Comments on: Board to bring back microchip question

By: Griffin Spell

Griffin Spell — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:46:07 +0000

I agree with Brian. It’s not so much the microchipping that’s the problem, it’s the mandatory aspect. There are reasonable arguments either way, and it should be up to the pet owner to decide, not a government.

If you actually believe that people who don’t chip their pets don’t love them, do you believe that the city can legislate love?

By: Brian S

Brian S — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:28:39 +0000

The problem that most people have with mandatory RFID implants isn’t that they don’t love their pet, Mary.

Mandatory chipping is perceived (rightly so) as a slippery slope for any government to head down. If the council had a shred of working gray matter between them, they would incentivize pet chipping by subsidizing either part or all of the chipping cost.

Even with subsidizing, the overall cost savings are obvious, since chipped pets don’t have to spend nearly as much time in the pound before they’re recovered (or put down).

By following the method I’ve outlined, they can increase chipping and not infringe on people’s rights (imagined or otherwise).

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:45:13 +0000

With today’s economy and over crowded, understaffed shelters microchips make a lot of sense. The lack of identification is the number one killer in animal shelters. All of my pets are chipped, if one would ever get out by mistake I am confident that I will get them back in a timely manner. They will not become another statistic on the euthanasia list. It saves tax dollars and pet’s lives. But, microchip ONLY the pets you love.