Hell yes. You rock, Chicago.

City might require microchip IDs for dogs

May 26, 2006
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

Owners of Chicago's estimated 600,000 dogs would be required to microchip their pets, limit tethering, pay stiff fines for letting them roam free and choose between neutering and sharply higher license fees, under a sweeping crackdown proposed by an influential alderman.

Grooming, boarding and doggie day-care facilities would be licensed and subject to strict operating standards under the legislative package championed by License Committee Chairman Eugene Schulter (47th).

A lifelong dog lover whose deceased Irish terriers Kerry and Conner were "part of the family," Schulter said he's driven by a desire to "create a safer and better environment" for Chicago's dogs.

Never was that need more evident than 18 months ago, when a dozen dogs and four cats were discovered living in filth without food or water at an unattended boarding facility at Leland and Clark in Schulter's North Side ward.

That's when Schulter put his foot down. He convened a panel of 15 experts -- including veterinarians -- and asked them to come up with a massive rewrite of the city's animal-care ordinance that reins in irresponsible care that ultimately leads to aggressive behavior.

'Take better care of our dogs'

"We're setting up an infrastructure in our city to take better care of our dogs. People who don't, it sets a process in place, after repeat offenses, to take those dogs away from them and putting them in loving and caring environments," Schulter said. "In many areas of the city, we have a huge problem with dogs running wild and biting kids and adults. This will start to address some of those issues."

Initially, Schulter was planning to require identifying microchips, at a cost of $25, only for those dogs boarded at kennels. But, after Hurricane Katrina, he decided to broaden it to ******* all dogs six months or older. "There were so many dogs that were lost because they could not find pet owners. That has encouraged us to look at this more comprehensively" and require microchip scanners at kennels, Schulter said.

Steve Dale, a radio talk show host and longtime local activist on pet issues, said mandatory microchipping would help identify "repeat offender" dogs.

Equally important, Dale said, are the proposals to limit tethering -- which tends to cause aggressive behavior -- to three hours over a 24-hour period with food and water, and to increase tenfold -- to $50 -- the fee for licensing a non-neutered dog.

[email protected]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-pets26.html#

yea, like the people who keep 15 dogs starving in a building are going to go out and get microchips now

fucking stupid

while in theory it's good.. i don't see this fixing the problem they were going out to get.

edit: uh what alex said.

"I like my TV loud, my beer cold and my threads on netphoria flaaaaaaaaming"

i bet some halfwitted liberal came up with this bullshit.

"I like my TV loud, my beer cold and my threads on netphoria flaaaaaaaaming"
Awesome!

I think the registering doggy day-care clinics is idiotic. The fines are what I'm in support of - free-roaming pets of any kind are a problem in many, many places.

Chris, you're just scared that a puppy might give you a good whooping

Hell yeah. When I was six my kidney was punctured by a free-roaming doberman. It was apparently the dog's third attack and was put down that night.

Equally important, Dale said, are the proposals to limit tethering -- which tends to cause aggressive behavior -- to three hours over a 24-hour period with food and water, and to increase tenfold -- to $50 -- the fee for licensing a non-neutered dog.

THAT is great...they are really starting to get the idea, I'm impressed!

The whole ID thing is a good idea for what they said about the Katrina animals being lost - everyone should have their dogs microchipped anyway, it's just a good idea. A lot of people don't even put tags on their dogs...not to mention those that do can lose them somehow if they get out.

That's crazy. How'd they get the dog off of you? Does that kidney still function?

That's crazy. How'd they get the dog off of you? Does that kidney still function?
From what I remember (basically from stories from my parents), a neighbor dog "attacked" the one that chased me down and got it off of me.

Luckily I had a leather jacket on - the kidney was just ever-so-slightly punctured so it just required a night in the ER and some medication. That jacket really saved that kidney!

An aside, Wednesday was apparently pet night at the Harrisburg Senators game and I saw the biggest poodle EVER - that thing was nearly 3.5 feet tall.

THAT is great...they are really starting to get the idea, I'm impressed!

The whole ID thing is a good idea for what they said about the Katrina animals being lost - everyone should have their dogs microchipped anyway, it's just a good idea. A lot of people don't even put tags on their dogs...not to mention those that do can lose them somehow if they get out.

i knew i'd see you in here. :D

aw, i love giant poodles
:)

i think microchipping any living things is sort of weird and it makes me uncomfotable

We're next liz.

