TAGG Tracker

[Guardian]

I'm giving a serious look at this product for my pup. He wouldn't wear it around the house, just when we're out and about.

_http://www.pettracker.com/

It's expensive, $99.00 for the collar, plus 7.95 a month, but he's hitting that age where he could just get a wild hair and decide to ignore everything he's been taught and take off on a jaunt in the woods. In other words, he's approaching the doggie equivalent of the "terrible teens" I REALLY like the idea of being able to track him on my phone.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on this?

 

[Lilou]

That's not a bad idea. It's certainly better than a chip, which wouldn't give you the ability to track him on your phone. The first three months of service are included, which will give you enough time to decide if you want to keep it.

I looked at some of the other GPS trackers (without the monthly service fee) the only problem with those are limited range and with some of them, you have to buy the Garmin. This TAGG is waterproof too, so that's a plus.

Has the little fellow been wandering off? Or are you just anticipating that he might?

 

[Voyageur]

I'm giving a serious look at this product for my pup. He wouldn't wear it around the house, just when we're out and about.

_http://www.pettracker.com/

It's expensive, $99.00 for the collar, plus 7.95 a month, but he's hitting that age where he could just get a wild hair and decide to ignore everything he's been taught and take off on a jaunt in the woods. In other words, he's approaching the doggie equivalent of the "terrible teens" I REALLY like the idea of being able to track him on my phone.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on this?

Just had a brief look, and without knowing the exact environs, being lost is never good, especially if there are neighbor implications. However, it looks reasonable, yet perhaps there is something else that does not have monthly fees? The other thing, having been involved with animal studies (moose) and trackers, was always a little suspicious of the emitting frequency implications; like being tied to a cell phone.

 

[Guardian]

Has the little fellow been wandering off?

Not yet, but if he's like every other dog I've ever trained, he's going to hit that "I know what you want me to do, but I'm going to defy you anyway" age in another month or two.

I don't use fences, leases (unless required by law) or any means of physical restraint. It's all obedience training, and sooner or later a pup will think, "oh what the heck, I'm gonna chase that squirrel regardless of what mom's yelling." In the past, I've always been fast enough to catch the pup, but I'm getting older...and slower.

 

[Guardian]

Just had a brief look, and without knowing the exact environs,

We're in the woods, in a pretty remote location...but there's good cell coverage.

However, it looks reasonable, yet perhaps there is something else that does not have monthly fees?

There are a few, but those transmitters are HUGE...about the size of a cell phone, and designed more for hunting dogs.

I will only need the service for less than a year....until he matures.

The other thing, having been involved with animal studies (moose) and trackers, was always a little suspicious of the emitting frequency implications; like being tied to a cell phone.

Yeah, it would be like him wearing a cell phone IF he left the "home zone" and activated the collar. The fact is that he's by my side constantly, and I'm usually wearing a cell phone for my protection too. I also have "Location" disabled unless I'm using the gps.

 

[Guardian]

He did spot a bunny and take off after it last week, but responded to recall. I'm under no illusions, I'm not the "dog whisperer"...he came back for the beef jerky in my pocket. Eventually though, he's going to decide to see what happens if he ignores recall and chases that bunny....they always do, at least once. Hopefully, when I catch him, roll him and he spends a few hours in the kitchen, behind the baby gate of shame, with no toys and no attention, he'll decide not to do it again.

 

[mcb]

The lack of technical details is not encouraging. GPS location is determined with a receiver. The only way to send the location out is with a transmitter. Given the coverage area (United States), it seems like it would have to be a cell phone transceiver. The radiation would have much more effect on a smaller body at close range, similar perhaps to the effect on small children. The recommendation with small children is "just don't do it."

I hope I'm wrong, but this looks like "too good to be true" to me.

 

[mcb]

OK, clearer now. The first thing I found, on that website, seemed to be an attempt at obfuscation:

The Tagg™ pet tracking system uses advanced GPS and wireless technology, powered by Qualcomm Technologies Inc., the world leader in mobile technologies. It’s the same technology that guides you when you’re driving to a specific destination, to provide you with your pet’s location at any time.

Sure, just as safe as using GPS in a car. Except a car GPS doesn't have to report your location remotely.

That gave me a clue, though, and I found this at _http://www.qualcomm.com/media/releases/2011/08/15/locate-and-track-your-pet-anytime-tagg-pet-tracker:

Tagg—The Pet Tracker service is provided on the Verizon Wireless network, giving pet parents reliable access to tracking information via its nationwide coverage.

That's pretty explicit. It seems like this product would be particularly deadly to cats and small dogs.

 

[Guardian]

That's pretty explicit. It seems like this product would be particularly deadly to cats and small dogs.

Why? That's exactly the kind of data I'm looking for, and not finding much? What kind of keywords should I be searching?

 

[mcb]

That's pretty explicit. It seems like this product would be particularly deadly to cats and small dogs.

Why? That's exactly the kind of data I'm looking for, and not finding much? What kind of keywords should I be searching?

