The Sham of Microchipping Pets

I continue to see postings and info-pieces put forth by supposed animal-loving groups & individuals on the benefits of microchipping one's pets.

Here is one I just reviewed
All Cats Need an Identity: Cats Without ID Can Become a Statistic

I quote :

The headline never fails to cause a twinge of empathy in a cat lover. Nothing can approximate the emotions playing hopscotch through the mind of someone who has lost a cat: fear that you'll never see her again; fear that you will see her again-- a broken corpse thrown to the side of a road; paranoia that someone has stolen her; anger at the cat for escaping; guilt and remorse for allowing her escape; hope that any minute now you'll hear that familiar "meow" and she'll be waiting patiently at the front door; and that heavy, dull, empty feeling of loss

Sounds like the only true compassion is keeping your cat or other pet microchipped and registered, right? Also, major heaps of F.U.D. (= Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) if you don't do this.

Here are some other less-alarming pro-microchipping pieces
- 'Microchipping Your Cat for Extra Safety', http://www.myhealthycat.com/microchipping.html
- 'All About Microchipping Identification for Dogs and Cats', http://petcaretips.net/microchipping-dog.html

Here is a pro-microchipping piece that hints at the current costs to animal shelters and potential pet owners for voluntary microchipping theirs pets. 'Microchip Your Cat', http://catszone.blogspot.com/2007/03/microchip-your-cat.htm

Microchipping is not an expensive procedure, in most areas the cost of this safety precaution is $50 USD. The owner must pay an additional fee to register the cat’s microchip ID information. This registration fee is used to make sure your cat’s information is entered into databases at shelters in your area. If you get your cat from an animal shelter, it may already be microchipped and you will only have to pay the small registration fee. Contact your local animal shelter to find out if they provide a free microchipping service.

Finally for now, there is also the "Uses and benefits" section of the Microchip implant (animal) Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_implant_(animal)#Uses_and_benefits
As this piece summarizes,

Microchips have been particularly useful in the return of lost pets. They can also assist where the ownership of an animal is in dispute.

--

The striking aspect of all these site-pieces, without exception, is that these are all for the supposed benefit of the pet-owner and naturally, the owned pet.

Actually, there are some disturbing trends that indicate that any accrued benefit of microchipping may not be completely beneficial for the pet(!), and even more certainly, not for that pet-owner who voluntarily chose to microchip his/her pet or who voluntarily chose to adopt his/her pet in the first place.

Consider these findings.
1. The cons of microchipping pets as described at goemstic.com's Pros and Cons of Microchipping Pets
2. Within the last few years preceding this particular blog writeup, several news reports of studies suggesting that microchip implants may be linked to
tumors in pets.
- The washingtonpost.com's 'Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors
- LA radio station KNBC's Do Microchip Implants Pose Health Threat To Pets, Humans?
- A hard-hitting Anonyumous blogspot.com response to Arlington Pets blog: Microchip Concerns Premature

I'm extremely disappointed by your post. The title alone is misleading, if not wholly inaccurate. Ohio State University's veterinary oncology dept. has come forward requesting a full, 20-year retrospective study of chips and possible sarcoma links before any categorical ruling of 'safety'. The medical community has immediately stopped the implantation of chips in alzheimer's and dimentia patients, and most of the doctor's of the 200 or so already implanted are planning immediate removal.

One dog has already been confirmed to have contracted and died from chip-associated sarcoma. Perhaps it's best that you let ALL of the facts come out before commenting that concerns are 'premature'.

And citing the AVMA holds little to no validity in my book. It's an organization committed to its members and their business, not to animal welfare. Look at the AVMA's current VOCAL opposition to the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

Sorry - but you missed the boat on this one.10/18/2007 8:39 AM

Indeed, this may be the key reason that microchipping pets is a sham solely for our pets' healths alone.

IMNSHO, it seems to me that microchipping and the pet-databases associated with this practice are almost as concerned with licen$ing and product-marketing/spamming [to us pet owners] as they are with their primary purpose of recovering lost pets.


Are microchip manufacturers and veterinarians somehow burying the real statistical health-risks on the use of pet microchips from current and new pet-owners??

Who else could stand to benefit from the non-reversible use of pet microchips?
(Animal-rights lawyers and law enforcement personnel certainly!)

This may easily lead to a scenario in which animal registration and governmental surveillance possibly increases enactment and enforcement of animal-cruelty laws, making it increasingly criminal and punishable not to use pet microchip devices.
- What can effectively stop the eventual scenario of law enforcements' fining or arresting owners whose microchipped-ID'd pets accidentally and temporarily wander away from their owners, or fining or else arresting microchip ID'd owners when their pets miss a scheduled vaccination ??
- Will such owners of microchipped pets get fined or otherwise penalized when they do not pay initial and renewal fees for their pets' microchips?

