Yes, it's just a number referenced in one of a few databases.

> The 15-digit pet microchip is the international standard (see ISO 11784:1996 and ISO 11785:1996)

https://www.aaha.org/for-veterinary-professionals/microchip-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_11784_and_ISO_11785

I've had one in my hand for 12 years. It has my contact card on it.

Thanks it was super confusing until this.

24 EU countries have mandatory dog micro-chipping.

In Belgium there is a centralized database in which the data is maintained.

When I moved to the USA I thought it was very weird that it wasn't done automatically, and that there are many databases out there.

In fact, one went bust a while ago: https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/microchip-company-cl...

Now what? Gotta pay to have 18 digits and an address inserted in a database?

I thought it was very weird in the USA

They are actually super sweet dogs in most cases. But once they get going, they are super strong and don’t give up. With most dogs you can separate them when they bite but a pit bull won’t let go.

Years ago we fostered a lot of different dogs and the pit bulls were some of the nicest. But you have to pay attention to their strength. For example playing tug-o-war may end up in a shoulder injury because the pit bull will pull really hard.

Another problem is that a lot of idiots like pit bulls and make them aggressive.

That's just what the owners tend to say after the dog has ripped some child apart. It's the "I didn't know it was loaded" defense.

I took a few pit mixes out of the local humane society last summer for "Doggy Day Out", basically an opportunity for dogs who need new homes to get exposure to the community and get away from the kennel for a few hours, and they were universally friendly, sweet dogs.

There's some selection bias, obviously, but their reputation is definitely overblown.

Honestly, all the ones I've known have been super sweet dogs. I can never quite bring myself to fully trust them, but frankly I never fully trust any dog.

Ingenuous question. You know they have a bad reputation.

The main problem with pit bulls, AIUI, is that they can be aggressive towards other dogs. Also, assholes buy them (due to their reputation) and then encourage aggressive behavior.

I've met some pit bulls owned by nice people and the dogs were super friendly and especially very tolerant of children.

Not typically - but when it's called Forty Cal, maybe? That's what, one bell pepper?

“It’s not the dog, it’s the owner.”

There is a self-selecting bias with pit bulls. People who buy and raise pit bulls often want a “mean” “tough” dog, so that’s what they get. You get a loving sweet pit bull if you raise them in a loving sweet way. Dogs are like children; they are very observant and pick up on even the tiniest of cues.

Although, like people, some dogs (of all different breeds) are born more aggressive. That can usually be corrected with training. It’s mostly nurture, and part nature.

> Are pit bulls known for being docile?

Not really. Even "old school" working catch dogs in this breed may require a break stick to get the dog to release game. In addition, the dogs are strong.

And that's really the crux of the problem.

Dogs will be dogs. They can be the nicest animal on the planet, but at some point a dog will bite you--maybe you did something stupid, maybe the dog accidentally got underfoot and got kicked, maybe the dog is just sick, maybe something agitated the dog, whatever. A bite will happen. The problem with pit bulls is that when they bite the damage is much more problematic than with other breeds.

And this is the real issue. Because of their strength, pit bulls (and a small number of other breeds) account for a disproportionate amount of deaths and hospitalizations relative to other breeds.

It also doesn't help that these types of dogs are disproportionately owned by jackasses.

I used to have a pitbull/boxer mix and she was the sweetest dog. She had the longest tongue and would do big yawns and I'd just stick my hand in her mouth and grab her tongue and she'd shake her head and look confused. It was pretty funny. Most dogs are nice if they live in good homes.

Nothing stopping them from being great with kids. All dogs can be great with kids.

Pit bulls have a long history as family dogs -- they're loyal, affectionate, and incredibly gentle with kids. The whole 'nanny dog' reputation exists for a reason.

An example... https://www.luccishouse.org/post/misunderstood-angels-the-hi...

My pit mix was actually a therapy dog for autistic children through a program at a local hospital in Austin. The kids would read to her while she cuddled up next to them, putting her paw on them gently when they were nervous or frustrated. The program was designed to help the kids build confidence by providing a social interaction where they wouldn't feel judged. And she was great at it. It was the highlight of her week getting to go to the therapy center.

I've had a lot of dogs in my life, and I've never had one more sweet or gentle than she was.

But look, any dog can be awful or wonderful. That comes down to the owner, the environment, and the individual animal way more than the breed -- and honestly, the whole concept of 'breeds' is a bit silly to begin with. But I get that people need to classify things. It's just dumb.

So, stop being a dog racist. (=

The article mentions that the woman suspected the dog was stolen. So perhaps he did live with someone for many years, and was either found after running away, or... something.

Aliens abducted the dog. And now they gave it back.

> 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?

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

> I imagine the microchips in the dogs would make a great tracking device.

They don't. The range of a typical chip reader is a few inches - reading one requires handling the dog (and can be tricky if the chip's migrated from its expected position). It's not something that can be done covertly, or from a distance.

They are very short range RFID tags that contain no personal information, just an ID number. They don’t make good tracking devices.

Some owners do use GPS trackers or AirTag like devices.

It may vary by company but a lot of the time the chip company acts as a neutral intermediary. For example we adopted a homeless cat, and the vet found a chip on her, gave us the chip company info. The chip company wouldn't give us the owner's information but contacted them on our behalf and said we'd found her. They replied to the chip company who told us they moved away and we could have her. We love her so much!

Yes, the data can help uncover Russian spies. There is a fascinating yt document about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjo0iLssbI8 ( How I caught an Illegal Russian Spy )

It's an RFID, it just emits a unique token, which an online system links to records... she's updating the linked record.

Stupid people who don't understand how things work and then convey them imprecisely... Even with a job as a "journalist"...

Updating her contact information with the database the chip was registered with

Her contact information.

I listened to the podcast linked in the article, and my understanding of the timeline is:

- The owner originally had two dogs. Both disappeared from her backyard one day. One dog returned home. The other vanished without a trace.

- Eleven years later, a random girl found the missing dog outside. She befriended the dog and brought him home. She talked with her parents and contacted ACCT Philly, who in turn found the original owner through a microchip.

Does this make sense? To me, this story managed to be a rare mix of heartwarming, insightful and frustrating.

Welcome to Philly.