Tuesday

[silverthorne]

Finally got myself financially straightened out enough to take Foot in to get chipped (Ula came 'equipped' with one already). So, after Tuesday, Foot, between tags, collar and now chip, will be as ID-entifiable as I can possibly make her short of tattoing her personal information on her rump. :)

I will feel SO much better once I get this done.

So, I have a question for everyone. If you had a pet, and you got them chipped, would you still make them wear a collar and tags or not? I'd like to know reasoning too, if you don't mind.

Also, (like I need to say that with you guys, heh), keep it polite with each other if there's a disagreement. *HUGS*

Comments

[silverthorne.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I know with Foot, it was a toss-up internal debate as to whether she still had owners or not when I took her in (no collar or tag), and it would have been very easy to just blow off the entire week of checking everywhere and putting up 'found' posters (and having the vet scan her) to see if she had owners someplace else.

It doesn't help either when the cat isn't obviously pedigree. 'Regular domestics' aren't held in as high value, it seems, even by AC or pounds, etc., since they aren't 'show animals'. Which always baffles me (aren't 'mere pets' just as important/valuable as fancy-schmacy show-off animals?).