- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Chip off the old block

-------------------------UPDATE 3:20pm-------------------------

Just finished answering (or should that be merely responding) to the question (paraphrasing mostly):

Min.:- I stand by my statement... the success depends on as many dogs as possible micro-chipped.

?:- Is Jim Anderton "sympathetic" to exemption for farm dogs?

Min.:- We are in early stages of implementing the system.

?:- Other views recieved?
[Patsy from Marion Hobbs]

Min.:- NZ Vets and SPCA publicly support introduction of micro-chipping.

?:- Is Minister aware of

Min.:- We want to achieve one law for all dogs. For responsible dog ownership and public safety.

?:- Any notification of resistance from local councils?

Min.:- The aggregate total cost of micro-chipping compared with cost of feeding dog if spread across life of dog is miniscule.

Well, what a fucking cop-out. Success depends on as many dogs as possible having a microchip in them? Really? You mean the outrageous cost that they have locked themselves into must be recouped from as many poor saps as possible - that's, I think, what the Minister really means. And this little bit of metal will somehow enhance public safety? Maybe the Minister could have explained how her department has managed to put an anti-attack, anti-biting behaviour modification function into these microchips.

And the vets and the SPCA are in favour of it. Big fucking surprise. They will be the ones presumably making money out of it as part of the compulsory/tax registration and insertion chain - they will make a fortune - of course they will be in favour of it. It is quite literally a license to print money for these ticket-clipping, collaborators. Ka-ching!

"Public safety" as a reason is a crock of steaming shit. It is an absolute nonsense. Not one person will be saved because of this. If anything the increased costs and hassle will have the consequence of more unregistered animals and perhaps encourage other acts of non-compliance possibly leading to more attacks. Comparing costs of feeding dogs to a pointless tax on them is just insulting.

And the government MPs just laughed their way through it all. Ah ha ha ha ha "One law for all dogs!" a ha ha ha ha haha, hah ha ha ha ha, ahhh ha ha ha ha ha. Oh say it again Minister, say it again: "One law for all dogs!" Ahaha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah ahhhhh - ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ahh... And these imbecilic cunt-wipes run the whole show. Great, just great. Makes you proud to live in a democracy. Proud to be a New Zealander on days like this.

The site to go to is dosafety.govt.nz but it should really be dogtax.govt.nz.

The arguments on the site are just pathetic:
"After it has been microchipped, if your dog gets lost and picked up by a dog control officer, or injured and taken to a vet, the microchip can be scanned to find out the number. This can then be checked by your city or district council on the National Dog Database (from July 2006), which will show your contact details. This greatly increases the chances of you and your dog being quickly reunited. - yeah because with a dog tag they couldn't do any of this before could they? With a micro-chip the chances of having your dog returned is much less actually because Jo Blogs who finds a lost dog can't call up it's owners if it has a micro-chip FUCKING OBVIOUSLY.

As well as helping identify the owners of lost or stolen dogs, microchipping and the National Dog Database will help dog control officers identify those dog owners who don’t properly care for their dogs or allow them to roam. It will also be much easier for dog control officers to keep track of dangerous and menacing dogs as they move around the country." - No, people who don't register their dog and have them roaming everywhere are very unlikely to have been so diligent as to have them microchipped FUCKING OBVIOUSLY. Lies - they are just plain lying.

It's all done to complicate things that ought to be simple in pursuit of feathering nests. I'll say it again: I don't like dogs and I don't like the dog lobby, and I think that a dog breeder is the lowest form of human. The weirdo dog fanciers who are so socially retarded that they have become part of a pack of dogs are people who ought to be driven to the outskirts of civilisation... but, when things are so FUCKING OBVIOUSLY unjust there comes a time when even sensible people have to draw attention to the plight of those unfortunates.

"Microchipping was estimated to cost between $50 to $110 per dog, and for a litter of working dogs could cost between $500 and $600." -Stuff report

I note the last question to be put to ministers in parliament today:

12. Hon DAVID CARTER to the Associate Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her comments reported in the Timaru Herald on 17 February 2006 that the Government will not budge on section 36 of the Dog Control Act 1996 which will require newly-registered dogs to be microchipped from July 1?