I know, and I think that's exactly why it makes me uncomfortable.

I want a clock implanted into my arm.

Well, I mean, microchipping an animal that we basically created that can't really survive on it's own in our world is a good idea to me. Especially since there are so many incredibly irresponsible dog owners, and so many cruel people that would steal your dog out of your yard to use as bait for dog fighting.

Not to mention things like Katrina that happen and the animals are left behind to fend for themselves, with no clue as to what the hell is going on and no way to contact their humans.

It's not like they can just tell you their name, address, and phone number.

i knew i'd see you in here. :D Always :D

I want a cock implanted into my arm.
What, your ass already tired?

Well, I mean, microchipping an animal that we basically created that can't really survive on it's own in our world is a good idea to me. Especially since there are so many incredibly irresponsible dog owners, and so many cruel people that would steal your dog out of your yard to use as bait for dog fighting.

Not to mention things like Katrina that happen and the animals are left behind to fend for themselves, with no clue as to what the hell is going on and no way to contact their humans.

It's not like they can just tell you their name, address, and phone number.

i understand all that and i don't really disagree with any of it, other than that i am honestly worried that it would impant the idea into people that it's normal to microchip animals, and with the way that people see their dogs as members of the family, soon enough i really believe that it could help lead to acceptance of microchipping people, which i believe would be one of the worst things that could happen. america is getting scarier and scarier to me bit by bit, and i just don't want any more of out privacy to go slipping away. it might sound like a leap to go from dogs to humans, but i don't think it's that unlikely in the long term. and if that's the case, then i don't think it's worth it.

it would be a slippery slope and could lead to parent microchipping their kids and shit ... but as somebody who's lost pets dear to be, it was a really heartbreaking experience. yeah there's LOST DOG signs and centers that specialize in checking to see if apprehended animals are lost ones but i think it wouldn't hurt to put a chip in them if science allows for a safe way for implementation... and then you have things like Katrina. having a close pet die is one thing but just losing him/her by circumstance is more painful because you don't know what happened to him and your imagination assumes the worst

and btw i don't feel that microchips should be "required"

or i don't see why they should be. but it could provided solutions for owners who want to care for their animals as much as they can

From what I remember (basically from stories from my parents), a neighbor dog "attacked" the one that chased me down and got it off of me.




well it's a good thing the neighbor dog was also not on a leash...

i understand all that and i don't really disagree with any of it, other than that i am honestly worried that it would impant the idea into people that it's normal to microchip animals, and with the way that people see their dogs as members of the family, soon enough i really believe that it could help lead to acceptance of microchipping people, which i believe would be one of the worst things that could happen. america is getting scarier and scarier to me bit by bit, and i just don't want any more of out privacy to go slipping away. it might sound like a leap to go from dogs to humans, but i don't think it's that unlikely in the long term. and if that's the case, then i don't think it's worth it.
Yeah I know what you mean, it's just a leap to me, like you said. Humans have things like cellphones and gps systems, and we know how to use them so I don't see humans ever getting microchipped. Or at least the same type of mircrochipping dogs get. Dogs just basically get a serial number imbedded into their skin so when they're found as strays they can be scanned and the owners can be located...saves shelters a LOT of time going through ads and contacting other shelters and contacting the city. It's like carrying your ID in your wallet wherever you go...and that's not a scary thing, you know what I mean? Dogs don't have wallets. :(

it would be a slippery slope and could lead to parent microchipping their kids and shit
That's what cellphones are for!

that reins in irresponsible care that ultimately leads to aggressive behavior.


This is actually my favorite part...just a year ago we were worried about a possible breed ban - enough people spoke up and explained the REAL REASONS dogs, not breeds, become aggressive. It's a huge turn around, in the right direction. It sets an example...yay :)

and btw i don't feel that microchips should be "required"

or i don't see why they should be. but it could provided solutions for owners who want to care for their animals as much as they can
Well like they said, there are tons of people who let their dogs roam around the neighborhood, a lot of people who don't properly contain their dogs so they're constantly getting loose. Being able to locate the owners quickly and keeping records of how many times the dogs have gotten loose, they can start taking action on these idiots that DON'T want to care for their animals as much as they can, if at all.

Not to mention intact dogs, which not only are more likely to be aggressive, can go out and reproduce...which isn't good.

