First your dog, then your kids, then you. Hello NWO!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z1sfZfDkgT
Microchipping a pet is a very smart idea. There are plenty of stories of lost animals being reunited with their owners because of it.
This is mandotory in my country for some time now!
I'm totally in favor of it...
Is there any problem for you?
Yeah that's fine for you! You're a Cat!
Here.. they seem to screwed up a bit on this Chipping exercise!
Because here they only Microchip the bitches.. but believe me.. lots of guys are very happy about that!
Remote Control usage has increased significantly.. but many guys still prefer to use the remotes that were designed to control Sheep and Chip Monks!
Cats too where I live.
They keep stealing freedom from us, one good idea at a time.
We're going to protect every innocence, every contingency (and support every manufacturer who provides the equipment, and every politician that promoted that fine, safe, reasonable idea) right up until we can't do anything anymore.
You do realize that there is a group of people out there that is opposed to everything you love, right?
You realize that science can prove that everything you do is bad for you,us, the environment, or something else, right? Everything.
There is an anecdote, complete with weeping family, sad child or piteous little animal that can make people weep and feel hate for literally everything you care about.
They just haven't taken that one from you yet, so you are cool with the other ones. We really should take that away from THOSE people. They just don't get it like we do.
Chipping is a good idea. It should not be mandatory. Making people do things is a slippery slope we are shooting down so fast it's terrifying.
Hooray, about time too. I have seen first hand the benefits of this from working at a vets, not least in the case of injured animals being brought in and their owners finally finding out where their missing pet is. The most significant case I saw though was one where the cat had been 'stolen' by a neighbour. The real owner had no idea where her cat was and had it listed as missing with us. Only when the 'thief' sent her Son in with the cat for treatment and the son claimed the cat was a stray they had 'taken in', did the vet I worked for scan the cat for a chip. It turned out the cat was on our missing list, and we called the real owner who came to collect the cat immediately, (the cat had been missing for months). The 'thief' came up with all sorts of rapidly changing stories as to how she had ended up with the cat, but the bottom line was she had decided she wanted this cat, and nothing was going to stop her. The story made the local papers it was so significant. The woman was so determined to steal this cat that the real owner 'boarded' the cat with our neighbour for about 6 months afterwards until she moved house and knew she could safely retrieve her cat and take it to her new home.
In my opinion all dogs and cats should be microchipped, and this should be compulsory, (if I had a pound for every owner who lost their pet and freely admitted they wished they had microchipped them in advance, I would be a rich woman).
The cost is minimal (ours have the best microchips that are called 'Biotherm' and have the advantage that a vet can scan your pet and check its temperature at the same time without the discomfort/stress of a rectal check with an internal thermometer). I recall ours cost under £25 per cat, and honestly, this is very little when you compare it to monthly food bills etc.
Edit, I should also add you can now buy cat flaps that only open for the microchips programmed in to them, which means only your cats can enter your house, no-one else's (double bonus).
Edit Edit (lol), why woudn't anyone want their dog or cat chipped? The only thing I can see is pluses, and at the end of the day we are talking about a tiny implant the size of a grain of rice that the pet barely seems to even notice being implanted when it takes place (my pets have never done anything other than purred or ignored the process which takes about 2 seconds, much like an ear piercing). The positives are obvious, but the negatives.... not so!
Here are the negatives:
1. Don't tell me what to do.
2. Stop making laws that I have to spend money on.
3. Stop making me spend time and energy on rules because other people are irresponsible. (Yes, I know you have sad stories you can share. They are sad, I agree with you. I, however, and hundreds of millions of others have NOT done that to our pets. Please don't penalize millions of people because of the story that is so bad it made the highly sensationalized news seventeen months ago.)
4. Like every single other "do gooder" law, the only people who will do it are the people who care. The people who already care already care. So, making people go spend the 80 bucks to chip their pet is only going to place financial hardship on people who care enough to "follow the law" even though they were, and have always been as a personality type for thousands of years, responsible pet owners. The only benefactors here are the vets and the chip manufacturers. Supporting this cause is buying into very cleverly devised and highly strategic corporate marketing. They are actually using you against yourself because you are right on one front, an emotional one, and missing the real front, which is purely financial. They don't care about animals. They are using you to help them sell stuff. And, you agree to do it because it feels like the right thing to do. In a perfect world, it WOULD be the right thing to do. But in a perfect world, pets wouldn't get lost anyway, so... bleh.
