Slashdot Mirror


Microchips for Dangerous Animals?

lucabrasi999 writes "CNN is reporting that Japan is moving towards requiring all owners of potentially dangerous animals (such as crocodiles and pythons) to have microchips installed in case the animal gets loose. Apparently there has been a wave of 'wild' animals that have been escaping their captivity. Did you know that it is actually possible to take your pet snake for a 'walk'?"

185 comments

  1. Did you know? by GenKreton · · Score: 0, Troll

    Did you know that some things are a complete waste of technology and money?

    Not to mention I'm sure this all puts us one step closer to having them embedded into people by law. This is just the beta version.

    And they called me paranoid!

    1. Re:Did you know? by Propagandhi · · Score: 1

      I think they had reason to call you paranoid, dude. But your first point is quite valid, this is a total waste of money.

      Comes back to the old problem of vividness. No matter how many people die mundane, preventable deaths each day (cancer, heart disease, car accidents, etc.) people end up living of fear of things like being mauled to death by some rich dude's pet lion. Statistics just don't speak to people like the gratuitous headlines these situations can generate ('Man Swallowed By Run Away Bowa', 'Man Gored in Subway by Lion').

      Definitely a total waste of time.

    2. Re:Did you know? by txviking · · Score: 1

      First the animals, than the criminals, at the end everybody?

      The question is not only does it make sense, but what is the agenda and how does it end. In society errodying more and more strict values, questions about where such action will lead to in the end are fundamentally important

    3. Re:Did you know? by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

      This is how they will get them into humans -- the most dangerous animal of them all.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  2. PETA? by CyricZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has a group such as PETA made any comment with regards to this practice?

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:PETA? by bcat24 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      PETA seems to support microchipping. See, for example, this page and also this one.

    2. Re:PETA? by Ucklak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Who cares what PeTA thinks anyway. They're not the de-facto animal rights saviours although the media might want you to think otherwise which is what they want - exposure. They're more like terrorists and an organized crime ring. The fact that they hire known felons and arsonists to destroy businesses should be a clue that they're not on the up and up.
      The ASPCA is the organization that actually cares about the well being of animals.
      http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    3. Re:PETA? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      I doubt very much there exists a PETA in Japan. When I went there in 2001 there was a "pet store" that lions in cages that were a little larger then the creature itself, and all sorts of other atrocities. When we asked our guide what we could do, the answer was nothing (the guide didn't take us to this place).

    4. Re:PETA? by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      Yes, do PETA know whether or not these microchips affect the taste?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    5. Re:PETA? by mindstormpt · · Score: 1

      Why should they? In Portugal it is already mandatory that all dangerous dogs are carry an implanted chip, and it is encouraged for all animals. The animal doesn't really mind (mine didn't) and if they get lost it just makes it easier for me to find them, and easier for them not to be killed. Plus, if they were abandoned, it would make it easier for the police to come knock at my door. It's a win-win situation.

    6. Re:PETA? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, that attitude is closer to what mainstream media wants you to think. Anyone who's ever worked with PETA or talked to PETA members would know that the organization is primarily about disseminating information and raising awareness about animal rights. It's funny how easily people buy into the astroturfing and FUD spread by corporate entities that dislike PETA but never take the time to even visit the PETA website or pick up a flier and read about actual campaigns.

      Contrary to popular beliefs, 99.9% of PETA members are not extremists (unless holding public talks, organizing vegetarian potlucks, and handing out fliers about animal rights are acts of terrorism). Even though the media likes to only cover radical actions taken by members of progressive movements these incidences are rarely representative of the movement as a whole. It's just a way to undermine their message by using red herring arguments magnifying the actions of a few radicals to take attention away from the real issues at hand. It's easier to say "they're a bunch of terrorists" than it is to defend draize tests that produce no useful scientific data or other immoral business practices.

    7. Re:PETA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For every right given, there must be a duty to society fulfilled by the recipient. If not, it's not a right but a privilege.
      Animal "rights" activists don't seem to dig that. The same applies for "children rights" by the way. You can't expect responsibility from animals and children, hence they can't be entitled to rights. And I see no reason why they should be the new aristocrats.

    8. Re:PETA? by leon.gandalf · · Score: 0

      You are right to a point. Its mainly the leadership that are the extremists. PETA kills and puts down far more animals than they save. They kill far more than shelters that do not have a no kill policy. The true meaning on PETA is People Executing Tame Animals. Oh and if you have pets acording to PETA you own SLAVES.
      And that is ONLY the beginning of the hypocrisy with PETA. And with that I give you the following...


      " PETA's Mary Beth Sweetland should also answer for her own personal hypocrisy. Like more than ten million Americans, she's diabetic. Sweetland injects herself daily with insulin that was tested on animals; she has conceded that her medicine "still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it.... I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."


    9. Re:PETA? by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Funny, I've personally seen PETA members out doing stupid things that could be done rationally and without making all vegetarians look like lunatics. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone says that PETA's not a bunch of crazies. Maybe it's just the local few that you hang out with...

      http://www.peta.org/ provides about all of the illustration I need.

    10. Re:PETA? by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 1

      For every right given, there must be a duty to society fulfilled by the recipient. If not, it's not a right but a privilege. Animal "rights" activists don't seem to dig that. The same applies for "children rights" by the way. You can't expect responsibility from animals and children, hence they can't be entitled to rights. And I see no reason why they should be the new aristocrats.

      Translation: No one should have any rights unless they do what I say.

      Wow. Hey, guys, I haven't been on slashdot all that long. Is this our first third-world dictator?

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    11. Re:PETA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People for the Electronic Tracking of Animals? Sure, they're all for it.

    12. Re:PETA? by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Humanists?

    13. Re:PETA? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Who cares what PETA thinks. What I want to know is if I can remotely disable my dog using OnStar.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  3. You Are Here by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People are the most dangerous animals.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:You Are Here by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      A user has moderated your comment "Offtopic" (-1).

      I guess that mod doesn't show, because so few TrollMods put their paws on my post. How can "people are the most dangerous animals", in reply to "microchips for dangerous animals?" be "Offtopic"? It isn't. It's just another TrollMod, anonymous suppression of a post they don't like instead of actually disagreeing with it in a post. Where they'd have to show that they're unprepared to debate, that their disagreement is unjustifiable, that they're just TrollMods with a mental defect they're taking out on everyone else.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  4. HOW OUTRAGEOUS! by fireboy1919 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Next thing you know, they'll be branding cattle, and tattooing ferrets!

    And the regulations will only get worse!

    Its only a matter of time before you have to have a license to keep exotic predators!

    Oh wait...that's the way it is now. I guess society wants to keep track of its animals.

    Carry on then.

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    1. Re:HOW OUTRAGEOUS! by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Why does clueless sarcasm get modded insightful? The article doesn't say that this is outrageous. It just says what they're doing and why they're doing it. fireboy is trolling.

    2. Re:HOW OUTRAGEOUS! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Be reasonable. If you find a stray python, don't you want to know who to return it to?

    3. Re:HOW OUTRAGEOUS! by Phil06 · · Score: 1

      They have been working on stuff like this ever since Godzilla

      --
      "...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man
  5. Old news by Celsius+233 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The article has been up for three and a half days.

