German Shepherds Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,005 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
FreePetChipRegistry.com Mission Statement

This is great.
I will be registering our pets but also give new owners instructions on registering here.
We use 24petwatch chips, and got an email last year telling us that there will now be a yearly charge (something new for them) because of all the updates to info people make.

And we are charged for registering non-24petwatch chips already. That irks me something awful - because who's going to call 24petwatch for an AVID chip??

I know many vet clinics who've gone to other companies due to AVID's high cost but also the slowness with which they send back information and get chips actually registered.

If everyone uses this database, it could force companies into lowering or eliminating registration fees altogether!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
*sigh* one of my 'pet' peeves for sure this incompatibility/d-base cross referencing snafu with the chips.

I like Petlink's registry, one time fee only of $16.99, it automatically cross references as many d-bases as it can in the U.S. (and Globally) but still, I don't know what the answer is. At least the new chips, for the most part are standardized and readable by more scanners.

Now getting all the d-bases in line is going to be the next battle.


FreePetChipRegistry.com Mission Statement

This is great.
I will be registering our pets but also give new owners instructions on registering here.
We use 24petwatch chips, and got an email last year telling us that there will now be a yearly charge (something new for them) because of all the updates to info people make.

And we are charged for registering non-24petwatch chips already. That irks me something awful - because who's going to call 24petwatch for an AVID chip??

I know many vet clinics who've gone to other companies due to AVID's high cost but also the slowness with which they send back information and get chips actually registered.

If everyone uses this database, it could force companies into lowering or eliminating registration fees altogether!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,005 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
*sigh* one of my 'pet' peeves for sure this incompatibility/d-base cross referencing snafu with the chips.
...what? :confused:
Have you used or tried this database?? How do you know it's "incompatible"? They register any chip from any company! It is not a microchip company, that is, one that sells chips themselves so how can it be incompatible??
If someone can read a number (get a scanner, scan the dog and read the number) they can search for the owner here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
FreePetChipRegistry.com Mission Statement

This is great.
I will be registering our pets but also give new owners instructions on registering here.
We use 24petwatch chips, and got an email last year telling us that there will now be a yearly charge (something new for them) because of all the updates to info people make.

And we are charged for registering non-24petwatch chips already. That irks me something awful - because who's going to call 24petwatch for an AVID chip??

I know many vet clinics who've gone to other companies due to AVID's high cost but also the slowness with which they send back information and get chips actually registered.

If everyone uses this database, it could force companies into lowering or eliminating registration fees altogether!
Thank you for posting this. I am also going to be sharing it with friends and family.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
....it's about how databases work.

I was talking more about the incompatibility of the scanners v microchips.

However, the way you word it below highlights another potential misunderstanding.

Yes, you can register your chip with MANY different databases now-a-days.

There's AAHA Universal Pet Microchip Look Up, PetLink, AKCCAR and many others like the one you linked to below.

What's missing in the translation here is these databases are not interlinked and their structure (tables/fieldnames that house the data on a server) are NOT standardized.

So let's say you scan a dog, get the number, which database are you going to use to look the number up?

Given that the databases are not on the same server, not in the same building, not part of the same company they don't necessarily 'talk' to each other. You have to search each one until you find the database that cross references the number to the owner's information.

They don't link automatically.

It's kind of like if you want to order a certain kind of shirt online. You first search for the company that has the shirt you want, you go to their site on the internet and place your order on their system. You can't place the order for a shirt sold by JCPenny on the Sears site.

Same thing here, you have to search for which company/organization is 'holding' that chip number and when you find them you get the owner information from THEIR site.



I used to be a data admin/data mining/report writer so I have more of an understanding on how databases work (or in this case do not).





...what? :confused:
Have you used or tried this database?? How do you know it's "incompatible"? They register any chip from any company! It is not a microchip company, that is, one that sells chips themselves so how can it be incompatible??
If someone can read a number (get a scanner, scan the dog and read the number) they can search for the owner here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
Or, someone gets a bright idea and writes an aggregator interface. Bit of a pain in the neck keeping it updated for each of the individual database's interfaces, and figuring a way to make enough money to make development worthwhile might be problematical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
One more thought in general....

