Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 120

Thread: Microchipping is One Thing; COMPULSORY Microchipping Another

  1. #51

    Default

    A friend of mine two nights ago came home to an empty house, her dog had smashed the window and run out on a main road, he was hit by a car... who didn't stop... but another passerby did stop and took him to the vet... he was not wearing a collar.... they contacted the owner via the microchip... not sure how but the dog is not injured... he has used up a couple of lives now thou... When microchipping first started I was against it, but would now never have a dog without being chipped... I have seen a few chips move over the years, but the people checking now seem to allow for that and check all over the dog...

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kimbastaff View Post
    does anyone know of any dogs that have actually be reunited purely because of microchipping... I don't actually know of any...
    Slightly different, but when our newfie rescue was taken to a pound in Kempsy, the pound contacted his breeder as she was also listed on his chip. She dual registers all the pups she chips. So he was returned to his breeder after being dumped by his owner. Pound checked the registration and contacted her. I thought this was a great reason for microchipping........
    Pets are forever

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Darwin
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kimbastaff View Post
    does anyone know of any dogs that have actually be reunited purely because of microchipping... I don't actually know of any...

    Yep... Over the last couple of years I've come across a number of strays without collars or tags (they can lose them during the escape) and the pound was able to reunite them with their owners due to the information on their microchips.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keira & Phoenix View Post
    Funny how the person who started this thread and the people that have agreed with it are all new members!
    Yes, it is a little odd isn't it.......................
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rural NSW
    Posts
    5,967

    Default

    Not really. They are probably the same person.

    Any posts made under the name of Di_dee1 one can be used by anyone as I do not give a rats.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    79

    Default

    ive been thinking for a while that i smell a troll

  7. #57

    Default

    If they wanted to change the new law in Tasmania they probably should have started early last year when they put the word out, not in April when all dogs must be chipped by July 1st.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tasmania
    Posts
    10

    Exclamation Tasmania: Stop COMPULSORY Microchipping

    Thanks to all those who responded to my initial postings on DogForum. At the time of composing this posting, there have been 46 responses to what I posted on the "General Dog Forum" and 9 responses to my posting on "Introduce Yourself". The two postings had the same content, but different titles. There was some overlapping, so I've had around 50 responses in total.

    The range of responses was broad, varied and interesting. I've learned from the views and experiences of those who provided feedback. Many people, though, had missed the point of my postings and had formed the view that I was opposed to microchipping (henceforth "m/c"). My DogForum name, "nochip" had possibly contributed to this view being taken. My thoughts on m/c will be spelled out below. But I'd like to stress that the issue which concerns me is not m/c per se, but compulsory or mandatory m/c. Allow me to introduce my discussion on compulsory m/c with a couple of quotes:

    "Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than
    passing laws which cannot be enforced." Albert Einstein

    "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find
    a way around the laws." Plato

    SOME BIG WORDS

    Liberty, justice, freedom, equality……. The history of mankind has been a struggle to shake off repression and tyranny. In the 20th Century, Australians were among the many who died in fighting fascism/totalitarianism, to preserve a way of life in which people might be free and responsible. The struggle is still going on in The Middle East: Egypt, Tunisia, where dictators have been toppled, Libya where people are fghting a dictator, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere. Why are we fighting the Taliban? Because they make beards compulsory? Don't laugh. The answer is "yes", compulsory beards being just one measure which is symbolic of broad repression and tyranny. Having grown up in Apartheid South Africa I am sensitive to despotism. What a struggle that was! But, in the end liberty, justice, freedom and equality prevailed (relatively speaking).

    Freedom. Freedom to choose. Freedom with responsibility. Individual responsibilty, free from bureaucratic control. Sounds nice. It is. But what's happening in Australia? Our lives are becoming increasingly burdened by laws, compliance issues, restrictions and so on, and becoming increasingly complex. These days it seems that everything from your tax return to having a tree lopped involves phone calls, discussion, bureaucracy and paperwork.

    In general, though, I think that Australia has good governance. But there are points at which, thanks to the complexity of many aspects of our lives, and the speed with which laws are introduced (and then sometimes reversed by a newly elected government), that good governance is being stretched to breaking point. In my view "breaking point" has been reached in Tasmania by the new m/c requirement.

    I recognise that, in a society, there is a "contract" whereby the individual surrenders some freedom to a higher authority in the interests of order and harmony. So laws are made. Laws made in the spirit of "small l" liberalism have, I think, in general, characterised law-making in Australia: you are free to do as you please, provided that you pay your taxes and don't cause harm to others.

    Also, in Australia, I believe that retrospectivity in law is seen as unfair and I think that our legislators have usually gone to pains in ensuring that laws are not retrospective.