    Anyways, why don't they just not let people take these animals into public? Is it really a good idea to take your croc for a wlk? Or better yet, why not ban the possession of them outright?

    --
    Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dandy Dental Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice Dentrifice Dentrifice.
    1. Re:Old news by FudgeRusket · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're right, this is old news. So much has happened in the field of animal microchip implants in the last 3 and 1/2 days.

    2. Re:Old news by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The article has been up for three and a half days.

      That's what happens when you visit a news aggregation site. Either stop complaining or leave. Having news be "old" is a problem inherent with slashdot, get over it already.

    3. Re:Old news by MDMurphy · · Score: 1

      I've seen a bunch of people doing the same whining today. They complain that it's old news, but interesting enough for them to comment on. If they thought it was interesting enough to comment, they could have submitted the story three days ago.

      In case they hadn't noticed, it's kind of hard for a Slashdot article to link to future stories.

    4. Re:Old news by drsquare · · Score: 1

      I think it's more about animals escaping from the house rather than when on a walk. For example, a snake climbing out of an open window or a lion jumping over the back fence.

    5. Re:Old news by mindstormpt · · Score: 1

      Over here most cities do it for free since they win too.

  6. What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by CyricZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What exactly is a "potentially dangerous" animal? Most animals are potentially dangerous. Many dogs can easily harm humans. Will all dogs need to be embedded with such a device? Even cats can bite and scratch. Will they require tracking devices? Even timid bunny rabbits can give a good bite if provoked enough. Again, will they need such devices?

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by kfg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What exactly is a "potentially dangerous" animal?

      You. Especially if you've got a pointy stick.

      Don't come at me with a banana though. I've been trained how to deal with that.

      KFG

    2. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2
      Most animals are potentially dangerous.

      True. IIRC many pets in Australia now get an implanted chip. Vets use a handheld reader to get an ID number. It is mainly for identification and to track treatment over time.

    3. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by node+3 · · Score: 2

      What exactly is a "potentially dangerous" animal? ... Even timid bunny rabbits can give a good bite if provoked enough. Again, will they need such devices?

      Um, no, they aren't going to require chips in bunnies. Do you really think it likely they would classify a rabbit as a "potentially dangerous" animal?

      Yes, eventually some law will be interpreted in some such stupid way, but your question is absurd. Just because something cannot be (or at least, hasn't been) objectively defined does not mean it does not exist, or is not useful.

      Dangerous animals pose a public risk, and is within the legitimate realm of things to be controlled by law. If the application of the law requires the interpretation of a subjective term, if it relies on someone's opinion, then that's just the way it is. Many laws are like that, disturbing the peace, reckless driving, and so on. It might be preferable to have all laws be strictly and objectively defined, but sometimes you just can't realistically do so.

      What's better, a law with clear intentions, and which a sense of "reasonable" can be used to interpret it, or letting people keep potentially dangerous animals, unchecked, in an urban environment?

      I mean, seriously, if your neighbors bobcat killed your child, or you were attacked by someone's alligator that got loose, would you accept the excuse, "well, all animals are 'potentially dangerous', so we couldn't really treat a wild predator any different than a domestic herbivorous bunny"?

    4. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      'What exactly is a "potentially dangerous" animal? Most animals are potentially dangerous.'

      I don't know about Japan, but in the US the towns that implement pet restrictions explicitly spell out the species and breeds and sizes that are considered dangerous enough to warrant restrictive measures. It's not just left at "potentially dangerous". Incidents of people getting mauled can cause previously unrestricted animals to get added to the restricted list.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    5. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by MBCook · · Score: 2, Informative
      Another poster pointed out that this is required for all animals (or at least dogs and cats) in Australia. That'd be fine with me. My dog has one. I would fully support requiring it for all licensed animals (and, of course, all animals require a license). To be able to easily identify the owner of a dog that has been abused (ostensibly by its owner) would be a great thing. It would then also be possible to identify the facilitators of other crimes (like the owners of vicious pit-bulls who either don't socialize or train them to attack then let them run free). Dog gets eaten by an alligator in the neighborhood pond? Now we could find out who owned it and fine them (or whatever) for "improper disposal".

      As for any cost of the chips (I don't know what it costs, and my dog was chipped about 6 years ago so I'd imagine it has changed since anyway), by requiring all pets (except, perhaps, rodents like mice, hamsters, and ferrets; as well as small birds and small fish) to be chipped would drive the price down (economies of scale and what not).

      It could also be used to track down puppy mills. If breeders are required to chip their animals, it would be pretty trivial to find the puppy mills (or at least many of them) and shut them down if they deserve it. I suppose it would also make tracking of pedigree bloodlines easier.

      I'm all for it. Let's do it in the US.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    6. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Even timid bunny rabbits can give a good bite if provoked enough
      i wouldn't say they need to be explicitly provoked

      i know i've had a friends bunny try to bite me (i was moving at the time and it didn't actually manage to bite but i certainly felt some part of its mouth on the tendon behind my ankle) when i was just standing in the garden with me. (it seemed to smell my feet and think they were another male competing with it or something it was always far more aggressive arround males than arround females)

      after that i always made sure i wore wellies when it was arround so it couldn't smell my feet.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    7. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "What exactly is a "potentially dangerous" animal?"

      The 'potentially dangerous' sentence wasn't clearly phrased. They're talking about exotic animals that are potentially dangerous, not exotic animals that are being chipped because they are potentially dangerous.

      I imagine the point behind this is that if your pet python goes away and scares the hit out of a bunch of people, they know who's responsible and can fine him. In any event, I'm not sure why you'd even ask this question. There's a big difference between having a cat as a pet and having a snake. Heck, I have a friend with a pet skunk. It's clear to me why there's a difference. My cat, and before that, my dogs were and are my friends. The skunk thought I was a tree or something. It climbed over me not really caring that it's claws f'in hurt. Even bit my ear, thought it might be food. There was no 'love' there. It was incapable of seeing that. It wanted to eat. It doesn't have the sort of mental power to identify me as a 'friend', therefore it could very well one day decide to attack me. Worse, if that skunk got out, everybody would see the stripe on its back and take off. (even though the skunk has been de-scented, how would they know that?)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by bahwi · · Score: 1

      Insightful? How. Anything can cause damage one way or another.

      But a poisonous snake bite from a person will easily kill them. A bite from a bunny rabbit, or even a dangerous dog won't. Dangerous dogs have a higher chance, but not as high as poisonous snakes.

      Alligators can easily grow large enough to over power a person, most bunnies can't, even though they can annoy you slightly.

      I think a dangerous animal is one that will, most of the time, overpower the human or kill the human easily.

      Even large dogs can be controlled, if you know how, and they aren't specifically trained to kill. Seriously, most harm from dogs after the initial attack comes from the fear the human is giving. (Scared of a pit bull? Most people are. Did you know they only account for 1.7% of all bites and attacks on people, and are number 3 from the bottom of most dangerous dogs? But, it's the fear that drives them to attack, they look ferocious, key word: look).

      So no, unless it's a poisonous cat, it's not actually dangerous, nor is the bunny rabbit, and nor is most dogs. People get hurt. It happens all the time! Do you consider your car dangerous, because you can slam your hand in the door? Because you can step out into a pothole and twist your ankle? Even your finger can get tired from pushing the radio buttons. Is that dangerous to you?

