7 ms·

I don't think it's legally required for vets to check chips whenever new "owners" take them in for a visit. I've been holding out hope for reuniting with my mis

I don't think it's legally required for vets to check chips whenever new "owners" take them in for a visit. I've been holding out hope for reuniting with my missing cat Salt, but wherever he is, he's happily in someone else's living room. And I doubt the microchip will bring him back anytime soon. Sadly cat snatching is a real thing that's happened to me possibly twice. The first time was confirmed beyond a doubt; I had to bust out my cat from her back porch at 2am or so when I was roaming the neighborhood looking for him. The only reason I was even in the vicinity was that it was the last spot the GPS tracker reported before he went missing. "Keep your pets indoors, then!" Yeah, yeah. The risks come with the territory. But my boy Pepper is still with me after a couple years, and I'm hoping a tag with "I have a happy home" followed by my number will keep would-be "do-gooders" away. (A lot of these crazy folks that snatch pets think they're doing the pet a favor by taking them.) Miss you Salt. Anyway, the point is, if vets were legally required to actually check the chips when they're brought in for appiontments, they'd quickly notice the discrepancy. They're the only entity in the world in a position to do something about it. But what vet is gonna try to take "your" pet away from you when you take them in just because of mismatched chips? Nobody, because pets are property, and that would be theft according to the law.

akerl_ 7mo ago
> The risks come with the territory To be clear here, the “territory” here is letting your pet free roam off of your property and expecting everybody else to be cool with that?
- Daneel_ 7mo ago
  Exactly. Please keep cats indoors - they kill all the local wildlife. I have a cat and it stays indoors exclusively.
  - sillysaurusx 7mo ago
    This is a widely-cited myth, and almost impossible to measure in practice. What does "all the local wildlife" even mean? Is the threat here that birds are going to go extinct because of cats? Not likely, and the burden of proof is on the people repeating this mistaken belief. Using "think of the birds" as a justification for imprisoning your cat for their entire lives is also pretty crummy. It's called wildlife because they exist in the wilderness. Even if cats kill a large number of birds, so what? Those birds don't have a happy, loving home with emotional bonds to an actual human. If you think this logic is flawed, explain why you're fine with flies dying but not birds. I bet you've swatted a few in your time.
    - Brybry 7mo ago
      > Free-ranging cats on islands have caused or contributed to 33 (14%) of the modern bird, mammal and reptile extinctions recorded by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List [1] Cats are probably a leading cause of mortality in birds. [2] Domestic cats are not native to North America. The birds here would not have evolved to avoid them (and beyond that, domestic cat numbers are not limited by prey availability because they're pets bred and fed by humans). You'll find plenty of studies with evidence that domestic cats are probably bad for bird populations. [3][4] But to be fair, buildings/glass windows kill a lot of birds too. [5] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 [2] https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds#:~:text=Top%20Threats%20to%20Birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds#:~:tex... [3] https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/13/7/322 https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/13/7/322 [4] https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 [5] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0306362 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
      - sillysaurusx 7mo ago
