Problem in the Agricultural Appropriations Bill of 2006; Microchips Required!!

[Good Hope]

This appeared in Kuvasz Connection, a yahoo group:

"from the ACA Legislative committee:

Bill HR2744 is before Congress, it passed the House before we knew of it and
committees meet THIS WEEK to make a decision.

HR2744 requires that all pets be microchipped and requires a very particular
frequency for the microchip. That frequency is 134.2 kHz. However in the
USA, we DO NOT use that frequency. We use the industry standard of 125 kHz.
So if this bill passes, not only would every rescue, shelter, vet and
disaster group have to start over, but the system as we know it would fall
apart. These foreign frequency chips cannot be detected or read by 99% of
the scanners in operation in the US. It is quite simply not what we use
here.

The Bill is being supported by the HSUS.

CALL to OBJECT

http://www.senate.gov/

http://www.house.gov/"

and then this:

"If you are interested in more info on the different scan rates, and who uses
what, and why the change has been suggested, this is a pretty good website
http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pa_shelter_resources_microchip.
It is nearly inevitable that the US will adopt the ISO standard because
that's the whole purpose behind having ISO standards (they are supposed to
be internationall y universal). There are companies currently using 134.2 in
the US and companies developing scanners that pick up all three frequencies
(there are already incompatibilit ies between the two 125 mh chips)."

After looking into it, I have some bad news.  The bill passed the Senate on September 22nd.  While it does not actually mention microchipping, the commitee had recommended it, and the the bill contained the ambiguous phrase:

of which $33,340,000 shall be available for a National Animal Identification program

f" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h2744pp.txt.pd f (Go to p. 101, lines 14-16)

With the commitee's recommendation, it is likely that this money will be used to enforce these new (in the U.S.) microchips in pets.  They shouldn't be able to tell us whether we should microchip our pets or not, nor should Congress require a new microchip frequency.

Please tell your Congressmen, Senators, and all state representative s that it is not acceptable to use this money to force pet owner to microchip their pets or to force people to use a new frequency.

Sofia

Edited: to change thread title

[Good Hope]

bump

Sofia

[Good Hope]

bump

Sofia

[Kiahpyr]

I need to get Kiah microchipped. They only reason I'm doing it is because she's purbred and just in case she gets out of the yard. Now I should wait to see what happens. In away it's good to find out who a dog belongs to. Like in abuse situation or when a dog is dropped in the middle of nowhere then the police could track the person who had the dog. Then it could lead to false alligations too. I guess I don't know where to stand. Have to read up more information. Plus it's expensive and not everyone who has a dog can afford the extras.

[Good Hope]

The trouble is, as the quote stated, not all microchips will register, even when scanners are working and the chip and scanner are on the same frequency.  Plus, the scanners don't always work.

Tatoos serve the same purpose without the unreliability of a microchip.  Besides that, I personally have a problem with microchips and don't like the sound of a "National Animal Identification program."

Sofia

[greek4]

Both my dogs are microchiped.  Tatoos are great too but Maia would not be liking someone looking in her ear to get at it.  I think she might be more likely to allow someone to run a wand over her back.  I microchiped in case either gets out, gets brought to a shelter.  A microchip gives them a few more days beyond the fact that it makes them easy to trace back to me.

[Good Hope]

I think some of you are missing the point here.  If you decide to microchip, that is fine; I wouldn't choose to do that, partly because they don't always work and partly because I don't like microchips, but it is your choice.

However, Congress is attempting to change the frequency (you have to get a new microchip), and force everyone to get one of these new microchips.  People shouldn't be forced to insert a microchip into their animals if they don't want to; it is an invasion of their privacy.

Sofia

[Good Hope]

Sorry the link post had a typo. Sofia fixed it.

Deena

[Carolyn]

Both Apache & Kiya are micro chipped. There is also something else, I cant find the info but it has to do with GPS tracking which I really want to look into. I will get more info.
Carolyn

[Good Hope]

Both Apache & Kiya are micro chipped. There is also something else, I cant find the info but it has to do with GPS tracking which I really want to look into. I will get more info.
Carolyn

Doesn't anybody see that as a potential problem?  It doesn't bother you that the government will be able to track you, know your whereabouts, through your pet?

Deena and Sofia

[doglover]

I could only find information on microchipping livestock. Where does it talk about mircochipping pets so I can read up on it. Thanks.
Jenn

[Carolyn]

They (the gov or whoever else) already track you thru everything else you do, credit cards, internet. I don't care what it takes to find my animals if they were lost I would do it.
Carolyn

[newflvr]

I think microchipping is a great idea....and I do think it should be standardized.  Cowboy lived the first part of his life on the East Coast and was microchipped there.  Now he's a West Coast dude and has another microchip.  If we have to get a third, we will.  It doesn't bother me in the least how he's found...just as long as he is.  And if the gov't wants to find me....here I am....jury duty next week!  AGHHHH!

[Good Hope]

Doglover, chipping pets was the recommendation in committee.  While it doesn't appear in the bill itself, the money for an undefined "National Animal Identification program" can go wherever the committee in charge chooses.  I'd expect it will go toward microchipping both pets and livestock.  The government claims that the reason for tracking livestock is to control diseases.  However, for an unknown reason, they also want all pets to be tracked; you can bet there is some other reason behind this.  They don't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts.

Carolyn, if you're animal is chipped now, there is less than a 50% that the scanner will be able to read your chip due to the problems with scanners and chips at present.  Once a universal scanner is developed and the bugs are worked out, then all scanners will be able to read all of the new chips.  However a determined thief will find a way to get around this, as there are devices that can cause interference with scanners.  Someone who really wants your dog will get one and use it.

Deena

[Good Hope]

The scanner that Congress wants to bring in is the one used in Europe, which is on a much higher frequency than the ones used in the United States.  There are two different scanners used in the United States that do not always read each other's chips.  They are also having problems with chip failures, which is why about a month ago, the United States Veterinary Association recommended to stop chipping animals for the time being and recommended tattooing.

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jul04/040701a.asp

This was the first reported case, but there have been others since and there have doubtless been many unreported cases.  Also, although new chips aren't supposed to "migrate" or move around under the skin, this is still a possibility.  There is absolutely no way for a chip to form a bond with soft tissue, despite claims of "adherence."

Also, a quote from the Colorado Veterinary Association website:

What is the problem for veterinary hospitals, animal shelters, and humane societies with different types of microchips available on the market?
Each company that manufactures microchips also manufactures scanners to read their microchips.  In some instances, one manufacturer’s scanner may not be able to detect the microchip of another manufacturer.  This could lead animal care professionals to assume the lost animal is not microchipped.
Without the ability to use a scanner that can detect all types of microchips, veterinary and sheltering professionals would have to scan the animal, which may be fearful and difficult to handle, multiple times with each manufacturer's scanner. This is not a feasible option given limited staff resources.

http://www.colovma.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=98

After the American Veterinary Association Convention this year, a statement was issued recommending that people tattoo rather than microchip for the time being.

There is something more to this than Congress wanting to use the money to reunite Fluffy with little eight-year-old Johnny down the block.  Although, yes, the government knows what you are doing via credit cards and the internet, but they cannot track your exact whereabouts.  You don't have to buy into that either; you can always pay with cash.  I want to be the one to decide whether I chip, tattoo, or do neither, not Uncle Sam.

Deena