      People get hurt, it's a fact, animals are dangerous when they have a good chance of overpowering a person or killing a person quite easily.

    9. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by Air-conditioned+cowh · · Score: 1

      Dogs have been bred to be sociable with humans. A german shephard dog is about the same size as a wolf but a wolves behave differently to dogs. A wolf would naturally hide a safe distance from any humans and try and stay out of their way. If a wolf is domesticated from birth, by constant interaction with humans to the point of hardly leaving it with it's mother, then it will still tend to turn agressive at about 5 years old, I guess that's the age they start making serious pack-leadership challenges. Wolves also detest being restrained or fenced in, they like to roam. Why comapare a dog with a wolf? Because dogs _are_ wolves, or at least they were before we messed with them. Apparently a wolf has a brain twice the size of a dog of comparable build so it looks like we really dumbed them down! Wolves can also hold grudges. They have a strong sense of justice and if you scald them unreasonably they can remember it for years and then suddenly attack. I dog forgets these things within a few hours.

      Cats probably behave the same domesticated or wild but a tendanncy to scratch or bite becomes more serious when its a 500kg tiger with 6000 lbs/sq inch biting force.

    10. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by blackpaw · · Score: 1

      I agree - of great use for tracking animal abusers and may provide some deterrent factor.

      I live in AU to - all our pets (6) maybe 7 now ( we're suckers for rescue) are chipped.

    11. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dangerous animals pose a public risk, and is within the legitimate realm of things to be controlled by law.

      Man is the most dangerous animal (well, next to microbes). Do you support chipping humans (or microbes)?

    12. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by ozbird · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do you really think it likely they would classify a rabbit as a "potentially dangerous" animal?

      "That's no ordinary rabbit. That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on ... that rabbit's got a vicious streak a mile wide, it's a killer!"

    13. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

      If it can kill in less than 10 seconds, it's dangerous.

    14. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by dodobh · · Score: 1

      Ask the Australians if rabbits are dangerous.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    15. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by LkDotCom · · Score: 1

      The cost for single chip (I'm using the sam one to track handmade bowed instruments in liutaria.com project) is about $.1,00 if sold in quantity of 100+, $.0,70 iif sold in quantity of 1000+. I expect that the proce for a gov. agency to buy them in stacks would be laughable...

      The problem, though, is with infrascrtucture. Readers cost $100,00/$.300,00 and you have to set up (and administer) a fairly serious infrastructure for handling database of animals and so on...

      But I really think that a $.10/year per owner license would solve it and is not a big deal if infrastructure is good enough and enough widespread to let you rescue your pet in case of loss...

      My 2 cents.
      M.

      --
      Grammar Zealots: please spare a non-english writer (lastknight dot com)
    16. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by mindstormpt · · Score: 1

      In Portugal, dangerous dogs are those which have previously shown themselved to be violent and those whose breed is listed as a potentially dangerous one - Pit Bull Terrier, Rottweiler, Stafordshire Bull Terrier, Tosa Inu and a couple others. Plus, it's a matter of common sense: a rabit can be as violent as he wants, he'll never cause that much dammage.

    17. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by EnglishDude · · Score: 1

      My 2 cats are already microchipped, I got them chipped as soon as I got them (tho we had to wait until until the kitten was 5 months old, the other cat could be chipped straightaway) only cost 15 quid each cat including registration, and only took 5 seconds. The needle looked really huge though. Of course, they're not dangerous or exotic pets, but it's mainly due to the reason I refuse to get them collars - they can get strangled with collars, and I do know there's safety collars but I don't trust them, also what if the collar falls off or someone takes it off? Chips are harder to take off/fall off, so if the cat gets lost, any vet would be able scan the chip and find out who's the owner straightaway (i.e. me, but I know we don't own cats and all that...) and the cat's returned to me. Peace of mind.

    18. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by hritcu · · Score: 1

      What if I swallow it whole ? :D

      --
      If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
    19. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Both my cats were microchipped for free when I adopted them from the local SPCA. They do it for all adoptions.

      Since the SPCA is an underfunded non-profit (at least around here), I don't think that it can be too expensive.

    20. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Most animals are potentially dangerous

      Well, because you can't draw a clear line between night and day, doesn't mean there's no distinction. Sometimes you just have to draw a line and accept that animals slightly on either side aren't very different from each other.

      There was a case a few block from me of a 29 year old man, living with his parents across from an elementary school, who kept venemous snakes. He was exercising an Egyptian Cobra in his yard when he lost it. There was a huge ruckus, but eventually the authorities concluded it could not have survived the cold weather (he lost it in the fall). The following spring, after some rains there was a lot of cellar flooding, and the critter showed up in one of the classrooms. It had survived over the winter in the boiler room, living off of rodents.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    21. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, but rabbits aren't rodents (despite what the MP say).

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    22. Re:What's a "potentially dangerous" animal? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      That would exclude most poisonous snakes and spiders

  7. Mini-proof of evolution? by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 1

    wave of 'wild' animals that have been escaping their captivity

    Proof of evolution? Or the pet owners de-evolving . . .

    1. Re:Mini-proof of evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Proof of evolution? Or the pet owners de-evolving . . .

      More like a slow news day.

    2. Re:Mini-proof of evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that it is actually possible to take your pet snake for a 'walk'?

      Hmmmm, snakes walking...do they have some kind of temporary legs attached? Or are these pet snakes evolving?

      Did you know, trying to take a snake for a walk is a really REALLY stupid thing to do? Pet owners de-evolving would be my answer!

  8. What a good idea... oh, wait... by failrate · · Score: 4, Funny

    I read that as MOD chips for pets. I was so excited, but now...

    --
    Voodoo Girl is the bomb!
  9. not practical by zoogies · · Score: 1

    Ha! Is the Japanese government willing to install, oversee, and monitor all of this? And track down offenders and illegally un-micro-chipped animals? Make an official classification of "that which is dangerous" and "that which isn't?" I guess this is for public safety, but it reeks of bureaucracy. I'm not so sure they can just force owners of snakes and crocodiles to buy microchips with their own money, especially when they're probably unwilling in the first place.

    1. Re:not practical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't own any snakes or crocodiles so can't say for sure, but I would supsect that caring for these animals would require some amount of specialist equipment. All they'd have to do is make it illegal to sell said equipment to somebody who doesn't present their "Yes, my snake is chipped" card. The same goes for vets. If they aren't going to treat snakes and crocs which aren't chipped, then a lot of pet owners are going to get their pets chipped. Hmm. Perhaps it would be more humane, rather than not treating them, to treat them and chip them and charge the pet owner for the chipping.

      More to the point, if they require that all newly sold snakes and crocs are chipped at the store, then we only have to wait until all the existing unchipped snakes and crocs die before all of them are chipped. Assuming, of course, that people aren't breeding snakes and crocs in their backyards. I have no idea if that sort of thing happens or not.

      Jesus, how do snakes mate, anyway? That'd look weird.

    2. Re:not practical by identity0 · · Score: 1

      You've never been to Japan, have you? They're so overburdened with bueracracy that the ruling party and the opposition party were competing during the last election on which one would make the most reforms to the government.

