All are valid points. Yet, here is a link to a video that goes into more detail than I have http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9zg3Tk69xI This shouldn't bother anyone who believes in microchipping their dogs. As a sign in the video said "1984 was not suppose to be an instruction manual".
\ \ /\ ( ) Alice .( ). Little White RabbitOn 8/29/12 5:02 PM, Celtica Hippocrates wrote:
OK... Step it back a bit.
The chip in one's dog helps to FIND THEM if they get lost. I don't know why this would be 'invasive to one's privacy' (Quotes mine).
In the case of chips for pets, one has the option of just having the chip traced back to the vet office who put it into the pet. Otherwise there is a paid service that will disclose who you are IF YOU WANT THAT. But, no one forces this on you.
Mine trace back to the vet. That office knows who the pet belongs to, and can find us.
On Aug 29, 2012, at 4:23 PM, Alice <whiterabbit32@gmail.com> wrote:
Less pain but can have a tracking device in them. Do I want to be tracked? No. Then why would I want that for my dog? It all comes down to whether we want more or less privacy.
\ \ /\ ( ) Alice .( ). Little White Rabbit
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___