It's a cellular data device on a collar, so the data you would be looking for would be for cell phone impacts on health. I searched a little for any negative feedback on the TAGG device and found none, which is not surprising.

The exposure might depend to some degree on how often the device reported in, but I am guessing that would be fairly frequently. Data tends to be dirtier than voice, so this is not a good scenario. The usual considerations would be present, such as that the transmitter power has to increase with the distance from the tower or when the signal is obstructed. And the device might not even work at home, if you don't have cellular coverage there.

I don't think there are any studies looking at the effects of exposure in animals when the transceiver is in this particular position. The effects would seem to depend on how the collar happened to be turned, and could show up in the spine, throat/thyroid, and any other nearby internal organs, especially if not shielded by bone. This would be a much more severe exposure than anything a passive microchip implant could produce, just for perspective. The transmitter signal causes DNA fragmentation and tissue heating, among other things.

The research data for humans is out there, but you have to know where to look. Some of it undoubtedly uses animal models, which might be helpful. The studies used to show that cell phones are "safe" are rigged, and it can be helpful to know how that is done. The exposure standards are also bogus -- they are based on a model that doesn't even apply to most adult men, let alone children or pets, and they don't take into account changes in the technology over the years.

One book I have read recently that pulls much of the information together in one place is Disconnect by Devra Davis. I have it as an audiobook, which doesn't help much here. The information regarding cell phones and human children would come the closest to what you can expect to happen to pets. Here's a short article that she wrote in 2010: _http://www.huffingtonpost.com/devra-davis-phd/cell-phones-and-brain-can_b_585992.html

 

[Guardian]

It's a cellular data device on a collar, so the data you would be looking for would be for cell phone impacts on health. I searched a little for any negative feedback on the TAGG device and found none, which is not surprising.

I found it interesting that there is no negative feedback regarding dog health (that I could find) on ANY of the gps tracking collars, and they've been in use on hunting dogs for at least 10 years or more?

 

[mcb]

It's a cellular data device on a collar, so the data you would be looking for would be for cell phone impacts on health. I searched a little for any negative feedback on the TAGG device and found none, which is not surprising.

I found it interesting that there is no negative feedback regarding dog health (that I could find) on ANY of the gps tracking collars, and they've been in use on hunting dogs for at least 10 years or more?

Hard to say. First, who is even looking for the association -- since cell phone radiation has been shown to be "safe." Proving cause is difficult, because of many confounding factors. And reduced exposure definitely makes a difference. If the collars are only used during a hunt, the exposure might be much less.

But where do people go to hunt that has good coverage by Verizon? (I don't know; just asking.) Are you sure that you aren't including other radio tracking devices that may be using different frequency bands and power levels?

There are safer ways to track animals, although they may involve more expensive equipment that is not as convenient to use, and much less frequent transmitting intervals. I have watched videos of researchers using low-power attached transmitters and yagi antennas to track without GPS, a different (and old) technology. Using a cellular data transceiver to transmit GPS coordinates sounds to me like a "convenience" shortcut that would have definite health implications, well beyond the concerns that we discussed surrounding implanted passive microchips.

 

[Laura]

That particular type of dog is unlikely to wander away from the "sheep", that is, you.

 

[Guardian]

That particular type of dog is unlikely to wander away from the "sheep", that is, you.

Hmm, now that is something I hadn't considered. All my prior companions have been Dobes, Rotties, German Shepherds, or mixes of those breeds...all of which are VERY independent and tend to want to challenge me for the "Alpha" pack position sometime around 8 to 10 months. They're also big on exploring when they first start to feel "grown"

So maybe I'm trying to prepare for a situation that won't happen with this pup? That would be kewl! I have not been looking forward to the "defiance" stage that all my other pups have hit at 8-10 months. I'm getting kinda old to be rolling a 60-70 lb adolescent dog.

 

[Guardian]

But where do people go to hunt that has good coverage by Verizon? (I don't know; just asking.)

Pretty much everywhere now, except for a few, well known "dead spots" Years ago, we'd get one or two stray hunting dogs in the campground every season with tracking collars, and the owners would eventually show up....and we were in a very remote area near the Great Dismal Swamp.

Are you sure that you aren't including other radio tracking devices that may be using different frequency bands and power levels?

No I'm not. Some of the collars I've seen could well have been on other frequencies, but I don't understand why cell communications in the 800's frequency range would be any more (or less) harmful than transmissions in the 400's frequency range?

Using a cellular data transceiver to transmit GPS coordinates sounds to me like a "convenience" shortcut that would have definite health implications, well beyond the concerns that we discussed surrounding implanted passive microchips.

Well, I was thinking of possible ways to mitigate the health risk, like mounting it on the top of the harness that he wears for his seat belt with a piece of tin between him and the transmitter, or something like that. I made my own cell phone case that dangles off my belt from two small chains so it's not constantly pressed against my body.

After Laura's post, now I'm wondering if it's even necessary? She's right in that I've never had this breed (breeds) of dog before. I could be preparing for something that's not going to happen with this little guy?