      They also have much stricter laws about just about anything. It would not suprise me if, in fact, they did everything you mention.

    3. Re:not practical by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

      Ah, grasshopper, you have much to learn, for it is clear you have never been to Japan.

      In answer to your initial question, yes, in all likelihood the Japanese government is willing (and even able) to establish and monitor a program of this sort. This is a country that requires you to go through "Immigration" (sic) to leave. If there's one thing the Japanese government is good at, it's bureaucracy.

      Just my ¥2. :D

      --
      "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
      "A four-foot prune."
    4. Re:not practical by edinjapan · · Score: 1

      Japan has its own set of rules regarding people, their lifestyle and their pets. Everyone is required to register their domicile with the police and just to make sure the local police come around 2x a year to check on who is living where. They have several questions they ask such as family members ages, names, occupation, whether you have a car, pets and do you have the proper documentation. For cats and dogs this usually means are the shots etc up to date. They don't care if you keep your dog in a 50cm cage or beat it everyday-animal rights aren't well established here. I can see this intrusion being extended to asking if you have exotics and the police being supplied with a list-complete with pictures of supposedly dangerous or prohibited animals and plants which they will then look for when they invite themselves into your house or apartment.

      --
      Fish....More than just sushi
  10. Holy Grail Killer Rabbit! by 42Penguins · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Even timid bunny rabbits can give a good bite if provoked enough."

    oblig monty python killer rabbit:
    "I'm warning you!"
    "What's he do? Nibble your bum?"
    "He's got huge, sharp... er... He can leap about. Look at the bones!"

    1. Re:Holy Grail Killer Rabbit! by $exyNerdie · · Score: 1

      Check this out:
      bunny.jpg

    2. Re:Holy Grail Killer Rabbit! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      My picture is cooler, I think, and not even Photoshopped. And what's up with those artifacts in the picture? You're killing me.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    3. Re:Holy Grail Killer Rabbit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't it be fel beast?

  11. walk the dog... by Maavin · · Score: 0

    Sometimes I have to walk the dog reeeeally bad....

    --


    Crivens! I kicked meself in me own heid!
  12. Thank goodness! by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's why we are at the top of the food chain. It's nice not to have to worry about a snake eating your young while you're out foraging for food isn't it?

    Personally, I like being at the top of the food chain.

    1. Re:Thank goodness! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I like it. I don't like the daily hunt by bacteria, or the worms' last laugh at the end of the road. But I like it when that cheeseburger toes the line, just like its peer, the milkshake.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Thank goodness! by chicago_bulls · · Score: 2, Funny

      wouldn't it be more fun not to be at the top...
      think about how exciting everyday would be if, the second you went outside, there was a chance that you could be eaten by a flying shark....
      would anybody ever have another case of the mondays?

    3. Re:Thank goodness! by jrockway · · Score: 3, Funny

      > there was a chance that you could be eaten by a flying shark....

      Obviously lawyers don't live in your neighborhood.

      --
      My other car is first.
  13. Good idea! by isny · · Score: 1

    I'm sure this would have stopped the chaos that happened in Jurassic Park. All right then -- I'm off to write an e-mail to those British scientists who want to introduce lions and elephants into North America and buy stock in RFID chip makers!

  14. Snake-walk! by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 1
    Did you know that it is actually possible to take your pet snake for a 'walk'?
    I always have difficulty fastening the collar on my pet fer-de-lance.....
    1. Re:Snake-walk! by gibbdog · · Score: 0, Insightful

      As odd is it may sound, I've actually worked with some snakes that I would consider border-line "socialized." I work with venomous snakes for a living and many people assume that venomous = vicious. While most Bothrops species (since you mentioned the fer-de-lance) are more than a handful to work with, I have a few specimens that aren't all that bad (comparatively speaking). I even have a few venomous snakes in my collection that don't have a feeding response, and actually have "learned" cage cleaning routine (although I still don't let my guard down with them). I've seen snakes on the venom lines that get habituated to the routine of getting milked and then know it is time to eat and don't get defensive towards their keeper. I've even seen some larger elapids that will follow curiously, and some that will mimic what they see.

      I really don't see this whole chipping thing working... I keep a large collection of venomous snakes, some of which are too small to microchip. I don't consider my animals "dangerous" to the general public, as the general public has no access to them. I put myself and only myself at risk by keeping these animals, and as long as I do it responsibly I see no reason for a government that knows so little about what they're trying to regulate to tell me what to do with my animals.

  15. Argh, snake by Stormwatch · · Score: 1
    Did you know that it is actually possible to take your pet snake for a 'walk'?
    Argh, snake!
    1. Re:Argh, snake by Bob54321 · · Score: 1

      Check out the link in the parent post. Kept me amused for minutes... don't they say something about simple things?

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    2. Re:Argh, snake by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 2, Funny

      That flashloop is older than prostitution.

    3. Re:Argh, snake by tepples · · Score: 1

      That flashloop is older than prostitution.

      AYB is older than Badgers.

    4. Re:Argh, snake by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      Who knew that someone I knew from college would reply to my post? Whatcha doing now, grad school?

    5. Re:Argh, snake by tepples · · Score: 1

      Right now I have a job that pays literally $1 per hour, volunteering at the VA hospital in Fort Wayne, Indiana. I wish I could get into grad school or a real job.

    6. Re:Argh, snake by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      How could you not at least get into grad school? I thought you were good at computers, and math especially.

    7. Re:Argh, snake by tepples · · Score: 1

      How could you not at least get into grad school?

      Not-rich parents, for one thing. They don't even have money to microchip their cats. I graduated $30,000 deep in student loans, and I doubt that banks would offer to lend me even more money given the down economy in my specialty in the United States.

      (I would have taken this conversation private already, but your profile says "(email not shown publicly)". Please reply here.)

    8. Re:Argh, snake by edinjapan · · Score: 1

      Go to Japan or China. As an English teacher you will be paid enough to cancel your loan within 2-5yrs, get hassled on a daily basis by management types that will think of you as replaceable furniture, ignored by your students and fawned/lusted over by single women you meet in the local bars. You may even get a profitable sub rosa sidejob working at a club/business that will permit you to get drunk and laid on a regular basis and put even more $$ away. Or you may luck into a niche market that the natives haven't thought of/exploited yet and become filthy rich.

      --
      Fish....More than just sushi
  16. ambulation by lawpoop · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "Did you know that it is actually possible to take your pet snake for a 'walk'?"

    And did you know that you can also go for a 'stroll'?

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  17. Already in Australia for Cats and Dogs... by Bigthecat · · Score: 1

    What's the fuss? This practice has been required by law for anyone obtaining pets such as cats and dogs in Australia for years now. Both of my cats have them, and it's just a tiny implant with owner information, and the only trouble with them so far that I've heard of is that some have been known to slip out of place in the body of the animal and make it difficult to get the information out of them.

    1. Re:Already in Australia for Cats and Dogs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New South Wales != Australia

      As far as I know, microchips are still optional in Queensland, and probably in other states as well.

    2. Re:Already in Australia for Cats and Dogs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, NSW is the best state though.

  18. Brilliant Idea by kerashi · · Score: 1

    Yes, we should put microchips in dangerous animals in order to keep track of them. But how about those remarkably stupid beasts, or people? Shouldn't we also put a microchip in George W. Bush in case he gets loose?

