Are Microchips Safe?

Microchipping and Sterilization:

It's the LAW ! ???

Excerpted From: Blue Dog State Blog

http://bluedogstate.blogspot.com/

(reprinted with permission)

Shamelessly peddling compulsory microchip plans as a way to return lost pets to their owners, but not hesitating to shaft the millions of ordinary, law-abiding citizens whose private information would be captured and distributed through comprehensive microchip-based databases, diverse organizations are lining up on compulsory RFID microchipping for dogs and other pets. Through its support of Rick Santorum's PAWS bill many felt that even the American Kennel Club aligned itself with animal rights organizations, and the USDA's NAIS plan aimed at having every horse, cow, goat, pig, duck and chicken in the U.S. microchipped by January 2008. The mandatory microchip legislation targets the privacy interests of EVERY animal owner in the country, and is, undenyably, a precurser to mandatory microchip legislation for HUMANS. The push is definitely on to get pesky dog owners on board with requirements for mandatory use of radio-frequency identification microchips for dogs and other domestic animals. Privacy concerns? Funny. No one seems to be hearing them.

Are they in it for the money, honey?

Let's get down to it. Microchips are a BIG potential market. HUGE. Just for dogs in this country-- Sales of microchips at $35/insertion on the estimated 65 million dogs in America? $2,275,000,000 "Aftermarket" sales (which would be the mandatory database registration fees) at $13.75 each? $893,750,000.

Database of the household information on the 45% or so of U. S. homes that include a dog? Now, that's priceless.

What About Privacy Rights?

But its not the windfall profits that's got me crazy. Nope. Its the people who keep saying. . "I've got nothing to hide." Oh, yeah? Wake up! That's a fox in the hen house!

With mandatory microchipping of dogs and cats in place, the household information of about 63% of the U. S. population would be funneled into a huge database of people who have committed no crimes. People not accused of any crimes. We're talking about people who simply own pets. The database would hold the details on an estimated at 69.1 million U. S. homes. My home would be there. Probably your's would, too. Individuals and organizations with access to that database could run reports on who owns a big dog. Which households have "too many" cats. Where dogs and cats with their reproductive parts intact are located. Addresses. Phone numbers. Names. AND, the NAIS regulations would require that your home's global positioning coordinates go into the database.

Still think databases are no big deal?

Imagine your insurance company with its hands on that database. In fact, take a moment to download and view this video. Go ahead. Do it. And as you listen to the guy struggling to get his pizza delivered, imagine that he owns a (duly microchipped, as required by law) "pit bull". Or Rottweiler. Or husky. Or mastiff. Or Great Dane. Or Chow. Or German Shepherd. Doberman. Akita. St. Bernard. Bull Terrier. Miniature Bull Terrier. Cane Corso. Malamute. Catahoula, yes even a Collie . . . .

Here come the Politicians!

Meet New York State Assemblyman and Democrat Jose Peralta, of Queens. One dark and stormy night earlier this year, Assemblyman Peralta submitted a bill proposing mandatory microchipping and the creation of a database of all dogs over the age of four months in the State of New York. Four other Democrats promptly signed on to it. What information would go into Assemblyman Peralta's database? Who would have access?

"An amendment that requires dog owners to implant a microchip that includes owner`s contact information and dog`s medical history. A registry of dogs shall be created at the time of dog licensing. This registry will be made available to veterinarians, shelters and kennels for the purposes of identification." In other words, just about anyone with a little ambition could gain access to your household information, your dog licensing data, and your dog's veterinary records.

Think it could never happen in the U. S. of A.? Think again. Mandatory microchipping is already a reality in El Paso, Texas, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland California --where, by the way, both the cities and the counties vote overwhelmingly Democratic. New Zealand's regulations just kicked in. Hong Kong already requires microchipping. So does Portugal. The list goes on.

Roe v Wade, Griswold, privacy and your ever-loving dog

Where does our right to privacy come from? Roe v Wade. A woman's right to choose, protected by Roe v Wade, is the keystone. The decision is all about privacy. In fact, the Roe decision relied heavily on the earlier Supreme Court Griswold decision asserting the "right to marital privacy". Chip, chip, chip away at privacy--no matter what the rhetoric put out by the Tommy Thompsons, American Kennel Clubs, and HSUS's of the world--and guess what? The tail you swallow will be your own. So-called progressive thinkers who mistakenly believe that they "have nothing to hide" and choose to support agendas sponsored by outfits like the Humane Society of the United States are going to find themselves in bed with some distinctly un-liberal people. Do ya still think threats to privacy, like mandatory microchipping for your dog, are no big deal?

