A dog enforcement officer says the watered-down version of the proposed new dog microchipping law is a farce.
The amendment will exempt "working" and "companion" dogs from being compulsorily microchipped from July 1.
It does not affect dogs that are already registered but will apply to puppies registered after that
date and to dangerous or menacing dogs.
Farmers are celebrating the exemption, as microchipping was cited as an unnecessary cost of compliance.
However, their joy could be short-lived if councils decide to offset the increased costs of dog control administration by raising registration fees for "working dogs".
The South Waikato District Council dog enforcement manager, Kerry Beckett, said the legislation in its watered-down form was ludicrous.
Ms Beckett, who is also president of the Midlands Animal Control Institute, did not know what a "companion dog" was, despite having worked as an enforcement officer for 12 years.
The four Green Party MPs had done enforcement officers across the country a huge disservice, she said.
"They should have turfed it out if they were going to do this.
"It [microchipping] needs to be all or nothing. Logistically this is going to give us a huge nightmare."
The definition of working dogs was open to interpretation and debate.
Pig or possum hunters who sometimes owned fearsome dogs could consider themselves working in "pest control", Ms Beckett said.
"They haven't consulted with the people who actually work in the field. It's now not black and white.
"Surely they can see the standard wording for working dog is too open. People are going to throw this back in our face and say, 'No, I fit into this [exemption]'."
It was inevitable that territorial authorities would differ on how they enforced and interpreted the law, Ms Beckett said.
The more complex law would result in increased costs of compliance, meaning that costs would be passed on to either ratepayers or those who were being forced to microchip their dogs.
Internal Affairs spokesman Colin Feslier said it would be interesting to see how territorial authorities would cover the costs of increased compliance of the new law.