I hope there are some supplimentary questions going to be asked concerning how it was that the bureucracy had already purchased the micro-chipping technology before the provisions were passed in parliament and that it was the bureaucrats who successfully manipulated a weak minister into a concocted force majeure situation, claiming they had to make micro-chipping compulsory because they had already bought the gear. ...at least that is my recollection of how it came about.

Micro-chipping is simply idiotic. I have yet to hear one reasonable argument in its favour. People who don't want their animals micro-chipped aren't going to have it done, and those who comply must pay increased fees for a form of identification that only people with expensive scanners can access. What was wrong with dog tags? Too simple? Not expensive enough? Not "sexy" enough? Too accessible?

This is a case of a disturbing trend (as we have been hearing about in the UK for some time now) of the bureaucracy absolutely determined to use whatever tactics they can to establish and control large databases using very expensive technology and all for very questionable reasons and of dubious efficacy. I would like to see an inquiry into how the tender process (if indeed there was one) was conducted and how this idea came about in the first place along with the costs to date and projected costs.

As the INCIS police debacle proved a computertised anything is a gigantic open-ended contigent liability nightmare in the hands of an over-zealous and incompetent department. They lobby furiously for it and then it all turns to custard. The micro-chipping is unnecessary and wasteful. People are quite right to protest the measures.

I'm no fan of dogs, or the dog lobby, but it isn't fair on them. They have been sold a pup.


At 14/3/06 2:59 pm, Anonymous jeff said...

From dog's point of view, human is part of their group (pack) that's why dogs can sosialise with human and understand the language order. So, "men are dog's best friends" ?

At 15/3/06 10:02 am, Anonymous RR said...

..and your point is? Do you want to be micro-chipped too?

At 15/3/06 11:31 am, Blogger peterquixote said...

yeah why you no like the dog tj yous got the chip in yo shoulder, it say you punishment to go straight away out and find one of them big fluffy ones what lick and you say
i sorry dog i like you after all,
and i just stand up for yos freedom to wandfer round like anywhere yous like in fact dog come with me i take you for a holiday ropund the east coast we go and see the cousy you can wander along the shore and eat whatever you like,

At 15/3/06 12:00 pm, Anonymous Tim Selwyn said...

..like it's own feaces.

People with working dogs are tolerable. But really - in the city, yapping all the time etc. - what a waste of time and effort. Don't get me started.

The point is that they must pay more for the sake of a rampant bureaucracy.

At 20/3/06 2:10 pm, Blogger Lucyna said...

I totally agree. It's a stupid, stupid, stupid idea. And what's the bet that new microchip technology will come out in 5 years and all the dog owners will have to go back to the vet's to get their dogs' microchips replaced with the latest models BECAUSE the new scanners don't read the old microchips?

Why not just put the microchip on a dog tag? Too simple?

I don't like dogs, either. It'll be the cats next, you know.

At 23/3/06 4:44 pm, Blogger llew said...

I have nothing against microchipping, and I will have all future pets (cats & dogs anyway) chipped. Because it took me 4 days once to track an old cat down via two vets' surgeries & the SPCA when some misguided soul mistook him for a skanky stray & handed him in.

But I do agree with you, I'm at a loss as to how this will stop dogs attacking anyone.

Frank Haden did a piece on it recently & I got the impression he thought the chips could be satellite tracked or something.


At 28/3/06 12:51 pm, Blogger Dafydd Malcolm said...

Has any other entire country in the world gone so far as to make microchiping compulsory for all dogs? It doesn't appear so from whats on the web. Do those ministers involved really feel they are at the forefront in their knowledge of this area? Whenever we have heard this in the past it has resulted in billions of dollars wasted on gambles more informed governments are not prepared to take. Or is it simply that other nations leaders concern themselves with more important issues?


Post a Comment

<< Home