Rachael
Well-Known Member
Oooh. I thought you meant her female she was using for that line was a pet shop girl.
Where does she get her rats from?
Where does she get her rats from?
Tattooing rats?
- Thread starter ema-leigh
- Start date
Help Support The Rat Shack Forum:
ema-leigh
Well-Known Member
Oh no, the reason why I started speaking to her was I seen her rats before I spoke to her. I would defiantly not spend the time and money flying in rats that were pet store stock, it would be a waste of time really lol.
Sorraia
Well-Known Member
ema-leigh said:
A LOT of the varieties we have today started out in pet stores. So... if you use that as a criteria about what is "ok" to breed and what is "not", then most of what we have now shouldn't be bred. If I recall correctly, Russian Blue and Siamese both largely descended from pet store rats.
The key here: WHO is working with these varieties in the beginning, how much do they know about breeding, how are they making their selections, how long have they been working with the variety before sending it to other breeders, what kind of records are they keeping, what kind of information goes with the rats, what other breeders are they sharing rats with, etc etc etc. When a new variety is "discovered" and selected for, the answers to these question are key.
That said - when it comes to Harley, there isn't even enough evidence that it is a new variety. There are still theories that it is a variety of satin rex. If that's true, there is NO reason to breed Harleys, rex and satin are both well established varieties. In addition, I have also heard many say there are health problems associated with Harleys: skin issues, allergies, and aggression problems. I've seen NO evidence that any breeder working with "Harley" is doing anything to correct these issues, most times the breeder ignores them (I have seen this first hand - I'm not talking through the rumor mill). These are NOT acceptable breeding practices, whether it is a new or old variety, no matter how attractive it is.
With this breeder not asking you any questions, it shows me that she really doesn't care where her rats are going. Sure, you can look at a website, but how much information do you REALLY get from a website? Anyone can say anything they want on a website, tweak it just right, show only the good stuff. It is important to ask questions regardless. What if you start asking questions and the answers are inconsistent with what is on the website? What if the person gets defensive and refuses to answer? What if the person doesn't seem to really know what they are talking about, off the website? There is so much more to learn besides what is posted on a website. This is even more true when it comes to breeding rats. You can't post your entire breeding program, practices, selections, etc on a website, there is just too much to it.
Marylou Mader
Well-Known Member
If someone wants to keep true identity of their rats, why not microchip them?????
Sorraia
Well-Known Member
Marylou Mader said:
Microchipping is about as useless as tattoos. I don't think any veterinarian, shelter, or pet store would even think about checking a rat for a microchip - its just not done on rats.
Rachael
Well-Known Member
The point to microchips in cats and dogs is so if they get lost from their home, if they're found, they can be checked using the chip.... but as rats are caged pets, it seems pointless.
Marylou Mader
Well-Known Member
I thought this idea of tattooing was for the lineage of the rat, I'm quite sure a rescue isn't going to check for microchips for petes sake, how many stray rats are running around.Sorraia said:
This query was regarding a breeder tattooing her stock, so it would be easier to microchip for identification purposes...
Marylou Mader
Well-Known Member
NO it is not the only reason, breeders do it for ID as well as registered kennels must have them...Rachael said:
Sorraia
Well-Known Member
I thought this idea of tattooing was for the lineage of the rat, I'm quite sure a rescue isn't going to check for microchips for petes sake, how many stray rats are running around.Marylou Mader said:
This query was regarding a breeder tattooing her stock, so it would be easier to microchip for identification purposes...[/quote:106rxmya]
In that case, if a breeder is doing it merely to identify their animals, they need a new hobby. The breeder should be able to keep track of which animals are which without the use of tattoos or microchips. That's just part of being a good breeder.
Marylou Mader
Well-Known Member
Sorraia said:
In that case, if a breeder is doing it merely to identify their animals, they need a new hobby. The breeder should be able to keep track of which animals are which without the use of tattoos or microchips. That's just part of being a good breeder.[/quote:2vnpdl3w]
Well obviously you are not a breeder, and when it comes to identity, many people feel better about having their animals microchipped, it is a better form of id than a tattoo. the microchip numbers would then become part of the pedigree.
You know many times I hear people talking about breeding ethics, I think this is ethical if the rat or dog or cat is permanently identified. This leaves no room for error.
Rachael
Well-Known Member
Uh Sorraia is a breeder?
Our cats and dogs are microchipped but not the rats...... I do not see rescues and vets checking a rat for a microchip personally. My vet thinks it's pointless.
Our cats and dogs are microchipped but not the rats...... I do not see rescues and vets checking a rat for a microchip personally. My vet thinks it's pointless.
jorats
Loving rats since 2002.
Marylou Mader said:
Sorraia is a breeder, a very well respected breeder and a damn good one at that.
