Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
2,500,000 members. Thank you!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets > Dogs
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-14-2013, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Chapel Hill, N.C.
36,499 posts, read 53,741,936 times
Reputation: 47903

Advertisements

Not a bad idea. This might cut down on abandoned dogs like the 50,000 strays in Detroit alone. We have to make people responsible for their pets. At the very least it will reunit people with their lost dogs.

Dogs in England must have microchips by 2016 - CBS News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-14-2013, 06:20 PM
 
Location: SF Bay & Diamond Head
1,776 posts, read 1,856,319 times
Reputation: 1981
I'm glad they have the political will to pass a beneficial law like this. If people in America realized how much tax dollars are spent dealing with thrown away pets I'm sure we could pass similar laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2013, 06:47 PM
 
3,339 posts, read 9,293,859 times
Reputation: 4298
The British and their dogs -- it's a different thing entirely over there. I don't know how many tax dollars are spent on the canine overpopulation in America, but the situation is untenable. The UK is a small island. there is a huge population density and their lawmakers get a lot more done than ours do. They have fewer rights of free speech and privacy than we do, but sometimes I wonder if that's not a good thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2013, 03:42 AM
 
Location: The Help Desk
259 posts, read 667,271 times
Reputation: 300
Adding more cost to dog ownership will do nothing to make it more affordable. If a chip in a dogs neck can make a person more responsible, it would work even better if it was put in the persons neck, no?

So, if all these dogs in Detroit had chips, all the addresses registered with the chips would have occupants and the city wouldn't be abandoned?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Mountains of middle TN
5,245 posts, read 16,345,786 times
Reputation: 6130
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Help Desk View Post
Adding more cost to dog ownership will do nothing to make it more affordable. If a chip in a dogs neck can make a person more responsible, it would work even better if it was put in the persons neck, no?

So, if all these dogs in Detroit had chips, all the addresses registered with the chips would have occupants and the city wouldn't be abandoned?
It would certainly have placed more of them back in their homes, that's for sure. What it won't change is the owners that dump the dog because they no longer want it. All they have to do is say they gave the dog away and don't know who the new owner is. No, it won't save them all and I doubt it would even make a difference with half. At least in the area I'm in and in the larger cities with high euth rates.

My concern would also be the cost. The more expensive it is to have a pet, the fewer people will take one in. So the fewer will be adopted from shelters and more will die. And the cost of microchips can now safely go up by vets since they know that people MUST get them. Look at insurance costs. They weren't wickedly high until our government mandated everyone to have auto insurance. Now it's ridiculous. I expect the same to happen with health insurance now as well, and many people I know have already seen their costs go up. And this is not a political post, simply an economic one. When something is mandated, those selling it can raise the cost as much as they want. What are you going to do about it? With a microchip, the easiest way to not have to carry that financial burden is to not have a pet.

The good news is that as another said, the UK definitely has much more pet dedicated people than the US. They see the as members of the family whereas in many parts of the US they are still seen as no more a part of the family than the couch is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 09:46 AM
 
3,339 posts, read 9,293,859 times
Reputation: 4298
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrs1885 View Post
It would certainly have placed more of them back in their homes, that's for sure. What it won't change is the owners that dump the dog because they no longer want it. All they have to do is say they gave the dog away and don't know who the new owner is. No, it won't save them all and I doubt it would even make a difference with half. At least in the area I'm in and in the larger cities with high euth rates.

My concern would also be the cost. The more expensive it is to have a pet, the fewer people will take one in. So the fewer will be adopted from shelters and more will die. And the cost of microchips can now safely go up by vets since they know that people MUST get them. Look at insurance costs. They weren't wickedly high until our government mandated everyone to have auto insurance. Now it's ridiculous. I expect the same to happen with health insurance now as well, and many people I know have already seen their costs go up. And this is not a political post, simply an economic one. When something is mandated, those selling it can raise the cost as much as they want. What are you going to do about it? With a microchip, the easiest way to not have to carry that financial burden is to not have a pet.

The good news is that as another said, the UK definitely has much more pet dedicated people than the US. They see the as members of the family whereas in many parts of the US they are still seen as no more a part of the family than the couch is.

If all dogs were required to be chipped, the prices would plummet. There would also be more companies doing it. That's how the market dynamic works. The more potential customers there are, the more competition there is among the people who make the product and the people who administer it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Chapel Hill, N.C.
36,499 posts, read 53,741,936 times
Reputation: 47903
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Help Desk View Post
Adding more cost to dog ownership will do nothing to make it more affordable. If a chip in a dogs neck can make a person more responsible, it would work even better if it was put in the persons neck, no?

So, if all these dogs in Detroit had chips, all the addresses registered with the chips would have occupants and the city wouldn't be abandoned?
Here's a thought. I don't think pets should be so "affordable". Dogs and cats are so plentiful in this country that they become expendable. Move and leave one behind and we can just get a new dog in the new city. Too expensive to pay for medical care? Just dump it and get a new shiny one.

If it cost more to get pets at the offset- shots, registration, chips, neutering we could keep some very irresponsible people from taking in animals and letting them roam or reproduce freely. Everyone takes better care of the things they pay dearly for and which would be expensive to replace.
I think pet ownership in this country should be a privilege and not necessarily a right. Perhaps economic restraints would keep more of our pets safe and reduce the number of homeless and abused pets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 10:15 AM
 
3,339 posts, read 9,293,859 times
Reputation: 4298
Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu View Post
Here's a thought. I don't think pets should be so "affordable". Dogs and cats are so plentiful in this country that they become expendable. Move and leave one behind and we can just get a new dog in the new city. Too expensive to pay for medical care? Just dump it and get a new shiny one.

If it cost more to get pets at the offset- shots, registration, chips, neutering we could keep some very irresponsible people from taking in animals and letting them roam or reproduce freely. Everyone takes better care of the things they pay dearly for and which would be expensive to replace.
I think pet ownership in this country should be a privilege and not necessarily a right. Perhaps economic restraints would keep more of our pets safe and reduce the number of homeless and abused pets.
Good points, NK. The cost of a microchip is less than a drop in the bucket compared to the lifetime of expenditures our pets incur. I think our dogs' chips plus the registration fee (which keepes them in the database for life) was less than $75 apiece. I think that's the same as two weeks' worth of their food.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2013, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Mountains of middle TN
5,245 posts, read 16,345,786 times
Reputation: 6130
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinaMcG View Post
If all dogs were required to be chipped, the prices would plummet. There would also be more companies doing it. That's how the market dynamic works. The more potential customers there are, the more competition there is among the people who make the product and the people who administer it.
I guess we have to agree to disagree then. I my life I've found that anything that became mandatory or was vital for life goes up in price, not down. Businesses like to take advantage of the fact that you have no choice. It's great for them. What are you going to do about it? Refuse? Nope, not allowed. So they charge what they want. The free market does work in reducing prices when companies can compete with one another, but once something is mandatory and required they have no reason to drop prices. JMO and experience in life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2013, 12:35 AM
 
Location: The Help Desk
259 posts, read 667,271 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrs1885 View Post
It would certainly have placed more of them back in their homes, that's for sure.

Dogs don't leave good homes. One of mine is chipped and one isn't. Neither want to leave.


Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu View Post
Here's a thought. I don't think pets should be so "affordable"..
Really? If pet food and vets were free, you don't think more people could afford to keep pets? Place a 3k a year tax on dogs and then tell me how many more will wind up in the street.

Heck, if a Porsche or a Mercedes were free, why drive a Chevy or a Toyota?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets > Dogs
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:38 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top