Put all of that in a huge setting like Chicago and you have yourself a very big problem.

dogs are total faggots

The whole ID thing is a good idea for what they said about the Katrina animals being lost

I'm sorry, but i have to comment on this.... I am an animal lover, no doubt about that.... but lets be realistic. It should not be high on the priority list to reunite pets with families... shouldn't we be using the tax dollars for helping the citizens who now have nothing?

Oh Great. Rufus belongs to Mr. John Randolf that live(d) at 34298 West Elm Drive. Now... How do we find Mr. Randolf?

making anyone who is not low income pay for it makes a lot of sense. small town sign tactics don't work nearly as well in a big city. if you own an animal you're risking it getting lost, and having the humane society/pound take care of it costs money. a one time microchip fee vs. the cost of housing/feeding/giving vet care to your lost animal, with many animals going missing multiple times. most shelters only charge a small fee to pick up a lost animal, and far more become the shelters responsibility than get picked up.

with the money shelters and pounds are saving, they can spend rescuing abandoned pets, instead of feeding someones fat purebread that wandered away. plus, you know, it's a lot easier to get your pet back and you can't really argue with that... unless like i mentioned before you are low income and struggling even to feed your children, then it becomes unreasonable. however, then there's a danger of owners not even having the finances to feed and take basic vet care of their animals. as sad as it is some of those animals should be given the chance to get a better home via the shelter system.

the humane society here microchips all their animals, and it's *******d in the 25 dollar adoption fee. i know a lot of people who've found their animals due to microchipping, and it sure makes me feel better knowing my cats are in case they ever got out.

Fuck Big Brother. This is bullshit.

Is my dog microchipped? You bet! It was my choice to do so.

Big surprise the government is taking choice away again.

I'm sorry, but i have to comment on this.... I am an animal lover, no doubt about that.... but lets be realistic. It should not be high on the priority list to reunite pets with families... shouldn't we be using the tax dollars for helping the citizens who now have nothing?

Oh Great. Rufus belongs to Mr. John Randolf that live(d) at 34298 West Elm Drive. Now... How do we find Mr. Randolf?
Think of how much money and resources were used because they COULDN'T find the owners? If these people had paid money out of their own pockets to get their animals microchipped, a huge chunk of that could've been used for something else.

Also, unless I'm missing something, how are tax dollars involved in this?

uh you know that when they scan the microchip it says MR JOHN RANDOLPH, PHONE NUMBER, right? most peoplel list their home phones.

well yes, it makes perfect sense to microchip your animal so ideally the idea would be to present as many benefits as possible (rates of return, costs to shelters, and so on) to both people adopting animals and current pet owners, as well as chipping animals that come out of the shelter. then you could sit back and hope this became normalized and that most people did it anyway, and if not look into fining. however, this takes time and this is a pretty big problem right now.

making anyone who is not low income pay for it makes a lot of sense. small town sign tactics don't work nearly as well in a big city. if you own an animal you're risking it getting lost, and having the humane society/pound take care of it costs money. a one time microchip fee vs. the cost of housing/feeding/giving vet care to your lost animal, with many animals going missing multiple times. most shelters only charge a small fee to pick up a lost animal, and far more become the shelters responsibility than get picked up.

with the money shelters and pounds are saving, they can spend rescuing abandoned pets, instead of feeding someones fat purebread that wandered away. plus, you know, it's a lot easier to get your pet back and you can't really argue with that... unless like i mentioned before you are low income and struggling even to feed your children, then it becomes unreasonable. however, then there's a danger of owners not even having the finances to feed and take basic vet care of their animals. as sad as it is some of those animals should be given the chance to get a better home via the shelter system.

the humane society here microchips all their animals, and it's *******d in the 25 dollar adoption fee. i know a lot of people who've found their animals due to microchipping, and it sure makes me feel better knowing my cats are in case they ever got out.

If a family is struggling to feed their children, they should definitely not own pets. What about when the animal gets sick? Can't afford the vet, can't afford the pet.

Anti-Cruelty Society (the shelter we just did the walk for and raised all that money for) has a low income vet and they also have a cheap spay/neutering/microchipping/vaccination program where you can get your dog microchipped for $10, if you can't afford that then don't own a dog.

Most dogs from shelters here are all microchipped before leave, too. It's a good idea.

uh you know that when they scan the microchip it says MR JOHN RANDOLPH, PHONE NUMBER, right? most peoplel list their home phones.
yes, and the microchip company we have sends out mail every so often encouraging you to keep your contact info up to date so you don't forget if you move/change your number.

uh you know that when they scan the microchip it says MR JOHN RANDOLPH, PHONE NUMBER, right? most peoplel list their home phones.
Yeah and your home phone should also be on the tags around it's neck that you're also legally required to put on your dog. So?

If a family is struggling to feed their children, they should definitely not own pets. What about when the animal gets sick? Can't afford the vet, can't afford the pet.

Anti-Cruelty Society (the shelter we just did the walk for and raised all that money for) has a low income vet and they also have a cheap spay/neutering/microchipping/vaccination program where you can get your dog microchipped for $10, if you can't afford that then don't own a dog.

Most dogs from shelters here are all microchipped before leave, too. It's a good idea.
well yes of course but the trouble is many families don't start off dirt poor, but someone dies or gets sick or layed off and it becomes a struggle to take care of the family pet during the transition period. as i'm sure you know, pets become so close to many people they'd rather scrape by on everything until things get better than give up their animals. i don't agree with people who can't afford them taking on animals, but i do believe in breaks for people suffering from loss.

well yes, it makes perfect sense to microchip your animal so ideally the idea would be to present as many benefits as possible (rates of return, costs to shelters, and so on) to both people adopting animals and current pet owners, as well as chipping animals that come out of the shelter. then you could sit back and hope this became normalized and that most people did it anyway, and if not look into fining. however, this takes time and this is a pretty big problem right now.
I'm just glad that they're putting emphasis on responsible pet ownership - it's much better than the "dangerous dog breed" bullshit they were going on about last year...it may not solve all of our problems but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

What's funny is right now if you own a dog on the "dangerous breed list", which is very long, you have to have a certain height/type of fence around your yard, you have to carry a certain amount of insurance, pay the fee to get your dogs licensed - which obviously is more for "dangerous breeds"...I mean really, if anyone should be complaining about anything it should be that stupid shit. And it costs a HELLUVA lot more money than a $25 at MOST microchipping.

I'm going off here, sorry...I just smoked a bowl and I like discussing this shit :o

well yes of course but the trouble is many families don't start off dirt poor, but someone dies or gets sick or layed off and it becomes a struggle to take care of the family pet during the transition period. as i'm sure you know, pets become so close to many people they'd rather scrape by on everything until things get better than give up their animals. i don't agree with people who can't afford them taking on animals, but i do believe in breaks for people suffering from loss.
Yeah I understand but those cases are so few and far between - I mean, when you get a dog you should be looking into at least 5 years in the future...I didn't make the decision to get a dog until I knew I was in a stable environment with a stable job. Of course there are things that can happen, but that's also why you should always have a backup plan. Emergency vet savings if you're good with money, a credit card if you're terrible with it like I am. A family member that could loan you some money if necessary. Just something to ensure that if you are on your ass, you have something to keep you afloat at least for a short period of time until you can get on your feet. This should go with life even without dogs.

yeah well consider yourselves lucky. pitbulls got BANNED here as in you can't breed them. this led the prices to spay and neuter these "VICIOUS BANNED ANIMALS" to sky rocket, and people who can't afford it are ending up with lots of unwanted pitbull puppies! also, everyone and their mother bought the hype and sent their dogs to the shelters, which are overrun with unwanted pitties. someone is mounting a court challenge to it, so we'll see. i do agree with them being muzzled in public, however. that was the only good part of that bill.

Yeah I understand but those cases are so few and far between - I mean, when you get a dog you should be looking into at least 5 years in the future...I didn't make the decision to get a dog until I knew I was in a stable environment with a stable job. Of course there are things that can happen, but that's also why you should always have a backup plan. Emergency vet savings if you're good with money, a credit card if you're terrible with it like I am. A family member that could loan you some money if necessary. Just something to ensure that if you are on your ass, you have something to keep you afloat at least for a short period of time until you can get on your feet. This should go with life even without dogs.
working and learning about social services i can assure you it happens a lot more than you think. one of the most heart wrenching examples is formerly functioning adults becoming mentally ill and struggling to take care of pets they've had for years... for some of these people the animal is the only thing keeping them alive/having the desire to look after themselves and they'll do anything to provide bare bones standards of care for them.. my favourite example is this schizophrenic woman i knew who had a cat before becoming ill and it was taken away. all she used to talk about was how much she missed that kitty, and i think one of the major factors in her recovery was being able to get another one. her social service worker cleans up after and brushes it when she's not doing her best. her small odsp payments go to what probably isnt the best food and preventative vet care, but that animal gets so much more love and care than it would in a shelter...and changes someones life.

