STOP COMPULSORY DOG MICROCHIPPING IN TASMANIA

Tasmania, a State of Australia, recently introduced legislation whereby microchipping of dogs will be compulsory from 1st July 2011.

This petition is similar to the "Stop mandatory animal microchipping" petition, also on CARE2, but is specific to Tasmania where there is still time for the compulsory (or mandatory) law applicable to ALL dogs to be repealed or amended before it becomes effective.

Below, you will find a short INTRODUCTION with the PETITION ITSELF, copied and adapted from the earlier (general) petition, and an ACTION section, and, below that, a DISCUSSION which is focussed on Tasmania.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warns about the microchip:

The potential risks to health associated with the device are: adverse tissue reaction; migration of implanted transponder; compromised information security; failure of implanted transponder; failure of inserter; failure of electronic scanner; electromagnetic interference; electrical hazards; magnetic resonance imaging incompatibility; and needle stick.

 

 PETITION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TASMANIA

We, the undersigned believe that:

Mandatory microchipping legislation must be halted and banned in Tasmania and everywhere.

Mandatory animal microchipping legislation that has already been enacted in Tasmania and anywhere else must be reversed.

Pet owners must not be penalized or discriminated against for refusing to have their animal microchipped.

Pet owners must be advised of all risks associated with microchipping.

Veterinarians must report all adverse (and all suspected adverse) microchip reactions to an official, objective, adverse reporting organisation.

ACTION

Even though time is running out in Tasmania to get the Government to repeal or amend the microchipping 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/stop-mandatory-animal-microchipping/

 

You can email the Tasmanian Minister for Local Government:

bryan.green@development.tas.gov.au

 

You can email the Tasmanian Shadow Minister for Local Government:

Rene Hidding <rene.hidding@parliament.tas.gov.au>

 

You can sign this petition!    

 

Once you have signed the petition, you can help even more by asking your family and friends to sign.

DISCUSSION

 

"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. 

 

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, 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. Has "breaking point" has been reached in Tasmania by the new microchipping requirement?

 

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

 

So, in Tasmania 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 microchipping. 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 microchipping were to be introduced, you might have chosen not to get a dog.  

The writer has emailed every Tasmanian Parliamentarian urging that the recent microchipping 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 microchipping requirement. To no avail.  

   

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 Tasmania.) 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

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.

 

There may be good arguments for microchipping in relation to reuniting people and pets, but there are alternatives (to be discussed below).

 

As for better dog control, it is probable that compulsory microchipping will have the opposite effect to that indended.   

 

The reasons:

 

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 the number of registrations (through renewal) drops dramatically as a consequence of microchipping being compulsory. It's likely that many people (who have unchipped pets), though they've always previously complied with registration, will not do so this year because they see no need to microchip 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 these people 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.

 

ONE SIZE FITS ALL

The microchipping 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

There is no provision, in the new microchipping 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 microchipping on pet owners, takes no responsibilty should something go wrong.

 

DEBATE?

There was quite extensive discussion on m/c in the Tasmanian Parliament, yes. But in the interpretation of "debate" as "robust scrutiny from a contrarian viewpoint", there was no debate. It is extraordinary that there was noone in the Parliament who actively opposed legislation which appears to be 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 microchipping 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.

 

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 microchip.

 

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. 

 

One can 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!

 

There have been reports of problems with chips "migrating", some people being disturbed by the problem, others minimising its importance.

 

There have also been reports 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 microchip implants is the possibilty (seen by some as worth the risk) of resulting injury, cancer or death. 

 

For your reference, here are some links:

 

 

http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/articles/dogs-death-due-to-microchip.html

 

http://www.rense.com/general84/dog.htm

 

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/bulletins.read?mnr=374366&pagen=1

 

http://www.chipmenot.org/

 

http://www.noble-leon.com/

 

 

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 to exemptions (from microchipping) which can be provided by a vet; but neither has explained (as requested by the writer) which conditions might qualify a dog for exemption nor how the vet might determine whether a dog has a qualifying condition; assistants at the writer's local vet didn't know; and the writer has not had a response from the Australian Veterinary Association (Tas) to an email (11 Jan 2011) in which he 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 he 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."

It is completely ridiculous that the owner of a dog can't decide to exempt the dog from microchipping 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 knows what he or she can or can't do!) 

 

ALTERNATIVES TO MICROCHIPPING

When the writer's 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. Fortunately he always came home. 

 

On account of his (then) adventurous nature the writer had considered having him chipped but decided against as, where he lives, the most likely risks were: snakebite; getting lost or trapped in the bush; being shot by a farmer. For a microchip to be of value he would have to have been found by someone and then taken to a vet or a pound for scanning. The view was taken that his collar-tag with phone number would suffice. Had the writer known, at the time, of a GPS chip (attached to the collar), that is what he'd have chosen, for it would have given him the means to track and to find his dog 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 microchip nor a GPS device.

 

If you are committed to the microchip then it should be your decision and your resposibilty to go down that road.

 

But there are alternatives such as tattoos and adequate fencing; there is also the GPS device; and, for dangerous dogs, muzzles (required in some jurisdictions). A microchip won't stop a dog biting the postman. A muzzle would.

 

Should you be interested in the GPS device, here's a link:

 

http://ezinearticles.com/?Do-Pet-GPS-Microchips-Exist?&id=4101312

 

By means of Google or your preferred search engine you may be able to find futher information on GPS devices which don't require medical implant.   

 

Whether microchipping or an alternative, it is reiterated 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 microchipping 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/stop-mandatory-animal-microchipping/

 

You can email the Tasmanian Minister for Local Government:

bryan.green@development.tas.gov.au

 

You can email the Tasmanian Shadow Minister for Local Government:

Rene Hidding <rene.hidding@parliament.tas.gov.au>

 

You can sign this petition!