Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Mandatory Microchipping Animals

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    J.A.I.L. News Journal ____________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California April 12, 2001
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 21, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      ____________________________________________________
      Los Angeles, California                                               April 12, 2001 
       
      For a beautiful navy blue T-shirt with "J.A.I.L." on the back and www.jail4judges.org large and visible over the pocket, imprinted in a bright yellow-gold lettering, send your check payable to J.A.I.L. for $11.95 plus $4 S&H. (Discounts on volume quantities.) Wear them to your next courthouse function and watch the reaction.
       
      Mandatory Microchipping Animals
       

      BILL NUMBER: SB 236
       
      INTRODUCED BY Senator O'Connell
      FEBRUARY 14, 2001
       
      An act to add Section 32005 to the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to animals.

      LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
      SB 236, as introduced, O'Connell. Dogs and cats: micro-chip: owner's registry. ....
      The bill would make it a crime for any person to own, harbor, or keep any dog or cat over the age of 4 months, unless that dog or cat has been micro-chipped and the owner's identification has been entered into a national registry approved by the Department of Food and Agriculture. 
      By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program upon local governments.


      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
       
       SECTION 1.  Section 32005 is added to the Food and Agricultural
       Code, to read:
       32005.  It is unlawful for any person to own, harbor, or keep any dog or cat over the age of four months, unless that dog or cat has been micro-chipped and the owner's identification has been entered into a national registry approved by the Department of Food and Agriculture.
      ***********
      The San Diego Union-Tribune
      March 12, 2001, Pg. A-1

      MICROCHIPS IN PETS? FOES HOWL
      Bill Ainsworth; STAFF WRITER

      SACRAMENTO -- To some it seems like a sinister, Orwellian plot: The
      government requires pet owners to imbed microchips in their dogs and cats revealing the owner's name, phone number and address. Those who resist face criminal penalties.

      But backers insist the proposal isn't some Big Brother nightmare. Instead,
      they say, it's a way to use advanced technology to rescue tens of thousands of animals and save millions of taxpayer dollars on animal shelter operations.
      The plan is contained in new legislation, Senate Bill 236, by state Sen.
      Jack O'Connell, D-Santa Barbara, .... "It will save money and help lost pets be reunited with their loving owners," O'Connell said. "It's just good public policy."

      Some opponents argue that the legislation invades the privacy of millions of pet owners. Others say a law requiring microchips is too extreme, especially for cats, which don't even require licenses in most parts of the state.
      "It's total overkill," said John Folting, a retired San Diego resident and
      member of the Cat Fanciers Association. "How can you criminalize something like that?"

      [...]

      ***********

      http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,42430,00.html

      Dog Bytes Say More Than Bark
      by Julia Scheeres
      Mar. 15, 2001

      Proposed legislation in California would require microchips to be  implanted in cats and dogs to reduce the number of former pets killed in the state's animal shelters each year.

      Under Senate Bill 236, introduced by state Sen. Jack O'Connell
      (D-Santa Barbara), dogs and cats would be "chipped" and the owner's
      identification entered in a national registry. ....  "Our position is that anything that helps animals, we support," said Bob Reder, program coordinator for the HSUS. "We don't have hard numbers and statistics on things like backyard breeders and puppy mills. It'll be good to find out who we're targeting."
      [...]

      This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/

      Leave it to government to come up with a "nifty" way to "preserve  animals," or at least that is what they argue. But we would like to explore the real results of what will happen here. On the current television news it is being reported that all people are required under pains and penalty of criminal sanctions to take their pets in for microchipping at an original cost of $25 each. It is in this manner, they say, that the government will be able to readily identify the pet's own, who may then be sited and fined for such things as a dog digging under the backyard fence and reaching the street.
       
      We are to believe that this microchipping of these animals will spare the lives of tens of thousands of animals that are put to sleep each year at animal shelters. But here is the net result of what this program with produce.
       
      Economically speaking, many people just will not gather up all their pets and take them in for microchippinging at $25 each. A house with two dogs and two cats will be hit up for $100, and that is just the simple side of the equation.
       
      What happens if the registered dog own decides to give one of his dogs away, and the new owner fails to reregister the hound? Will the benevolent donor be cited and fined? What happens when the cat has a litter of kittens, will he run down to have his seven new kittens microchipped for another $175 within four months? Very doubtful. More than likely, we will start seeing animal carcass in plastic bags thrown in dumpsters. That's just the economic perspective of the matter.
       
      On the subject of privacy considerations, many just will not be willing to divulge their private information to the government who wants to put it in their computers, and that for the privilege of being found, cited and fined by the government. What do these people do? Do they take their dog or cat to the pound and say, I found this stray hanging around my house, he's yours. And let us not forget that the compliance rate for the national census is approximately 64%. Why so low? Could it be privacy concerns?
       
      Now I don't mean to be cruel, but I am a fond cat lover. Always have been, and always will be. I have always had cats around me all my life. But I can tell you that I know of some cats that are going to have to hit the streets and fend for their own survival "without an owner." May the benevolent pound be gracious unto them in their so-called endeavor to save these pet's lives. And this picture is guaranteed to be repeated over and over, and when the pounds are filled with these animals, and the truth is made public that the pound is actually killing many more animals under this program that ever before, may the public heat dealt them be according to their deeds. I estimate that the extermination rate of these animals will rise no less than 50%, and probably more like 100%. And then where will be these "animal rights" activists who proposed this damnable law? Will they stand up an take credit? Answer me!
       
      Now, let's talk about the practicality of enforcement of this law. Imagine taxpayer paid "cat police" jumping backyard fences, poking under cars, climbing trees and running over roof tops and crawling under foundations of buildings to catch a cat to see if it is indeed registered, and if so, to whom. Oh, I forgot, they will just shoot them.
       
      And if government can simply pass a law making mere ownership of an animal a criminal offense, what keeps them from taking it to the next step, mandatory microchipping of all children between the ages of eight months and seventeen years of age. Hey, don't we have thousands of children that are missing ever year? What a wonderful way to keep tabs on all children. Let's do it for the children, after all, they are important to us. If fact, let's just go for a universal mandatory microchipping of the right-hand or forehead of everyone. It will be the solution to all the world's problems, and we will know were everyone is at all times.
       
      Rightfully so, it is the duty of the judges to strike down such senseless unconstitutional legislation here in California. Article I, Sec. I, CA. Constitution says; "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy, [providing government allows for the exercise of such rights. Void where prohibited by law.]"   
      - I Am Ronald Branson
       
      J.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
      JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
      JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
      JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
      JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      To subscribe or be removed:  add-remove-jail@...
      E-Groups may sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
      Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com
       
      "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
       
      "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.