they went to new homes, its just an alternative to chipping. Like with chips there is a registry where details of the owner are held, so lost dogs can be reunited with them.
Both methods have their pro's and cons.
Obviously a tattoo can fade or distort over time making it illegible, but occassionally microchips have been known to migrate or very rarely cause problems.
Tattoos have the bonus of being visible - if the dog is picked up straying etc it is clear to anyone that it is (or at least was) owned, and assuming the tattoo is legible the owner can be traced. Even these days not everyone automatically scans lost dogs for a chip.
I don't think either method is more or less painful than the other - microchipping is like an injection - just with a bloody enormous needle the size of a fork prong. Tattooing is done NOT using a gun like human art tattoos, but using a stamp which does the whole lot in one hit, the ink is then rubbed in. It shouldn't be than the momentry pain like that of an injection.
IMO its personal choice. I would usually go for chipping just because its the norm these days (my cats are chipped), but I don't see that either method is "better".
__________________
"For all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams it is still a beautiful world"
|