        Thank you for the well-sourced reply. Suppose it's true that cats are bad for bird populations. The implication is that just because birds are dying, it's okay to snatch a cat. More than that, that cats should be imprisoned for their entire lives, when they naturally want to roam. Someone can take one side of this ethical debate or the other, and both sides probably won't agree. I personally find it sad that people would place the well-being of birds above that of a wonderful, furry companion that clearly belongs to someone. The logic also doesn't quite line up: I was hoping someone would try to justify why it's okay to kill flies but not birds, since that's the real counterargument to this one. Especially when they kill flies with their own hands. So much of life boils down to "we're the apex species and we do what we want." But such is life. I find it difficult not to call out the absurdities when they appear, though. To the topic at hand, how exactly is this quantified? I suspect that word "contributed" is doing a lot of work here. [2] seems to admit as much: > True estimates of mortality are difficult to determine. However, recent studies have synthesized the best available data to estimated ranges of mortality to bird populations in North America from some of the most common, human-caused sources of bird mortality. The numbers in [2] are admittedly pretty startling. But it looks like they come from one report labeled "2013a". Any info on where to find it, or what it even is? Otherwise it's easy to call [2] a citation when in fact no evidence whatsoever is being presente. [4] is much better. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 But cats are still only a contributory factor, not the main cause; the report says they're the second leading cause of admissions, not the first. So, high, and worth thinking about. But again, the cost here is "removing, by force, someone's beloved pet." I'm not above saying that we should probably care about cats more than birds, because of the emotional bonds they form with humans. After all, that's why we're fine with flies being killed, right? No emotional bonds.
- sillysaurusx 7mo ago
  Yes. Believe it or not, that's fine for cats. "Everybody else" is by far the biggest risk. Not cars, not animals. It's always so frustrating when you've been doing something for 15 years, speak from experience, and then someone comes along and says "Well, that's bad!" Sure. Meanwhile, my cat comes home happy and healthy each night, unless "everybody else" decides to steal him in the guise of doing him a favor. Verified microchips during vet appointments would cancel out this exploit.
  - akerl_ 7mo ago
    It’s not fine for the cat. Or for the outdoors. There’s the whole parallel thread about that. But also keep your cat inside so they’re not roaming into my yard. It’s wild that outdoor cat “owners” are so willing to co-opt everybody else’s property as part of the cat’s habitat.
    - tonyedgecombe 7mo ago
      Cats have the right to roam in the UK. Keeping them locked indoors would be seen as cruel.
      - sillysaurusx 7mo ago
        Excuse the language, but fucking thank you. I'm so tired of these people claiming that it's not cruel to keep a cat indoors, and that you're somehow irresponsible by letting them out. Not to mention that this wasn't even the topic of the thread! The topic was "vets should be required to verify microchips," and then along comes a crowd that goes "oooh you really shouldn't be doing that, shame shame shame on you" without even engaging with the question of ethics, or entertaining the possibility that it might be cruel. It is absolutely fine for a cat to be outside. They come back. Their biggest threat is, again, people who think they're doing the cat a favor when they steal them. Cheers to you for making my night. I don't care if everybody else in the thread is anti-cat. I'm just happy you spoke up. Thanks, and have a good week.
        7mo ago
russdill 7mo ago
Vets already have enough to deal with you'd be more likely to end up with undesirable outcomes vs what you want. People would not take the animal to the vet. People would try to destroy the chip by whatever method they happen to read in facebook. People would try to maliciously make changes to the database. Etc etc
- sillysaurusx 7mo ago
  I'm not so sure. The people who snatch cats off the street think that they're doing the cat a favor. They assume the original owners won't even notice, let alone care if the cat goes missing. And they justify it with "Well, they shouldn't have let them out anyway." The brutal reality is that pounds are overflowing with lost animals. Statistics are on your side that if you snatch any given cat that you see, you'll likely be doing it a favor. But cats with collars are a different story. If people see that they're owned, they should keep their hands off. Unfortunately that doesn't stop some fanatics.
- aucisson_masque 7mo ago
  > end up with undesirable outcomes I say it would make some people think before stealing an animal. Others, dumber, would get caught. But almost no one is going to get a knife to get this chip our of the animal because you'll get bitten and you have no idea where to look.

