RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
Philocon

Microchipping

Recommended Posts

The announcement below is an excerpt from the GRNSW email newsletter sent out yesterday. Thought some who don't subscribe to it might be interested given the debate till now on the subject.

A special message from GRNSW

The introduction of micro-chipping as a part of the national greyhound identification process will commence in New South Wales in March.

In accordance with the amended Australasian Greyhound Racing Rules, all greyhounds whelped after the 1 January 2011 will be micro-chipped by Greyhound Racing NSW (GRNSW) as part of the identification procedure.

Over the last decade microchips have become the preferred method of permanently identifying animals. In all states of Australia it is compulsory for domestic dogs and cats to be micro-chipped. Individual state legislation in Queensland, South Australia and Victoria has also included the same requirement for greyhounds. In NSW, the sole responsibility for the registration of greyhounds will continue to rest with GRNSW.

As Australia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great confidence in micro-chipping when still having to ear brand as well.What happened to the petition that we signed regarding same?

Bit like One Racing,can't trust the horsey codes as brothers,but trust lawyer and stipey types with the JCA and the latest world-wide craze, manufactured integrity units(jobs for the boys),cause it seems to suit our office types,who failed to carry out the wishes of the licence holders to fight micro-chipping because it suited them.Thanks very much for waiting and seeing,hell I could have done that!

andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great confidence in micro-chipping when still having to ear brand as well.What happened to the petition that we signed regarding same?

Bit like One Racing,can't trust the horsey codes as brothers,but trust lawyer and stipey types with the JCA and the latest world-wide craze, manufactured integrity units(jobs for the boys),cause it seems to suit our office types,who failed to carry out the wishes of the licence holders to fight micro-chipping because it suited them.Thanks very much for waiting and seeing,hell I could have done that!

andy

Yes many of my friends in dogs up North here thought that this was one of the most important things the Assn needed to fight for

I cannnot see what they have done here

A vote of no confidence in our Assn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes many of my friends in dogs up North here thought that this was one of the most important things the Assn needed to fight for

I cannnot see what they have done here

A vote of no confidence in our Assn

What is the risk or problem with microchipping? It's been in a while now and none of the draconian predictions have happened. If so they've been a well kept secret that even the most ardent conspiracy theorist would be hard pressed to see.

I agree that GRNZ and the clubs collectively could be criticised for not promoting informed discussion from the outset and gauging the feelings of LPs to see whether the opposition came from a significant minority or a majority and followed through.

Fighting it now is Quixotic tilting at windmills, which will divert us from things that need attention and can be accomplished.

The reality, whether you supported it or not is that it is the law and we are all required to have pups microchipped anyway so it makes sense for the code to use it to it's advantage.

However while it would be good to replace ear branding altogether, we know that modern technology sometimes fails and a backup is necessary just in case.

The GRNSW bulletin shows that it is coming in Oz and it is probably a matter of time before it comes in here.

Relying on the equine codes to back opposition to microchipping is naieve in the least. Why would they?Thoroughbred Racing has required microchipping of foals as well as branding for many years without the law requiring them to do it.

If there is a danger in microchipping to watch out for it is vigilance to stop it being widely use in people. That could have serious implications for human rights, freedom of speech and democracy. As yet I am not aware of animals voting or standing for public office so I don't see the same danger there.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what adverse impact it has had on their dogs. Ours have been microchipped as required by the law and I have noticed no difference whatsoever in them or any problems attributable to microchips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me a rule in our current rule book that says we would have to micro-chip greyhounds, clubs make the rules not the association, so if clubs say no to micro-chipping then they can not put it in our rule book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me a rule in our current rule book that says we would have to micro-chip greyhounds, clubs make the rules not the association, so if clubs say no to micro-chipping then they can not put it in our rule book.

