Re: [PyrNet-L] RE: failure of Rescue

[Ken McNamara <conmara@oaktree.net>]

Jack -

First let me note that Rescue has not failed - because it's putting
light on a serious problem.  I meet more people all the time who have
either been involved with it or know what it means.

Jack Mowery wrote:
> 
> Ken
> I don't think a commercial product/name and chipping is required.  The
> backyard breeder or the farm breeder won't do it, and people will never go
> for the added expense (even the $12 cost of the chip itself, to say nothing
> of the chipping fee).
> 

If those chips cost $12 then we need to change the technology.  As a
rule of thumb in electronics - to make 'one' item it costs a million
dollars - but when you make a million they cost $1 a piece.


> The Forever Home name sounds lovely, and it is what my dogs (and us cats
> too) have always known they had.  But we simply need a (god, I hate to
> advocate the passage of more laws, but . . .) law, requiring that any
> breeder/seller will be required to take back an animal or pay the cost of
> re-homing/euthanizing.  I will admit that Belle was purchased from what
> would be called a back-yard breeder.  But I know who I bought her from (a
> co-worker).  I think anyone who buys a dog, usually knows where they got it.
> We need something in place to make sure those breeders/sellers could be
> required to take them all back.
> 

The court of public opinion can make a dent in this kind of thing.  If
you were looking for a dog in the newspaper and some percentage of the
breeders had 'Forever Home' on their ad - it might be a selling point. 
People are becoming more aware of the plight of pets.

It doesn't have to be a commericial product/name - but it would have to
have some meaning behind it  Perhaps a registry of breeders and
discounts on chips.

> Mandatory chipping could put a stop to dumping dogs, however.  Hereabouts
> there is an annual drive for rabies shots every July.  Low cost vaccinations
> and rabies tags are handled at the local fire station.  A scanner, supply of
> injectable chips and registration forms would not have to significantly
> boost the cost of vaccination.  A similar supply already exists at the
> vet's, just automatically chip any unregistered dog or a puppy at its first
> rabies shot.  Chipped dogs found dumped in the country could become the
> financial responsibility of the last registered owner.
> 

That's a good point.  It also points back to the cost issue on the
chips.

> Put on your thinking caps people.  I know some of the brightest people on
> earth inhabit this list.  After all, we are smart enough to be owned by
> pyrs.
> 

For what it's worth - pyrs are smart enough not to take on all the
predators at one time - they take them out one at a time (a little like
Rescue).  Perhaps this problem can't be solved en masse - but a bite
here and a bite there... <g>

KenMc