|
Mandatory Electronic ID Two very terrible incidents have occurred (that I'm aware of) locally, where large Dogs entered a closed yard in one instance, and a citizens house in another, and killed the resident (smaller) Dogs. To date, the owners of the perpetrating Animals, have not be able to be located. What is your opinion, IF there were Regulations/Mandatory Electronic Identification, required for ALL Dogs in your City ? |
What is or would the electronic id be? |
Way less than 50% of people would actually do it and the rest of us would be burdened with paying for the program administration plus the actual device so I don't see it as working very effectively. It might be good for locating lost dogs as long as the owner data was strictly updated but less than half would probably do that. Mandatory is only as strong as enforcement and penalties attached to failure to comply & I don't see cities or counties relegating a lot of resources to an effort like this, so compliance would likely be very low. |
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 ???? |
Im standing on the same soapbox as Yorkiemom1 |
Microchiping is what I was referring to. But, there have been human and animal maiming and deaths due to someone's carelessness in controlling their Dogs. And, when the animals are caught (they are frequently) all of a sudden they are strays that nobody will admit owning them. Wouldn't the saving of a repeat of some of this type incident, by being able to identify the owner and pursue prosecution be worth it ? OR, should the mandate be applied (confined) to those breeds which have a reputation for this nefarious activity. |
Quote:
|
I think microchipping is wonderful if the pet makes it to a site that actually scans the dog and then tries to locate the listed owner as I think all government-run shelters do but I don't know how many other places do it. Still, even if the government made it mandatory(and I have no idea how they would enforce noncompliance), if owners don't update their contact data with moves and rehoming of the dog, I don't see it being all that effective for the astounding amount of $ it will likely cost taxpayers to administer. I just don't see counties and cities in this economy ever trying to do something like that for the few cases where it can't locate a possibly responsible party in an dog attack. And what if the listed owner claims they gave the dog away to a homeless man or a family they met at the park or something and the dog wasn't their property at the time of the attack. It would take lots of resources to prove otherwise. I just wouldn't agree with mandatory electronic ID though I believe in microchipping as the right thing to do but I don't see the cost/benefits ratio as being that favorable to such a program. |
I would rather see THEM mandate to implement, and put teeth in, laws and penalties for dog abuse and puppy mills. |
Weather mandatory or not, when someone Microchips an Animal, that IS a record of ownership. Who else would legitimately do that ? Now, IF that owner was careless enough not to document a change of ownership or control, and, that animal caused harm/death, northing's changed. That owner is responsible, regardless of who/how he delegated control of that Animal to another. And, I'm sure that any shaky paperwork concerning responsibility would firm up considerably, should a hefty Fine or other punitive action be taken toward the owner of Record. |
I think making someone microchip would be wrong especially sense there where some cases of dogs getting cancer and there body's rejecting foreign objects. The government already requires county licensing of your dog and rabies shots and many people don't do that. |
I beleive every breeder intentially or not should be required to microchip the dogs they produced. Sorry breeders, most do this anyways now. The humane society does this service on a sliding scale from 20-40 bucks. Here if your dogs is taken to animal control it is microchipped if not already and before claiming your animal it must have current information registered to the owner. If you can't afford to microchip you can't afford a pet. Personally I prefer the idea of micrchips over tags required in a license fee I have to pay $65for stinking dollars a year fir each of my dogs already! We don't use the city tags they're ugly too big and not useful enough. I do have tags on the d-ring of all harnesses but really a microchip is much more effecrive if scanned...the issue is requiring all found animals be scanned abd getting vets to scan regularly. In my county if you find a dog and do not report it as a foubd animal to animal control you can be fined, you no longer have to take the animal into animal controk IF you report it and can prove you had it scanned for a chip. |
Also last year an owner reported their teacup killed a cat, last month a yorkie killed a hawk...little dogs bite too...kill or seriously harm a person no, but still. What proven study shiws microchipping has ever caused cancer? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2003 - 2018 YorkieTalk.com
Privacy Policy - Terms of Use