5. The people who don't follow laws, or who don't care about their pets beyond what is convenient aren't going to do it anyway. So the only fines to be paid will be those paid by the people who were never the problem anyway and had that rare and horrible bad moment of bad luck which will break their hearts anyway, but now you are going to add a legal penalty to their misery. Nice, work, that.
6. Related to 4 and 5, who is going to enforce this law? No one, that's who. So it's another empty law. It takes time and money to pass. Time and money to monitor, to implement, to set up systems for, and to adjudicate on the rare, rare occasions that it actually gets enforced. It's a nice idea, but it is so entirely less important than rape, murder, gang violence, domestic violence, armed robbery, extortion, terrorism, elder abuse, corporate corruption, insurance fraud, medical malpractice, pedophilia, child abuse, bank fraud, identity theft, international espionage, drug smuggling (ironically similar in some ways to this law), and so much more. So, bottom line, why write laws that are not going to be enforced? It weakens the whole system.
I could actually go on, but I realize, as usual, nobody will read my long rants pleading for reason in an increasingly emotional world where everyone just reacts and nobody relents or compromises. Our whole culture is becoming a perversion of what made it great, and we invite dictatorship and hegemony with every single insistence that this or that should become a new law.
Just because you don't do it or like it doesn't mean it should be illegal.
I always read every word you post Shades, and on this issue alone I will have to agree to disagree with you, (I honestly haven't got the energy to debate with anyone in depth right now due to being exhausted from trips to the hospital to check on my Mum and make sure she is okay). Sometimes even good friends will not agree on issues and this is one I do feel strongly on.
Just basically I agree that not all laws that 'tell us what to do' are good ones, but many laws do require us being 'told what to do' (e.g. speed limits, ages of consent for sex, driving etc) and these are beneficial for the most part.
Secondly a law that costs someone to get a microchip implanted into their animal might make people realise that taking on pets comes at a price, plus it might help trace the owners of animals that turn up cruelly treated so they can be brought to justice. The cost is not that expensive, and if someone is going to quibble over the price of it they probably shouldn't take on pets full stop as the flea and worming per year will cost far more.
I don't know about any story that happened 17 months ago (sorry) but know I saw horror stories every week in the vets I worked for. My own cat was another killed on a road, and I might never have found him had it not been for being contacted by our local animal rescue centre due to him having a microchip that told them he was mine. This prevented me potentially spending years of never knowing what had happened to him.
If paying for a chip is going to cause financial hardship to the pet owner they clearly can't afford a pet. What do they do if the pet gets a health problem that costs thousands to fix? I pay over £15 a month pet insurance to cover this eventuality, and this is nearly the cost of a basic microchip that would last for life on one cat or dog. I am paying this every month, and so far I am well in profit (in fact by well over £1000) due to claims I could never have forseen (or afforded to pay had I not had insurance). Pet insurance is of course another subject altogether, but I worry that those who can't afford a chip for their pet are probably not bothering with this either, and therefore being forced to put to sleep pets that could be cured.
It should only cost about £25 maximum to chip a dog or cat, so not '80 bucks', and often rescue centres will subsidise this as they believe it is a good move too.
Yes vets and chip manufacturers will make a profit, that is business. A good invention deserves a profit. A vet makes a small profit on each chip, but he is a professional just like your doctor who charges you. He trained for years for this vocation (usually longer than a human doctor by a couple of years), and whilst I again agree they sometimes overcharge for things, and persuade owners to pay out for some unnecessary products or an excess of flea treatments out of season etc, I do think on chips they are giving good advice.
