Sorry .. this is off topic for many .. but this concept is extremely important for everyone .. this needs to be stopped NOW!!
Mary Lynn Rev. Mary Lynn Schmidt, Ordained Minister ONE SPIRIT ONE HEART TTouch . Reiki . Pet Loss Grief Counseling . Animal Behavior Modification . Shamanic Spiritual Travel . Behavior Problems . Psionic Energy Practitioner . Radionics . Herbs . Dowsing . Nutrition . Homeopathy . Polarity . The Animal Connection Healing Modalities http://members.tripod.com/~MLSchmidt/ http://allcreatureconnections.org >From: "Toni Pralle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [n2n4h] pet chipping >Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:26:08 -0500 > >THIS MAY BE FORWARDED FREELY > >I expect we all know about the National Animal Identification System >(NAIS) which is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's grand plan to >microchip >and track every farm animal in the United States. Many of us probably >also >know that Congress has (also) directed the USDA to come up with regulations >to standardize in some undefined way the system of microchipping pets in >the >U.S. > >It's now becoming clear that there is a plan to microchip all pets and >build >a nationwide database of all of them over the next several years. Most >likely this would be done as a part of the NAIS data base, but probably >without the requirements for notification when a pet is temporarily away >from its registered 'animal premises.' But you'd still have to notify a >federal contractor when you bought a new dog, a cat you've been feeding >died, or you moved. Trust me -- every one of these notifications will >require you to pay a fee. > >The planing includes Google-type access to the database, probably by all >animal pounds. How'd you like your local shelter to be able to find out >in >seconds what pets you own? What about HSUS or your local AR's checking >how >many litters you bred last year? > >HOW THE IDEA GOT STARTED > >In order to understand this threat, we need to begin at the beginning. > >About 5% of U.S. dogs have microchips and the fraction is increasing >steadily. These chips are registered in one of several privately owned >cooperating data bases. When a chip is scanned, any of the chip >registries >can be contacted and owner information will be given out. However no >"find >me all the ..." or other information is released except to law enforcement >as required by law, generally with a warrant. > >All U.S. chips operate on the same radio frequency of 125 kilohertz >(kHz) but in the early days there were incompatible ways of coding the chip >information and not all scanners could read all chips. That has been >corrected over the last few years and the vast majority of scanners now >read >any U.S. chip. There are something over 150,000 scanners in use. > >About three years ago, Banfield (500 vet hospitals associated with PETsMART >stores) tried to bring a European chip into the U.S. These chips operate >at 134.2 kHz and therefore cannot even be detected by U.S. scanners. >Banfield thought they were going to build their own private database and >thus strengthen their ties to customers. They gave out a few of their >scanners but not nearly enough and some shelters thought that the >'universal' scanners they already had, would read the Banfield chips. Of >course, it didn't work, and a few dogs died. Here's one of the news >stories at the time: > >http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_131195733.html > >Not long after, the courts told Banfield to cut it out. > >The U.S. marketplace had looked at the European chips and said loud and >clear that it didn't want them. You'd think that would be the end of the >story, wouldn't you? But not to Banfield ... > >WHO IS BEHIND THIS? > >In July 2004 the 'Coalition for Reuniting Pets and Families' was formed. >The coalition includes: > >HSUS AHA AAHA AVMA ASPCA Society for Animal Welfare Administrators > >The AKC was at first a coalition member but seems to have dropped out. > >Though Banfield and Datamars (a Swiss company that makes the European chips >and has a contract with Banfield to supply them) aren't actually Coalition >members, they are prime movers, generally making presentations on behalf of >the coalition then ducking back to use it for cover: "This isn't about >growing our business, it's about giving the Coalition what it wants!" > >If you Google 'Coalition Reuniting Pets Families' (no quotes) you can find >out what they say are their reasons for being: basically they claim that >microchipping of U.S. pets is fatally broken, it is going nowhere and that >pets are dying as a result -- the typical animal rightist 'big lie.' >Amusingly, the Coalition's own site at: > >www.readallchips.com > >has been abandoned or hacked. > >WHAT IS THE COALITION PROBLEM? > >Why doesn't Banfield just sell the 125 kHz U.S chips made by AVID and >others? Well, U.S. chips use patented techology. That makes them more >costly -- if some other company is going to make a compatible chip, they >must pay to license patent rights. A chip NOT based on patented >technology >is cheaper and so it's more profitable for the maker and Banfield. > >(The patent system -- under which if you invent something and patent it, >you >OWN the idea for a specified number of years -- is a key reason for people >to work hard to invent, thus a key reason we have computers, ball point >pens, and salad shooters. The way people beat patents is to invent and >patent a BETTER way -- or they can pay to license an existing