    1. Re:Brilliant Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good one! I bet it came to you in one of those flashes of inspiration that I read about all the time. I hope one of those comes to me soon!

    2. Re:Brilliant Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporate profits! SUVs! Haliburton!! Global Warming!! GOD HELP US!!!

    3. Re:Brilliant Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two things that come to mind when I read that comment. First, who's you're intended audience with that message? Liberals already agree/don't need convincing, and conservatives stop reading at the word George. He isn't going to be up for reelection, so what's the point? If you insist on Bush bashing, at least make it funny so there's a reason to read it. Second, IIRC, the president DOES have an implant that tells the secret service/his staff where he is (at least in the White House, maybe other places as well).

    4. Re:Brilliant Idea by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

      But how about those remarkably stupid beasts, or people?

      Don't worry, mandatory implants are coming. To control terrorism, you know.

  19. Hang on a minute by longword · · Score: 1

    If the animal gets loose, how much good will it really do to be able to track down the owner based the tag embedded in him?

    1. Re:Hang on a minute by isny · · Score: 1

      You can track down the animal like in "Alien". 5 meters...4....3....get out of there!!

    2. Re:Hang on a minute by marsperson · · Score: 1

      Probably a lot because it will make people more responsible for the animals they keep. As someone who has spent a lot of time in Chile, I can't count the number of occasions I've run into huge monstruous dogs on the sidewalk. The owners let them out, and calmly wait for them to return.

      Being bitten by someones lose dog is a common occurence, precisely because owners know there is nothing you can do about it. The police don't take such cases seriously, and people there usually scoff at the idea that there should be numbers tatooed on animals, or other such measures. The result has been a large number of emergency room cases where someone, sometimes small children, get maimed by someone's domestic animal let loose upon public property. Anything which makes people responsible for their pets, and therefor take care to think of potential problems beforehand is a big step forward.

  20. Assassin dolphins by gustgr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does "Dangerous Animals" include US Navy dolphins with toxic dart guns?

    1. Re:Assassin dolphins by Namronorman · · Score: 1

      If anyone missed that particular article parent is talking about, it can be found here:

      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/2 5/1850228&tid=133&tid=14&tid=219

      --
      $fortune
      Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
    2. Re:Assassin dolphins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just the ones with frikin' laser beams on their heads.

    3. Re:Assassin dolphins by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      My initial response would usually be yes.
      But then, the silent Flipper-assassin should _not_ be tagged, unless you want to ruin the entire operation. We don't want a sudden upsurge of surfers hanging around in the oceans now would we?

      The problem is really simple; would you GPS tag a ninja?

  21. Sounds like a good idea by Don_Casper · · Score: 1

    Many people are given the option of putting rfid tags in pets nowadays when they have the pets first vet visit. Our cats and dogs all have them and you wouldnt even know they were there, and none of them seems to be having problems with it. Personally i think its a good idea. If you can figure out how to enforce it then you have a great system to keep owners of large animals in control.

  22. Modchips for Dangerous Animals? by kakashiryo · · Score: 1

    Err... *rubs eyes again*. Sorry. Been a long day. :)

  23. only in hollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how technologies like this are going to play out in places like Hollywood, where declawing a cat is currently forbidden by law, except in cases where the "animal guardian" (yes that's on the books too) may be injured by the cat. Also up for consideration are laws concerning other things such as tail docking and wing clipping.

  24. Dangerous animals???? by hellfire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yanno, I've always had a problem with people saying animals like pythons are dangerous. Well let's see, considering more people die annually from dog attacks than pythons, we should be microchipping all pets. Okay, those figures are for the United States, but pythons are no more common as pets in Japan in the US. Hey, mice can carry diseases, despite the fact that most white mice owners don't let their mice near trash piles, but let's microchip them just in case! This is a non-problem.

    I also have a problem with opening the door to using the tracking of pets to track people. This smacks of over-reaction and the singling out of one class of pet owner either as a weird form of discrimination, or simply fear of what most people don't understand.

    Go out and start tagging mosquitos since they carry west nile and malaria, they are far more dangerous world wide to humans than pythons.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Dangerous animals???? by Helpadingoatemybaby · · Score: 1
      As a mosquito owner, I find that suggestion absurd.

      My Mosquito, Spanky, never escaped from our backyard until the tragic day that he was hit by a car. (Sobbing) Oh god, Spanky! Oh god!

      --

      The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.

    2. Re:Dangerous animals???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's good. Mod +5 Funny.

    3. Re:Dangerous animals???? by The+Shrewd+Dude · · Score: 0

      The main reason for this is probably more for the peace of mind of the citizens rather than the prevention of all bad things caused by animals. People will feel safer about the next-door neighbor's python if it has a chip in it.

    4. Re:Dangerous animals???? by Bobsledboy · · Score: 1

      +1, Melodramatic

      Finally, a bit of drama on Slashdot!

      /me goes back to watching Days of Our Lives.

    5. Re:Dangerous animals???? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Kills per species isn't really a fair comparison considering how many more dogs there are in the US than pythons. Fatalities/severe injuries vs. number of reported attacks might be an interesting metric, that would give you some idea of how deadly each is, assuming it attacks to begin with.

      Large pythons *are* dangerous. Take it from me, I own two that are approaching 6 feet and they're even lightweights for their length. Thankfully they won't get much bigger than that; any larger and interacting with them in any way besides feeding and cage cleaning would probably be out of the question.

      I don't know about this microchip thing but it wouldnt' hurt my feelings a bit if people were required to jump through some minor hoops before coming into posesion of any animal capable of being fatal to a human (yes i mean to include dogs here)--reducing impulse buys in that category would definitely be a good thing, regardless of the actual animal in question.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    6. Re:Dangerous animals???? by KaMiKa-Z77 · · Score: 1

      well, considering the fact that a python can eat a 6-foot alligator, I'd say dogs aren't as dangerous, they're just more common, I gues...

      --
      Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous? - Calvin
    7. Re:Dangerous animals???? by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      Yanno, I've always had a problem with people saying animals like pythons are dangerous. Well let's see, considering more people die annually from dog attacks than pythons, we should be microchipping all pets.

      While I don't particularly disagree with you, I hope you relaize that those statistics prove nothing about how dangerous the various animals mentioned actually are. If those figures included how many were actually present in the us and were stated in "1 human death per 25,000 horses" or something similar, they might be useful.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    8. Re:Dangerous animals???? by Morgalyn · · Score: 1

      Your use of statistical 'evidence' is somewhat spurious.

      I think the point of this endeavor is less to single out pet owners, or as a gateway to tracking people, but as a deterrent to a behavior pattern which has been evident for years. There is a big problem with people buying exotic pets (wherein 'exotic' means anything other than cats or dogs, pretty much, although they suffer from the same behavior), and then not liking them or not knowing how to take care of them. A lot of times, these animals are left on the roadside, or in a pond, in a misguided effort to give them a better habitat. Since they have been kept as pets, they are much more used to humans == food source than other wild animals. I think this Japanese effort is just a method to better inform pet owners of their responsibilites, and to be able to find the responsible party if a 'lost' animal hurts someone. Chipping is not harmful to the pet, and could easily be integrated with the licensing program a lot of countries have for pets of all types.