The fines for non-chipping could largely be avoided by breeders being obliged to implant chips and register puppies and kittens to their new owners before selling them on (periodic random checks possibly could ensure they follow this law). Rescue centres could routinely implant chips in pets ready to be re-homed (and build this cost into the minimum donation required when adopting a rescue dog or cat). I should add rescue centres usually get huge discounts on bulk buying of microchips so the cost passed on through the donation would be minimal. This won't completely resolve the issue of pets slipping through the net, but random checks on dogs seen out with owners on the streets could quickly result in a drop in cruel sports like dog fighting because the animals would be traceable. These random checks involve a small handheld device that welfare organisations or even Police can easily carry. I spend many hours watching Animal Cops Houston, Miami Animal Police etc etc, these people do exist, and they spend their days rescuing animals and stopping cruelty.
All the other issues you list such as 'rape, murder' etc etc, are also incredibly important I agree. I don't like the feeling this is an 'either, or' situation though. All should be dealt with. The people in the animal welfare jobs already exist and are doing their jobs. I am sure they would welcome this extra weapon in their arsenal even if only because they can issue 'tickets' on the spot to non-compliant owners.
I never intended for my comment to be so long as I am so tired right now, (perhaps this is a good distraction for me with the worry over my Mum's problems). I doubt I can change your mind Shades, and I think you have probably guessed you won't change mine lol. You are always a good friend though, and please don't feel I am avoiding answering you if you comment back to this, but I will be at my parents home or the hospital tomorrow (depending on if they let Mum come home or not) so may not be on my computer until very late at night if at all.
One final thought, I am far from thinking of microchipping as a 'dangerous dog' issue here (as listed in the article linked to.) I am purely thinking of this as a benefit to pet owners and the pets themselves for various reasons as described in both my lengthy comments.
No worries, Misty. I was pretty sure you were already locked in on your position before I posted, but I did want to put up the other side as best I could. I agree with you that almost all your points are perfectly true. I just feel that there are greater and lesser truths in the world. I think freedom and pragmatism are greater parts of reality, and idealism, while important, is often as dangerous and destructive as it is good. The whole "Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" thing.
Hey, at least we now know the one subject not to bring up if we ever go drinking somewhere, eh? lol
LOL, hey, let me know the venue, I need a drink right now, and you would be the best company and are very capable of keeping me in stitches laughing
One of the reasons I love you so much (as a mate of course) is the fact we can always stay friends even without sharing the same opinions every time. You also manage to make me laugh regularly (which only a handful of hubbers do).
It wasn't that long ago (I guess I am now showing my age) that you needed to have a licence to own a dog. It would make people think twice about it, which is a good thing. Same with microchips - an added cost may prevent people making a snap decision to have a dog. Usually I am against such controls, but this is actually a good idea.
People need to be responsible for their pets, plus it helps to track them down if they run off. Same should apply to cats.
I don't think there is a legitimate 'freedom to abandon your pet'.
I think microchipping is a good idea, however didn't I read a few years ago that chipped animals are more likely to get cancer in the spot where the chip is implanted? Maybe I dreamed it, but I don't think so, because it was right after I had gotten one of my own dogs microchipped, so I remember thinking "oh great."
I wonder if there is any truth to that report or if it was just some scare tactic by those against the chips?
Worked in two vets, never seen Cancer EVER in a chip site, or ever heard about this happening anywhere. Reckon this was major misinformation. A chip only goes under the skin, and if this was dangerous things like contraceptive implants on girls would never haven been legalised!
I never heard of that before, but I was surprised when I looked it up and a few things came about the dangers of microchips and the risk of cancer. It specifically mentioned pets getting cancer after being microchipped with Merck's HomeAgain brand, so I don't know if the danger only applies to this brand specifically or all of them.
Here's the link to the article: http://www.naturalnews.com/030108_micro … imals.html
They state in the first paragraph of that article "the devices store owner and medical information.", which is incorrect information in itself. The only information a microchip holds is a number (like a barcode), and this number is given to the various organisations such as 'Petlog' that store the names and contact details of the pet's owners which you supplied when you filled in the forms at the time you had your pet chipped. If the writers of this article can't even get this information right what hope is there for the accuracy of the rest of the article?