Guest
absolutly not!
this is horrible
this is horrible
Sorraia
Well-Known Member
Marylou Mader said:
In that case, if a breeder is doing it merely to identify their animals, they need a new hobby. The breeder should be able to keep track of which animals are which without the use of tattoos or microchips. That's just part of being a good breeder.[/quote:1tgbvjfb]
Well obviously you are not a breeder, and when it comes to identity, many people feel better about having their animals microchipped, it is a better form of id than a tattoo. the microchip numbers would then become part of the pedigree.
You know many times I hear people talking about breeding ethics, I think this is ethical if the rat or dog or cat is permanently identified. This leaves no room for error.[/quote:1tgbvjfb]
You must be new to the forum? I actually AM a breeder, most people on this forum know that. Been breeding pet rats for almost 10 years now, kept pet rats for nearly 20 years. Worked for a horse breeder for about 5 years too, from late-2000 to mid-2005.
A microchip in a rat is NOT going to help with identity. They are used commonly enough in dogs and cats that most people these days know to check for them. People would NEVER think to check a rat for a microchip. What's the point of microchipping a rat? No one is going to check for it, and as a breeder you should be able to tell your own animals apart from one another. (If you can't tell your own animals apart then A) You need to spend more time with them, B) You need fewer animals, C) You need a different set up so animals who are absolutely identical in all ways, as unlikely as that is, can be separated so you CAN tell them apart, or D) You need a new hobby.) Really, what is the point of putting a microchip in a rat except to waste money and give yourself bragging rights because you have the money to waste?
Microchipping in rats is NOT an ethical issue, and there IS room for error, simply because people will NOT check a rat for a microchip 99+% of the time. It is NOT an ethical issue because there is nothing ethical about microchipping a rat. If the microchip were common enough that people WOULD check for it 90+% of the time, and it contained the valuable information needed to identify and return the rat not just to its owner but to its breeder, then *maybe* one could argue it is an ethical issue. But right now it is not.
The ONLY time microchips are regularly used and checked for are in certain biological monitoring programs studying wild (usually endangered or threatened) animals. In these cases they are called "pit tags".
Even in horses (who lets face it are typically considered more valuable than dogs or cats) microchips are not widely used.
ema-leigh
Well-Known Member
Well obviously you are not a breeder, and when it comes to identity, many people feel better about having their animals microchipped, it is a better form of id than a tattoo. the microchip numbers would then become part of the pedigree.Sorraia said:
You know many times I hear people talking about breeding ethics, I think this is ethical if the rat or dog or cat is permanently identified. This leaves no room for error.[/quote:3dpccri1]
You must be new to the forum? I actually AM a breeder, most people on this forum know that. Been breeding pet rats for almost 10 years now, kept pet rats for nearly 20 years. Worked for a horse breeder for about 5 years too, from late-2000 to mid-2005.
A microchip in a rat is NOT going to help with identity. They are used commonly enough in dogs and cats that most people these days know to check for them. People would NEVER think to check a rat for a microchip. What's the point of microchipping a rat? No one is going to check for it, and as a breeder you should be able to tell your own animals apart from one another. (If you can't tell your own animals apart then A) You need to spend more time with them, B) You need fewer animals, C) You need a different set up so animals who are absolutely identical in all ways, as unlikely as that is, can be separated so you CAN tell them apart, or D) You need a new hobby.) Really, what is the point of putting a microchip in a rat except to waste money and give yourself bragging rights because you have the money to waste?
Microchipping in rats is NOT an ethical issue, and there IS room for error, simply because people will NOT check a rat for a microchip 99+% of the time. It is NOT an ethical issue because there is nothing ethical about microchipping a rat. If the microchip were common enough that people WOULD check for it 90+% of the time, and it contained the valuable information needed to identify and return the rat not just to its owner but to its breeder, then *maybe* one could argue it is an ethical issue. But right now it is not.
The ONLY time microchips are regularly used and checked for are in certain biological monitoring programs studying wild (usually endangered or threatened) animals. In these cases they are called "pit tags".
Even in horses (who lets face it are typically considered more valuable than dogs or cats) microchips are not widely used.[/quote:3dpccri1]
Sorraia, are you saying that IF people checked for the microchips then it could be deemed ethical? Because the breeder I was talking about has since told me she tattoo's the rats and ALL of the shelters, pet stores and rescues in CO know her tattoo and she offers them a reward if they call her so she can come pick them up. She said she tattoo's over microchip because the shelters would have to pay to have the microchip reader and they would not do that just for the off chance one of her rats may end up there.. so the tattoo's are easily visible. My questions was more.... even if they did check every single rat for a microchip or tattoo... can it be ethical because of the pain and stress put on the rat to actually have it? I have no idea the level or pain or stress the animal would under go. I've had multiple tattoo's and some places (my whole back) it actually felt like a chainsaw was lightly touching my back... other places (legs and arms) I didn't feel a thing.
Her argument over the pain, was the pain of not being fed right or housed right or ending up in the wrong hands is much worse than a few seconds sting. She also said again that it only goes through three layers of skin and there is virtually no bleeding. She does it herself though, and said its done within five seconds.