I researched them from a technology perspective but from reading on this site I've learned there are many other problems with them.

So....

-We have scanners that don't read all chips
-Databases that are not interlinked for searching the chip numbers
-Chips that migrate and become hard or impossible to scan
-Shelters that don't use the scanners properly
-Shelters that don't even bother to try to scan the dogs

So I'm beginning to wonder why even bother? I used to think well, it's extra insurance but in application in the real world is it even that?

Each to his own, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do or not to do wrt microchipping.

The technology could have been implemented in such a way that it is more reliable but alas, it was not and with the concommitant 'human error' factor built in......it's just worth keeping in mind when plunking down the money for a microchip.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
Yeah...not to muck about with free market.... :eek: ;) :D


Or, someone gets a bright idea and writes an aggregator interface. Bit of a pain in the neck keeping it updated for each of the individual database's interfaces, and figuring a way to make enough money to make development worthwhile might be problematical.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,005 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
So let's say you scan a dog, get the number, which database are you going to use to look the number up?
Well, as a rescuer and ACO I will call the database associated with that particular chip. So AVID - you call AVID's toll free number, 24petwatch, call their toll free number, etc.
I would not expect that to change.

However...as mentioned, most the time we get the information that the chip was never registered.
And this - I'm hoping - will catch on and people will - or may - at least register it there.

So if I get a dog and it is not registered to the chip co. it's supposed to be (AVID for AVID's database, 24petwatch, etc.) then I'll try this database - you don't even have to call in - just to double check.

I never expected this database to make chips compatible with all scanners and vise-versa.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
I understand and appreciate the sentiment and please don't take this personally but we have to look at this from how it actually works and is applied in reality.

The problem is, though very well intentioned the vet who started this site is making a similiar mistake, he's assuming that his registry is the only free or low cost universal registry out there. There really needs to be either just ONE or they all interface via the internet. Hoping that enough people will find it and make it truely universal will not likely and ultimately solve the problem.

What this means, in reality is;

If the dog is not registered at the site you linked will you be calling or looking up on the internet a list of other sites like ACKCAR, AAHA Universal, PetLink and all the other 'universal' databases that have been around longer?

Either way it's all so inefficient, you as an ACO should NOT have to spend time to wade through all this. Pet owners shouldn't have to register and cross register with a half a dozen different registries.

But alas, it's one of those things where the exclusivity of the product drives competition which drives more profit but in the end defeats the purpose of the product.

I don't mean to put this down as an idea, it's a good one honestly it is but there is a lot of misinformation out there and I think it's important that we all understand the deep and inherent flaws in the microchipping system.

As I said, this is one of my 'pet' peeves because it relates to the safety and well being our dogs.

What gets me very frustrated about this is we have the techonolgy to have made all this compatible and interlinked from the beginning. Since it was not done that way the foundation of the product and service are seriously horked up and inefficient. As stealthq points out it's unlikely that anyone will invest in seriously setting up aggregate interfaces or databases to resolve this problem in an efficient and timely manner.

Based on my research and knowledge of some of the technology involved I feel comfortable stating that from a macro POV microchips are bordering on scams.

btw- Everyone should take a moment to read the "Letter from Co-Founders" tab on the site you linked. They explain the problem very well and even the veterinarian co-founder was not aware of the problem with the registries.

I actually had some people get mad at me when I tried to warn them in the past...so at least people are becoming more aware of the problem and that is a good thing.



Well, as a rescuer and ACO I will call the database associated with that particular chip. So AVID - you call AVID's toll free number, 24petwatch, call their toll free number, etc.
I would not expect that to change.

However...as mentioned, most the time we get the information that the chip was never registered.
And this - I'm hoping - will catch on and people will - or may - at least register it there.