yeah well consider yourselves lucky. pitbulls got BANNED here as in you can't breed them. this led the prices to spay and neuter these "VICIOUS BANNED ANIMALS" to sky rocket, and people who can't afford it are ending up with lots of unwanted pitbull puppies! also, everyone and their mother bought the hype and sent their dogs to the shelters, which are overrun with unwanted pitties. someone is mounting a court challenge to it, so we'll see. i do agree with them being muzzled in public, however. that was the only good part of that bill.
I dunno about muzzling though, there's evidence that it could attribute to aggressive behavior in dominant dogs.

But yeah that really sucks, that's what one of our alderman on the south side was pushing for here last year...thankfully they didn't get it but we still have some stupid breed specific legislation here.

In some places they have bans where they've gone around and taken everyone's pit bulls from them and euthanized them.

I think there was also a case in Toledo, Ohio where a guy got it repealed. Good luck with that one. :(

I dunno about muzzling though, there's evidence that it could attribute to aggressive behavior in dominant dogs.

uh huh

you know what else it does? keeps dominant dogs from biting the shit out of my dog

good enough for me

working and learning about social services i can assure you it happens a lot more than you think. one of the most heart wrenching examples is formerly functioning adults becoming mentally ill and struggling to take care of pets they've had for years... for some of these people the animal is the only thing keeping them alive/having the desire to look after themselves and they'll do anything to provide bare bones standards of care for them.. my favourite example is this schizophrenic woman i knew who had a cat before becoming ill and it was taken away. all she used to talk about was how much she missed that kitty, and i think one of the major factors in her recovery was being able to get another one. her social service worker cleans up after and brushes it when she's not doing her best. her small odsp payments go to what probably isnt the best food and preventative vet care, but that animal gets so much more love and care than it would in a shelter...and changes someones life.
So long as the animal isn't suffering, I think it's great. I'm just talking about when the animals starts to suffer, and if someone can't afford a one time $10 fee here...then the animal is most likely suffering.

I dunno about muzzling though, there's evidence that it could attribute to aggressive behavior in dominant dogs.

if the dog is already aggressive and known for biting people, it's a disaster waiting to happen. i'm far too much of a bleeding heart to say put it down, but something has to be done.

i repeat: DOGS = HUGE FAGGOTS

uh huh

you know what else it does? keeps dominant dogs from biting the shit out of my dog

good enough for me
Yeah but wait till that dog gets out somehow and still ends up bitting the shit out of your dog...that responsible, proper training would've paid off wouldn't it have?

Also, dominance =/= aggression. Dominant AGGRESSIVE dogs with muzzles are bad news. I have a dominant dog and a submissive dog, neither are aggressive. That's just like saying that person is shy or that person is outgoing...either one is just as likely to be an aggressive individual.

So long as the animal isn't suffering, I think it's great. I'm just talking about when the animals starts to suffer, and if someone can't afford a one time $10 fee here...then the animal is most likely suffering.
see, this is the picky part. some of these people are living off so little that ten dollars is less food for the person, because sometimes people would rather their animals eat than they do. i just believe in vouchers for free microchipping for people on disability (that aren't cheating the system, of course) but that might be a little socialist for these parts :p

if the dog is already aggressive and known for biting people, it's a disaster waiting to happen. i'm far too much of a bleeding heart to say put it down, but something has to be done.
I understand that it's impossible to believe that everyone could be responsible and train their dogs and work with their dogs and take their dogs to behaviorists if necessary. But that's asking too much from some people...sadly. So yes, I do think it's a good idea but pegging that to a specific breed does nothing. That doesn't mean that the aggressive golden retriever isn't going to bite anyone.

see, this is the picky part. some of these people are living off so little that ten dollars is less food for the person, because sometimes people would rather their animals eat than they do. i just believe in vouchers for free microchipping for people on disability (that aren't cheating the system, of course) but that might be a little socialist for these parts :p
Now that would be a good idea. But also, like I said, they have a low income vet here that goes based off of your income obviously - the $10 fee there is for the average person, that's how we're getting Odie chipped and neutered. So I'm sure that it's even cheaper. But yes, I think that developing a program to allow them the same benifits is a good idea.

