Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 1 of 1 items for

  • Author or Editor: Janet L. Gray x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search

Abstract

Objective—To characterize animals with microchips entering animal shelters and the process used to find owners.

Design—Cross-sectional study.

Animals—7,704 microchipped animals entering 53 animal shelters between August 2007 and March 2008.

Procedures—Data for animals with microchips were recorded by participating animal shelters and reported monthly.

Results—Of 7,704 animals, strays accounted for slightly more than half (4,083 [53.0%]), with the remainder classified as owner-relinquished animals (3,225 [41.9%]) and other (396 [5.1%]). Of 3,425 stray animals for which animal shelters reported that the owner was found, a higher percentage of dog owners (2,191/2,956 [74.1%]) than cat owners (298/469 [63.5%]) was found. For 876 animals for which the owners could not be found, the main reasons were incorrect or disconnected telephone number (310 [35.4%]), owner did not return telephone calls or respond to a letter (213 [24.3%]), and animal was registered to another group (151 [17.2%]). Of 1,943 animals for which animal shelters contacted a microchip registry, 1,129 (58.1%) were registered in the database. Purebred neutered dogs whose owner information was in the shelter database registry or microchip registry had a higher likelihood that the owners would be found.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The high rate for return of microchipped dogs and cats to their owners supported microchipping as a valuable permanent pet identification modality; however, issues related to registration undermined its overall potential. Bundling of microchip implantation and registration, point-of-implantation data registration, use of annual compliance and update reminders, and providing access to all registries are potential solutions.

Restricted access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association