Printable View
I Just thought I would tell all my fellow pet lovers, and I know most of you are really for this procedure., and with good reasons too.
It appears it will become law in NZ for ALL dogs to be micro-chipped, I am not certain the bill has been passed in parliament yet, but it sounds like its a definite to me.
How it will all be policed is another thing, but its a step in the right direction I think.
I think it's a VERY good step!
Just read this story I posted a while back and just bumped...
Dog found because microchip
I dont like that. I dont like microchips, I like tatoos MUCH better, and I will certainly never microchip, Ripley has been found from a tatoo, if he were microshiped instead we would not have gotten him back until the long weekend was over, because the shelter woul dhave had to pick him up and scan him, and it was just about closing time before the easter long weekend, however because he is tatooed the person who found him simply called the shelter relayed the tatoo and the shelter called us, told us who he was with and where to pick him up, he would have been gone for 3 days if he were microshiped instead.:eek:
Well as I donot own a dog, I am not the voice of experience with micro-chipping, I can only go by what I have read on PT, and it appears most people are in favour, the vets say it is perfectly safe for your animal.
I understand what you are saying cali, however in NZ dog-owners WILL NOT be given a choice, if the bill is passed, it will be a requirement by law.
a lot of things are a requirment by law, that does not mean people follow them, dogs here are required by law to be licenced that does'nt mean we licence them. they have ID tags and tatoos thats it, and they work fine for us. even if it was a law here that doesent mean we would microchip them :p
You wouldn't, even it was a law?? :confused:Quote:
Originally posted by cali
a lot of things are a requirment by law, that does not mean people follow them, dogs here are required by law to be licenced that does'nt mean we licence them. they have ID tags and tatoos thats it, and they work fine for us. even if it was a law here that doesent mean we would microchip them :p
I think it's in the dogs best interest to get them licenced and microchipped, much like having them spayed and neutered; that's why both of mine are.
I, think that's a great step! :)
Great move by NZ!
Of course not *every* dog will get microchipped but this law will certainly increase the number of dogs which are microchipped!
Yes well cali, that is obvious to me, that of course people always break the law, as with licencing we have the same problem as well, nevertheless it is a positive move, and can only be a good thing IMO.
But he would have gotten to you eventually. I can understand your point, but now I will explain why I do not like tattoos.Quote:
Originally posted by cali
I dont like that. I dont like microchips, I like tatoos MUCH better, and I will certainly never microchip, Ripley has been found from a tatoo, if he were microshiped instead we would not have gotten him back until the long weekend was over, because the shelter woul dhave had to pick him up and scan him, and it was just about closing time before the easter long weekend, however because he is tatooed the person who found him simply called the shelter relayed the tatoo and the shelter called us, told us who he was with and where to pick him up, he would have been gone for 3 days if he were microshiped instead.:eek:
Clipse is tattooed on his flank. I think the first reason I don't like tattoos can be explained by these pictures (they're a little "x-rated" LOL ;) )
http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/...4699641245.jpg
http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/...6506617826.jpg
Can you see his tattoo??? No of course not. Even with the hair shaved (I sometimes shave out his groin when I feel like it) you can't see anything legible. Plus shelters aren't going to run around shaving every hairy dog's groin to see if they are tattooed. Also some bad things about the flank tattoo is that some people are scared of bigger tough looking dogs, so they sure aren't going to volunteer to go flip that dog over and look for a tattoo. Also lots of lost dogs are scared and wouldn't appreciate a stranger trying to roll them over.
Now Clipse also has an ear tattoo that he got when he was neutered.
http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/...2368386356.jpg
It too is hard to read. But it is legible if you study it hard enough (sorry the pic isn't that great). The trouble is that tattoo only applies to the city I live in. If I was travelling, say to BC and he got lost they probably wouldn't be able to trace his tattoo back to my city. And the same thing goes as for the flank tattoo, some scared dogs might not let a stranger look closely in their ear.
Emily has an ear tattoo as well and it is much more clear. I tried to get a pic of it, but it's quite deep in her ear and I couldn't get the angle right.
Now of course there are downsides to microchipping. You need the right brand scanner to read the right brand chip. I think this is more of a problem in the States though. Most scanners will show evidence of there being a chip though even if they can't read the number.
Anyways sorry this turned out so long, but those are just my opinions :)
There's certainly no harm in mircochipping. I, too, doubt it's value at times, as there is only one place in our entire county that has a reader, and it isn't even a common brand. :rolleyes: But, there really isn't any harm in having it done, especially if you travel or live in a larger city.Quote:
I dont like that. I dont like microchips, I like tatoos MUCH better, and I will certainly never microchip,
No offense, Cali ... but it's dog owners that blatantly disreagard the laws and rules that give all dog owners a bad name. People who don't like dogs, don't want dog park, are pressing for BSL and insurance bans ... people like that just love to quote people like you, and use phrases like what you said above to hold over all our heads. Please reconsider, and follow the rules. You hurt all dogs and all dog owners when you break laws and rules.Quote:
dogs here are required by law to be licenced that does'nt mean we licence them.
I agree with what Shelteez said about tattoos also being difficult to read at times. I personally think responsible dog owners do everything they can to prevent their beloved dogs from being lost - collars with tags, microchips, tattoos. You can never be TOO prepared, and having multiple forms of ID for your pet will only increase his odds of coming home.
Twisterdog what you say makes complete sense, that is exactly how micro-chipping dogs in NZ came about, because of a irresponsible pet owner.
A young girl was attacked viciously by a dog, I won't go into long drawn out details, but this is what sparked the idea to micro-chip dogs and have it made law, so owners can be tracked down easily , like in this case.
I mean something good , came out of something bad, but it is a pity it has to even be like that.
*bump*
posted by Twisterdog:
No offense, Cali ... but it's dog owners that blatantly disreagard the laws and rules that give all dog owners a bad name. Please reconsider, and follow the rules. You hurt all dogs and all dog owners when you break laws and rules. >>>>
Ditto, I also agree with your post.
If your dog is spayed/neutered the fees
are reasonable.
More and more areas are off limits, more laws are
being put in place, because of pet owners breaking the law.
As for micro chipping.
I guess it depends where you live.
Since I live in the City all the shelters I believe are
equiped with a scanner as well as many vet offices.
I also like tatooing, though I am not sure if the
dog does. :( (and of course the collar/id tag)
I guess the more ID your dogs has the better.
Simba has a tatoo in his ear. It's his bad ear, which we've had trouble with ever since we got him. There's NO WAY he's going to let someone lift his ear to see it.
I don't like seeing dogs without ID tags, and there's no way i'd let mine go without them.