My opinion on it, is it in a pointless idea.
Sorraia
Well-Known Member
ema-leigh said:
No, even IF people would check for the microchips (or tattoos) I do not believe it would be an ethical issue, however there would be more room to argue that it *could* be (not necessarily is).
Part of the problem with arguing that microchips or tattoos are an "ethical" issue with rats and should be required is that rats still don't have the same value and aren't held in the same regard as dogs and cats. A person who is tired of their rat is more likely to dump it in a pet store or even dump it outside than to take it to a shelter. Even if the shelters are checking rats for microchips and tattoos, that doesn't mean a dumped rat will be found, if it doesn't even end up there.
One problem with tattoos is that they do fade and can be altered. A problem with microchips (and pit tags) is that they can migrate and be hard to find. Neither one is flawless. That's going to make it even harder to argue that it is an "ethical" issue. If they can be altered or migrate (making them hard to find), they really aren't flawless. If they aren't flawless, they aren't reliable, and if they aren't reliable, is there really much of a point besides that "I feel good about myself for trying" feeling?
And there is the pain issue. Rats don't always show indication of pain. It might *seem* painless, but isn't. I have had rats who received injections for medications, who just sat there, didn't wince, squeak, or anything, barely needed to be restrained. I would be a fool to believe they didn't feel it and it wasn't at least a little bit painful. An "injury" that does not pierce all layers of skin may not be painful, because it may not reach the nerve cells that perceive and transmit the pain sensation. HOWEVER in the case of a tattoo... that may not even be permanent. The top layers of skin are dead, they are shed and lost forever. It is the bottom layers (the endodermis) that are living, and that is where pigment is deposited. It is those lower layers that will transmit painful sensations.
Sorraia
Well-Known Member
Though slightly different topic... this discussion reminded my of ear cropping and tail docking... some people argue it isn't painful, others do. Who is right?
victoria
Well-Known Member
ema-leigh said:
I don't think anyone's saying it would be unethical to microchip rats, just pointless because no one thinks to check. [Shelters should already have microchip readers for dogs and cat anyway.] You really have to stop comparing the pain you felt/didn't feel when you were tattooed to what a rat would experience. I do not know how the breeder in question can claim that she only pierces three layers of skin... there is so much wrong with that statement. If she's doing it at home, how does she ensure that the rat doesn't fidget? Even larger species and breeds are anesthetized to prevent pain/fidgeting, and they have thicker skin where there would be more room for a safe margin of error. As Sorraia said, the breeder should be keeping track of her lines with adopter screening, adoption contracts and regular follow ups. Are you still thinking tattooing rats might be a good idea ema-leigh?
EDIT: Sorraia beat me...
ema-leigh
Well-Known Member
No I don't think tattooing them OR micro chipping is any good and personally do not see the need for it at all after learning all the facts. I am just trying to understand everyones opinions throughly.
The only point I was trying to figure out was if it did actually hurt them or not, she said none of them struggle and they are 5 weeks oldish when she does it. I understand how I felt the tattoos and how a rat would feel them would be totally different. I guess I mean is the thought of it worse than what it actually is? I don't know and I don't think anybody could really say if it hurts them or not.
Upon further research I found some labs tattoo their rats tails so they can be easier identified compared to a ear tag.
http://www.animalid.com/Lab_Animals/Rats_and_Mice.php
This particular statement made my skin crawl. 'Tattoos can be used to identify day old mice or rats.'
OMG they also sell 'tail restraints' and 'tail cutting platforms'
Either way, its nothing I would ever want to subject my babies too.
The only point I was trying to figure out was if it did actually hurt them or not, she said none of them struggle and they are 5 weeks oldish when she does it. I understand how I felt the tattoos and how a rat would feel them would be totally different. I guess I mean is the thought of it worse than what it actually is? I don't know and I don't think anybody could really say if it hurts them or not.
Upon further research I found some labs tattoo their rats tails so they can be easier identified compared to a ear tag.
http://www.animalid.com/Lab_Animals/Rats_and_Mice.php
This particular statement made my skin crawl. 'Tattoos can be used to identify day old mice or rats.'
OMG they also sell 'tail restraints' and 'tail cutting platforms'
Either way, its nothing I would ever want to subject my babies too.
Sorraia
Well-Known Member
I don't think it is reasonable to compare the pain a rat may feel to the pain a person may feel. Even different people perceive different stimuli in different ways. For me personally, it was extremely painful to have my ears pierced. It HURT! Bad enough that I would never do it again even if the holes closed up. Those were just regular lobe piercings too, not even in the cartilage. But other people felt no pain at all, and have multiple other piercings without any problem with the pain.
And tail tattoos? Even if ear tattoos were not painful, I don't see how a tail tattoo could not be painful.
And tail tattoos? Even if ear tattoos were not painful, I don't see how a tail tattoo could not be painful.
