Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Column

County should start own animal microchip effort

By C.T. BOWEN
Published February 27, 2005

The luster on the award didn't last long.

This month, Pasco Animal Control earned national recognition for its efforts to educate youngsters on dog bites, controlling the pet population and even career opportunities for animal lovers.

Instead of sending traditional congratulatory telegrams, critics hit Animal Control with vitriolic criticism portraying manager Denise Hilton and the agency as uncaring.

Actually, "uncaring" was mild. Some of the other adjectives used by animal owners and veterinarians were unconscionable, arrogant and insulting.

"What kind of a sick mind would rather kill an animal than to make a few phone calls to reunite them with their family?" Kona Miller of Wesley Chapel wrote to the newspaper.

The criticism is unfair. Animal Control does not relish euthanasia. It has put its emphasis on educating the public on adoptions and the benefits of spaying and neutering. As Times staff writer Bridget Hall Grumet detailed recently, Pasco County took 6,195 cats and 6,049 dogs into the shelter in 1994. Ten years later, the shelter took in 4,899 cats and 5,077 dogs, even though the human population grew 30 percent over the same period.

Annual dog adoptions from the shelter increased from 368 to 1,385, and cat adoptions from 82 to 913. Still, Animal Control is labeled as coldhearted pet killers. The callous criticism is out of bounds.

The dispute is over microchips. About the size of a grain of rice, they can be implanted into animals for owner identification. It is a step beyond licensing and an added safeguard that does not come without cost. Chips are about $5 apiece. Scanners are a few hundred bucks, though some manufacturers will donate them. Staff time to track down the owner is likely the biggest cost.

The county has resisted calls for using microchips for several years because of private sector lawsuits among chip manufacturers; encrypting; faulty registrations; demands for liability protection and the inability of the industry to agree to universal scanning.

Even if the logistical issues can be resolved, microchips are not a savior. On Feb. 9, as part of the county's fact-finding efforts, a veterinarian scanned about 70 animals at the shelter, or about a week's worth of friendly dogs that come through the complex. The vet did not scan feral cats or aggressive dogs.

She found five animals with microchips. One was reunited with its owner after eight telephone calls to the chip manufacturer, a veterinarian, a vet intern and others down the line. Owners for three others could not be located. The fifth came to shelter on his own, looking for his lost pet. He didn't know the animal had the microchip implanted. He retrieved the St. Bernard and let it run free again; the dog was killed by a vehicle four days later.

In other words, microchips are not a substitute for responsible pet ownership.

The philosophical questions are understandable as well. In essence, by starting a microchip program, the county is subsidizing a for-profit industry. The chip manufacturers and the vets who insert the devices are compensated.

The county's early projections calculated the cost at about $15,000. The price is expected to increase, because the county likely would have to develop its own database rather than rely on manufacturers resistant to sharing trade secrets with competitors.

The county, though, should do just that and start its own microchip effort. It would need to get about 19 of the portable scanners and the chips that would be inserted in each animal adopted from the shelter. To offset the cost, it is not unreasonable to increase the $50 adoption fee, which already includes registration and spaying/neutering costs.

This isn't the sentiment of a pet owner. Our family does not have a dog or a cat, although the children lobby frequently.

Mostly, it is a matter of perspective. Five days ago, with only a few minutes of discussion, the County Commission agreed to pay $140,000 for yet another study of whether there is a scrub jay population along the proposed route of the Ridge Road Extension. A study in 1986 found one scrub jay, but no colony. A survey in 2000 found none. A federal agency wants a third investigation as part of the county's permit application to build the road.

If county officials can fork over 140 grand looking for a bird that may not be around, they shouldn't be shy about spending roughly one-tenth that amount to help locate animals they know do exist.

C.T. Bowen can be reached at 727 869-6239 or bowen@sptimes.com

[Last modified February 27, 2005, 00:13:19]