It doesn't have to be in the rule book. It's the law of the land. Every greyhound pup like other dogs whelped since 1JUly 2006 must be microchipped and any dog that has never before been registered that is registered after that date also must be microchipped. People think that if their dog was whelped before that date it doesn't have to be. However that only applies if it was previously registered before that date. Local authorities can require previously unregistered adult dogs to be microchipped even if they wouldn't otherwise had to have been. So if you get caught out evading registration of a dog born pre July 2006, you will not only be up for registration, penalties etc but possibly for microchipping as well.

If the dogs are required to be microchipped by law it makes sense to for GRNZ to use the chip as well and register the chip to their database as well as the government's national dog database.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there in lies the answer Phil, it is not GRNZ's problem it is the individual, if they so choose not to micro-chip then it is there problem. I would recomend to them not to micro-chip and to hell with the local authority, or it might be a case of one micro chip fits all, if you get my drift. How many greyhound properties get checked by local authorities. We have a good case Perhaps Winston could be of help when he gets back in, Rodney out Winston in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there in lies the answer Phil, it is not GRNZ's problem it is the individual, if they so choose not to micro-chip then it is there problem. I would recomend to them not to micro-chip and to hell with the local authority, or it might be a case of one micro chip fits all, if you get my drift. How many greyhound properties get checked by local authorities. We have a good case Perhaps Winston could be of help when he gets back in, Rodney out Winston in.

NO therin does not lie the problem. It may not be GRNZ's problem but that is irrelevant. The fact is that assuming LPs are going to abide by the law and expect good will from local authorities when it comes to animal control etc, then dogs will be microchipped anyway. GRNZ has nothing to with it. However if every dog is microchipped assuming greyhound people are law abiding citizens unlike the irresponsible dog owners and other lawbreakers most people criticise and every greyhound has a microchip then why not use a technology that is going to be there whether we want it to be or not. People are always free to break the law - and suffer the consequences; but this is the first time I have heard it suggested we organise racing around their desire to do so.

You are suggesting that Lps break the law and not register their dogs or microchip them. Lou Mailman made a similar suggestion on another thread on this topic some time ago and urged LPs to break the law and not register their dogs as he said he had done for many years admitting that he hid them from animal rangers.

That in effect is saying we expect other non greyhound dog owners to carry the burden of animal control but we don't want to pay our share of it because like it or not the community has accepted over the years that dog owners carry a share of the cost of animal control through registration. What makes us so special that we be exempt from registration but the Lab owner next door should pay.

My experience from talking to animal rangers in local authorities is that many of them are pretty well aware that many trainers and owners are hiding their dogs from them and it does not promote a positive view of the code among them and other dog owners who comply with the law. It only requires a clampdown and the outcome could do the code considerable harm. Isn't there something in the rules about bringing the code into disrepute.

The fact is that it is the law whether we like it or not; and if people choose to break it that's their perogative. But not using something that is already there to reduce the trauma of earbranding to just the one ear makes sense to me. Arguing that we will not as a code use the technology because we want to allow greyhound trainers and owners who are breaking the law to continue to do so is not a good look and seems to be the only argument people can come up with.

We often get mcrochipping done quite cheaply by our local animal ranger because they are keen to see it done and there are private people registered to do it who don't charge an arm and a leg. So you don't have to take out a mortgage and get a vet to do it.

What happened to the suggestion of GRNZ to have people such as existing earbranders, marking stewards or others trained and registered to do it at low cost to greyhound owners? Ross Gove told me personally that that was a likely possibility back in 2006. We are still waiting on the outcome of that one.

I am still waiting to hear these stories of serious harm done to greyhounds by these microchips that can be linked to clear evidence. It has been four years now but no one seems to have come up with any horror stories yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war and peace of micro-chipping, what I was aiming at Phil was perhaps as individuals are responsible and GRNZ were useless in fighting it, maybe it would be best that someone gets prosecuted for it then we GRNZ and all licence holders fund the arguement right through to the high court. We have a case, we have our own form of marking and tracing dogs, it has worked for years, so as they say if it aint broke don't fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war and peace of micro-chipping, what I was aiming at Phil was perhaps as individuals are responsible and GRNZ were useless in fighting it, maybe it would be best that someone gets prosecuted for it then we GRNZ and all licence holders fund the arguement right through to the high court. We have a case, we have our own form of marking and tracing dogs, it has worked for years, so as they say if it aint broke don't fix it.

