Letters from Readers:

I RECENTLY emailed the following letter to various MPs. Jim Anderton of the Progressive Party did at least answer. PM Helen Clark's secretary sent the usual "your letter has been received but it is difficult to answer all correspondence" letter, and Winston Peters of NZ First has filed the information for future use along with other information on the same topic. My questions were as follows:

I have recently been discussing the new microchipping laws that are due to be introduced next year with various people concerned. I was horrified to hear that apparently the government is to produce its own database and that it will contain the barest of information - namely owner, address and number! The government is apparently interested only in making sure that all dogs are registered and getting more money, and is not interested in any follow-up.

But is registration not what happens now? Bringing in microchipping will not make bad owners register - it will serve only to cost good owners even more! A bad owner cares nothing for his/her dog - have one dog taken away and they will have another the next day. One would assume that with this marvellous new system there would be no need for council 'book' registration when it is all there on computer, but how wrong I am - double-dipping seems to be the order of the day! It is all a matter of more money, not registration. Why double-register?

Would you please answer some questions for my magazine readers:
I was told in earlier correspondence to MP Chris Carter that beginning in 2006 all 'new' registrations would be required to be microchipped (ie it will take about 15 years before ALL dogs are microchipped). Does this interpretation still stand?

(Newsflash! I have just received my dog licence account, and on it was the information that microchipping is indeed only expected with NEW registrations. That is at least one point to be thankful for. Pensioners - your dogs are safe!)

If interpretation is leftt up to the local councils, then the future prospects for the whole operation are that it is one huge mess! Local bodies MUST be combined under one law to make it work. Is the intention that local bodies carry on 'as usual' and make their own interpretations?

Is publicity planned to let people know that their older dog does NOT have to be microchipped and that only NEW registrations are affected?

Are ALL dog control units of ALL councils as well as ALL SPCA branches going to be required to purchase multi scanners (there are thousands of dogs in NZ now with microchips already, from overseas countries and from NZ - the NZ ones registered either with the present Auckland database or the Australian one)? Unless they do, the whole operation will be putting dogs at risk.

Are the employees of dog control units and SPCA going to be trained properly in the use of scanners? If not, then you will again be putting many dogs at risk, especially ones that have been microchipped years ago. The chips often need more than a quick flick over the back of the animal to find them. I have been told they can be found under the dog's stomach, around its neck, on a thigh, and in one report a chip was found in the particular dog's ankle. Unless people working with scanners are trained properly, many chips could be missed by them and the dogs exterminated without even bothering to consult their paper registration files! A recipe for disaster.

Is there going to be any follow-up if a microchipped dog is registered in a different name, to find out if it is stolen or legitimately sold or given away? If not, then the 'safety net' that was the original reason why people have had their dogs microchipped has been taken away from them and negated. The whole operation will have been trivialised by the government and people who care about their pets will have to find yet another form of identification that the government has not made ineffective!

What is the law going to require of council pounds and SPCA branches when they pick up a dog with a microchip - will they be required to contact the NZ database if the owner's name is not on the government one? And if it is not registered there will they then have to contact the Australian database to check? If it is not there, will they be able to then check with MAF to see if the dog was imported with its microchip already in place? This may require that MAF keeps its own database up to date and ready at all times (I do know they are very involved with importation and would ALWAYS have the microchip numbers on their paperwork). Or would any inquiries receive the 'typical' answer from that department: "It COULD be there, but will cost you $180 for us to have a look"?

What will the microchipping cost over and above the cost of legitimate registration? The original claim as I recall was "about $12.50 - $15". I would guess that by now it has escalated to at least the price of a second registration, or more, as we all know that MP-speak is simply another name for deceipt!

Are all dog control departments going to have at least one trained microchipper on their staff, and if so, how well trained will they be - will they be responsible for any subsequent infection or damage that they cause, or will they be employed "on the cheap" and able to hide their lack of training behind a government 'no responsibility' clause?

I would really appreciate some answers here, as I am expressing the fears and worries of most dog owners and have been asked all of the questions above. It seems that an average of 99% dog owners think that the government requirement is just more revenue gathering as the type of database planned (if information is correct) is going to be of little use other than as a form of receipt (for what?). No advantages, no actual benefit to any dog or owner, and no actual reason for being on such a database has ever been given to anyone, other than to "donate" extra money to the government. And for that matter, all the names and addresses of all NZ's registered dogs could be transferred to a central database right now, without demanding extra "donations" for nothing.

I do hope you are at least able to justify the destruction of what many New Zealanders thought of as a safety valve - microchipping - in case their dogs were stolen or lost. - E Peters

Mr Anderton's response was (my own interpretation in bold parenthesis):

Thank you for your message of 10 April regarding dog control and the implantation of microchips.

A number of the questions you ask are details of technical administration, which is a matter for the local councils who will be called upon to administer the legislation, and not ones, therefore, that I am competent to answer. [Yes, that is being left to the local councils to interpret and administer in whatever way the loudest mouth on each council sees fit!] I am happy however, to express my own view of the overall question as this might be of interest to your readers.

In the main I believe that the overhaul of the dog control regime carried out nearly a decade ago effected most of the necessary improvements, and, while no regulatory regime is perfect, changes since have not added a great deal to that upgrade. There is always a danger of course, that the tightening of any regulatory regime, not just regarding animal control, but more generally, undertaken in the wake of a particularly horrendous set of circumstances, will be an over-reaction [The attack on one little girl seems to have set off in NZ an hysterical anti-dog response!]. Whether this has been the case regarding the introduction of microchipping remains to be seen and it should be given a fair trial, but I remain to be convinced that it alone provides the answer. The problem in my view is not one of further regulation but of enforcement.

Local government which has responsibility for that is understandably reluctant to give it priority above a range of other matters for which they also carry responsibility. It is expensive - being staff intensive by its nature - and convictions are notoriously difficult to obtain [The operation is going to cost dog owners heaps!]. I agree with those who say that as long as we allow people to keep dogs as domestic pets there are going to be a minority of dog owners who abuse that privilege [the government has been considering and still is considering banning all dogs as pets in this country and it seems Mr Anderton agrees with that concept - but it wants to financially milk the microchipping aspect dry first!].

At the same time there are always going to be dog attacks because all dogs will attack humans in certain circumstances [Kiwis are too thick to treat dogs with the firm, friendly respect they require!].

My criterion regarding any regulation in this field is: how effective will it be in constraining both irresponsible dog owners and minimising attacks? As I remarked above, I have yet to be convinced that microchipping on the scale proposed is any sort of definitive answer [It isn't, of course, and never was meant to be more than a valium for the hysterical and a boost to the government's funds].

Jim Anderton
M P for Wigram and Leader of the Progressive Party

Well, scary isn't it? It is not so much what he says as what he doesn't say that counts. If any readers have anything to add please write and give me your own interpretation. More on microchipping in this issue's editorial.