patent and >make the product without the time and expense of inventing anything.) > >Enter the European chips. The (European) International Standards >Organization has certified a chip design which is totally public domain, >meaning anyone can build a chip that works according to their rules and >after a certification process, sell it as the equal of any other chip >meeting that standard. Whether that design is as good as the U.S. chip >systems is another matter ... we'll get into that later. > >But the U.S. chip marketplace (that's US, folks) had the chance to buy the >ISO chip and because we want the chip in our dog (or cat, or macaw, or ...) >to be readable by the scanner at our local shelter, we said "NO." > >What do you do when you see a big market that doesn't want your new >product? Obviously you reach into your wallet and set about getting the >government to pass a law saying "Sorry everybody, you have to buy the new >product." > >The Coalition (and Banfield) lobbyists went to work and in Agriculture >Committee report 109-255 accompanying the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations >bill the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS, part of USDA) >was directed to come up with a plan to standardize the U.S. pet microchip >system. Here's the wording: > >"The conferees support the microchipping of Pets for identification under a >system of open microchip technology in which all scanners can read all >chips. The conferees direct APHIS to develop the appropriate regulations >that allow for universal reading ability and best serve the interests of >Pet >owners. The conferees also direct APHIS to take into consideration the >effect such regulation may have on the current practice of microchipping >Pets in this country, and to report to the Committees on Appropriations >within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act on progress toward that >end." > >The Coalition's viewpoint is presented on these web pages: > >http://www.banfield.net/about/article.asp?id=21 > >and > >http://www.banfield.net/about/article.asp?id=36 > >APHIS subsequently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking with a public >comment period that ends on September 6th. They held a series of meetings >across the country to solicit inputs from affected parties; those meetings >have now concluded. > >WHAT'S THE COALITION PLAN? > >The coalition held a closed meeting in Chicago on August 16th. (A few >other >groups were invited: I believe the National Animal Control Association was >one, also, I think, various microchip makers.) They adopted a position >paper which they intend to push APHIS to implement. In summary, that >position is: > >1. There must be universal scanners for Animal Welfare Act (AWA) licensees, >ditto state and local government. These scanners must read all 125 kHz >chips AND the 134.2 kHz (ISO) chip. They want manufacturers to give away >any internal secrets of their scanners and they want them to make the new >scanners available free or at low cost. > >(Translation: New scanners are required and they must read Banfield's >chips. If a U.S. chipmaker's patented technology gets in the way of >someone >else building a scanner, that technology must be released. Banfield's >competitors must help pay for the new scanners to read Banfield's chips. > >2. USDA is to require that all chips used by AWA licensees meet a standard >and say that the only standard is the ISO standard. > >(Translation: USDA licensees must use only the type of chips sold by >Banfield -- though doubtless other companies would sell them too.) > >3 APHIS should form a task force to develop a prototype of a national pet >microchipping registration and database system. This system should include >a Google-type search. The task force should have members from animal >control, vets, and microchip makers/sellers. > >(Translation: The people who want to use the data should be asked what >should be in the data base and how to make it convenient for them. No >need >for anyone whose pets might be IN that data base to be represented -- No >CFA, no NAIA, no ADOA, no AKC, no MOFED ... > >(This would be effectively a PUBLIC data base for opponents of pet >ownership >and breeding. It might or might not be available to the general public.) > >4. APHIS should make clear that this whole idea came from the industry and >animal welfare advocates; it IS NOT a government-imposed system. "This >won't be any kind of government-run database that might hurt public and >corporate privacy." > >(Translation: LIE about how and why this is happening and what >consequences >might be expected.) > >Pretty cool, huh? The answer to how you get past the fact that nobody >wants your incompatible product is you get the government to say that AWA >licensees, state and local governments (read: animal shelters) have to buy >it and your competitors have to share the costs of the massive conversion >that's required. You get to say how the data can be used, and you don't >take a PR hit for all this because the government is going to tell everyone >that this was an industry and animal welfare idea. > >HEY, I got a bunch of Virginia road dust here. I claim it's worth $1000 >per handful but my idiot neighbors aren't buying. You think I could get a >federal law that REQUIRES them to buy it from me? Well, hey, why not? >Oh, and the law should say that this wasn't my idea, it is for their, ah, >health. > >THE SITUATION NOW > >The public input meetings across the country were uniformly AGAINST the >whole idea. The Coalition gave their arguments effectively but our side >did a through and convincing job of presenting the reasons not to make any >government ordered change without careful study. In summary those >arguments >are: > >1. The U.S. already HAS a standardized system of pet microchipping with >150,000 scanners out there able to read any chip. It makes NO sense to >introduce a new and incompatible kind of pet microchip in order to >'standardize' and 'eliminate incompatibility.' "If it ain't broke, don't >fix >it." > >More precisely, "If aint' broke, don't break it in order to fix it." > >2. The proposed 'new universal' scanner (reading both U.S. standard >125 kHz and ISO 134.2 kHz ones) does not work reliably; whether that's just >'teething' or some more fundamental problem is unknown. > >3. There would necessarily be a period of confusion when some pets were >chipped one way, some the other, and not all scanners read both formats. > >4. The ISO standard was designed for herd inventory. It is NOT secure >against cloning or resetting of chip numbers because herd owners want these >features. Some chips can even have the number changed while in the >animal. This is not suitable for secure tracking of large numbers of pets >or other animals for disease control, return to owner, proof of ownership, >insurance, and similar purposes. > >5. MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL: A change of standards can only be accomplished >by >a government mandate that will inevitably come with a centrally operated >and >essentially public domain database of pets. >99% of the use of that database will be to enforce laws against whatever >your local animal control considers 'irresponsible' pet owners. The >database (not the ISO chip or any desire to get more pets home) is the >reason for HSUS, ASPCA, and animal control organization support. > >WHAT HAPPENS NOW? > >In a perfect world, APHIS would weigh all the inputs according to their >quality and make a decision accordingly: The logical decision would be "No >government mandate to standardize on a product that nobody wants." >However, >this isn't a perfect world. It appears that the head of APHIS is unhappy >that all the NAIS money is going to other parts of USDA. Basically, it >looks to me like APHIS is going to decide that a plan very much along the >lines above is a good first step toward making pets part of NAIS. > >I think that APHIS has been promised that the Coalition will support >making >pets part of NAIS once the first step is accomplished. That would be a >good deal for everyone: for Banfield because (I believe) they have a deal >for Datamars chips at a near giveaway price; for Datamars because it would >give them a solid foothold in the U.S. chip marketplace; for the Coalition >because it would mean microchipping and registration in a single >government-sponsored data base for all pets; and for APHIS because it would >need bunches of money to make the data base and maybe 200 million pet >registrations happen. In any case it is appears that APHIS is completely >on >board, bought, sold, and done deal. The necessary laws are already in >existence and they just have to go through the rulemaking formalities -- a >process that will take just a few more months. > >It appears to me that the AVMA has been suckered into this. I think they >didn't know they were signing on to the ISO standard but thought they were >just backing some sort of motherhood and apple pie 'standardization' of pet >microchips. The small animal vets who form the bulk of the AVMA's board of >directors tend to be do-gooders, not exactly of strong candlepower. You >can see the thinking, here: > >http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep05/050901p.asp > >Shades of "we have to be involved" -- the AKC's rationale for its total >support of PAWS. > >AAHA I have no clue about. Probably brain-dead do-gooderism again. > >You'd like to think that this is so stupid and so obviously what it is -- >just an idea for a law to take our money out of our pockets and put it in >those of Datamars, Banfield, and others, with no benefit to pets and >horrific damage to pet ownership and the pet supply system -- that it has >no >chance. However the reverse appears to be true. I think this is on >greased >rails and if we do nothing, it WILL happen. If it stays on those tracks I'd >guess that five years from now there will be a law requiring all pets to be >chipped and registered. In a later post I'll go into what we can do to >stop >it. > >REMEMBER -- On May 26th, 2005, PAWS was a 'done deal' -- no chance it could >be stopped. Today, although still alive, it sits in some dusty >congressional closet, covered with green flies. > >Walt Hutchens Timbreblue Whippets Virginia > >THIS MAY BE FORWARDED FREELY > >This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from >http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm > >-- >Toni in Iowa USA >************************************************ >http://www.stopanimalid.org/ >http://nonais.org/ >It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling >into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from >falling into error. >-- Robert Houghwout Jackson, >Chief Judge at the War-Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg >************************************************ > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > ><*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no2nais4horses/ > ><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
