Mandatory Micro Chipping And S/n ????
 

I am not sure which forum to post this but it was in our local newspaper today, was wanting to see what others here at YT's comments or opinions are. Sorry if I should have posted it someplace else, just didn't know where. Patti

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All dogs in Los Angeles County unincorporated areas would need to be microchipped and spayed or neutered under a new ordinance proposed by the county's Animal Care and Control Department.

The proposal, designed to reduce the number of dogs euthanized every year, will be discussed Tuesday at a public hearing at the Board of Supervisors meeting.

More than 40,000 dogs were impounded by the department in the last fiscal year, department Director Marcia Mayeda told supervisors in a letter explaining the ordinance. Of those, nearly 19,000 were euthanized, and of the stray dogs taken in by shelters, only 6,000 were returned to their owners.

Mayeda acknowledged the "admirable goal" of instituting a "no-kill" policy in county shelters, but, she said, "In order to reach that goal we must first greatly reduce the numbers of dogs flooding the shelter system. This ordinance will help us reach that goal by reducing the number of dogs born or running loose in Los Angeles County."

The ordinance also calls for every dog to have a microchip surgically implanted - the microchips, each about the size of a grain of rice, contain details about the animal that allow for positive identification.

"Hundreds of thousands of lost pets have been reunited with their distraught families because the pets were microchipped," Mayeda said. "Microchips will improve the department's returned-to-owner rate and lessen euthanasia in county shelters."

Scanning the microchips also will allow the department to quickly determine if a female dog has been spayed and is in compliance with the new mandatory spay ordinance; it will also prevent owners from substituting one dog for another to avoid complying with the ordinance, Mayeda said.

Certain dog owners will be allowed to apply for an unaltered dog license, including law enforcement dgs, service dogs and competition dogs, such as purebred dogs used for breeding, dog shows or sporting competitions. The need to exempt show dogs from the ordinance was pointed out by several owners at the February public hearing.

Dogs would also be exempted from the spay/neuter policy if a veterinarian determines the surgery would be a health risk.

An unaltered dog license is proposed to cost $60, and a license for an altered dog would cost $20. Five dollars from each license fee would fund a low-cost spay/neuter program and vouchers for low-income residents to use to pay private veterinarians.

County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich pushed for such an ordinance after a rash of dog attacks last year in the Antelope Valley portion of his 5th District. Originally, Antonovich called for a mandatory spay/neuter policy for pit bulls and Rottweilers, but the ordinance later was expanded to all types of dogs.

The proposed ordinance is no longer solely a move to prevent vicious dog attacks; it includes a concerted effort to cut down on euthanasia and increase reunions between pet owners and lost dogs.

Some "people think we've lost the point, and gone from (focusing on) dog attacks to overpopulation, but that's not true," Antonovich spokesman Tony Bell said. "We've actually strengthened our intent by adding all dog breeds and making it more comprehensive. It's a proactive ordinance that will cut down on overpopulation, … reduce the number of dog attacks and stray dogs running around on the streets and make the department more effective and efficient."

Though the ordinance would only apply in county unincorporated regions, it "would be an excellent model for cities to pattern their own ordinances on," Antonovich aide Millie Jones said.

The board meets at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 West Temple St., Los Angeles.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't think it is a bad idea, but some pet owners might disagree with it.

:thumbup: I think it's a great idea. Less dogs that have to be thump. This will take care of the overpopulation problem, BYBs, and keeps dogs with more Bobs owners. My city has a program here that will microchip for only $20. In big cities it is VERY hard to call all of the shelters to find out if your dog is found. It is also hard to argue if someone else wants your dog and claims it. I have heard of some people from the shelters calling their friends to come and claim a dog that is not their's if it is an expensive breed, such as our yorkies. If all of the dogs are microchiped there is no way they can argue ownership.

Hmm, I've never heard of mandatory microchipping and spay/neutering before in any other cities. Does anyone know if it's mandatory anywhere else?

I would hope that mandatory microchipping cuts down on dognapping. It certainly is useful for identifying lost or problem dogs.

The mandatory spay/neutering sounds like a good idea to help control dog overpopulation. What I would think though, that the people who don't get licenses will still have dogs that aren't spayed or neutered, and that those dogs will still reproduce. THOSE are the problem dogs. I would venture to say that they need to enact strict fines for those without dog licenses, or the overpopulation problems will continue...

This mandatory law sounds quite interesting, if they implement it, I would be curious to see how well it works out for Los Angeles...

This is a very good topic/article. Thanks for posting it! :)

Mandatory Chipping Bill HR2744.
 

Here's a letter from Avid explaining a little about the mandatory chipping bill HR2744. I received this about 6 months ago.