akerl_ 7mo ago

> The risks come with the territory To be clear here, the “territory” here is letting your pet free roam off of your property and expecting everybody else to be cool with that?

Daneel_ 7mo ago
Exactly. Please keep cats indoors - they kill all the local wildlife. I have a cat and it stays indoors exclusively.
- sillysaurusx 7mo ago
  This is a widely-cited myth, and almost impossible to measure in practice. What does "all the local wildlife" even mean? Is the threat here that birds are going to go extinct because of cats? Not likely, and the burden of proof is on the people repeating this mistaken belief. Using "think of the birds" as a justification for imprisoning your cat for their entire lives is also pretty crummy. It's called wildlife because they exist in the wilderness. Even if cats kill a large number of birds, so what? Those birds don't have a happy, loving home with emotional bonds to an actual human. If you think this logic is flawed, explain why you're fine with flies dying but not birds. I bet you've swatted a few in your time.
  - Brybry 7mo ago
    > Free-ranging cats on islands have caused or contributed to 33 (14%) of the modern bird, mammal and reptile extinctions recorded by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List [1] Cats are probably a leading cause of mortality in birds. [2] Domestic cats are not native to North America. The birds here would not have evolved to avoid them (and beyond that, domestic cat numbers are not limited by prey availability because they're pets bred and fed by humans). You'll find plenty of studies with evidence that domestic cats are probably bad for bird populations. [3][4] But to be fair, buildings/glass windows kill a lot of birds too. [5] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 [2] https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds#:~:text=Top%20Threats%20to%20Birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds#:~:tex... [3] https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/13/7/322 https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/13/7/322 [4] https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 [5] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0306362 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
    - sillysaurusx 7mo ago
      Thank you for the well-sourced reply. Suppose it's true that cats are bad for bird populations. The implication is that just because birds are dying, it's okay to snatch a cat. More than that, that cats should be imprisoned for their entire lives, when they naturally want to roam. Someone can take one side of this ethical debate or the other, and both sides probably won't agree. I personally find it sad that people would place the well-being of birds above that of a wonderful, furry companion that clearly belongs to someone. The logic also doesn't quite line up: I was hoping someone would try to justify why it's okay to kill flies but not birds, since that's the real counterargument to this one. Especially when they kill flies with their own hands. So much of life boils down to "we're the apex species and we do what we want." But such is life. I find it difficult not to call out the absurdities when they appear, though. To the topic at hand, how exactly is this quantified? I suspect that word "contributed" is doing a lot of work here. [2] seems to admit as much: > True estimates of mortality are difficult to determine. However, recent studies have synthesized the best available data to estimated ranges of mortality to bird populations in North America from some of the most common, human-caused sources of bird mortality. The numbers in [2] are admittedly pretty startling. But it looks like they come from one report labeled "2013a". Any info on where to find it, or what it even is? Otherwise it's easy to call [2] a citation when in fact no evidence whatsoever is being presente. [4] is much better. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 But cats are still only a contributory factor, not the main cause; the report says they're the second leading cause of admissions, not the first. So, high, and worth thinking about. But again, the cost here is "removing, by force, someone's beloved pet." I'm not above saying that we should probably care about cats more than birds, because of the emotional bonds they form with humans. After all, that's why we're fine with flies being killed, right? No emotional bonds.
sillysaurusx 7mo ago
Yes. Believe it or not, that's fine for cats. "Everybody else" is by far the biggest risk. Not cars, not animals. It's always so frustrating when you've been doing something for 15 years, speak from experience, and then someone comes along and says "Well, that's bad!" Sure. Meanwhile, my cat comes home happy and healthy each night, unless "everybody else" decides to steal him in the guise of doing him a favor. Verified microchips during vet appointments would cancel out this exploit.
- akerl_ 7mo ago
  It’s not fine for the cat. Or for the outdoors. There’s the whole parallel thread about that. But also keep your cat inside so they’re not roaming into my yard. It’s wild that outdoor cat “owners” are so willing to co-opt everybody else’s property as part of the cat’s habitat.
  - tonyedgecombe 7mo ago
    Cats have the right to roam in the UK. Keeping them locked indoors would be seen as cruel.
    - sillysaurusx 7mo ago
      Excuse the language, but fucking thank you. I'm so tired of these people claiming that it's not cruel to keep a cat indoors, and that you're somehow irresponsible by letting them out. Not to mention that this wasn't even the topic of the thread! The topic was "vets should be required to verify microchips," and then along comes a crowd that goes "oooh you really shouldn't be doing that, shame shame shame on you" without even engaging with the question of ethics, or entertaining the possibility that it might be cruel. It is absolutely fine for a cat to be outside. They come back. Their biggest threat is, again, people who think they're doing the cat a favor when they steal them. Cheers to you for making my night. I don't care if everybody else in the thread is anti-cat. I'm just happy you spoke up. Thanks, and have a good week.
      - 7mo ago

russdill 7mo ago

Vets already have enough to deal with you'd be more likely to end up with undesirable outcomes vs what you want. People would not take the animal to the vet. People would try to destroy the chip by whatever method they happen to read in facebook. People would try to maliciously make changes to the database. Etc etc

sillysaurusx 7mo ago
I'm not so sure. The people who snatch cats off the street think that they're doing the cat a favor. They assume the original owners won't even notice, let alone care if the cat goes missing. And they justify it with "Well, they shouldn't have let them out anyway." The brutal reality is that pounds are overflowing with lost animals. Statistics are on your side that if you snatch any given cat that you see, you'll likely be doing it a favor. But cats with collars are a different story. If people see that they're owned, they should keep their hands off. Unfortunately that doesn't stop some fanatics.
aucisson_masque 7mo ago
> end up with undesirable outcomes I say it would make some people think before stealing an animal. Others, dumber, would get caught. But almost no one is going to get a knife to get this chip our of the animal because you'll get bitten and you have no idea where to look.