Mandatory Electronic ID

[concretegurl]

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88

Its only effective if they have the same company scanner that your microchip is otherwise its useless.

Not at all.
Ours at the pounds reads all chips, the scanners just read a reg #.

[concretegurl]

Okay wait, rarely some off fireign brand is used...they are on a different frequency, regulation on this issue failed in 2009, but really this is rare and only when a company choosen to use an alternative frequency which was intended to get vets to by their specific scanner.

We use homeagain, it reads all chips on the former us frequency...most pounds and shelters use homeagain abd any chip can be converted to them.

I prefer homeagain, they donate scanners to pounds and shelters, and have dropped the price when no other company would

[yorkietalkjilly]

Tibbe has a Home Again chip.

[Yorkiemom1]

[QUOTE=concretegurl;4019940]I beleive every breeder intentially or not should be required to microchip the dogs they produced.

Sorry breeders, most do this anyways now.


I microchip all my babies going out to new homes. I always thought of it as a way to get the baby back home, rather than identifying the owner for culpability in dog attack cases! As far as government intrusion into our private lives for our own good, I think we can expand this to include getting DNA on every baby born. Then we can ID dead bodies immediately, and we can cross reference murderers and criminals with any DNA they leave at crime scenes! OMG!! We could ID criminals in the short span of time it takes to get DNA tests back! I think I am liking a mandated policy for DNA data bases for every baby born! Now, THIS idea would be truly helpful to all of us!

[concretegurl]

Well convicted criminals now do have DNA on file in most cases depending on the crime.

As far as infants as a whole at birth that violates religious freedoms in America.

OT but just saying.

[chattiesmom]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

I am sooooooo over "government mandates"..........thanks but no thanks. That opens up a HUGE can of worms that we would NEVER get through, and all it would end up doing is generating revenue for some obscure animal control regulatory commission....My dogs do NOT run free and are NOT a death threat to any other living creature and I should NOT be "mandated" to have electronic ID for my pets.....lining the pockets of ????

Well said! I agree 100%.

Ummm If I remember correctly I live in the Land of the Free -- unfortunately way too many of our freedoms have been taken away to "protect" us because too many of our citizens and/or aliens don't understand the concept that with freedoms come responsibilities.

My dogs are chipped but was a personal choice not a mandate. Had it been a "law" I'm not sure I would have had them chipped. I don't believe that the government has a right to dictate certain aspects of my life.

[dodger_d]

Why don't people take them to the vet and get them to look up there tattoo?
My dog is not a robot and doesn't need some micro chip to control him, we
Do not need to punish the dogs, its the owners who need control

[Katie Jo]

Originally Posted by SWHouston

Microchiping is what I was referring to.


OR, should the mandate be applied (confined) to those breeds which have a reputation for this nefarious activity.

THIS is what I would support.

[SWHouston]

Originally Posted by dodger_d

Why don't people take them to the vet and get them to look up there tattoo?

Are you implying that Microchiping is punishing, and Tattooing is not ?

Originally Posted by Katie Jo

THIS is what I would support.

I should have put that as a third option.

[gemy]

I like DNA identification as a permanent and secure way to identify the dog and owner. How-ever at this point in time, microchipping while not perfect is a reasonable alternative.

I look at it as a way to return a lost dog to the rightful owner.

I do believe in only regulating "certain breeds" at all. All dogs bite. I do believe that dog owners will continue to come under pressure as there seems to be a fairly large percentage of the population who really either don't like dogs, or do see what all the fuss is about.

I do forsee more rules and regs coming down on dog owners

[SWHouston]

I too do not like any more regulations, but...

Regardless of Breed, anyone who would allow their animals to run loose and cause damage property or person, should be held responsible for their actions.

I've owned Pitties, and they were sweet as sugar, but, those and other Breeds which have the ability to do real damage if aggressive, should not be blamed on the animal, but the person who trained/raised them.

But, fairness would demand that IF you "required" Microchipping, that you do it for ALL breeds. I think it will eventually be where each Dog gets a Serial Number, and you/whoever get the Deed assigned to you.

That's the ONLY way that we're going to get control of the Owners.

PS:
Ok, I understand that Dogs are sold and given away. BUT, if that Dog hurts someone, and the original Owner has to pay for it, THEN we'll start seeing a viable ownership paperwork trail, and the responsible persons will be prosecuted. That's my whole point here, if someone lets something happen, they pay !

[Reagan2012]

I'm getting tired of solutions that are "mandated" by government. Maybe it's just bad timing, I don't know, but a little less "mandating" would be a good thing. We don't need to have every "good idea" imposed upon us.

[SWHouston]

Reagan,

I completely agree with you. But, how else would you do it* ?

Innocent person/child gets killed/maimed, and their Family bears the cost of years of medical care/grief over the incident. Would there be no assistance/closure to it...

That's just unacceptable.


* = That was a sincere question. Do you/someone have an answer ?

[yorkietalkjilly]

I know when people attack other people, the family of the victim is most often left to shoulder all or the main cost of the medical and custodial care. Just because an animal does the damage, what makes one think ID'ing the pet owner will make victim medical care financial losses for the family any different. Even in the cases where there is insurance(and those seem less and less as so many rent/lease nowadays), homeowners' insurance is limited to certain contractual circumstances being met or they don't pay. They are writing in more and more waivers and exceptions and many just won't cover certain or dangerous animals at all. Without insurance, only voluntary payment or a court judgment against the legal liability of the owner can be obtained and that doesn't force them to pay at all - just says they are financially liable in the eyes of the law. They don't have to pay a cent if they can't or don't want. Just as in any attack, the victim usually winds up paying for all or most of their own care.