Yes I can accept your argument on most of those counts if you are arguing against microchipping.

However there is a difference between the tinkering for the sake of tinkering that the "ain't broke don't fix it" argument is aimed at and systems that might bring improvements to what is already a working system.

Whatever way we look at it earbranding is a traumatic experience for any dog whatever age. I have yet to see a pup that has enjoyed the experience and wants to go back for more. Things they associate with something good they'll pull towards every time they see it. I have never been yanked of my feet yet by an enthusiastic dog who recognised an earbranding steward and I ain't holding my breath waiting for the day.

So if there is an effective way of reducing that trauma even if only by half it is worth using, when the law already requires that chips be there to begin with.

Or maybe we could initially make it voluntary for those who are microchipped and run a pilot scheme till a first test case arises. If that is lost which I suspect it would be, then the system could be extended beyond the trial period and become standard practice. The only way I see a case in the court is going to be won by way of a challenge, is on technicalities where the prosecution got something wrong or an animal ranger did not follow the requirements of the Dog Control Act. All that will do is ensure the next time they prosecute a case they will get it right. So it will only defer the inevitable. Or you could hold your breath waiting for a law change. But I wouldn't. If the prosecution were to lose on definition etc Local Govt NZ and every other group would be lobbying for a tidying up change and an amendment would be quickly passed tightening it up. There has been too much invested in the national dog database now to throw it all away and start a new system local authorities have built it into their systems. you will find that if you ring up and make enquiries about a dog, such as a transfer from another district etc. They will automatically check it on the national database.

Still waiting for someone to provide that real evidence of harm done to dogs so far since microchipping started in 2006. Any breed any age and clear linkage between the chip and some symptons. Not examples with tenuous links like someone was carelessly crossing the road with their microchipped dog and got hit by a a car therefore proving that microchips cause road accidents.

If we can find no evidence of the harm it was alleged to cause, then why are we supposed to oppose it? I am waiting to be convinced by the strength of reasoned argument and evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My goodness Phil,can't expect the Lab's owners next door to pay and not greyhounds?Why not? The same law exempts farm dogs.Have they proven those dogs dont bite?Give us your reasons why that farming lobby was successful with 90% of their licence holders not wanting it for their unbranded and probably unlicenced dogs while racing greyhounds,already ear branded, in case you didn't realise Phil.To save you writing time,I would say it had everything to do with our democratically elected reps not bothering to do anything much about it because some of them wanted it.

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My goodness Phil,can't expect the Lab's owners next door to pay and not greyhounds?Why not? The same law exempts farm dogs.Have they proven those dogs dont bite?Give us your reasons why that farming lobby was successful with 90% of their licence holders not wanting it for their unbranded and probably unlicenced dogs while racing greyhounds,already ear branded, in case you didn't realise Phil.To save you writing time,I would say it had everything to do with our democratically elected reps not bothering to do anything much about it because some of them wanted it.

Andy

The reason that farmers got their own way was because they the stood together and took action. That is a foreign concept among the greyhound fraternity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Through clout and a pinch of corruption, more likely,McDuff.

This law was solely for the identification of dogs.It has failed miserably, when this same authority, exempts a section that doesn't identify those dogs,yet penalises a smaller section, that has longstanding and proven identification.

So,we are back to the failures at Petone,are we not?

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My goodness Phil,can't expect the Lab's owners next door to pay and not greyhounds?Why not? The same law exempts farm dogs.Have they proven those dogs dont bite?Give us your reasons why that farming lobby was successful with 90% of their licence holders not wanting it for their unbranded and probably unlicenced dogs while racing greyhounds,already ear branded, in case you didn't realise Phil.To save you writing time,I would say it had everything to do with our democratically elected reps not bothering to do anything much about it because some of them wanted it.

