GadGetZzz

By demanding the small tight budgeted American farmer with the burdensome task of tagging (mirco chipping) all his/her livestock and keeping tight records on same for the purpose of government compliance, monitoring and checking for violations to same, this new national program opens a large can of worms in the abuse category and the onslaught of fines, penalites and other Gestapo like government heavy handiness. This legislation needs to be DEAD ON ARRIVAL in the Congress and the House come voting time. There will be blood in the streets and the country and its entire way of life will suffer greatly because of this uncaring legislation targeting the American farmer.

For those of you Liberals that think this is to track sick animals, then you pay the extra $1,2 or 5 a pound this will cost.

The problem is that the Farmer or Rancher will have to incur the cost, of implementing this unfunded Government Mandate, and not get a penny per pound more when selling the animal.

If you want to pay higher prices for meat, to ensure it is disease free, then purchase meat that has been tested prior to slaughter. This way you incur the costs and not me or others like me.

Do not assume you have the right to dictate to me how I should live my life.

You morons use bogus science and made up reasons to try to tell me how to live. You got the safest and best insecticide ever invented banned, because bogus science claimed it thinned bird egg shells. It was proven then and still proven today, that this thinning was caused by Lead, in gasoline, from car emmissions. Lead was used to help seal valve seats, coat cylinder walls and help reduce the friction wear and tear in engines. This cause the thinning.

DDT was the only Insectide ever invented that insect pests, like roaches, misquitos and many others, did not build an immunity too. We would not have a roach and misquito problem today if DDT had not been banned. DDT was also perfectly safe to humans. To this day, no one that has been exposed to DDT has ever developed Cancer or any other life threatening diseased due to it use.

If I want to eat beef riddled with Mad Cow then I will. That is my choice, not, yours. Pay the higher price for your beef, if you want. Don't tell me I have to pay for it too.

Get you head out of Mine, Farmers and Ranchers back sides, and stop telling us how we need to live.

I just had and Ephiphany! Maybe Liberals got DDT banned is because they knew it would exterminate them (pests that they are). TOO BAD FOR THE REST OF US.

2006-06-17 06:00:21 by jeeveswantstoknow

Description: Application- * Child care - locate missing children, track children's whereabouts *Disables' safety - dementia sufferers&#39 ...

i was wondering what is the purpose of paying for a collar to tra ck your pet when the person who finds them and wants them can just take it off if they wanted your pet i have a problem with people trying to keep my dogs when they jump my fence so i was going to get them one of those collars but i was wondering how secure is it and another thing if someone gets caught with your animal and they found it and it had tags and everything will they get in trouble?
ok its not like im a bad owner but my dogs are very pretty and there pure breed pitbulls and they are girls and i have a white one with blue eyes and a chocolate one with hazel eyes and a fawn boxer and both my pits got out before on different occusions and people were trying to keep them and show them off and i caught them my dogs can club my fence and when they do get out its cause my neighbor feed stray cats and they see them and want to chase them while there outside while im letting them out to go potty i might go get the phone and come back its that quick i think people should get in trouble for that it is technically like stealing

Yeah, if someone wanted to take off your dog's collar and keep it, I guess they could. Most people don't want to keep dogs they find wandering around, though.

I can't imagine anyone would get "in trouble" for having a dog with tags on it unless that person was proven to have stolen the dog off your property or something. As pet owners, it's pretty much our responibility to keep our pets secure and not allow them to wander in the streets.

2007-04-01 21:29:30 by khissmyputtytat

Price: $149.00 $107.99

State of The Art Web Tracking Platform, Secure Website. Various Notification Alert Settings to choose from. Instant Notification by: Phone call, SMS(text message), Email
GPS SIRF-Star III -fast fixing the position even at weak signal status. Device offers many unique features: receive Phone call, SMS, or GPRS requests
Package Includes: AnimalsGPS TrackEasy1 GPS Tracker, 1199mAh Li-Ion Battery, Manual, Recovery Package, Ac/Dc Charger, Auto/Vehicle Charger

Devices such as the ones sientist use to mark bears or whales for knowing their position with an antena. (Im not seeking info about GPS)

What about them? Do a search for "radiotelemetry" or "satellite telemetry".

2007-06-26 23:18:21 by vats

Price: $99.95 $50.99

Risk-free 30-day trial, lifetime limited warranty. Unit measure:3.75 x 2.5 x 1.25 inches. Unit weight: 4.2 ounces.
Track your pet via the website or have a customer care specialist stay on the phone, offering directions to your pet.
Walk mode lets you temporarily remove pet from boundry. Fits neck sizes 10 and up. Recommended for dogs 30 pounds and up.

what i want to know is how does the microchip work? if my pet gets lost will i be able to know its exact location like if someone had it at their house. or would i have to wait till someone turns it in to a animal shelter then it gets scanned & that's when they realize it has a chip. because i want a good reliable gps tracker is no use if i have to wait till my dog gets turned in i mean what if the person who has my dog never turns it in & it has a chip whats the use of it then? any helpful info would be great!! thanx.

A microchip is permanent identification, not gps tracking. GPS tracking is a lot more expensive and usually is handled through the use of a tracking collar as it is WAY too large to be injected under the skin with a microchip. Unfortunately, a tracking collar can be removed easily if someone finds your dog. Most animal shelters scan for microchips, so if your dog ends up there even years later you can be contacted about it.
If you want to do GPS, I would still use a microchip as it can be used as proof of identity.
Here are tracking systems..
http://www.gundogsonline.com/dog-tracking-collar/
They start at about $1000 for the receiver and collar..

2008-10-07 15:25:12 by Nicole

VeriChip has plans to conduct a 2 year pilot study to test their RFID technology. It will implant 200 Alzheimer’s patients located in Palm Beach County, Florida with tiny electronic capsules that contain a 16 digit unique patient identifier. The patients will be scanned and their medical and personal information held in a database, which can be accessed by medical staff.

I really do have a problem with this.

The patients have volunteered for the pilot study. Last time I looked, Alzheimer’s was considered to be a progressive form of dementia with symptoms of impaired thought and degeneration of brain function. This means that these patients may not be truly capable of giving informed consent. I’m wondering if this is exploitation of a group of people in society who really can’t stick up for themselves. There are questions being raised about the medical safety issues of microchips, with animal studies pointing to a possible causal link with cancer.

What do you think?

I think that the "causal link to cancer" is a base canard. How exactly is the implantation of an inert device going to lead to cancer?

I also think that the ethics of the study would require that either the patients themselves be cleared for competence to provide informed consent, or that their caretakers who have the ability to consent on their own behalf to consent for them. But I actually doubt very much whether they would have anyone in the pilot study who wasn't able to consent for themselves.

To assume that anyone who has a diagnosis of Alzheimer's is incapable of informed consent is in itself grossly uninformed and offensive.

2008-05-10 08:49:04 by Me.