Microchips in dogs

@mcrowl (1050)
New Zealand
March 22, 2007 1:48am CST
Here in New Zealand they brought in a law that says all newly-registered dogs have to have a microchip installed in them. The idea is supposedly to protect people from being attacked by fierce dogs. How do you think a microchip would help?
1 person likes this
5 responses
@juls2me2 (2151)
• United States
22 Mar 07
This topic infuriates me greatly. When I bought my puppy from the pound we had the option of having a microchip implanted in him or not. Reasons to do it were specifically in case the dog got loose they could find us and inform us. We chose not to have it done, because I wouldn't want one implanted in myself let alone my pet. We had our dog for 2 years and within that time we bought him a girl dog to have as a friend. Well my husband's job required more traveling for our family, which caused a huge strain on our finances to kennel both dogs or hire a dog sitter. So we heartbreakingly put both the dogs up for adoption. The girl dog was adopted immediately, but no one wanted our rhodesian ridgeback. He must have thought he was being kenneled like we always do when we went on trips. They were going to put him to sleep. We couldn't let that happen so we adopted him back. As the pound rep. did the paperwork, she informed us that they microchipped him. I was soooo angry, because I had opted out of that and the pound did it anyway. "Sorry" and that is to make it all better. My husband feels that if a dog does get loose and injures someone or is killed on the highway, they want a way to track it to the owner and hold them liable for any bills caused because of it. Who knows. All I know is I didn't want it done to him and they infringed on my right to that freedom. Scarey world we're in. Next thing we'll see is the government demanding that we all have an implant in our hand or on our forehead. Hey....doesn't the Bible predict a similar thing to take place to be able to buy and sell food and things? It does..in Revelations.
2 people like this
• United States
22 Mar 07
That stinks. However, you did give the dog to the pound, and this is a standard procedure that most shelters require. My dog was microchipped. It's really not that big of a deal. You can't feel it under the skin, and you can not track the animal. It's just like a tattoo. Which, by the way, they sometimes do to animals instead of microchipping. I don't think that the government is going to demand that anytime soon. That is, only if the people don't want it. We are still a government by the people, but most people would rather let others handle their problems.
1 person likes this
@mcrowl (1050)
• New Zealand
23 Mar 07
I still don't see how it means dogs WON'T attack people. This was the ridiculous argument used over and over here, and as always, the innocent (in this case innocent animals) get roped in with the animals that actually do damage. It's fairly rare for a dog to go on the rampage and attack people: mostly if they do it at all they do it on the owner's property or near it. I can't see how the microchips help in the least.
@mcrowl (1050)
• New Zealand
23 Mar 07
As for the governments microchipping people - I'm not sure that it would necessarily be the same as the stuff in Revelations, Juls, but it certainly seems a step closer. In Britain they're wanting to bring in ID cards in the next few years. And with today's technology, you can imagine how much information they'll carry!
• United States
22 Mar 07
In america we microchip. At least in my area its big. And inexpensive. It implants a chip in your animals skin that contains your information. Name address phone ect. That is scanable. They can scan it with an external device that tells animal control or a vet anything that is put on there. In any event i would imagine if a person is attacked by a dog they want to know who it belongs to so that the responsible party ( IE the owner) is held accountable. at least here if your animal attacks someone, its your fault. You have to pay the dr bills as well as have the animal put down. Its the same if your animal attacks another animal. You are responsible for the vet bills and any appropirate action with your animal. Course we are a different country, so im just going off of what its like in my area.
2 people like this
@mcrowl (1050)
• New Zealand
22 Mar 07
I didn't know the Americans microchipped. What bothered me was that the argument behind it was 'it would prevent attacks.' There's no way it will do that, of course.
1 person likes this
• United States
22 Mar 07
I agree, and do not think that it would prevent attacks. With these microchips, you can not track the animal. You can just find out information by scanning the animal.
1 person likes this
• United States
22 Mar 07
I like the idea of microchipping doggs. It is also good for the owner in case the dogs run away. I live in the U.S and I know that it is becomming very popular here. If a dog attacks more than one person they can be put to sleep. If a dog attacks someone and it has a microchip than the owners can be notified.
2 people like this
@vstorm (65)
• United States
26 Mar 07
I don't know what it has to do with protecting people from fierch dogs. A microchip is a form of ID, so if your dog is lost and is found it can be taken in and have the microchip scanned to find the owner. Also, animal control suppose to scan a dog before putting it down and notify the owner if there is a microchip.
1 person likes this
@mcrowl (1050)
• New Zealand
30 Mar 07
This all makes more sense. I wonder why our government didn't promote it this way?
@Calais (10900)
• Australia
22 Mar 07
No, I think you'll find that it ties the dog to you as an owner, if it gets lost, stolen etc... they can scan it and take appropriate action. Its not to protect people from being bitten - There is no way on earth that would work. But if someone is bitten they can scan the dog and find the owner. Its law here is Australia for cats and other animals too.
1 person likes this
@mcrowl (1050)
• New Zealand
30 Mar 07
I agree that this is how it can work, but the way it was presented to the public was that it would protect people from animals attacking them. Plain nonsense.