So if I get a dog and it is not registered to the chip co. it's supposed to be (AVID for AVID's database, 24petwatch, etc.) then I'll try this database - you don't even have to call in - just to double check.

I never expected this database to make chips compatible with all scanners and vise-versa.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,005 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Either way it's all so inefficient, you as an ACO should NOT have to spend time to wade through all this. Pet owners shouldn't have to register and cross register with a half a dozen different registries.
Agreed.
But what this site is for (and I don't know of others like it, was not aware of them) is people who refuse to register their dog with (for instance) AVID because of their exorbitant fees.
The chip, as you know, is only as good as the registration behind it and our tendency is to find chips (just like the found of that site) that were never registered.
Not just outdated information - never registered.

The only real inherent flaw is that they all charge some sort of fee and people tend to place that bill the lowest on the totem pole. There's not some mystery here, and I do understand the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
Sounds like we agree that at some level this business is a scam (re: costs).

The core problem with registries (free or not) is they are multiple databases, some universal, some not.

The databases don't cross link/cross reference each other automatically which requires people to take (many) extra steps.

The fees some registries/databases charge are part of the problem, agreed.

I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable one time fee to have my dog's chip registered as a part of one truly universal database.

~as a side note you mention (in red) you weren't aware of the other databases so as an ACO I would ask that you also search PetLink. One of the reasons I like PetLink is if the chip is NOT registered with them they help the user cross reference other databases and they automatically search other open databases for you.

Pet Link is associated with DataMars which makes a lot of the new ISO compliant open chips now being used in the U.S. and as such is more accustomed to the open d-base structure as used in many European countries.... still not the answer but I hope is of help to you.



Agreed.
But what this site is for (and I don't know of others like it, was not aware of them) is people who refuse to register their dog with (for instance) AVID because of their exorbitant fees.
The chip, as you know, is only as good as the registration behind it and our tendency is to find chips (just like the found of that site) that were never registered.
Not just outdated information - never registered.

The only real inherent flaw is that they all charge some sort of fee and people tend to place that bill the lowest on the totem pole. There's not some mystery here, and I do understand the problem.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,005 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I'm not working at the moment but only because cities are laying people off quicker than hiring and I wanted to work p/t, never f/t.
I worked 3yrs. at a p/t job, set my own hours for the most part and loved it.
All you can get work now as, it seems is code enforcement which doubles as "aco".

We do have a rescue however and register dogs' chips all the time w/the company we buy them from, 24petwatch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
I hope that situation improves for you work wise.....

Yes, that's how most people register their dogs via the company that they buy the chip from.

My dog was imported. She had the European ISO open and compliant chip. So I had to register her a-la-cart so to speak. What a pain too.

Just like the co-founder's of the site you linked, I thought there was one central data clearing house for all the different chip manfacturers to register the chip numbers/owner info with. Like them I was surprised and angry at how registries 'really' work here in the U.S.

24petwatch uses ISO compliant chips so that's a good start.




I'm not working at the moment but only because cities are laying people off quicker than hiring and I wanted to work p/t, never f/t.
I worked 3yrs. at a p/t job, set my own hours for the most part and loved it.
All you can get work now as, it seems is code enforcement which doubles as "aco".

We do have a rescue however and register dogs' chips all the time w/the company we buy them from, 24petwatch.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,005 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Initial registration is free and changes used to be, but they've now instated a charge after the 1st year.

A central database is a great idea - but you're right, it needs to be universal and used by all.

That said, I think I'll register the AVIDs and others we get with this freebie because 24petwatch now charges us, the rescue, to register a non-24petwatch chip!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
I understand, as a rescue group you guys do not have unlimited funds!

Just to share....for future reference or others who may want to cross register:

AKCCAR is a one time fee of $17.50 and they interface with AAHA Universal Pet look up. AKC CAR - Companion Animal Recovery

PetLink is a one time fee of $16.99 and they co-search other databases and help by redirecting to other registries too. They, as of yet, do not charge for updating information. Petlink
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top