    So, in Tasmania (and I guess throughout Australia) you have been required to register your dog, pay the fee and make damn sure that your dog does not cause harm or disturbance to others. The "social contract". Registration has been the means whereby, sometimes imperfectly, order and harmony are maintained (by the Local Council) in the world of dogs, their owners, the neighbours and the postman.

    You have had the choice of:
    a) getting a dog and registering it;
    b) getting a dog and not registering it, thereby breaking the law and taking the risk of penalty;
    c) (if you don't like registration and don't want to break the law) not getting a dog.

    But along comes compulsory m/c.. In Tasmania, and presumably elsewhere, it doesn't matter that you got your dog before the legislation was passed. You must still have your dog chipped! This is retrospectivity at its worst! And the point is this: had you known that compulsory m/c were to be introduced, you might have chosen not to get a dog.

    I have emailed every Tasmanian Parliamentarian urging that the recent m/c legislation be repealed or, at the very least, be amended such that those who acquired dogs prior to its becoming law, be exempted from the m/c requirement.

    Crested Love, a Senior Dogforum member, had commented: "If they wanted to change the new law in Tasmania they probably should have started early last year when they put the word out, not in April when all dogs must be chipped by July 1st." I should advise Crested Love that I first learned about the new law around October 2010 and that, after some enquiries, I emailed people in the Tasmanian Parliament on 23rd November 2010. There has been further discussion and correspondence since with Tasmanian Parliamentarians. I regret, now, that I hadn't gone down the "social networking" road earlier, but I had decided to first let the direct approach to Government run its course, so it was only in April that I first joined DogForum.

    If any member of DogForum would like to read the emails that I've sent to Tasmanian Parliamentarians and to the Tasmanian Branch of AVA (Australian Veterinary Association) please provide your email address whereupon I shall be happy to forward the emails.

    CHOICE

    In a few places around the world (such as areas controlled by the Taliban) all men MUST wear beards. Elsewhere they are generally free to choose as to whether they grow beards or shave them off.

    In Tasmania and some other Australian States all dogs MUST be chipped. (From 1st July 2011 the Tasmanian Government will have deprived you of your choice in this matter if you live in Tassy.) The freedom of choice which you had previously enjoyed has been taken from you.

    If compulsion in the wearing of a beard is tyrannical, is compulsion in getting your dog chipped any less so?

    "Democracy!" I hear you say, "The microchipping law was passed by an elected government!" Well, yes, but let's remember that Hitler was elected.

    EFFICACY

    I note that legislation had already existed in Tasmania requiring that dangerous dogs be microchipped. The Government's rationale for extending the requirement to all dogs has been that it would be in the interests of better dog control as well as in the interests of reuniting people with lost pets.

    I acknowledge that there may be good arguments for m/c in relation to reuniting people and pets, but there are alternatives and I'll discuss those below.

    As for better dog control, I am completely convinced that compulsory m/c will have the opposite effect to that indended.

    The reasons for my strong conviction:

    People who have unregistered dogs (already in breach of the law) are highly unlikely to have those dogs chipped, so there will be no net benefit to Local Councils, the number of unregistered strays entering pounds being much the same as before.

    But the problem will be compounded when, as I believe will inevitably happen, the number of registrations (through renewal) drops dramatically as a consequence of m/c being compulsory. I've spoken with several people (who have unchipped pets) over the last few weeks (including neighbours, a friend, the owner of a service station, a handyman, a solicitor and a Tasmanian Government employee) most of whom, though they've always previously complied with registration, will not do so this year because they see no need to m/c their pets and because they refuse to be forced to do so.

    In the quote from Plato, above, there is reference to bad people finding a way around laws. But the people I've spoken with are not bad. Rather, in this instance, it is the law that's bad. Civil disobedience results from bad laws. Think of the Boston Tea Party, the start of the USA becoming independent. Think of the current turmoil in the Middle East.

    I think that the Tasmanian Government will ultimately backtrack on compulsory m/c just as it's likely to do with some speed limit signs that were introduced about a year ago without, I suspect, adequate prior research.

    ONE SIZE FITS ALL

    The m/c law in Tasmania (and probably in other Jurisdictions) does not take into account that, just as people are different, so are their pets. It's absurd that someone who has a mature pet which never strays should be forced into having the pet chipped. It's collective punishment! Because one or two kids are naughty the whole class is kept back after hours.

    Surely the pet owner is in the best position to decide what's appropriate for his or her pet! Surely, in an enlightened society, people should have the freedom and responsibility to determine how to manage their lives according to individual circumstances and needs.

    No, one size does not fit all.