Word to the wise; have your babies chipped now before the cost rises drastically. Should this bill ever go through, the cost of microchipping will rise drastically as it would become a requirement and no longer an option.

Subject: Mandatory Microchipping NOW?

Here's a clip from a post that's making the rounds this afternoon.
This was written by a person at AVID and I am in the process of
following it up with them right now -- stay tuned!

Bill HR2744 requires that all pets be microchipped and requires a very
particular frequency for the microchip. That frequency is 134.2 kHz.
However in the USA, we DO NOT use that frequency. We use the industry
standard of 125 kHz. So if this bill passes, not only would every
rescue, shelter, vet and disaster group have to start over, but the
system as we know it would fall apart. These foreign frequency chips
cannot be detected or read by 99% of the scanners in operation in the
US. It is quite simply not what we use here.

The HSUS is backing this bill, and they also want a centralized
database presumably kept by them? Banfield actually introduced the
chip and it was rejected in the marketplace by many states, including
yours. So the HSUS has taken it to Congress.

Unfortunately, HR 2744 is the appropriation bill for Agriculture,
Rural Development, and the Food and Drug Administration -- thousands
and thousands of lines. It's very likely that the requirement is in
there in such an obscure way that you'd have to read a large part of
it -- and even then, you might miss it, due to references to other
documents. Banfield and/or HSUS probably paid millions of dollars
per line to get it in there, you can bet they did it well.

Right now we need to know exactly what the bill says and where it
says it. More to come, feel free to post the details if YOU have
them.

I agree with the microchipping. But those folks who don't get licenses are the same folks who do not spay or neuter.....

El Paso, Texas just passed a mandatory microchipping law, but not a mandatory spay or neuter. Their reasoning is that people do not claim their animals when they wind up at the shelter. i think they also levied a per litter fee ($85.00) which gives you a registration number for a litter that you must post with your advertisement for sale. i haven't seen any litter numbers posted in the paper, yet so maybe this part didn't pass or has not come into affect yet.

I am in favor of such a bill. It's about time something (more drastic) is done to prevent so many animals from being euthanized. Yes - if this did become the law - there will always be some people who will avoid doing it - but the overall result should still be that there will be fewer animals being euthanized...and, I am sure we are talking about thousands - to say nothing of the thousands of animals that can be more quickly (if at all) reunited with their owners.

Whichever way is best and most modern to microchip is the direction we should take. If at this point, it involves a change with new equipment and some extra expense, then this is what we should do. In time, with the number of animals being microchipped and more being microchipped in the future, this expense should become less expensive. Responsible pet owners should be willing to pay for this. I am. We all need to remember that paying the bills for tens of thousands of unwanted dogs and cats to be cared for, homed, and euthanized is astronomical - it's an expense that we already all share - in our taxes, donations, and our time.

Again - I am in favor of these changes.

Carol Jean

IMO I think it would. My neighbors have licenses for their dogs, a pug and a pug-terrier mix. They want to breed both of their dogs for pets for their family members.
I think this bill will make people who are on the fence about breeding, or some hobby breeders, and backyard breeders change their mind about breeeding. Since it will cost more money and not be "free" I think people who are thinking of breeding their pets will change their mind about it. I hope that if this bill does work, they are checking people who are walking their dogs and make sure found dogs in the shelters get chipped and s/n.

I think this is a good law but both of my dogs are microchipped and spayed/neutered.

Good Post! :thumbup:

I think every furbaby should be Chipped & licensed! :) :) :)

yes...great idea. i think it protect the people who are showing dogs and breeding and keeps out the breeders who just do it for profit(and no care in the world).

Excellent post!

I think it’s a good thing. I agree that most of those that are irresponsible in the first place won’t get their dog licensed nor will they get them spayed/neutered. However there are all sorts of things we can say that about, irresponsible people are going to do it their way anyway, so I’m still for it. I think they will definitely get more people spaying/neutering their pets with the ordinance than without.

I can see your point Nazir and agree to a certain extent. I disagree because not having animals spayed/neutered is costing the state/city/county (which ever) money. It’s causing more animals to end up in shelters. Docking or not docking doesn’t really affect the number of animals in shelters therefore causing the state/city/county to dish out money to take care of them. I just don’t they they’d be concerned with the fact of whether someone is docking their puppies tails or not when it doesn’t effect them. But at the same time I can see people(the ones who want to stop declawing, docking etc.) seeing it as a step forward, a step towards being able to say what we can and can’t do to/with our pets. I can see them almost using this as a reason to push more, if they can make them have their pets fixed they can make them stop docking their tails.

Hmm…I guess just because something seems great doesn’t mean its not going to cause other problems. I guess I'm still for it though, I hate going to shelters and seeing those little faces looking at me.