Thursday, August 6, 2015


It is amazing to me, Juanito creates this bizarre conspiracy theory that the micro-chipping of pets is a backdoor way to just put more pets down, and then attacks Commissioner Jessica T for raising concerns about the costs.  He hates her and will even attack her when they agree about the costs.

Well, Buster being smarter than your average drunk went out and sought the truth.

BTW she is doing fine, except she did not like me turning on the bedroom light just now to take her picture - she was taking her morning nap.

I have now changed her bandage 2 1/2 times.  The 1/2 is from yesterday because after the vet's staff did the 20 minute hydro stimulation and cleaning with my help, the vet wanted to watch me apply the new bandage.  He then agreed we will still change the bandages Mon, Weds, and Fri, but instead of his staff doing it on Wednesdays only, the next  time will be a week from Friday.  After that his staff will do it every other week.  He thinks we are down to less than a month.  Buster has grown more than an inch of new skin over the area where the tumor was removed.  We are down to maybe a 1/2 inch.


Buster asked her doctor about the need for the chip.  She would have it done during her next annual shots.  And there is where Buster learned the truth.  At a substantive level it makes sense that Animal Control should be able to locate an owner rather than put down the pet.

It was explained to Buster she was missing the obvious.  She has a city of Brownsville license on her collar.  That is all they need to locate me, you would think.

Apparently the city of Brownsville has no data base wherein a vet or Animal Control can call in to learn the name of the owner of the pet based on the license or the name of the vet who did the annual shots.  If the city cannot even manage a data base of the owners based on the license, how will they manage a data base based on a chip?

If the owner is not going to pay for annual shots, they are not going to pay for a chip.

The chip is worthless and shows just how little our city commission knows about pets and the system. 

Does it not make more sense that rather than create more paperwork, that the city simply create a data base wherein vets, and Animal Control can call in and learn the name of the owner based on the license number?  It should also include the name of the vet who provided the shots who then should also be able to locate the owner.

So at a cost of $57, come February Buster has decided to not get the chip.  I do not want to hear I do not want to spend the money - my vet knows me - Keaton was over $4000 before she died, and only because I am now doing the bandage changes, and Buster no longer needs to be sedated to change the bandage, I am not going to go over $3000. 

The city needs to fix the problem by creating a working data base on ownership based on the license number.  If they cannot create a valid data base based on the license on the pet, why would we believe they can create a valid data base based on a chip.


Anonymous said...

Yes, and no collar has ever been stolen off a strayed dog and no dog has ever been stolen and it's collar removed and no dog has ever slipped it's collar while leashed and slipped away. Thank God none of this ever happens. I mean, if it did happen, a chip would solve the problem, but since it doesn't, no problem. Also, a $54.00 you are being reamed. Brownsville Spay and Neuter was offering them for $15.00 a few months back.

BobbyWC said...

Obviously you did not read my post - If I am willing to spend nearly $3000 on Buster to remove a tumor and the post surgery treatment do you really think I give a rats ass about $57.00

How many years and animals have we lost because the city is too inept to create a data base for tracking animals through their license. How does this not outrage you?

Why not start there and see how it helps and then move on to chips if need be.

I have no problem mandating chips for dogs which get out as part of the fine.

But my Buster is trained. If she runs out front the second I call her she runs back into the house.

And yes collars fall off - in fact Buster does not have her collar right now - it is on her cone and cannot be readily removed. So until I get an all clear on the cone she will only have her collar on when she is wearing the cone.

Just how many dogs lose their collars - do we know?

Further, owners who leave their pets outside unsupervised are cruel. It is too hot. Buster goes out, I watch her from my pool deck area and when I see her getting hot I call her in - but to be honest she normally goes in on her own. I would never leave her outside unsupervised - not because she will dig under the fence - she is trained not to - but because of the heat.

But I guess for you leaving dogs out in the heat is a better option than properly training them. A well trained dog is a safe dog.

I have done a post on heavy fines for pet owners who allow their dogs out or who fail to neuter them. I stand by that post. Poverty is not an excuse for animal cruelty. A weekend in jail to pay the fine may send a lesson.

But instead of running to chips how about the city first trying to create a data base wherein vets and animal control can call in and learn the name of the owner? I realize there are also privacy issues - so in the case of someone finding a dog they should be allowed to call in and have the owner call them.

There are options.

I will bet the farm the city will be sued over this and lose. They first need to prove they can run a data base which has the names of the owners based on the license before mandating chips.

Again anyone who thinks I am against the expense have no idea who I am - I had Keaton as a pound mutt for about 36 hours when I spent $1800 for parvo. My dogs are not disposable and money will never be an object to their care and safety.

Bobby WC