    NO COMPENSATION

    I understand that there is no provision, in the new m/c law, for the State of Tasmania to compensate a pet owner in the event of injury or death resulting from the pet being chipped. Any claim for compensation would be under common law and would involve the owner going to Court. Claim would be against the vet. The State, which forces m/c on pet owners, takes no responsibilty should something go wrong.

    In an email I wrote to Elise Archer MP, I concocted a little story, for illustrative purposes, about an Aunt Sally who loses her Maltese Poodle, Cuddles, as a result of m/c.. Not only does she lose Cuddles but she loses $50000 in the process. If you'd like to read this bit of fiction, please let me know such that I can include it in another posting.

    DEBATE?

    There was quite extensive discussion on m/c in the Tasmanian Parliament, yes. But in my interpretation of "debate" (robust scrutiny from a contrarian viewpoint),*there was no debate.*I find it extraordinary that, as I've understood it, there was noone in the Parliament who actively opposed legislation which, in my view, is deeply flawed. Should we take lessons from North Korea or should it be the other way around.*

    THINGS THAT CAN GO WRONG

    Murphy's Law (aka Finagle's Law) : "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong."

    We know that things go wrong. Sometimes government (or one of its wings or agencies) is involved, sometimes not. Sometimes another organisation is responsible. Sometimes it's a bit of both. In the case of pet m/c the following parties might be involved if something goes wrong: the pet, the pet's owner, the manufacturer & distributor of the chip, the vet, the Local Council, the Government, the Courts.

    Let's consider just a few of the countless things that have gone wrong: cane toads; asbestos; home insulation; the Concorde; Space Shuttle Columbia; mining disasters; oil spills; nuclear accidents……… Enough?

    It would be naive in the extreme to assume that nothing will go wrong in, or following, the implantation of a m/c..

    Let's consider another instance of things going wrong: the Toyota recall. Here's an extract from a page on Wikipedia:

    As of January 28, 2010, Toyota had announced recalls of approximately 5.2*million vehicles for the pedal entrapment/floor mat problem, and an additional 2.3*million vehicles for the accelerator pedal problem. Approximately 1.7*million vehicles are subject to both.[3][4] Certain related Lexus and Pontiac models were also affected.[5][6] The next day, Toyota widened the recall to include 1.8*million vehicles in Europe and 75,000 in China.[7] By then, the worldwide total number of cars recalled by Toyota stood at 9*million.

    Can you imagine the mayhem and consternation that would be caused if the main manufacturer of chips being supplied to Australian vets were to recall a batch on account of an identified defect? Particularly if that batch had already been used for implantation!

    Several members of DogForum have reported problems with chips "migrating", some being disturbed by the problem, others minimising its importance.

    There have been reports, on DogForum and elsewhere, of problems with scanners, sometimes in relation to chips which have "migrated", sometimes in relation to compatibility between the scanner and the chip.

    Perhaps the scariest aspect of m/c implants is the possibilty (seen by some DogForum members as worth the risk) of resulting injury, cancer or death. There is a link on DogForum to a page which outlines some of the risks associated with m/c..

    For your reference, here are some further links (and I urge you to visit "chipmenot" as well as the site dedicated to Noble Leon):


    Dog's Death due to Microchip

    Dog Bleeds To Death After Microchip Implant*

    Dogs Dying from Microchip - German shepherd dog

    chipmenot.com-homepage

    Welcome to Léon's memorial website and information regarding his tragic passing


    EXEMPTIONS - FOR REAL?

    Both Rene Hidding MP (Shadow Minister for Local Government in Tasmania) and Bryan Green MP (Minister for Local Government in Tasmania) have referred, in emails to myself, to exemptions (from microchipping) which can be provided by a vet; but neither has explained (as I've requested) which conditions might qualify a dog for exemption nor how the vet might determine whether a dog has a qualifying condition; assistants at my local vet's didn't know; and I've not had a response from the AVA (Tas) to an email (11 Jan 2011) in which I enquired about conditions for exemption. It's odd, to say the least, that noone seems to know. And it doesn't inspire confidence in the integrity of the legislation.

    Here is what I wrote to AVA (Tas):

    "I understand that vets can or will be able to issue an "exemption certificate" in relation to the "microchipping requirement" which becomes effective in Tas in July 2011.

    "Could you kindly advise which conditions might qualify a dog for exemption and what might be involved in determining whether a dog has one of the qualifying conditions."

    Do you know? If you do, kindly fill me in.

    I find it completely ridiculous that the owner of a dog can't decide to exempt the dog from m/c but can appoint a proxy (the vet) who can make the decision on the owner's behalf! (IF the vet can! It's a bit uncertain as to whether the vet will know what he or she can or can't do!)

    ALTERNATIVES TO M/C

    When my dog was younger, he'd frequently go off on private adventures, the longest of which was seven and a half hours, the cause of considerable anxiety on my part. Fortunately he always came home.

