Symbols have meaning. That’s why we use them. Words have meaning too, of course. In questioning this silly shelter I’m dealing with that wants, after 5 months, to suddenly raise some issues, I’ve run across a number of disturbing issues and will address a single one today. Texas Administrative Code, §573.76 (printed below).
It appears that veterinarians are now ethically MANDATED to chip or tattoo dogs and cats coming from pounds, shelters and humane societies.
I get it. As a matter of conserving public funds and reducing the possibility of accidental pregnancies, they want it to be easily detectible if the animal has been spayed or neutered. However, and setting aside the multitude of issues in whether or not any of this will actually reduce pet pregnancies, I question the mandating of electronic chips for a number of reasons:
- There are significant questions being raised about the safety of the electronic chips and, whether or not that’s a good option for a given pet is and should be a medical decision rather than a legal one.
- Not all shelters, pounds or humane societies have chip readers. (The one I’m dealing with being a case in point. No access to a veterinarian either.)
- If the animal already has a chip, can the new owner get the information on the records changed or does this provision essentially mandate a new chip.
- This admin code is in the veterinarians professional conduct part of administrative rules but it mandates things for owners. Many organizations that adopt out animals put in chips that they will NOT transfer to the new owner and the one they put in may be at least a second one. If they won’t transfer it, the owner has to put in yet another one to comply?
- So, how many chips might an animal end up with? Easily up to 3 if the animal had one, the rescue group puts one in that they won’t transfer over, and the one the new owner puts in. How many shelters, pounds, or humane societies are going to keep scanning after finding a single chip? Surely the animals risk for complications go up with each new chip!
- The electronic chips are primarily to get the animal back home. Do the registration companies even have the capacity to include an indication of reproductive status?
All of that weighted, I can’t support multiple chipping of animals one tiny bit; nor even mandating a single chip.
There’s an option of doing a tattoo. When I saw the requirements, I also saw RED. For female animals, the tattoo is a “slash” through the universal symbol for females (USF); similar for males. EXCUSE YOU but WTF were you thinking rule makers?
The USF is an ancient religious symbol and still used by many on this planet as such. I would no more have this tattoo on one of my animals than a swastika or slashed crucifix!
In addition, having one’s reproductive system modified or removed does NOT make one less male or female (as that is a matter of genetics) and some of us have spent DECADES dealing with this issue with the abused humans on this planet and the victims of cancer and other health problems who’ve faced removal of organs. Now you want their pets sporting this symbol? The slashing of gender based on the altered reproductive status? As though screaming to them the exact opposite of what gets them through the day, being reminded that they are still women despite all those other issues???
And then there's the poor choice of language: "slash". Really? Couldn't use "diagonal line"? Well it certainly tells me that these rule makers had their head's up their asses while drafting this! Slashing marks in the medical field. Lovely symbolism all by itself! The slashed USF is practically a calling card for misogynists and abusers of women and children and this choice of wording sure raises questions of who is on the TVBME!!!
I realize many men reading this may not quite get my hostility over this but I sure hope you'll try. Men tend to be hesitant about neutering animals and we women giggle about it but the truth is that we dismiss our own feelings that arise when our "parts" are threatened.
What the F would be wrong with an “S” or “N” or “S/N” tattoo instead. Did you idiot rule makers consider the emotional reaction to such a tattoo at all?
And lastly, why is this nasty little provision tucked into the TVBME Professional Conduct chapter of the Texas Administrative Code instead of being included in Health & Safety Code, Chapter 828? WTF kind of games are being played?
How dare TVBME mandate an offensive symbol be tattooed on or a medical device be installed in ANYONE’S animal under threat of an ethical violation? WTF? And not even mandate that the veterinarian inform the owner, let alone get informed consent? WTF???
Of course, this is a Texas provision but everyone needs to really start digging through all their state laws because provisions aren't always where expected, where they should be. That's for sure!
And finally, ANYTHING which might make people more reluctant to adopt is BAD in my book; especially so when there are options that are less likely to do so. This provision is merely another crappy and crappily written law!
Texas Administrative Code, §573.76:
(a) Definitions. The following words , when used in this section, have the following meaning:
(1) Releasing agency--a public or private animal pound, shelter, or humane organization. This term does not include an individual who occasionally renders humane assistance or shelter in the individual's home to a dog or cat.
(2) Animal--a dog or cat.
(3) Microchip--a transponder that is placed under an animal's skin by an injector and can be read by a microchip scanner.
(4) Tattoo--a permanent etching formed by injecting ink into the basal layer of the epidermis of an animal.
(b) Sterilization required. A new owner of an animal released from a releasing agency must have the animal sterilized in accordance with Chapter 828, Health & Safety Code.
(c) Identification markers. An animal sterilized under this section must be identified by a microchip and/or a tattoo indicating that it has been sterilized.
(1) A new owner of an animal with a microchip shall be responsible for providing information to the data base registry of the microchip manufacturer indicating that the animal has been sterilized.
(2) A tattoo must:
(A) be placed on the inside of the animal's thigh near the abdomen or on the caudal-ventral abdomen;
(B) be imprinted with ink that is manufactured in the United States;
(C) meet the standards of the federal Food and Drug Administration for tattooing;
(D) be of a contrasting color to the predominant color of the skin in which it is tattooed; and
(E) consist of the universal symbol for male or female overlain by a slash through the circle to indicate sterilization.
[A]dopted to be effective March 19, 2006, 31 TexReg 1654.