I understand that it's impossible to believe that everyone could be responsible and train their dogs and work with their dogs and take their dogs to behaviorists if necessary. But that's asking too much from some people...sadly. So yes, I do think it's a good idea but pegging that to a specific breed does nothing. That doesn't mean that the aggressive golden retriever isn't going to bite anyone.
of course, i feel the same, but i've seen far more aggressive pitties than any other dog. i understand this is due to bad breeding and abuse, but that's such a tough problem to address, and banning is a banaid solution that reduces immediate numbers of pitbulls biting people. animal abuse is such an ingrained societal issue that mostly people don't even know where to start, legally.

see guys? stacey is capable of having reasonable debates without driving the other person into a murderous rage. you learn something new every day!

lol yeah, I really can ;)

As for the ban stuff, the reason for seeing so many aggressive pits is mainly due to the fact that it's a popular breed right now...and has been for a while. Before that it was rotties and dobermans being pegged. They still are now, but they don't make headlines in the media as much as the pits do, which is a whole different issue.

But really there was some study, which I posted in length about a while ago here, stated that pit bulls and rotties aren't responsible for the majority of fatal dog bites (according to this flawed study)...and really that there's no credible way to find out because so many aren't reported. I mean jesus, a pomeranian killed a baby a while back.

I understand the logic behind doing breed bans, but it's doing nothing for the problem...that's why I'm happy that Chicago politicians seem to be getting that point and realizing that if we're going to try to solve the problem, we have to do it right instead of just trying to make a quick fix.

Oy...I think Mark is waiting on me to go to bed so I should go. Thanks for the discussion :cheers:

Wish i could be arsed reading all this shit so i could troll stacee about animal cruelty and troll mirrar about being fat.

hahahah

Wish i could be arsed reading all this shit so i could troll stacee about animal cruelty and troll mirrar about being fat.
Well it's a good thing that all of this is way above your head then.

lol yeah, I really can ;)

As for the ban stuff, the reason for seeing so many aggressive pits is mainly due to the fact that it's a popular breed right now...and has been for a while. Before that it was rotties and dobermans being pegged. They still are now, but they don't make headlines in the media as much as the pits do, which is a whole different issue.

But really there was some study, which I posted in length about a while ago here, stated that pit bulls and rotties aren't responsible for the majority of fatal dog bites (according to this flawed study)...and really that there's no credible way to find out because so many aren't reported. I mean jesus, a pomeranian killed a baby a while back.

I understand the logic behind doing breed bans, but it's doing nothing for the problem...that's why I'm happy that Chicago politicians seem to be getting that point and realizing that if we're going to try to solve the problem, we have to do it right instead of just trying to make a quick fix.

Oy...I think Mark is waiting on me to go to bed so I should go. Thanks for the discussion :cheers:

Summary

* The number of dog bite fatalities has remained fairly constant over time in the United States. In the twenty-year period between 1979 and 1998, the number of fatal dog attacks ranged from 5 to 17 per year.8
* Between 1979 and 1998, severe dog bites resulted in at least 332 confirmed human deaths. Twenty-five breeds of dogs were involved. Seventy percent of dog bite fatality victims were children.
* Although rottweilers and pit bulls were responsible for 60% of the 1997-1998 dog bite fatalities, these breeds have accounted for far fewer fatalities in past years.8
* The proportion of deaths attributable to pit bulls has varied over time from 20% in 1979-1980, to 62% in 1987-1988, and down again to 22% in 1997-1998.10,8
* Dog bite fatalities are reported to occur less often in other developed countries such as Australia and Canada.

http://enhs.umn.edu/6120/bites/dogbitefatal.html

remember all that stuff after 101 dalmations where those dogs got all psycho and bitey from inbreeding? yeah that sucked.

...In the twenty-year period between 1979 and 1998...[/COLOR]reputable source.