If you treated any large amount of humans or animals with anything, from drugs to moisturisers, you would inevitably get a tiny percentage that showed allergic reactions or possibly (IF they were prone to it) Cancers. The bottom line is that this is so rare it would be like the odds of winning the lottery (in a negative way).
In the UK we mainly use Tracer or Biotherm chips (the latter being the one which helpfully includes a built in thermometer to avoid the stress of rectal temperature checks for your pet because a simple 1-2 second scan tells the vet your pet's temperature). I would strongly recommend these as I have never ever known of any problems with them, although I have never known of any problems with any microchips to be honest, and that is based on seeing thousands of pets coming in and out of the vet's surgeries I have worked at over the years.
It is allready being done to some of our Military Troops here in the US and on a voluntary basis to some new babies in Miami - the excuse these mothers are getting is - "with the chip your child can never get lost or kidnapped" yeah so these goofy young mothers are falling for it and having the damned things put into their new babies. As for the military - they have no choice the government owns em
Introduce a program that will get society to accept the introduction of forced micro-chipping, matters not under what reason. Proceed to find excuses to force the population to be chipped as well.
Same old story. Incrementalism!
From this I get that people think they can reasonably demand the right to neglect and desert their pets and release potentially dangerous animals into the community.
One of my yorkies decided to wandered a little bit too far from home one sunny afternoon. Hi was picked up by the local police and brought to the pound. Somehow he had lost his collar along with his tags during his little adventure. He was scanned at the pound and thanks to his chip, he was promptly returned home. Of course I had to pay a fine because he had gotten off the property and was running around sans any documentation, but I still got him home safe and sound.
I think microchipping is the greatest thing since the napkin and I think it should be done to children too. Everyday I see stories on the news about missing children, some of them just disappear during the night apparently taken from their very bedrooms. With a chip, they could be located and thousands of dollars and countless manhours of searching done away with. Once they are 18, they can elect to have the chip removed. If my kids were still little, I'd have them chipped in a heartbeat.
Judging by some of the comments on this forum, if you had been in Rome while it was burning, you would have been busy, busy, busy debating what music Nero should be playing on his fiddle, oblivious to that fact that everything around you was falling apart.
Don't you care if you or your family are microchipped? Don't you care that your hard-won freedoms are being eroded more every day? You do realise that microchips can be programmed? You don't mind that a device which might be programmed to affect your moods and behaviour can be inserted irrevocably into your body, to control you? This is the issue.
Mandatory microchipping of pets is just the start to garner acceptance before the mandatory insertion into humans. They will always find a good reason, but will never tell you the real reason. You have to work that out for yourself . . .
My boxer is chipped. I think it's a wonderful idea! If he ever gets lost he can be brought home safely!
by S T Guy 7 years ago
Should pets have rights?Pets are NOT humans. US law enforces that pets are NOT responsible for their random and uncivilized behaviors at any time, but that the "owner" is fully responsible and liable for their pet. If, for example, your pet dog bit someone - for whatever reason, you (the...
by Rebecca Mikulin 8 years ago
I work with the dogs in my local shelter, and as anyone who has ever been in a shelter knows it can be very heartbreaking work. Perhaps worse than some, though, are the animals that had to be given up because their humans' landlord thought they were too big, the people moved and couldn't find a...
by sannyasinman 8 years ago
Yes folks, you're worst nightmare is just around the corner . . . http://www.naturalnews.com/030341_microchips_drugs.htmlWhat do you think?
by tlmcgaa70 7 years ago
Why do so many pet owners with seriously sick or injured pets ask people on the internet what they?should do about their pets? I like answering questions about pet care and I have a great deal of information I have learned over the years of rescuing cats that I am more than willing to share...but I...
by threekeys 2 years ago
Is a good idea for Apartment Managers to say it's OK for People to Have Pets in their Apartments?As little ones learn to care for another together with learning what responsibilities are about.The older you get the more you are stuck at home.. Gives the elderly constant affection and something to...
by Claire 2 years ago
Why do so many people want to own exotic pets instead of viewing them in their natural habitat?With so many species becoming extinct in the wild isn't it time to stop taking exotic out of it and keeping in cages and houses. Don't you think that they should be left as part of the ecosystem?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|