Andy

The farm dog exemption was a joke and a farce and had more to do with their organisations influence within the National Party and the votes needed to pass the bill. So you are right

Most councils don't even have the working dog classification with the discounted fee for farm dogs any more like they used to; but a general responsible owners category that urban and country dwellers, farmers and all can qualify for if they meet the responsible owners criteria. The reason for that is that defining working dogs and farm dogs is a nightmare and a can of worms that leads to endless argument. But a broad category of responsible dog ownership with clear criteria owners have to meet works far better. So the exemption is stupid. But nevertheless they used their clout within a particular party and the narrowness of the vote to their advantage.

It's not about the Lab owner next door paying more or less as you put it but the fact that Mike and others suggested we don't register our dogs. Even the farm dogs with their exemption still pay registration fees to the local authority and can still be prosecuted for not registering. They can still choose to microchip if they want to for ID purposes if the dog gets lost or strays without its tag on. Not registering is about expecting someone else to carry the cost of animal control on our behalf which is hardly going to endear the code to anyone.

Federated Farmers probably would not condone urging their members to not register and we shouldn't either. It does nothing for the credibility of racing if we do.

Yes you could put a lot of it down to the the failure of Petone but their failure was not in opposing microchipping automatically but not gauging the level of opposition within the code and if was a real majority then acting on it. I have already said that. However if it was found most LPs were happy with it they would have been honour bound not to oppose it. Fact is we'll probably never know because those checks were never made.

But that is water under the kneecaps now (might also be water on the brain; if so it could be cleared with a large tap on the head). Microchipping is here and a part of the law like it or not and we are required to comply.

I still haven't seen the the dire consequences of microchipping that were predicted, eventuate; and no one has yet provided any evidence of it in dogs generally let alone greyhounds. So what is the reason for opposing it, as it seems the main one has proved groundless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Through clout and a pinch of corruption, more likely,McDuff.

This law was solely for the identification of dogs.It has failed miserably, when this same authority, exempts a section that doesn't identify those dogs,yet penalises a smaller section, that has longstanding and proven identification.

So,we are back to the failures at Petone,are we not?

Andy

I think you'll find most animal control staff in local authorities will tell you the law has not failed as an ID for dogs. They identify microchipped dogs instantly with or without their tags and unchipped dogs if claimed are not released until they are chipped, registered and paid for.

Andy's reference to biting earlier is a red herring as no such scheme will prevent a dog biting - certainly not the 1st time - but it can be traced quickly with a chip and action taken to ensure it won't bite again.

Bev's is closer to the target, it's about ID and tracing. So if it's a fast effective ID system shown to date to have no ill consequences or side effects, why not use it to our own advantage to speed up and make more efficient our own systems and still use the modified ear brand system as a backup in the event of technical failures.

If Oz is doing it now then it's probably just a matter of time before we do; or perhaps some of us enjoy tilting at windmills; or are practicing to audition for the role of Don Quixote in the next local production of Man of la Mancha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By your definition, micro chipping is not fool proof. Why change then , as ear branding is idiot proof, if done correctly.

Lion.

No system is foolproof including earbranding. The if you mentioned is why. All technology is also idiot proof if it is done correctly. Problem is it is not always done correctly and that can include earbranding as well. There have been problems with earbrands too when not done correctly or ones that can't be read clearly.

But I am not promoting or opposing microchipping. Just pointing out two things;

1. that the original reasons given for opposing it - that it had side effects and inherent dangers - have proved unfounded.

2. It is here and Oz are changing to it so I am just saying that given that situation it is more than likely to come here too.

I am quite happy to see it introduced along the Oz lines but wouldn't shed that many tears if it wasn't. But I suspect it will come anyway.

