![[Politech logo]](http://www.politechbot.com/image/logo.gif){kind=logo}
Politech is the oldest Internet resource devoted to politics and technology. Launched in 1994 by Declan McCullagh, the mailing list has chronicled the growing intersection of culture, technology, politics, and law. Since 2000, so has the Politech web site.
[I'll include some news coverage below. Pet microchips have been around since the 1980s, as you'll see, but requiring them through force of law seems to be a new -- and incomprehensibly bizzare -- idea. "First pets, then humans!" --Declan] ********* http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_236_bill_20010214_introduced.html 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. Existing law regulates the ownership of dogs and cats, as specified. 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 California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. 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. SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. *********** The San Diego Union-Tribune March 12, 2001, Monday 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, a pet owner and longtime legislative champion of animal rights. "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?" [...] *********** The San Diego Union-Tribune January 5, 1989, Thursday Marketed by Infonet Identification and Recovery System in Los Angeles, the new device consists of a small microchip injected just under the skin of cats, dogs and other pets. Veterinarians say the procedure is painless. Under the Infonet plan, animal shelters that find stray pets scan them with an instrument resembling a supermarket barcode reader. If the scanner turns up a chip, the finder dials ... ... 40, and the annual service fee to be listed with the registry is $11. According to Infonet, most city and county animal shelters in California will be using the scanning system by this spring. ********* http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,42430,00.html Dog Bytes Say More Than Bark by Julia Scheeres 2:00 a.m. Mar. 15, 2001 PST 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. The bill is slated for debate in the judiciary committee next month. [...] "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." [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------