[lil fu fu girl]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999;2544510[U

]Look at their uses; they are not used in dog's microchips.[/U] The chips they are talking about can be read from blocks/miles away, it's a completely different thing. Again, I believe some misleading information is being passed as fact, because commercial breeders don't want to have to just these. They think if they can pass enough of this propaganda, these laws won't pass. Commercial breeders aren't concerned with the safety of their dogs, they are concerned with the cost per dog, and also they don't like the fact that authorities will be able to to link dogs to breeders. The dog fighting enthusiasts are especially fighting this law, at the present time, they can be seen with a bloodied up dog, and just deny that they are the owner, microchips would be able to identity this as well. If you choose not to microchip you pet, that's your choice, the type used in dogs is different than this, and there are many studies that have proven their safety.

RFID technology is the same technology used in pet microchipping.
As stated per your article, and in the JVM.
The only difference in the microchipping of dogs, versus that in cars or passports, is that the RFID does not contain its own power supply; like the ones you refer to "That can be read from miles away". Those are RFID's that contain an internal power source and can transmit information without having been scanned. The ones in animals has to be "scanned", in order to acquire the owners info, essentially that is why they are termed passive, because of this non-transmitting status.

Their safety has been of great discussion and research, and people fall on both sides of the coin when it comes to their implantation. I am not here to tell you whether it is right or wrong for you. I am just here to explain another dimension of these "chips", and why they should be investigated and researched by anyone who is making this decision for their pet.