New Zealand Dog News

Reviewing the dog news in New Zealand with editors comments. Someone needs to keep reviewing how our dogs are doing in society.

February 23, 2006

Microchipping law is unworkable

And more opinions...

Picture these two different scenes. One, a little girl playing in an Auckland city park; the other, a high country farmer rounding up a flock of sheep. In the first scene an unleashed American staffordshire terrier savagely attacks the girl, ripping off part of her face. In the second scene the farmer whistles to his huntaway dogs which deftly manoeuvre the sheep and obediently await their next instruction, writes The Marlborough Express in an editorial.
MORE>>

3 Comments:

  • At 2:31 p.m., Blogger The Flying Enchilada said…

    I can't believe anyone would be opposed to microchipping their dog. Just how much of an expense is it? Here in Los Angeles it's $25 per microchip. That includes the microchiping and registration, which is done at the local animal shelter or vet's office. My dog is microchipped. In case of emergency, or should he ever get lost I know I have a better chance of recovering him.

     
  • At 2:49 p.m., Anonymous Maria Webster said…

    Here in New Zealand, registration is $70 to $90 dollars, and could be up to $120 in some cities. If you are 'good dog owner' (ie, no complaints against you.. Don't have a nasty neighbour!) you can pay around $40.

    Microchipping is said to cost between $50 to $70 dollars.

    So a farmer can have up to 8 working dogs. You see why people are against it?

     
  • At 12:27 p.m., Blogger Blair J Anderson said…

    Maria Webster links what stinks... complaints, nasty neighbours and who pays.

    This draws into question the stakehold and foundation for policy base that drives by-laws underpinned by the localbody Act.

    'Who' benefits from enforcement.

    We have seen recent dog-dog bites make prime time news. Whose agenda is this?

    With 600,000 registered dogs, even at $50, plus breeding churn represents a massive incentive to charge not just the $300 fines, but also higher annualised registration costs from compaint driven 'reviewed ownership status'. A recent Christchurch case of a dog officer issuing $300 tickets.. because a dog that looked similar was seen without a lead on, is a case in point. Low standard of evidence and no complainant. Oh, took photo's of 'a' dog with a cell phone. After he introduced himself with a story... that he wasnt there to issue a compliance ticket, saying he's just issuing a warning in this case. Five days later the offence arrives in the post.

    Authority predicated on fears where there should be none is no authority at all.

    The net present value of the revised status cashflow is a massive windfall.

    And it doesnt need a complaint or complainants injury or loss. The standard priciples of justice have been downgraded.

    The more visable are the complaints and actions (and prosecutions, and warnings and loss of 'good dog owner' status) the higher the net return.

    What market value would be given to a business with a pa T/O of $50 million per annum.

    What could be achieved with this annual 'value' in delivering prudent education rather than a inequitable coercive policy.

    This is not just about microchipping. It is about social engineering. The notion that data = control = outcomes is flawed.

    Media will link dogbite prosecution to chip ID. But will media link chip ID to the failure top prevent the bite?

    Remember, first they have to catch the microchip... its now equiped with 'smart' four legs and can still be confused for 'another' dog.

    Microchips were always just a 'solution' looking for a problem.

    Are we to see helicopters searching suburban backyards for illict dogs 'to improve policy compliance'? Dont laugh, it has happened already, targetted towards low decile areas I might add.

    For not much more than the proposed post microchip fees (over for the life of the dog) I could have GPS/Cell tracking with bluetooth/blackberry/VoIP phone home facities. My dog could have its own internet address for free (a unique addressable number). I could forsee on-line tracking to a resolution of a few metres. To avoid direct dialing/messaging the nearest home owner, with street-mapped directional voice commands one could instruct the very same dog to return home via shortest/safest route. At worst I could have a map... pinpointing where he is, where he's been, spent time and a plausable defence against no complaint 'offence' notices {who was offended) and state enforced instant fines double a beneficiaries weekly payment. (2+% after tax, of annual fixed below poverty-line income)

    While our dog has email already, mailto:holmes@doglinks.co.nz it is not the same as the functionality of an unique IP address. But it does cost about the same... essentially free and its opt in!.

    If I were Prime Minister... I suspect I could keep writers 'the flying enchilada', Maria Webster, my dog and me, happy... wouldn't that be a start.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 
web page hit counter