      --
      You say you got a real solution
      Well, you know
      We'd all love to see the plan
      (The Beatles)
  25. Walk by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 2

    Did you know that it is actually possible to take your pet snake for a 'walk'?
    I like to walk my boa constrictor up and down a golden valley everyday.

    --
    "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    1. Re:Walk by Ravear · · Score: 1

      Mine's called Vlad the Impaler and yes, he's been to jail.

    2. Re:Walk by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 1

      Mine is called Attila the penetrater!

      --
      "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
  26. Criky! by scriptdaemon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I thought only white people messed with alligators?

  27. Everglades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If this law was implemented in the U.S. we wouldn't have pythons exploding in the everglades:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051005/ap_on_fe_st/ga tor_python

  28. Pythons & Alligators by netgecko78 · · Score: 1

    Apparently the poster of this topic is fascinated by the fight between python & alligator as seen in a previous slashdot posting. :)

  29. RTFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps I have the insight to read between the lines as well as stating my opinion. Read the title. It doesn't say "Microchips for Dangerous Animals."
    It says "Microchips for Dangerous Animals?".

    Why would they put a question mark at the end of a statement? I'll tell you: this is Slashdotspeak for "Look at this title. Is this morally right? We should have arguments about this. Post your opinion."

    My opinion is that it doesn't matter. Its just more of the same, and unlike what I would consider a troll post, I gave a reason for it, that I consider valid.

    I'm open to the possibility that I'm trolling, though. You'll have a bit of a hard time convincing me, though. I know the motives of the guy who was posting, and he wasn't trying to get people angry and incensed.

    1. Re:RTFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question mark is there because the law has not been finalized. As it is now, there's no way to find out where a dangerous snake came from, so it's not "more of the same" as you claim, it's a possible solution to a problem.

      Stop trying to read between the lines, it's making you paranoid.

  30. ah hhhh by icepick72 · · Score: 1
    Did you know that it is actually possible to take your pet snake for a 'walk'?"

    Ah, yes ... Yes I did.

  31. What about eating... by HockeyPuck · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Will it keep them from eating ENDANGERED animals?

    1. Re:What about eating... by bohemian72 · · Score: 1

      Heh, yeah, they're going to work like The Initiative's chip that got put in Spike's head. One bad thought about eating that Spotted Owl . . . Zap! Terrible pain in the head.

      --
      The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
  32. Will they require chips in lawyers next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why stop at dangerous animals? What about dangerous humans? What if you take your personal attorney for a walk and he/she escapes?

  33. Re:What a good idea... oh, wait... by bladesjester · · Score: 1

    I would be afraid to have a mod chip for my cat because, with my luck it would bring out his more feral qualities. This could be a problem, considering that he's part bobcat...

    He's my evil fuzzy ball of claws and teeth as it is. I don't need him actually breaking out of the house to try and take down my neighbor's (rather large) dog. He already tries to charge at her through the deck door as it is.

    --
    Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
  34. I smell government contracts... by confield · · Score: 1

    Forget that whole un-manned military vehicle idea. All you gotta do is implant some geese with some modified radio controlled microchips and you got your own mother-flocking air force.

  35. Pet Pythpns? by rossdee · · Score: 1

    So do they have a detector van from the 'Ministry of Housinge' going around looking for unchipped (and oresumably inlicenced) pets (named Eric)?

  36. Scary by Kohath · · Score: 1

    You think they're dangerous now? Wait until they're augmented with microchips. Fangs and computing power. Shudder.

  37. I think I know what will happen next by ee2go · · Score: 1

    'They cut the power.'
    'What do you mean "THEY cut the power"? How could they cut the power, man? They're animals!?'

  38. Bunnies! by bohemian72 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've got a theory! It might be Bunnies!

    Bunnies are just cute like everyone supposes!
    They've got those hoppy legs and twitchy little noses.
    And what's with all the carrots?
    What do bunnies need such good eyesight for anyway?
    Bunnies! Bunnies!
    It's must be Bunnies!

    --
    The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
  39. Your mission, should you decide to accept... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...cages that were a little larger then the creature itself..."

    Learn some grammar. Should it be:

    "...cages that were a little larger then all of a sudden the creature itself..."

    or

    "...cages that were a little larger than the creature itself..."

    You decide.

  40. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  41. Turn them off by JonathanR · · Score: 1

    Now you can turn them off at will with your TV-B-Gone. You can turn of 90% of dangerous animals within 17 seconds

  42. bureaucracy is slightly different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could make it illegal in a way that you have no defense when something goes awry and you fail to produce a liscense, but that never happens. Somebody will exploit the revenue potential and have their own cute little department with head honchos and hot receptionists, cool gear and rapid response animal control helicopters.... subsidised by the government, under pressure to actively pursue violations to justify their existence. Like the DEA.

  43. Exactly by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    Exactly. I mean, consider the fact that guns have to be registered and tracked. Now consider the fact that dogs many more people than guns do in any given year. This is despite the fact that there far, far more guns in the US than there are dogs (feel free to repeat this argument for cars). And it takes serious effort to make a dog dangerous -- years of systematic abuse. The idea of not tracking animals that are substantially MORE dangerous and are naturally aggressive is insane.

  44. They'll never be able to chip MY pet by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My bird-eating tarantula sheds her skin regularly.

    1. Re:They'll never be able to chip MY pet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not exactly a dangerous animal to anyone but mice and bugs.

  45. Different function by connah0047 · · Score: 1

    I think the chip should perform a different function than tracking for dangerous animals. If one gets out, the zoo ought to have an "Abort and Destroy" button.

  46. Thank God! End this madness! by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Funny

    Every day I walk the streets, I have to be on my guard, not knowing when a komono dragon is going to bite off my leg, or an enraged ape is going to storm out of an alley and attack me, or an electric eel is going to zap me the next time I step in a puddle. I live in fear! FEAR I TELL YOU!! What is that buzzing sound? I hear it is too cold in Canada for Africanized honey bees, but YOU CAN NEVER BE TOO CAREFUL, DAMN IT!

    It restores my faith in government that there is no threat too obscure, too irrelevant, or too laughable not to legislate and spend gobs of money on!

    Seeing as the number of people killed by non-indigenous species every year has got to be, what, like 8 people?

  47. as opposed to... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ...having fun and taking it to the local pawn shop to see what you can get for it?

    rough call there....

  48. Already required for some pets in Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm currently serving in the military in Japan, and microchips are actually required for pets that servicemembers import into the country when they PCS here. There's also a pretty extensive list of which animals are allowed and not allowed (some of the animals that are prohibited from being imported are easily bought right off base, though).

    From what some of the NCOs in my unit tell me, one part of the whole quarantine process involves making sure that the animal has a chip, that the chip is working, and that the animal is not suffering from health problems due to the chip.

  49. Huh?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Did you know that it is actually possible to take your pet snake for a 'walk'?"
    What else would you call walking with a Microsoft patent attorney other than "taking your pet snake for a walk?" Like. Duh.
  50. Good luck trying by Nailer · · Score: 1

    "Steve Ballmer would never go for it. Approach him with a microchip gun and he'd throw a chair at you. And then bury you. In chairs. He's done it before and he'll do it again."