FOX's mudslinging against Obama 2B called FOXslinging

Here is the YouTube video 'FOX ATTACKS OBAMA'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms

No doubt one or more persons connected with the Clinton campaign put in their "little pitches" to FOXNews. Reminiscent of Yellow Journalism a century ago, it's recognizable, and it's awfully shameful of FOX to do!!! :<>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E&NR=1

Not even the simplistic excuse of "just trying to get at the real truth" cuts it for these guys; does this ever stop or turn towards Clinton??

Better to visit more balanced sites such as msnbc.
Their decent article of today is OBAMA CALLS WRIGHT ISSUE A DISTRACTION found at http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/819290.aspx
This article reveals Clinton's return after a week of silence to her typical anti-Obama mudslinging tactics.

Do the FOXslinging and Clinton's desperate mudslinging tactics really help get her elected?
A YouTube video that came out almost exactly a month ago hopefully helps shed light on this: 'Hillary Clinton Negative or Nice? NBC Calls Her Out! 2/25' ,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMssGeYbnxI

Many of we Democrats will just have to remember all this as Clinton's supporters try to maneuver Obama as "the primary divisive candidate" for this Summer's DNC in Denver, http://www.demconvention.com/

Lest Clinton actually somehow wheedle her way past the Democratic delegate assembly into the role of the Democratic Presidential nominee, then we'll have to recall this when she tries running against McCain this Fall!

Big Democratic Primariess in TX and OH

Obama is trying to catch up to Conniving-Clinton in the Democratic Primaries of Texas and Ohio tomorrow. Current polls show that [Power]-Hungry Hillary is a few percentage points ahead of Obama in Texas. Hungry-Hillary's hubby, ex-Pres [Monica-inspired]-Bill is campaigning all over the great state of Texas for his Hungry-Hillary.

O.K., well maybe Conniving-Clinton can fool most Texans in her bid over Obama's for the nomination, but I just hope that the great people of Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton,.. etcetera in Ohio really get some more sense in them and don't get as duped!!

Tomorrow's wish: Ohio goes right to Obama.

More sources on Anita Gay Shooting, part 3

Again, the news sources brought down on the shooting of Anita Gay CONTINUE to predominantly take Police Sgt. Mary Kusmiss's statements regarding officer Rashawn Cummings' actions as indisputably correct.
One can go through these sources and make one's own conclusions:

- SFGate's 'Neighbors blame cops in shooting death', found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/18/BAELV4EKI.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

- OFFICER.com's 'California Neighborhood Angry after Police-Involved Shooting' found at http://www.officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=40247

- The Berkeley Daily Planet's 'Police Officer Kills Berkeley Woman' http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-02-15/article/29254

- East Bay Express blog 'Berkeley Police Shooting Questioned' found at
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/blogs/berkeley_police_shooting_questioned/Content?oid=646430

- The Daily Californian's 'Berkeley Police Officer Shoots, Kills Woman' found at
http://www.dailycal.org/article/100441/berkeley_police_officer_shoots_kills_woman



On the positive side with these above sources, it's clear there was no racist or lewd/bestial acts as in Brooklyn's Abner Louima case.


On the very negatively remaining side, officer Cummings shot Anita Gay in the back upon VERY questionable circumstances.
Here is another telling quote of one of the neighbors, taken verbatim from insideBayArea.com's 'Conflicting accounts in Berkeley shooting' found at http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_8294592?source=rss


"The police should be ashamed of themselves," said 55-year-old Channell King, who added she witnessed the incident from the front porch of her house, directly across the street from Gay's apartment building.

"He could have tased her, used rubber bullets — anything than what he did," King said of the policeman, who's been described by neighbors as a young African-American male. Gay was also African American.

"He could have tased her, used rubber bullets — anything than what he did," King said of the policeman, who's been described by neighbors as a young African-American male.

More sources on Anita Gay Shooting, part 2

The intended confusion on the conflicting accounts of Anita Gay's shooting continues.

According to KCBS's 'Berkeley Police Say Officer Involved Shooting Appears Justified' at http://www.kcbs.com/pages/1669328.php?,
Berkeley police are releasing more details about this weekend's fatal officer involved shooting, and they say their preliminary investigation shows deadly force was justified.


Again, a very one-sided acceptance of Berkeley Police Sergeant Mary Kussmiss's statements here:
”So the possibility that this suspect could have stabbed the family members very quickly, was very, very evident,” said Berkeley Police Sergeant Mary Kussmiss. “From our preliminary investigation, this officer acted within our deadly force policy, and therefore, the shooting was justified.”
This is the Berkeley Police Department's own self-reporting on the members of their own force, so OF COURSE they would find the shooting completely justified from their "preliminary investigation"!!


You'd really need an independent review here.


Another updated news source on the shooting that blatantly contradicts Berkeley Police Sergeant Mary Kussmiss's above preliminary findings, is SFGate.com's 'Neighbors blame cops in shooting death' found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/18/BAELV4EKI.DTL
Several angry neighbors of a woman who was fatally shot Saturday night by a police officer outside her Berkeley apartment said Sunday that they do not agree with the officer's assertion that he had fired to protect himself and the woman's two daughters.

