Should it be mandatory for people to microchip their dogs?

  • More pros than cons

    Microchipping your pet whether its bought from a pet shop or adopted outweights the cons because this will hinder non serious pet owners/ adopters from buying or adopting without considering a pet their family for life and not just a gift or something that they could throw away when they're longer cute or sick. They rate of strays are increasing if we do not do something about it. In the long run, there wil be so many strays that euthanisia will be the only way to control the numbers. By microchipping your pet, this will increase your chances of finding your pet in the event that it runs away from home or being dognapped. We want to enourage responsible pet ownership to reduce strays. Afterall, how do you think strays became strays in the first place? It all started from irresponsible dog/ cat owners who have no qualms in abondoning their pets. Now we have to clean up this mess which is overdue to ensure our next generation will learn from this. It has to start from us.

  • Microchip is experiment,but not used dogs and cats for that

    The question still remain-why chip inside the body of pets,making them sick,suffering or dying. If someone have a request to locate a chip outside of the body,let them do it. Not be mandatory requirement.Is this mean taking more freedom from people,or communism is our leader. I wish more people are in opposition,and against this stupid microchipping!!!

  • Microchips cause cancerous tumours, nerve and tissue damage and adverse reactions... Some leading to death.

    I and my colleagues are totally opposed to making microchipping mandatory. To force people to implant a foreign body in their pet is appalling. There is no question about the dangers of theser invasive devices. You only have to read the proof of the tumours and the damage done to nerves and tissues in the animals'bodies to see that these microchips are dangerous.
    There is also no doubt that the microchips migrate inside the animal and have been found in the brain, chest, base of the tail and muscle. Say NO to mandatory microchipping. It is unethical.

  • Dog found-in-Coma State.

    Our dog when we found him was very sick, because when he was a small puppy his former owner started beating him hard with a metal chain in an act to kill this two month old puppy. But after 10 years the dog is still afraid of people except me and my family. Therefore, I say no for micro-chipping of family dog, as we then adopted him through the SPCA.

    For this reason, I suggest the EU exempt all sick dogs that passed from such an ordeal and be exempted and offered also free treatments from all vets. This puppy now a nice Rhodesian Rich-back dog (95% pure) our vet knows the whole story, yet he is afraid from doing a certificate to be exempted, and for this reason we wish to have all the support and help....

  • No, it should not be mandatory to micro chip your dog.

    It should not be mandatory to microchip any type of pet for a number of reasons. While I see positives to doing so, the negatives far outweigh it.
    While it is now a simple injection with a needle, some pets have had allergic reactions to the implant. In some extreme cases this has shown to lead to death.
    Another reason would be the financial burden this places on dog owners. Not everyone who could provide a loving home to a stray could afford the additional costs of microchipping.
    Many people are horribly offended by microchipping of any kind due to religious reasons. This would infringe on their beliefs.
    Not all pounds and rescue agencies are equipped with the scanning devices needed to properly use the microchips. This is changing, but non profit and underfunded agencies are behind in new equipment and don't have the upfront capital to invest.
    A good alternative to microchipping is a tracking collar. You can scan it with the same devices used to scan the microchips, but it is embedded on the collar and not the animal itself. They usually run around 35$ and your information can be adjusted via website.

  • No, it should not!

    People should have the right to choose if they want a microchip for their dogs. The more laws we have the more complicated society gets and individual freedoms are sacrificed. We have the right to choose and I am sick and tired of lobbyists of big business trying to take away our first amendment rights due to them wanting to make a bigger profit!

  • No it should not be mandatory

    It should be a choice and not mandatory for people to microchip their dogs. This violets the principle and the right of freedom of choice. If an owner by any means feels that a microchip isn't necessary for their dogs then they should have the right not to do so. Same goes with people who want microchip their dogs.

  • No, it should not be mandatory for people to microchip their dogs

    In some locales and situations, it is mandatory that dogs be spayed or neutered. Adding a microchipping requirement places an unfair financial burden on dog owners. In addition, microchipping is cruel. Dogs who have been microchipped have been shown to exhibit unusual behavior. The chips can also cause pain. Think about it - an electronic implant in your head?

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.