    Oscar Wilde

  51. Chips Ahoy! by umbrellasd · · Score: 1

    The natural conclusion to draw here is that every person will have a chip, since by far, human beings are the most dangerous animals on earth.

  52. Old news by seifried · · Score: 2, Informative

    My cat is chipped, I had a choice: she can wear a collar with a tag (which I have to keep on her, make sure is on, etc, etc.), she can get a tattoo (which takes about an hour) or she could get chipped (takes about 2 minutes, she didn't seem to mind, neither did my parent's cats when they were done). Why is it such a stretch to require chipping for exotic pets? I know locally the entire chipping process with registration costs about $100 (one time cost).

    Booooooring.

  53. Several reasons for microchipping by bypedd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    PETA's support (and, for that matter, many animal-focused organizations') support for microchipping generally is so that lost cats and dogs can be identified. And, much like a Diabetes bracelet, if an animal has an illness and needs medicine, that can be determined immediately. The Seeing-Eye, for one, likes to microchip their dogs because they are so valuable. It's a little bit of loss-protection so the owner can be found, but it's also a bit of theft-protection; as horrible as it sounds, stolen dog guides would be rather valuable as they are so well-trained. Although this story seems to lean toward microchipping as a way of identifying the owner in a case of neglect (if you left your alligator out to eat people, then you're in trouble, for instance). It's not a cruelty thing at all, then, for whatever reason it's done.

  54. I found it interesting that.... by the_wesman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the post mentions "crocodiles" and "pythons" as dangerous pets - granted, we all know that crocodiles and alligators are different, but nonetheless, I couldn't help being reminded of this tasty tidbit of recent news - nice photo too.....

    --
    calling all destroyers
  55. dangerous.... blah! by Cruciform · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm a reptile owner with boas, pythons, a few corn snakes, and a texas rat snake. The boa constrictors will eventually get to be fairly large, about 7 feet for the male and 8 to 10 for the female. The pythons, Royals (also known as Ball Pythons) and Spotteds will be hard pressed to grow past 5 feet.

    The boas are the only ones I would consider to be a potential threat to other pets in the house, and that point is still years off. They are by far my most docile snakes, and only exhibit a feeding response when presented with rats. The smell of my cats or dog elicits no reaction from them whatsoever.

    Ball Pythons are probably one of the fussiest snakes when it comes to feeding and they are of no danger to pets or people. They're very timid and there have been incidents of Balls being maimed or killed by live mice that were dropped into the enclosure when the snake wasn't hungry.

    My town considers any snake over two feet long "bad", yet would take no action when our previous landlords pit bull came after my family five times. I find this somewhat ironic. Dogs are considerably more dangerous to people than any small or mid-size snake.

    Large snakes such as burmese pythons, reticulated pythons, african rock pythons, and anacondas should never be handled solo, and bringing them out into the public is just plain nuts.

    Burms typically have a docile temperament, but you don't want to be carrying a 10 foot long snake that gets a whiff of guinea pig off someone that walks by. The others listed there are known for their bad tempers, and the Rock python has been confirmed to have actually killed and eaten at least one person in its native habitat. Despite pictures of other snakes that are purported to have killed and eaten humans, neither I nor any of my friends in the herp community have found any documentary evidence to reinforce this. To the contrary, several of the pictures that make the e-mail rounds have turned out to be phonies.

    Very very rarely, a large snake will kill it's owner. This is usually a mistaken feeding response. Like a monitor lizard, a snake that has taken the scent of prey has a one track mind. So if you're in the way of the food, or moving when the prey isn't it's a good way to get hit. The snake will then strike, hold and constrict. They don't crush bone, but actually tighten around the torso with each exhalation of breath until the victim asphyxiates. If the victim happens to be a person, the snake won't realize its error until too late.

    On the other hand, these animals don't constrict as a matter of defense. Their strike is a fine deterrent. The strike of an adult burm or Rock has been described as feeling like being struck by a 12lb hammer.

    That's why I'm content with my relatively small snakes :)
    When I'm walking the dog at night, sometimes my female boa comes along for a ride on my arm, but they never see the street during the day.

    I've been considering buying an Avid chip system to tag my snakes. But this is for personal security rather than legislated responsibility. When you get into the rarer color morphs it can get quite expensive, and whole collections have been stolen.

    Anyway, I'm all for chipping pets, "dangerous" or not, but I really hate how the label gets stuck on some animals because of irrational fears. (Freaking out if you find a croc in your front hallway is not irrational. Feel free to scream and piss yourself. Me, I'll grab a camera and keep my distance.)

    1. Re:dangerous.... blah! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      My town considers any snake over two feet long "bad", yet would take no action when our previous landlords pit bull came after my family five times

      The problem is in your neighborhood aggressive animals don't tend to disappear. You can't be the only person who's had problems with this animal.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  56. Re:No, bug the real killers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen, brother. If there is ONE fillet of meat in an Albertson's store with "mad cow" the government can track it from that fillet to the cut it came from to the truck that shipped it from the packing plant and from the packing plant back to the slaughterhouse and from the slaughterhouse to the feedlot and from the feedlot back to its exact stall and find the exact time and place of its birth, backtrace that to the family of cows it came from and isolate and quarantine them. Keep in mind, this is done in a matter of days, and the government can find that ONE cow out of MILLIONS. Yet we have 14 million illegal immigrants in this country, with another 8,000 coming across each day, and the government can't seem to find a single one of them? let's give every immigrant a cow, that will solve the issue!

  57. Prelude to chipping people by typical · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There have been some attempts to chip people, but there is a pretty strong public dislike of it. There's a pretty strong business motivation for it, though -- lots of money at stake (look at e-voting, for instance). Putting chips in other things is a good way to get people used to the idea.

    There have already been moves in this direction, towards tagging prisoners in Mexico (the Mexican AG is tagged to help people get used to the idea), towards tagging schoolchildren in part of Japan, and so forth.

    On the whole, I don't really like the idea of tagging. We have a pretty robust social system precisely because it's not possible for a single group to tightly monitor and everyone in a state -- he'd be facing almost instant rebellion. However, at least tagging is better than biometrics (at least if someone compromises your chip, you can just get a new chip -- if someone compromises an iris scan, you have a problem).

    The other problem is the huge number of companies who are trying badly to sell RFID tags for everything. RFID is the most oversold technology since XML. Not that RFID isn't useful -- it's convenient for a specific (not *that* common) case of having to scan unusually-shaped objects, where retrying a scan is acceptable, where the speed is not that high, where there are not multiple objects close together, and where the range is very short (a foot or two). This pretty closely describes what happens at a retail checkout counter, which is the big killer app for RFID. On many similar boxes you can have scannable labels, on high-speed packages you need to be able to do a read faster, and so forth.

    The thing is, Wal-Mart has backed RFID in its products (which makes sense from its standpoint -- to handle that inventory problem), and now that there's a market, there are eight zillion companies trying to convince every business out there that they *need* RFID yesterday, which is absurd -- in many ways, RFID is a step *backwards* from less-complex technology.