Here from speaking with persons other than the only officer(s) present at the scene, is some rudimentary gist for a MUCH more balanced and neutral review :
Neighbors said Gay had done nothing to threaten the officer and questioned whether she was a danger to her daughters.

Chanell King, 55, who lives across the street and said she saw the shooting, said Gay was shot in the back as she made a move up her front steps toward her front door. King said she talked to Gay's daughters after the shooting, and that they were angry.

"She didn't make a move to go after him or anything. The only move she made was to go back into the house," King said. "This woman died for nothing."

Then further on
Neighbor Kim Johnson, 26, said three officers, including Cummings, interviewed Gay and then left. There was no evidence that Gay broke the windows, Kusmiss said.

Johnson said she soon allowed Gay, who had been locked out by her daughters, to use her phone to call police again. Johnson said it was around this time that she noticed Gay had a kitchen knife.

A single officer returned to the street, parked, walked up Gay's driveway with a flashlight and then ordered her to drop the knife, Johnson said. The officer then ordered Gay to put her hands against the stucco wall of her apartment, Johnson said.

Staggering, Gay complied but bumped her head on the wall and had to pull up her shorts after they fell down, Johnson said.

Johnson said she and another neighbor, 26-year-old Lisa Jones, then walked away because they thought the situation was under control. The knife, Johnson said, was on the ground nearby. But after a few seconds, they heard the gunfire and ran back to find Gay on the ground.

Seems from this that the only person who definitively saw Anita Gay holding the knife was that exact sole "single officer" just mentioned.
If this single officer's testimony is at least 51 percent true, then goodness people, a male member of the force [for five years no less!] has just GOT to know how to disable a fifty year-old woman on medication/alcohol and shakily holding a knife, and doing this by *average* physical strength and using a standard-issue officer's baton..... and WITHOUT the need to fire a gun!! >:-<

GO FIGURE THIS OUT ALREADY !!!!!!!

and What really went on with the officer's trigger-happiness!!!???

More sources on Anita Gay Shooting, part 1

Here are further local media news stories found on last night's Anita Gay shooting :


- KTVU.com's 'Berkeley Officer Shoots Woman With Knife' found at http://www.ktvu.com/news/15325520/detail.html
- The Daily Californian's 'Berkeley Police Officer Shoots, Kills Woman'found at
http://www.dailycal.org/article/100425/berkeley_police_officer_shoots_kills_woman


These seem to be fairly closely-honed repeats of the earlier-quoted KCBS and SFGate online sources on this story. Differences in the news' versions are whether they specifically rely in a more balanced fashion upon Berkeley Police spokesperson Sgt. Mary Kusmiss's official statements or upon members of Anita Gay's family and close friends in the neighborhood. Seems to me that to date, the SFGate news version of the shooting toes the line as far as going by Sgt Mary Kusmiss's official statements, and that the KCBS and The Daily Californian reporting of this got more of the story "on the ground" from Anita Gay's family and friends.
I'm wondering how the Berkeley Daily Planet will end up reporting this?


I find it fairly significant that the shooting comes at a time when the Berkeley Police force is left thin due to the ongoing demonstrations and counter-demonstrations over the Marine Corps Recruiting Center downtown (now being reported nationwide). As quoted in the same Daily Californian story as above:
The incident comes after a week when many Berkeley police officers worked overtime hours in response to a number of protests involving the Marine Corps recruiting center in Downtown Berkeley. On Tuesday night, at least 100 Berkeley police officers were stationed in front of the City Council chambers until 1a.m.


Getting close to nightfall now, and tomorrow is President's Day 2008, when many offices are officially closed for the National Holiday. During the daytime today, it was mostly quiet on the block of the shooting. A decent day out and people cycling and strolling around with family for the Holiday Weekend. Decently warm specifically in the sunlight once the morning cloud-cover and chill cleared up. Now its getting cool fast again. Neighbors were all aware of the news, and I wish some more reporters came by to ask we neighbors more of what really went on. Certainly did not see a significant police presence around my block or approaching Ward St., so nobody is really out to thwart or gag persons (e.g., neighbors, reporters, journalists, activists) from speaking out and gleaning further facts "on the ground". Would not hurt for reporters to elucidate neighborhood sentiment regarding this shooting more than just accepting the gravely serious one-liner, Berkeley police homicide detectives and the Alameda County District Attorney's Office are investigating the shooting. Yes, let's please completely trust a self-administered non-neutral investigating body with this!! /sarcasm here/


As an interesting aside as I follow this story of the Anita gay shooting, I actually found the above two news stories through the Answers.com search site as found at http://www.answers.com instead of through the ubiquitous Google. The news' stories of this neighborhood shooting from using Answers.com were in some ways *BETTER* than the ones found through my Google search. Now how about that?!
Google coders and proofreaders who may be reviewing this, beware: you really don't want to now start letting your search-engine-efficiency guard down now do you ?? :)