Summary

* The number of dog bite fatalities has remained fairly constant over time in the United States. In the twenty-year period between 1979 and 1998, the number of fatal dog attacks ranged from 5 to 17 per year.8
* Between 1979 and 1998, severe dog bites resulted in at least 332 confirmed human deaths. Twenty-five breeds of dogs were involved. Seventy percent of dog bite fatality victims were children.
* Although rottweilers and pit bulls were responsible for 60% of the 1997-1998 dog bite fatalities, these breeds have accounted for far fewer fatalities in past years.8
* The proportion of deaths attributable to pit bulls has varied over time from 20% in 1979-1980, to 62% in 1987-1988, and down again to 22% in 1997-1998.10,8
* Dog bite fatalities are reported to occur less often in other developed countries such as Australia and Canada.

http://enhs.umn.edu/6120/bites/dogbitefatal.html

remember all that stuff after 101 dalmations where those dogs got all psycho and bitey from inbreeding? yeah that sucked.

Damn if I can find the thread now, I used to be able to do a search for "porcupine" and it would come up but I guess it's gone now or something. Anyway that thread about the pit bull (which was really a bull terrier) getting attacked by the porcupine...I went on a rant in that thread about it, but basically that study is the one I'm talking about that was flawed. They really had something like 500 or 600 cases but they couldn't determine the breeds of the other 2-300 cases...so basically that's innacurate information. I'm sure it's close, but plus you also have to attribute a lot of that to not being able to label the breed. If it's stocky and squareheaded, it's a pit bull. But that's not always true. As evident in the thread about the porcupine and the pit bull, it was a bull terrier (the breed that won best in show at Westminster)...and it's not like the people identifying the breeds are breed specialists or even people that know anything about dogs, they're police officers and city pound workers.

Basically, so far there is no real, credible study yet. There was some other stuff I posted about the study but I can't remember now and I can't find the damn thread :(

Well it's a good thing that all of this is way above your head then.
Nah i understood your arguments the first time i read them.

How simple minded do you have to be to be bothered reciting them for the thousandth time.

God knows that was a question not an insult, id rather not get into a bitchfight and have to come back to this thread.

thats great when a natural disaster happens and there is no phone service.

Nah i understood your arguments the first time i read them.

How simple minded do you have to be to be bothered reciting them for the thousandth time.

God knows that was a question not an insult, id rather not get into a bitchfight and have to come back to this thread.
God doesn't know that was a question because you don't use proper punctuation. :p

Well, if someone is having a conversation with me about it and discussing these things with me, then they obviously haven't read the first thousand times I recited my opinions...right?

Besides, we were initially talking about microchipping, and I don't think I've ever discussed that subject here.

i think microchipping is a good idea if:

1) it is available in your area
2) the local humane society checks for microchips FIRST when a pet is lost
3) it is affordable.

i don't think it should have to be mandatory, and i don't like the natural disaster arguement

thats great when a natural disaster happens and there is no phone service.
Do you mean that microchipping is useless then?

When they scan the dog and find the owner's information, then they don't have to spend countless hours sending around notices to every rescue group in the country trying to find the owners. At least they KNOW who the owners are and they can hold the dog until they can contact the owners.

You wouldn't imagine how many unidentified animals were being sent around the groups and communities during Katrina...just sending around a picture to as many people as possible in hopes of someone eventually recognizing the dog.

i think microchipping is a good idea if:

1) it is available in your area
2) the local humane society checks for microchips FIRST when a pet is lost
3) it is affordable.

i don't think it should have to be mandatory, and i don't like the natural disaster arguement
1) I can't think of an area where it isn't available
2) It is required by law for shelters to scan the dogs first
3) It's ten bucks

"that thread about the pit bull (which was really a bull terrier) getting attacked by the porcupine..."


yea, you've got your head on straight
:rolleyes:

"that thread about the pit bull (which was really a bull terrier) getting attacked by the porcupine..."


yea, you've got your head on straight
:rolleyes:
?

Do you mean that microchipping is useless then?

When they scan the dog and find the owner's information, then they don't have to spend countless hours sending around notices to every rescue group in the country trying to find the owners. At least they KNOW who the owners are and they can hold the dog until they can contact the owners.

You wouldn't imagine how many unidentified animals were being sent around the groups and communities during Katrina...just sending around a picture to as many people as possible in hopes of someone eventually recognizing the dog.
but they still have to store these lost, potentially disease ridden animals. and that too costs money. and what if the owners never come forward because they are DEAD or can't afford to come back? and what if one animal has an illness that it spreads to the other animals in the shelter.