    On account of his (then) adventurous nature I'd considered having him chipped but decided against as, where I live, the most likely risks were: snakebite; getting lost or trapped in the bush; being shot by a farmer. For a m/c to be of value he would have to have been found by someone and then taken to a vet or a pound for scanning. I took the view that his collar-tag with my phone number would suffice. Had I known, at the time, of a GPS chip (attached to the collar), that is what I'd have chosen, for it would have given me the means to track and to find him without passively waiting for someone else to find him (if he hadn't already succumbed to snakebite or a trigger-happy farmer).

    Macky (his nickname) is now over nine years old. He has matured and has settled down and is very responsive and disciplined. There is no longer a problem with straying and, accordingly, need for neither a m/c nor a GPS device.

    If you are committed to the m/c then I believe that it should be your decision and your resposibilty to go down that road.

    But there are alternatives, some of which have been suggested by DogForum members, such as tattoos and adequate fencing; there is also the GPS device; and, for dangerous dogs, muzzles (required in some jurisdictions). A m/c won't stop a dog biting the postman. A muzzle would.

    Should you be interested in the GPS device, here's a link to a page I found fairly useful:

    Do Pet GPS Microchips Exist?

    By means of Google or your preferred search engine you may be able to find futher information on the GPS device (which doesn't require a medical implant).

    Whether m/c or an alternative, I reiterate my view that it should be your choice and your decision and not the Goverment's.

    ACTION

    Even though time is running out in Tasmania to get the Government to repeal or amend the m/c law before it becomes effective, in July 2011, it is not too late.

    You can email your views to the most widely read Tasmanian newspaper, The Mercury:
    mercuryedletter@dbl.newsltd.com.au

    You can sign the (wordwide) "Stop mandatory animal microchipping" petition:
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/5/sto...microchipping/

    You can email the Minister for Local Government:
    bryan.green@development.tas.gov.au

    You can email the Shadow Minister for Local Government:
    Rene Hidding <rene.hidding@parliament.tas.gov.au>

    You can support me by providing guidance as to how to use FaceBook for the purposes of stopping compulsory m/c and/or with suggestions as to further action.

    You can sign the petition that I started on 26th April 2011 on CARE2.
    Here's the link:
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/no-...microchipping/


    CONCLUSION

    I hope that this posting has been useful and informative. I shall look forward to your response.

    Best regards,

    Saville (aka "nochip")

  9. #59

    Default

    I don't think you can really compare Hitler with our Government, or the Taliban.

    I do understand your argument and you have presented it well for the most part, but there are a few glaring discrepancies...

    And the point is this: had you known that compulsory m/c were to be introduced, you might have chosen not to get a dog.
    Microchipping takes 2 seconds, makes your dog safe and traceable if it is lost. I don't know why someone would choose not to get a dog because of this?
    ALL TCA registered puppies are already microchipped anyway before going to new homes, this is part of the TCA code of ethics and conduct.
    This new law ONLY affects litters from backyard breeders and puppy mills, something we want to stamp out anyway. BYB's and Mills are not part of the TCA so do not have to follow the rules.
    By doing this a lot of BYB's won't want the extra cost of microchipping (with a litter of 6 pups you are looking at minimum $120 to do this) hopefully it will discourage those breeding solely for money.

    The m/c law in Tasmania (and probably in other Jurisdictions) does not take into account that, just as people are different, so are their pets. It's absurd that someone who has a mature pet which never strays should be forced into having the pet chipped. It's collective punishment! Because one or two kids are naughty the whole class is kept back after hours.
    It's not just people with mature dogs that stay in their yard that are the problem. You would be surprised how many dogs are stolen from peoples yard and even houses.
    I don't understand why you see it as a punishment? It's more about being responsible.
    Many hundreds if not thousands of pets have been reunited with their owners through microchips.

    I think that the Tasmanian Government will ultimately backtrack on compulsory m/c just as it's likely to do with some speed limit signs that were introduced about a year ago without, I suspect, adequate prior research.
    I'm not sure what speed signs you are referring to but I don't think they will back down on chipping. while I do agree with you that there should be some sort of compensation or rebate on chips, they have been around for a long time, and by now about 90% of TCA registered dogs would be chipped anyway. They need to be chipped to be bred from and pups need to be chipped before being sold.
    Again, you are only appealing to the BYB and puppy mill market.

    You don't have to agree with me, same as I don't have to agree with you, but i think your time and effort would be better spent on more important matters like shutting down the many mills in Tasmania than stopping something that could potentially save pets lives.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    In NSW, we have had compulsory microchipping for approximately 12 years. To be honest, I think you are an alarmist.

    I don't have time for a full response just now, but will try to come back later.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •