Main reasons I disagree with making microchip implants compulsory:

Health Issues with microchip implants

Studies linkink Microchip Implants to Soft Tissue Sarcomas STS (Cancer) across a wide range of species. This should signal the need for further study, but oddly enough Veterinary Associations ignore the signal data, why?.

• Marta Vascellari’s work in dogs:
• Microchip associated tumours in Cats
• Microchip associated tumours in Rats
• Microchip associated tumours in Mice
• Microchip associated tumour in a Bat
• Microchip associated tumour in a Shrew
• Microchip associated tumour in a Common Marmoset

Case Studies regarding Microchip Implant health issues

Design flaws built into Microchip Implant Self-report Scheme developed by The Microchip Advisory Group (MAG)

• The Microchip Implant Self-report Scheme under-reports consistently year on year, mentioned by both Fred Nind past chairperson of the Microchip Advisory Group and current chairperson Chris Laurence
• The largest flaw is the implantation site itself. The Microchip Advisory Group (MAG) recommends implanting in the scruff or Zone A
• Veterinary Surgeons who implant a microchip are unlikely to admit a procedure recommended and carried out by them caused an adverse reaction
• If the reaction is not at the site of the implant then how could we connect the microchip implant to the reaction?
• Adverse reactions need Fine Needle Aspiration biopsies or autopsies for detection
• Many implanters are not Veterinary Surgeons. Some are ordinary people who attended a three-hour course and have no connection with the veterinary practice the animal attends
• Many Veterinary surgeons do not know how to report reactions and therefore could not report them

Conclusions after reviewing available evidence about the Microchip Implant Self-report Scheme

Microchip Migration

Damage to microchip implants in dogs during play leading to adverse reactions

Poor quality training for non-Veterinary Implanters

Possbile MRI incompatibility

The problem with LF low frequency range tags in an animal welfare setting

Lack of Effectiveness as unique identifiers

• The largest problem the majority (estimated at two thirds) of dog owners who already ignore the licensing schemes run by local councils.
• Fifty-five companies use the three digit, 900 shared manufacturer code numbers on their tags.
• Transparency of Microchip Implant Tag Number Structure
• Cloning RFID Animal Implants - A practical demonstration

Availability of personal data to unauthorized people.

The dangers with RFID Dog Microchip Implant are as follows:

• Insurance companies gain access to your pet’s details and habits and either won’t insure your dog or adjust premiums upwards. This could also interfere with your own insurance also
• Companies use lists bought from Microchip Implant companies to target consumers with specific goods tailored to their pets or lifestyle.
• Criminals hack a Veterinary Surgeons Microchip Implant Database
• Criminals hack a Charity Microchip Implant Middleware Database or a Third-party Middleware Database
• Criminals hack the Microchip Implant Database
• Criminals Clone your Dog’s RFID tag number
• Criminals activate a device using your dogs 15 digit Microchip Implant number
• An abusive ex-partner stalks you using a microchip implant database to locate their dogs home address.