    As you can tell, I'm not really thrilled about the motivations of most of the people pushing stuffing chips into everything either -- if there's a direct, measurable, pragmatic benefit, then it's worth evaluating something like this. Otherwise, it's just technology without a purpose.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    1. Re:Prelude to chipping people by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      Erica, a friend of mine, got herself chipped. I think because sometimes she's a kook. And partially because it made her (and me) laugh. This way when someone steals her, someone else can find her, run a wand over her arm, and return her to home.

      If you ever saw Trekkies 2, she's the one with the Borg cat.

    2. Re:Prelude to chipping people by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but I take it a bit further. I'm pessimistic that "save the children" campaigns in the US will get lazy parents to tag "children" who grow up to monitored adults, much like "ritalin kids" have become a "prozac nation". And I see every object tagged, whether by RFID or a cheaper, tinier, ubiquitous medium. It's a nightmare, and it's already upon us - literally, when we wear tagged clothing around.

      What I want to see is continued empowerment of individuals to read tags independently. Every phone should come with a tag scanner, and databases of product codes should offer public access to supply chain history. That would turn the innovation to people power. And give anyone the same ability to spot, remove or erase tags as easily (or more) as we now see flashing neon signs that say "kick me" taped to other's backs. When we see the "democratization" of the scanner tech, we'll probably see some kind of "security secrecy" campaign to allow tag detection only by "authorized" parties, like the cops, government or corporate. That's when we've got to strike with all our power against the slavers. By selling as many trivially cheap, networked scanners as possible. The only remedy to information is more information. It's the information monopoly that's corrupting power; common knowledge empowers everyone, and dispels corruption - like sunlight compared to the warden's flashlight.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  58. PETA are all for animal cruelty... by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    Walking my pet boa constictor:

    "Hello!"
    -"Eeek, thats a big snake!"
    "Its ok, he doesn't bite"
    -"he is wrapping himself around me"
    "he likes you!"
    -"he is crushing me!"
    "just a friendly hug!"

    Aaaah memories.

    PETA and animal cruelty - and scientific exploitation of animals. A tough one. I personally see much of todays 'science' [mainly drug companies] as a money making factories not akin to home acid factories. So I do not condone the use of animals in experiments. However, what if we needed to use 10,000 live healthy ducks to try and avert the now inevitable H5N1 breakout in humans?

    Hrm. That would be a good askslash - what to do in a H5N1 breakout tomorrow...

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  59. Python?! by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Give me a break. They call python "dangerous" and don't even mention C.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  60. Walk by Landshark17 · · Score: 1

    From TFA: "take your pet snake for a 'walk'"

    Wouldn't that be a slither?

    --
    This sig is false.
  61. A python can eat an alligator... by KaMiKa-Z77 · · Score: 1

    I see a lot of pet snake-loving, tree hugging individuals have already started picketing...

    So before that happens let me just say this. I think an alligator is a scary predator (which would enjoy soft, pudgy geek meat like my own).

    But scarier still, is the fact that a Burmese python can eat 6-foot-long (2-meter-long) American alligator.

    Nuf Said.

    --
    Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous? - Calvin
    1. Re:A python can eat an alligator... by chawly · · Score: 1

      And a hungry Scotsman will eat both of them - once he has decided which of them shold be dessert

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  62. Practical? by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    I think you are seriously underestimating the ability of a beauracracy to make life unpleasant for pepole. Hell, that's practically the _only_ thing beauracracies ever do. Believe me, if Japan's civil beauracracy wants people to be hassled, vast amounts of hassling will occur.

  63. Sharks! by matt+me · · Score: 1

    Sharks with friggin' laser beams on their heads!

  64. Funny? Wha-? by ComputerSherpa · · Score: 1

    So how is this in the "Funny" category, but the story on pillows being dangerous is not?

    --
    Information wants to be anthropomorphized!
  65. A zoo for animal offenders.. by matt+me · · Score: 1

    From the hitcher episode of the Boosh - "he's got a rapist crab, a mackarel that exposes himself, a baboon that walks into lifts and presses all the floors, a swan that keys cars..."

  66. that's what they always say by idlake · · Score: 1

    He was quoted by one TV station as saying he was surprised the snake disappeared because it wasn't that kind of snake.

    Guys always say that. It's a lame excuse.

  67. But its for the kids... err animals.. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    All kidding aside, once you get all your animals chipped, its easier to accept criminals having them, then have your child carry a chip.. then embed it..

    There may be no sinister intent here, but it does breed acceptance.

    And of course you can take your snake for a walk.. Or rather a 'slither'. Never owned a big snake have ya?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:But its for the kids... err animals.. by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 1
      That is exactly how it's going to be introduced -- first, as a voluntary measure to "help find missing kids." (Never mind that someone evil enough to kidnap a kid is probably evil enough to cut out the chip.) In a few generations, these things will be as ubiquitous as social security numbers, and if not outright mandatory, those that refuse them will be ostracized as tax protestors and/or tinfoil hat-wearing kooks.

      The only thing that is stopping it right now is the religious base of the current party in power in the U.S.--Revelation 13:17 describes this sort of thing as a less than positive development.

      --
      I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
    2. Re:But its for the kids... err animals.. by chawly · · Score: 1

      I'll never give up my tinfoil hat.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  68. Re:Moderators: STUPID SPAMMING TROLL WARNING! by CyricZ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Thank you yet again for bringing the matter of the flaming KOffice developer to our attention.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163348&cid=136 46636

    Such childish insults are not what I expected from an open source developer. Indeed, it does serve as a good example of what open source developers should not post online.

    The complete lack of professionalism was disturbing, and it is unfortunate that both the KDE and KOffice projects had to suffer damaged reputations because of that single rogue developer.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  69. Dog by SQLz · · Score: 1

    I actually have one in my dog with information on how to contact my wife and I through the breeder we bought her through. dog catchers apparently have the gear to read them.

  70. I take my... by sebgeek · · Score: 1

    I take my "pet snake" for a "walk" every day

    --
    I reject your reality, and subsitute my own
  71. What about the danger for animals? by wannabgeek · · Score: 1

    I first misread the title as "Microchips Dangerous for Animals?" Sadly, that doesn't seem to be a consideration

    --
    I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
  72. Re:Moderators: STUPID SPAMMING TROLL WARNING! by CyricZ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You, me, and everyone else. That is "we". We are Slashdot, and we are the open source community. Together we can feel shame in knowing that a developer of our creed has shown such a lack of professionalism.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  73. something to think about by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    you say the readers are quite pricey but a few hundred dollars really isn't a huge sum when you consider what it can save you ;)

    when the RSPCA (substitute equivilent local institution if required) take in a stray animal if they can contact the owner immediately (which a microchip generally allows) it means they can immediately find out if the owner wants it back of if it needs to go up for re-homing.

    on the other hand if they can't get in touch with the owner they have to hold the animal for a minimum time in case its claimed by the owner before they can put it up for re-homing.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  74. Facts? by icbkr · · Score: 1

    Wow. Not one, but two inflamatory opinions backed up with nothing for the reader to reference. Nothing I enjoy better than something that is presented as fact containing only opinion, and best yet, slashdotted to a 5:informative. You raters are not doing your farking yob, you twits. If it's not self supported, and it's not reference supported, it's a gob danged opinion, and opinions are only informative when they do not rely on assumption and speculation. Inconceivable.