I just think that resources should be allocated elsewhere in times of disaster. People before pets.

"Who would win a fight between a pit bull and a porcupine" - then inside was a picture of a bull terrier covered in porcupine quills. Either way the bull terrier was the victim.

Way to go.

1) I can't think of an area where it isn't available
2) It is required by law for shelters to scan the dogs first
3) It's ten bucks
great, you've lived in big cities all your life, so of course its available. It obviously isn't available here, nor does the shelter have the ability to do scans. so if i were to get my pet microchipped, i would have to bring her to a vet in a bigger city, pay to get it done, however much it is up here, and then for what?

im sure that little monster just jumped up into man's best buddy's mouth and let him have it

what the fuck are you talking about.

im flabbergasted here.

LITERALLY FLABBERGASTED.

http://www.astrochimp.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/010604-mr-t.png

Mr. T Says: "In a natural disaster situation: PUT EM DOWN"

God doesn't know that was a question because you don't use proper punctuation. :p
Isnt he omniscient.

You know, I think God does know.

but they still have to store these lost, potentially disease ridden animals. and that too costs money. and what if the owners never come forward because they are DEAD or can't afford to come back? and what if one animal has an illness that it spreads to the other animals in the shelter.

I just think that resources should be allocated elsewhere in times of disaster. People before pets.
Even if they don't know who the owners are they still have to house the animals Kim...there are animals still being held and getting adopted out from Katrina right now. My point is, it doesn't matter if they are microchipped or not, microchipping does not hinder anything in a situation like this...it can only help. Why? Because no matter who the animal is the volunteers are working hours upon hours trying to locate the owners...so if that process could be sped up that would HELP.

Also, it's not tax money that is being spent housing these animals...all of the animal rescues and shelters are 501C non-profit organizations. They run off of donations and volunteers. So not to worry, it's not costing you a penny.

It just bothers me when people get all up in arms about how these people should be spending their time and money rescuing people isntead of animals. These organizations run off of donations that were sent to them specifically to help the animals, these organizations are prepared specifically to help animals, not people. You can't help a person by giving them 50lbs of dog food or a few squeekie toys. It has nothing to do with choosing the importance of one being over the other, it's the fact that everyone is trying to help somewhere, anywhere they can. The fact that the organizations that are equipped to deal with animals in a disaster are going to help animals in a disaster. The people who are equipped to deal with people in a disaster are going to help people in a disaster. I don't understand why that's so frustrating to some people.

great, you've lived in big cities all your life, so of course its available. It obviously isn't available here, nor does the shelter have the ability to do scans. so if i were to get my pet microchipped, i would have to bring her to a vet in a bigger city, pay to get it done, however much it is up here, and then for what?
This is a thread about the law being passed here in Chicago right?

What I don't understand is why some people can't comprehend that other people may have different opinions. You have one. I have a different one. Animal Shelters are strapped as it is, and if you want to donate your money to something like that, then great. But I don't.

I'm just saying that microchipping is only a good idea if there are facilities in the area to do it. If Chicago wants to make it law, then great.... but who is subsidizing the program?

What I don't understand is why some people can't comprehend that other people may have different opinions. You have one. I have a different one. Animal Shelters are strapped as it is, and if you want to donate your money to something like that, then great. But I don't.
I respect that your opinion differs from mine, that's fine - but don't bash the volunteers that decide that they want to help the animals. That's their decision...that's all I'm saying.

I'm just saying that microchipping is only a good idea if there are facilities in the area to do it. If Chicago wants to make it law, then great.... but who is subsidizing the program?
Subsidizing what program? They're going to fine anyone that doesn't have their dogs microchipped...unless I'm missing something, which could be the case...?

i wonder if you could harvest testosterone from live pit bulls as an alternative to anabolics


their t-levels are what enable them to endure hour long fights with steel chains and cages both mentally and physically

Maybe this is the part that's confusing...every shelter, rescue organization, and vet office has the ability to microchip here in Chicago. It's already a big deal here, now they are just requiring your dogs to have one. Every shelter, rescue organization, and vet office has the ability to scan microchips to identify the dogs. This stuff is already in place and is funded by donations...if anything the city is going to make more money off of those who don't comply and have to pay the fines.

http://www.astrochimp.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/010604-mr-t.png

this guy has destroyed his face by making a career of frowning for cameras

he's actually smiling in this picture