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…..
ANIMALIA & KALACREEK
There are alternatives to m/c, as discussed in my posting.
SHELBY-001 & ANGELAN_BATTY
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
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
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
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.