Bill seeks ID chips in state's dogs, cats

By Jim Sanders

BEE CAPITOL BUREAU (Published April 13, 2001)

Dogs and cats can't talk, but a proposed state law would have them using microchips to communicate with strangers.

Specifically, the high-tech devices would provide identification numbers that can be used to find the pets' owners.

If every dog and cat had one, supporters say, homemade posters pleading for information about lost pets would largely be a thing of the past.

Any runaway canine or kitten could be taken to an animal shelter or veterinarian, where a scanner could read its microchip and help write a happy ending to a potentially sad story.

State Sen. Jack O'Connell, D-San Luis Obispo, has proposed requiring that a microchip -- about the size of a grain of rice -- be implanted into every young dog and cat sold in California.

"From a humanitarian standpoint, this is good policy. And economically, it makes sense," he said. "Each year, we're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (euthanizing) dogs and cats whose owners we can't find."

Supporters say microchips can be particularly valuable after a fire, flood or other natural disaster that sends frightened pets fleeing for their lives. But opponents say SB 236 could raise the cost of animals, leave owners with a false sense of security and result in government -- not individuals -- deciding what's best for family pets.

"SB 236 is overly intrusive, cost-prohibitive to enforce and discourages personal responsibility," wrote the American Kennel Club in a letter of opposition.

The AKC supports voluntary microchip implants, however, and an affiliated national database has helped reunite more than 46,000 lost pets since 1995 through such implants and tattooing, officials said.

O'Connell initially proposed requiring every cat and dog in California to be implanted with microchips. He changed course when questions arose about enforcement at millions of homes that have had pets for years.

SB 236 recently was amended to cover only new sales of dogs and cats -- less than a year old -- at private homes, breeding facilities, pet stores or at any location other than shelters or rescue programs.

"Eventually, I think, every animal will be chipped," O'Connell said. "But this is a first step."

Though not required by law, some animal shelters -- including Sacramento County's -- routinely put a microchip into any dog or cat they place for adoption.

Microchips are designed to last a lifetime. They're placed under the skin and can't fall off like collars or be obscured by fur, like tattoos can, officials said.

Implanting microchips is not a new process, but improved technology in recent years has led to universal scanners capable of reading any chip sold.

Pet owners can implant microchips in their dogs and cats at veterinary offices, low-cost clinics and some shelters and pet welfare agencies. The procedure is much like getting a vaccination. Fees range from $12 to $40, officials said.

Customers interviewed randomly at a Stockton Boulevard Petsmart store tended to support microchip implants.

"I like the idea," said Charlie Marin, 60. "My little wirehaired terrier got out of the house recently. I searched around and around the block. I finally found him at a little school. A microchip would have taken a big worry away."

"I think it would be great," said Mary Kirk, 68. "But I'd like to see some kind of cap on the price because seniors like me have to budget our money."

Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego, said SB 236 may be well-intentioned, but implanting microchips in pets would help acclimate the public to unnecessary surveillance.

"It's one more way that government gets in your face," Givens said.

The Animal Control Directors Association, representing humane societies and animal-control agencies, opposes SB 236 because of cost and because it could create a false sense of security, spokeswoman Pat Claerbout said. Some families with microchip-implanted pets don't bother searching shelters when their animals get lost. They wait for a call. But scanners can fail and registries can be outdated, she said.

Another misconception is that pets don't need collars or licenses if they've been implanted with microchips, Claerbout said.

SB 236 would also require that:

Dog and cat sellers make sure buyers' names are entered into a local or national registry.

Sellers obtain a local permit -- and pay any fee required -- for each animal sold.

Dog owners who transfer their animals must provide local government with identifying information about the new owners.

SB 236 also is designed to discourage the dumping of unwanted dogs and cats by compiling buyers' names and making them available to authorities.

Joan Miller of the national Cat Fanciers Association said SB 236 could severely damage hobby breeders by driving up costs for purebred or pedigreed animals.

Some cat owners never allow their pets outside, Miller said, so why should they be forced to pay for microchip implants?

But Dick Schumacher, executive director of the California Veterinary Medical Association, said he would eventually like to see every dog and cat implanted with microchips.

"Over a half-million dogs and cats are killed every year in California shelters," he said. "Anything we can do to minimize that is a good thing."

-- (sign @ of. the times), April 13, 2001

Answers

lol, I was about to jump down your throat for being an stupid fundy xian, but then I noticed your article was about real live "beasts".

Thanks.

-- (Leslie@gore.ignore), April 13, 2001.

Give these chips about five years in service and we can track half of the world’s Chinese population.

-- Rets (wok@the .dog), April 13, 2001.

They have been using this "method" at animal shelter here for years

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 13, 2001.

Cin, Same here, if you get your pet neutered or spayed, the local humanesociety will put one in them for free.

Just wait, pretty soon they will require them to be put into newborn babies... for their own safety, of course (NOT).

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 14, 2001.

"Over a half-million dogs and cats are killed every year in California shelters," he said. "Anything we can do to minimize that is a good thing."

Cin, Cherri- Have you heard any feedback as to whether these implants have indeed reduced the rate of dogs and cats killed in shelters? Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), April 14, 2001.

CD, Yes, there are stories often about pets finding their humans through the program. It is a big hit here and people are having their pets fixed just to get the implant, which is a BIG help in keeping unwanted litters down.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 14, 2001.

Just what we need - another potential statute on the books which removes choice from our lives. Wonderful.

If you like the idea of ID implants, promote it, discuss it, do it. Get them for your kids. Get one for yourself and SO. Never know when a blow on the head might result in amnesia.

Why must government FORCE the use of them? Because they CAN. Because they'd rather tackle minor issues than address the truly important ones which require detailed, intensive study, debate and action.

This type of proposal is perfect for using to evaluate your own political philosophy. Should government dictate to its citizens a set course of action in this area of life?

I don't say no. I say HELL NO!

Good Morning.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), April 16, 2001.