I sure hope not.

As to the "mandatory sterilization" laws cropping up all over the country, Plenty of dog owners are oblivious to the whole thing. Others prefer to squeeze their eyes shut and hope it will all go away. But skirmish lines formed long ago and it looks like the City of Tacoma, Washington, may be the next battlefield in the Testicle Wars. I'm talking about the battle for control of your dog's reproductive parts. . The move to force law-abiding dog owners with well-managed pets and workmates to surgically sterilize them. The concept that the government can invade your home and decide which, if any, of your dogs get to keep their gonads, and which ones don't.

Can a bunch of strangers sitting on your city council determine that your blameless dog must undergo an invasive veterinary procedure which sends a part of your personal property to the garbage can?

Could this be just a minor snip-snip for ol' Rover? (And by the way, before you sign on to that particular theory, know that despite the bedtime story that mandatory spay-neuter advocates spin, the longterm effects of gonadectomies on dogs are not necessarily beneficial. Not by a long shot.) Or is this an assault on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of an estimated 45% of the U. S. electorate?

We the People

Turns out that the U. S. Constitution is gonzo about protecting property rights.

The Fifth Amendment (which would be part of the Bill of Rights, guys) reads, in part:

No person shall be . . .deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Then there's the 14th Amendment, which reads, in part:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . Like I said, completely gonzo when it comes to property. Talk about a core value. Right?

Ditching our constitutional rights

Meet Democratic Tacoma City Councilmember

Julie Anderson. She's the sponsor of the proposal to require all dogs (and cats) in Tacoma Washington to be sterilized.

How did Julie use her recent media event opportunity? She tossed out a civil liberty, based on the U. S. Bill of Rights, like a used piece of Kleenex.

"[My proposal] basically states that having an unaltered animal is no longer a right or something you can just do."

That was her quote.

Blink. Owning a dog, without submitting it to surgical sterilization, is something I "just can't do" any more? Its "no longer a right"? The Hell, you say.

Indicating that she's "sensitive to the property rights issues", Councilwoman Anderson nevertheless came down squarely on the side of PeTA and the Humane Society of the United States. Both are animal rights organizations that want to end domestic animal ownership. Wayne Pacelle, currently the CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, phrased it: "One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."

Do the fine people of Tacoma, and other cities and counties throughout the U.S. know how gung-ho Julie and other politicians are about sending civil liberties to the trash heap and mandating $300 or so's worth of surgery for everyone's dog? Who's going to pay for all of that surgery, anyway? What's the plan, Julie? How are retirees and people with a limited income supposed to come up with the do-re-mi? Will cash-strapped dog owners, fearful of being caught with unauthorized testicles on the premises, try a "do-it-yourself" solution? Its been known to happen, Julie.

And what if the surgery has an, uh, unhappy outcome? Assuming that ol' Rover even survives the anesthesia, will the City of Tacoma, the city of Long Beach, the city of Alberqurque, and all the other "following suit" cities bear the expenses?

Oh, and during your discussions with your fellow civic leaders, did you let slip that many studies indicate that mandatory spay-neuter doesn't achieve the stated goal of reducing shelter populations?

The Golden State is a particularly tough place for dogs that retain all the parts they were born with--prime animal rights extremist organization PeTA lists quite a few California locations, including Belmont, Clearlake and San Mateo. Berkeley, Sacramento and Riverside County had mandatory sterilization proposals on the table this year. San Francisco--that beautiful city by the bay and bastion of liberal thinking--links mandatory sterilization with negative profiling for some miserable dogs and dog owners.

Yup. There are plenty of places in the Golden State where the presence of doggy gonads is going to cause major problems. But don't rest easy because you don't live in California. Here's a little sampling of the shape of things to come across the country:

Bloomington, and Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Buncombe County, North Carolina, have forced sterilization requirements. Austin, and San Antonio, Texas recently saw a mandatory spay-neuter proposal. Indianapolis, Indiana, too. So did the entire State of Virginia. In New York City dogs that wind up at city shelters must be sterilized before they are returned to their owners. No matter how or why they got there. Aurora and Denver, Colorado are so-called "no birth" cities. This is NOT a complete list of places that will try to force you to neuter your dog. There are more. And the sterilization laws typically come neatly packaged along with the mandatory microchipping laws. You can run, but you can't hide. The Testicle and Privacy Wars are coming to you,