Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 120

Thread: Microchipping is One Thing; COMPULSORY Microchipping Another

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nochip View Post
    If compulsion in the wearing of a beard is tyrannical, is compulsion in getting your dog chipped any less so?
    It's not the mandatory beard that's tyrannical. It's the stoning, the floggings, the arbitrary arrests and cold-blooded killings. The rapes and the torture and the massacres on followers of other religions. The attacks on women and on children by pouring acid in little girls faces. The use of children as suicide bombers and the trade of little boys as sex slaves. That's what is creating a mass of refugees.

    You're talking about putting a microchip into a dogs ear in the hope it helps to reunite them with their owners if they're lost.

    Just to put things a little into perspective!


  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    423

    Default

    I too have been able to reunite lost pups with owners because of chips, in one case before they even knew their dog have escaped.
    Find a battle worth fighting this is not.
    More dogs would be put down because owners cannot be found without chips than would die or be harmed by them.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    FNQ
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Oh wow, another thread just the same as the others.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tasmania
    Posts
    10

    Default

    MARGOO

    As mentioned in a reply to another DogForum member, some of my comparisons were for dramatic emphasis - to make my REVULSION, not with m/c, but with COMPULSION, stand out in bold. It seems to have worked! Thanks for responding.

    OTHER REPLIES TO THIS THREAD

    Apologies to the other members who responded in THIS THREAD. My replies were via a new thread. Still trying to get on top of the protocols. Didn't realise it might cause inconvenience..... a new thread seemed like an appropriate way to reply to several people at once.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tasmania
    Posts
    10

    Default

    I feel like a lion in a den full of Daniels.

    I reiterate:

    I am not fighting microchipping. I'm fighting the compulsion.

    Microchipping should be the choice of a pet's owner and he or she should decide.

    I have provided links, elsewhere on this Forum, to pages on the internet which document cases of cancer and death attributable to chipping.

    I ask why, if the risk, as seen by most members of DogForum, is negligible, the State of Tasmania does not make provision for compensation. If the risk is negligible the State would not have much to lose in providing compensation. On the other hand, it could be that the State does see the risk as significant and does not want to fund potentially damaging claims for compensation. (I've read that in laboratory experiments about 1% of microchipped mice have developed cancer from the chip.)

    As things stand, the pet's owner, in a case of illness or death resulting from a chip, would have to make a claim against the vet through the Courts. Common Law would apply.

    My strong feeling is that if a government compels people to do something which has inherent risk, then that government has a responsibility to compensate loss arising from
    the compulsion. (I'm not referring to the cost of the m/c procedure, but to costs relating to adverse consequences!)

    Would people on this Forum who support COMPULSORY chipping be willing to contribute to a fund which would provide surety for vet and legal expenses sustained by someone whose pet gets cancer from chipping?

    My apologies if I've missed a beat in replying to the above responses on this thread.

    Saville ("nochip")

  6. #96

    Default

    How can you PROVE a certain cancer was caused by a microchip?

    If the Goverment offered compensation for dogs getting cancer we would be bankrupt in a month!
    There is no absolute way you can prove something like blood cancer is caused by a microchip.
    Considering how common cancer is in dogs, microchipped or not it doesn't take a genius to figure out that is a LOT of claims that people will try and make claiming it was the chip that caused it.

    It is the same as people getting lung cancer and then trying to sue tobacco companies... you don't have to smoke to get lung cancer.

    We aren't attacking you personally, it's just that as you can see, the majority of people are all for chipping.

  7. #97

    Default

    Im not even going to pretend to understand how you think starting new thread to reply to people in an existing thread seemed appropriate.

    The point i think you are missing is EVERYONE here has their dogs/cats etc chipped so making it compulsory makes NO difference to them whatsoever. People in QLD and NSW are already subject to compulsory chipping and I believe registered breeders in Tasmania are already subject to compulsory chipping so YOU are fighting a battle that only applies change to BYBs n puppy mills and people that have purchased puppies from these people as puppies prdviously purchased from registered breeders are already chipped.

    HENCE your argument is mute.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    945

    Default

    ??? How cheap and sensation seeking is that?? Tabloid standard really.

    If you really think this 'has worked', you're either a troll or completely deluded. In any case I have nothing to add.

    Happy spamming

    margoo

  9. #99

    Default



    better?

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tasmania
    Posts
    10

    Default

    CRESTED LOVE

    Cause of cancer........ Yes, I agree that there's uncertainty....... opinions expressed by vets and doctors in individual cases can vary....... I do, however, accept what I've read on sites such as "chipmenot" and "Noble Leon".

    Because of the uncertainty it would, I believe, be wise for governments to "stay out".
    But if they get involved and pass compulsory m/c laws then they should provide compensation according to vets' assessments and, where appropriate, as determined by a court of law.

    PUGGERUP

    " ".

    Better still.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •