Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 120

Thread: Microchipping is One Thing; COMPULSORY Microchipping Another

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Lightbulb REPLIES to Dogforum Members + Story

    Thanks to those who responded to my wordy posting on 26th April 2011.

    This posting contains my comments on your responses.


    The comparisons with Hitler/Taliban were for dramatic emphasis. Got your attention! Of course I don't think any Ozzy
    govt is anywhere as bad. But vigilance is needed. That's why I'm fighting the COMPULSION in the m/c legislation.

    I respect anyone's choice including the TCA's to m/c pets and would like to think that my choice NOT TO CHIP might be equally respected.

    I doubt that all or most "BYB's and Mills" will comply with m/c
    legislation and probably don't with registration so don't think status quo will change in this regard.

    It's a punishment because it FORCES people like myself to do something they're opposed to, and see as risky, and believe is unnecessary in their circumstances.

    I see m/c cost as a tiny fraction of the total cost of having a pet. Of no concern to me whatsoever. Where I've discussed COMPENSATION it's been in relation vet costs, legal costs and the hard-to-quantify cost of trauma in losing a pet as a result of m/c.. NO COMPENSATION from the State of Tasmania. The
    owner would have to claim from the vet through the Courts.


    In the light of what recently happened in Japan, would you call someone who rails against nuclear power generators an alarmist? Before the accident maybe…..


    There are alternatives to m/c, as discussed in my posting.


    Regarding cost, please see my response to CRESTED LOVE,

    Regarding licence…….. Any different from registration?


    Yes, you're right, and truth is stranger than fiction. The $50,000 in the story relates to Aunt Sally's costs in the process of her Cuddles dying as a result of m/c.. As pointed out to CRESTED LOVE, above, the State does not provide for compensation.

    Here's the little story (extract from my email to Elise Archer, MP):


    Aunt Sally has had a Maltese Poodle, Cuddles, for eight years.
    They're inseperable. Aunt Sally tells people that her relationship with
    Cuddles was made in heaven. Cuddles is in extremely good shape.
    Aunt Sally believes that they may be able to enjoy another eight
    years together.

    Aunt Sally paid $700 when she bought Cuddles as a pup. She spends
    about $1K annualy on Cuddles: food, vet, accessories, registration.
    So her outlay has been close to $9K. But the value of Cuddles to
    Aunt Sally is inestimable.

    Microchipping becomes mandatory. Cuddles is microchipped. The
    vet has used "world best practice" in the procedure. Cuddles gets
    cancer from the implant. The cancer first manifests itself three months
    after microchipping and, after three years of suffering, Cuddles

    In those three years, Aunt Sally makes countless visits to the vet.
    Her total vet expenses come to around $20K. She is not insured and
    has to borrow at a punitive interest rate.

    Just before Cuddles dies, friends advise Aunt Sally to claim
    compensation from the vet. She's not sure as to how to go about
    it. For close to a year she is involved in making enquiries : phone calls
    and meetings with Legal Aid and several solicitors. Legal Aid can't
    help because the view of the lawyers there is that the vet was not
    negligent (unfortunately, Cuddles had a rare genetic intolerance to
    the implant).

    One of the solicitors (not Legal Aid), however, believes that Aunt
    Sally does have a case (the vet had a duty of care to test Cuddles'
    tolerance before implanting the chip) and refers her to a barrister.
    The barrister confirms the solicitor's view and advises Aunt Sal that
    the vet's insurance will cover the claim, which he will make on her
    behalf, in the amount of $250K.

    So Aunt Sally goes to court and loses, the Judge ruling that the
    vet was not negligent and, because of intolerance to implants
    being extremely rare, had no duty of care to perform highly
    expensive tests to establish whether there might be an intolerance,
    particularly when the tests themselves could not be relied on and
    when the tests themselves could have adverse medical consequences.

    Aunt Sally's legal and court costs amount to $15K. She has to
    mortgage her home as she can't borrow more without doing so.
    Combined with the $20K on vet expenses, and the $9K on dog
    expenses before Cuddles got cancer, and $3K on non-vet dog
    expenses during Cuddles's illness, and $1K in out-goings
    (transport to vet and lawyers; phone calls.....) and $6K on interest
    on borrowings, she has lost $54K and no longer has her loved and
    loving Cuddles.

    And the State of Tasmania shrugs it all off. Microchipping is for
    the greater good. Sadly, a few will get hurt. The State rules but
    bears no responsibilty for things that go wrong.

    If you're not happy with the amount of $50K, feel free to double it or halve it or play with. It's just part of a story to illustrate a scenario to a Tasmanian MP.


    For me the issue is not m/c but the right to choose.


    Dogs returned -vs- dogs dying: don't have stats but sure you're right that former much greater.

    I believe that the pet's owner, not the govt, should assess the risks either way based on info available. Govt's role should be limited to providing balanced info about advantages, risks & alternatives.


    I enjoyed reading your considered, insightful and interesting response. Thanks.

    I think that most of what I could say in response has been covered above. But I should mention that Macky's collar has never come off. (Although I do take it off when he's indoors.)

    So, for me, if Macky were still going on private adventures, the best solution would be a GPS chip on the collar. I'd weigh the risk of collar coming off against the risk of medical problems from an implanted chip. My choice would fall on the GPS'ed collar.

    Yes, Jucealala, it's the COMPULSION that I'm fighting. It goes so against the grain that I'm prepared to spend valuable time in trying to uphold freedom and retain responsibilty for the individual. A nanny state is a step towards a totalitarian state. THAT underlies what I'm doing.

    It's gratifying for me that I've got nearly seventy signatures on my petition. And I think I've finally swung The Mercury into running a story, but will only know when the fat lady's sung. I understand she may sing next week.


    You'll understand from my reply to Jucealala why I've taken up the issue. Fortunately I can still choose which issues I'd like to fight. For how much longer? Lose your freedom to decide how to run your life and your dog. Next you'll lose your freedom of speech! Vigilance required.


    Two " "s would have done nicely. Seven? Emulating me?

    You're under no compulsion to read my postings.


    I will not see my time and effort wasted if I can get the Tasmanian Government, if it does not repeal the m/c law, to at least amend it, and, as a minimum, to exempt people who had acquired pets BEFORE the law was passed.


    Saville (nochip)

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2011


    I think that the lady in NM would know what happen to her dog. I wasn't there. You weren't there.

    Have just replied via a new thread.

    Why "flooding the forum"? Thought forums allow free expression.
    I am getting support and hope to get enough to have changes made.
    Kissinger: "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not trying to kill me".

  3. #83


    As Anne said, NSW has had compulsory chipping of domestic cats and dogs for years. Why don't you find examples of animals passing away from it and use those instead? Or is it because then you would need undisputable proof of this happening, not a theoretical fairy tale created by you? You can't put a price on a life & dogs are not an investment.

    Why don't you put your energies into something more productive, rather than a massively helpful tool utilised in responsibly keeping your pet, reuniting you with your pet when it's lost and ensuring you have permanent proof of ownership at all times?

    Here's another theoretical for you. Your dog gets scared by something while you're out and gets out of your yard. As he or she is escaping the collar gets caught and comes off, falling uselessly to the ground within your yard. Your dog, because you have refused to ensure it is identifiable is picked up 3 towns away by their council and a few days later PTS or adopted to another family. All of this could be prevented by the insertion of a microchip. Your dog not being with you is then YOUR FAULT.

    Oh and even if you do see the same dog, with that other family there is no way for you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is your dog, because again you refused the one way that will ALWAYS prove your ownership.

    You can rant and rave about the lack of choice all you like, but frankly you do sound like an alarmist. I hope that you aren't getting support for this because it's necessary. Fair enough if you have an elderly dog and it would be too stressful, there are people I know with cats in the same kind of position, but given that council rangers don't have the time to go door to door scanning every pet they find I'm sure your dog will be fine.

    Oh, and the only reason that nuclear plant had any issues was because it was built near the fault line and was damaged during the earthquake. I've never heard any protest groups saying anything about that scenario!

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Moggill, Queensland


    To be honest, I doubt any government official would bother reading an argument against a topic as inconsequential as this one. You are fighting against something so STUPID I find it a little astounding. As for dogs dying from microchipping; there's probably more risk involved with vaccinating, but you do that don't you? Because it could save your pet?

    Unfortunately, I really doubt the law will be amended or removed for one person who doesn't like to be told what to do (with very good reason).

  5. #85


    why would you reply in a NEW thread... go to the thread you originally posted, where we replied and then reply.

  6. #86


    Sorry have to agree nochip it is getting a bit old popping onto the forum to see a new thread by you about the same thing. Please actually reply to the other comments in your last thread or stop posting new threads. This is not an answer to anything anyone else posted.

  7. #87


    How about this scenario.
    You have a gorgeous, much loved pet dog. One day your pet dog goes missing from your yard, you are unsure how your dog got out....weeks later you spot your pet in someone elses backyard looking underfed and mistreated, this someone else is known to be involved in the dog fighting world, you call the police to try to get your dog back but they cannot help you because your dog is not microchipped and so have no proof of ownership nor do you have proof that these people stole the dog. The dog fighters keep your dog and use it as a bait dog...

  8. #88


    "Next you'll lose your freedom of speech!"

    Actually in Australia we don't have freedom of speech - check the constitution.
    Maybe you should work towards getting that first?

  9. #89


    A work colleague's much loved cat disappeared without trace in January this year. Yesterday, he received a phone call from a local vet to say the cat had been found.

    Fortunately he was microchipped and Mozart and his family were happily reunited yesterday afternoon after being missing for four months

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Rural NSW


    Can the threads be merged? It is verging on spam.

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

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