Farmers mobilise to beat chip law

Competitors at sheepdog trials near Taupo bark their opposition. Picture / Murray Taylor

First it was the fart tax, then it was the pylons - now Waikato farmers are vowing to force a large-scale back-down on a plan to microchip dogs.

That was symbolised by a staged "bark-off" near Taupo yesterday, when about 25 canine competitors at the North Island sheepdog trials added their voices to the chorus of opposition against microchipping.

Sheepdog association president Michael Oliver said the huntaways had more intelligence than the MPs trying to bring in the "pointless law".

"I can't see any gains to be made. When a dog attacks, then that dog can be easily identified already, and so can the owners. The advantage of using a microchip is not there. It's a needless bother and expense."

The only time dog attacks happened in rural areas was when a dog-owner stepped in to break up fights between dogs.

"Or when a dog gets hung up in a fence and someone has gone in to untie it and the dog is distressed and reacting badly."

The law was an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to attacks on children in the past five years, Mr Oliver said.

More stringent controls over who owned certain breeds were required.

He said another bark-off was on the cards at the national dog trials in North Otago in June. "They'll all be barking in unison with their behinds pointing to Parliament."

Meanwhile, up the road in Tokoroa, Waikato Federated Farmers held a public meeting to discuss the law, which takes effect on July 1.

At a similar meeting the night before in Te Kuiti, farmers unanimously decided to ignore the law in its present form.

Taumarunui sheep and beef farmer Ian Corney, who attended both meetings, said he had not met any farmers who intended to microchip their dogs from July 1.

The answer to dogs which attacked children was quite simple, he said. In rural areas, farmers simply fired a bullet, and offending animals got no second chances.

"If a stray comes on to my property causing harm and I don't know whose it is, it gets drilled and goes down a tomo [hole], and nobody knows any more about it."

Dog enforcement officers in urban areas needed instantaneous powers to do the same, he said.

Microchipping would not stop attacks, but wiping out violent dogs would.

South Waikato District Council dog enforcement manager Kerry Beckett was also at yesterday's meeting.

Although taking a neutral position on the law, she said it would be an excellent way for authorities to identify dog-owners, and track dogs between districts. Details on microchips would feed in to a national database and would give better powers of seizure and control.

"Microchipping will assist us in tracking lost and stolen dogs, especially pitbull breeds. One pitbull can look like 10 other pitbulls."

She conceded that irresponsible dog owners who had never bothered to register their animals were unlikely to obey the law.

It would be more complex and possibly more expensive to force microchipping on "menacing and dangerous dogs" only, but she said that was the preferable option.

That was the solution proposed by the Green Party, said spokesman Mark Servian, who attended the meeting.

Legal definitions of "menacing" and "dangerous" exist in current legislation.

Deer farmer Neil Stewart drew an analogy with the gun laws. All owners needed to be licensed, but the guns did not have to be registered unless they were pistols. The same commonsense approach should be adopted with dog control laws.


The law

* From July 1, all dogs registered for the first time must be microchipped, plus all dogs classified as dangerous or menacing since December 1, 2003.
* All unregistered dogs which were impounded and released will need microchipping, along with all registered dogs impounded and released for a second time.
* The move was prompted by a series of dog attacks, including the vicious mauling of 7-year-old Carolina Anderson.