My only concern is that we do not throw away the earbranding system entirely unless there is a reliable backup alternative and there is not at present. The Oz greyhound authorities obviously accept that microchipping without a reliable backup is risky. Earbrands provide that backup and if pups have to endure only having one ear done instead of two that cannot be a bad thing either.

People are urged to back up their computer data regularly because of the risk of technology failures but that is not used a reason to going back to using pen and paper as the only means of written communication. It's a reason to have reliable backup systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is the reliability of the microchip.

I have a dog here that was scanned for a chip when he was DNA'd Nothing picked up on the scanner But you can clearly feel a microchip in under the skin on his chest! Its moved a bloody long way from between his shoulderblades!

Also know of a shearer who shears sheep here and then in Wales in the off season having to leave one of his working dogs behind because the scanner could not find the implanted infomation in a dog that had been microchipped.

Clearly there are problems with the microchipping. What sort of caos is it going to cause at the track if a dogs chip cannot be read before the races? and if it doesnt cause caos and they disregard the fact that a chip can not be found and then identify the dog by earbrands doesn't this open up a dishonesty facter?

Just my thoughts

Cheers

Regan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what Phill says, its just bull****. If the NZGRA had done their job, we would of had an exemption along with the farm dogs. And no I'm not debating this issue, rather making a statement and this is my last on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what Phill says, its just bull****. If the NZGRA had done their job, we would of had an exemption along with the farm dogs. And no I'm not debating this issue, rather making a statement and this is my last on the subject.

It's nice to delude ourselves on that but the reality is that the farm dog lobby through groups like Federated farmers wielded much more influence than we could ever hope to do.

Even with Winston Peters on side and the best representation in the world we did not have a major influence as a lobby within either of the two major parties as Fed Farmers have.

They had a substantial influence within the National party, a considerable number of dairy farmers support Labour (nearly all Labour's farming sector MPs have come from provincial town dairy areas) and so they were in a stronger position than we could ever hope to be.

The bill would not have passed without Nat support and the Nats were going to be in trouble if they aleniated a section of their farming lobby their and Labour likewise did not want to antagonise their smaller farming sector support. So a combination of the farming lobby's political influence and the marginal vote for the bill where the majority would disappear if the Nats withdrew support was running heavily in their favour. What clout are you suggesting we could of wielded. Not a lot.

That doesn't excuse the Board for not making an effort firstly to encourage industry debate on the issue and gauge feeling on - they did do some but probably could have done more - and secondly represented the code's position in the corridors of power and to the select committee whatever they found that to be in the code. I agree with that criticism that irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the issue they apear to have failed to effectively present our position to govt at the time.

But personally I think if you believe we as a code could have wielded as much influence as the farming lobby, then you really are either ignorant of, or choosing to ignore the political realities. You will continue to live in cloud cuckoo land with an exaggerated view of the code's capabilities and influence, which may well be a nice but not very practical place to be.

Once labour and the Nats reached agreement on the bill other factors became virtually irrelevant.

But nevertheless the matter has been settled and we should be dealing with the real situation we now face rather than continuing to fight lost causes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is the reliability of the microchip.

I have a dog here that was scanned for a chip when he was DNA'd Nothing picked up on the scanner But you can clearly feel a microchip in under the skin on his chest! Its moved a bloody long way from between his shoulderblades!

Also know of a shearer who shears sheep here and then in Wales in the off season having to leave one of his working dogs behind because the scanner could not find the implanted infomation in a dog that had been microchipped.

Clearly there are problems with the microchipping. What sort of caos is it going to cause at the track if a dogs chip cannot be read before the races? and if it doesnt cause caos and they disregard the fact that a chip can not be found and then identify the dog by earbrands doesn't this open up a dishonesty facter?

Just my thoughts

Cheers

Regan

There are always examples of technology failing, which is why I have said a reliable backup is necessary. The examples of chips failing or moving are few in terms of the millions of aimals microchipped to date and there also have been a few cases of earbrands being almost impossible to read too. Where humans are involved no system is failsafe or idiotproof. However it is unlikely that two totally different systems will fail simultaneously.

If there is potential for dishonesty and corruption with earbrands, if and when microchipping comes in as a greyhound ID, then there must also be the same potential for dishonesty with just earbranding now. Your last comment doesn't make sense unless we start employing dishonest earbrand stewards as a new policy in conjunction with microchip reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil we just do not need it or the associated costs. All clubs will have to get electronic readers, the numbers associated with the micro chip are approximately twenty digits all will have to be written down somewhere when a dog starts in a race, logical extention more people employed which will lead to a higher wage bill and reduced stakes. If the dog is a racing dog and makes an income for its owner it is a working dog therefore exempt end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Through clout and a pinch of corruption, more likely,McDuff.

This law was solely for the identification of dogs.It has failed miserably, when this same authority, exempts a section that doesn't identify those dogs,yet penalises a smaller section, that has longstanding and proven identification.

So,we are back to the failures at Petone,are we not?

Andy

Exactly, The GRA had a chance to put in submission against microchipping of greyhounds but failed in their duty. They had more chance of succeeding than farmers because of the fact that greyhounds already have a compulsory identification policy. If microchipping of greyhounds was the preferred option of the GRA then all breeders should been given the chance of voting for or against that option. What is the point of the GRA employing lawyers and LP reps when they are as useless as a chocolate teapot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil we just do not need it or the associated costs. All clubs will have to get electronic readers, the numbers associated with the micro chip are approximately twenty digits all will have to be written down somewhere when a dog starts in a race, logical extention more people employed which will lead to a higher wage bill and reduced stakes. If the dog is a racing dog and makes an income for its owner it is a working dog therefore exempt end of story.

Mike, I think you have missed the point of micro chipping.........in the words of the original post micro chipping will be used as part of an upgraded technology based race day system in fact it may get rid of staff. When are the people in nz greyhounds going to realise that you are being colonised to the aussie way and no matter how much you kick and scream its going to happen with or without you. There is no other plausible reason micro chipping was not opposed by those in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil we just do not need it or the associated costs. All clubs will have to get electronic readers, the numbers associated with the micro chip are approximately twenty digits all will have to be written down somewhere when a dog starts in a race, logical extention more people employed which will lead to a higher wage bill and reduced stakes. If the dog is a racing dog and makes an income for its owner it is a working dog therefore exempt end of story.

What stock do your dogs work to qualify as working dog?

Your definition of working dog may be convenient for greyhound owners but it unfortunately is not the definition in the Dog Control Act 1996. if they had asked you to draft that clause maybe the problem would have been solved.

However they didn't and the definition in the Dog Control Act 1996 is: any dog kept solely or principally for the purpose of working stock and a mechanical hare is not regarded as stock in the Act. So you are wrong there and trying to make clever redefinitions might be fum but won't get that far. The decison to microchip was offically made in 2003 but had already gained support from LGNZ animal control depts and Internal Affairs. Nanaia Mahuta Minister in charge of the Bill in answers to a question in the house in 2006 said "I can confirm that last night National successfully argued that we can have one law for some and one law for others. It just does not like the implications of that..."

So her answer is clear that the govt had no intention of granting any further exemptions and only gave the working dogs one due to the political clout of the farming lobby which the rest of the canine world does not have.

There is an element of naievete in some of the arguments here as you cannot just declare your greyhound a working dog that rounds up stock and gain exemption. You have to apply to your local council and prove to them it is.

A fairly standard clause in most council applications for working dog status is: "...I have thoroughly read the definition of a working dog (set out on the reverse of this form) and consider that my dog meets this definition. Below is an outline of the nature of the work my dog performs__________(several lines provided

I have attached the following information to support my application:____(few lines provided to describe attached docs).

I understand that supplying false information as part of this application is an offence...."

So it is not as straightforward as you argue and not the end off the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.