HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08131996 - D2 a
i
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Gayle Bishop, Supervisor District III
DATE: August 13, 1996
SUBJECT: Microchipping Identification Program by Animal Services Department
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
Recommended Action:
AUTHORIZE the Animal Services Department to implement a microchip identity program using a universal
scanning device.
CONSIDER future planning for adoption of microchip identification program through an alternative of issues
and actions:
A. Mandatory microchipping of all Contra Costa licensed dogs and cats;
B. Program of optional microchipping that provides financial incentives to pet owners, e.g. one time licensing,
lower license fees for microchipped pets;
AUTHORIZE the previously designated representatives to the Spay Neuter Task Force to act as a working
group to investigate and develop issues relating to microchipping and report back to the Board of Supervisors
with recommendations.
CONSIDER a Request for Proposal to vendors of microchipping.
REFER microchipping issues to the Internal Operations Committee.
Fiscal Impact:
None. Potential costs associated with increased staff time in initiating program of scanning. Scanners are
provided by microchip manufacturers. Could be cost savings through rapid return of lost animals to owners.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: 44
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON August 13 , 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED. OTHER X
Please see Addendum (attached) for a list of speakers and Board action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
AYES: I , III and IV NOES: II and V
ABSENT: N n n p ABSTAIN: N n n p ATTESTED August 11 , 1 9 9 6
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Attachments
CC: Board of Supervisors
Ecology Information, Inc. (via District III )
Spay and Neuter Task Force (via District III )
Animal, Services Department
r
_Background:
Scanning, as a means of reuniting lost or stolen animals with their owners, has been utilized successfully by a
'number of animal welfare organizations across the country for more than seven years. Microchipping has been
utilized in California in both Ventura and San Diego countries, which require mandatory chipping of all animals
adopted out of their shelters
The Peninsula Humane Society in San Mateo microchips all dogs, cats and rabbits prior to adoption. The cities
of Fremont, San Mateo, San Jose and Gilroy scan while requiring all outside cats to be identified by implanted
chips.
A May 1996 report issued by the city of Novato states that 14,900 chips were implanted in animals in the seven
years since the city has been operating the program. Novato has returned 727 microchipped animals to their
owners in that time, with the number growing each year.
Pet owners will only be encouraged to have microchips implanted as a permanent means of identification in
their animals if they are assured that the Animal Services Department is scanning each animal in its custody for
the identifying chip.
Scanning for microchips is the first step in providing the public with a successful means of returning pets to
their rightful owners and avoiding unnecessary euthanization of cherished animals.
a-
D.2
ADDENDUM
Item D.2
August 13, 1996
SUBJECT: Microchip Identification Program by Animal Services Department
The following persons addressed the Board on this matter:
Henry L. Clarke, Local 1, Martinez;
Rose Lernberg, Contra Costa Humane Society, 831 Balra_ Drive, E1
Cerrito;
Bob Hillman, Home Again, 6516 Misty Creek, Citrus Heights;
Loray Hawkins, Home Again, 350 Conway Drive, Danville;
Richard Meyer, Info Identification Systems, 1158 E. MacArthur,
Sonoma; and
Brian Pekari, Home Again, 1353 Chaplin Court, Tracy.
All . persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board discussed the
issues.
Supervisors Torlakson and Smith indicated that they could not support this
item due to financial considerations.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the issue of a proposed microchip
program for the Animal Services Department is REFERRED to the Spay and
Neuter Task Force with instructions to the Task Force to meet with all parties
to discuss concerns and issues presented;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Board REQUESTS a report from the Spay
and Neuter Task Force on this issue in six weeks.
cc: Board of Supervisors
Ecology Information, Inc. (via District III)
Spay and Neuter Task Force (via District III)
Animal Services Department
Peninsula Humane Society
Advocating quality and compassion for all life
July 22, 1996
Supervisor Gayle Bishop
18 Crow Canyon Court, Suite 120
Son Ramone, CA 94583
Dear Supervisor Bishop,
Marcy Bachmann asked if I would forward some information on the Peninsula Humane
Society's microchipping procedures and history,
The Peninsula Humane Society began implanting microchips in September 1992 using
chips manufactured by Trovan. Since that time, we have implanted approximately-
14,000 animals. Every dog, cat and rabbit adopted from PHS receives a chip. In
addition, microchips are available through our bimonthly and neighborhood vaccination
clinics, through our low-cost spay and neuter clinic, on a drop-in basis at the shelter, and
at many of our special events.
Our animal receiving staff scans each dog, cat and rabbit we receive, whether the
animal is a stray or has been surrendered to us by his or her owner. The procedure is part
of our regular receiving practice and takes just a few minutes, In addition, all animals
scheduled to be euthanized are scanned again to make sure we didn't miss a chip on
the initial scan. Our return to owner rate has improved steadily each year. Although we
have also been more aggressive with licensing and other identifications programs, we
attribute this increase in large part to the fact that an increasing number of San Mateo
County animals are now implanted with this permanent form of identification.
Although we will welcome the universal scanner when it is available, the current system
hasn't seemed to pose a problem for our shelter staff. For the first two years we simply did
an additional scan with the scanners that read chips from the neighboring county. We
now us a "quasi-universal" scanner that identifies the existence of a non-Trovan chip, at
which time we can then scan with an alternative scanner to get the number. Regardless,
it is our feeling that since microchips are enabling us to return animals to their original
owners, the practice of scanning incoming animals is well worth the time it takes.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Lesley Valker
Director of Community Outreach
Elaine Wolfe
P.O. Box 547
Diablo, CA 94528
' r
July 12, 1995
Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Contra Costa County
District 3
18 Crow Canyon Court
San Ramon, CA 94583
Re: Microchip technology for pet identification
Dear Gayle:
I recently talked to my vet about having my dog "chipped" but learned that Contra Costa
County does not have a scanner to take advantage of this state-of-the-art technology.
Apparently someone in a position of power in the county refuses to provide the service - for
whatever reasons. It doesn't appear that it's an issue of spending the money because my vet
claims the chip manufacturer provides scanners free-of-charge to appropriate agencies. She
also indicated that local vets could provide low-cost clinics to "chip" the pets. Animal
Services could do the same, and it seems to me that the county would actually realize monetary
benefits when fewer resources - people and time - were needed to process lost pets.
While my interest was at first purely selfish in wanting to protect my pet, I came to realize
there are more far-reaching effects. One situation that arose from the Oakland fire storm was
the problem of the many pets that were separated from their owners. Contra Costa could
avoid a similar headache if the majority of pets picked up during a disaster could be easily
identified with this technology.
Please see what you can do to influence Animal Services to provide pet microchipping for the.
citizens of Contra Costa. Thanks very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
4Laine Wolfe
T
TSO
171 Bel Marin Keys Boulevard
Novato, CA 94949
(415) 883-4621
W Richard Hill
Asst. City Administrator
City of Novato
900 Sherman
Novato, CA 94947
Dear Rich,
Enclosed is the six month report on the Novato cat licensing ordinance. The initial
analysis is quite positive. Community reaction has been positive, enforcement has
low-key and directt solving problems. Incoming cats from Novato are do 15.1%
while up in JPA 5.9/o and there is net revenue. A check is enclosed.
If you have any questions, please let it be known. We look forward to the year-end
analysis and hope for a continued committment by the City of Novato to this life-saving,
cost effective program.
cerely,
D1 e Allevato
Exectftive Director
nA
IMF--
NOVATO CAT LICENSING
6 Month Report
May 16, 1996
Summary
The Novato Cat Ordinance took effect November 9, 1995- After six months, 872 cats
have been licensed; 857 with microchips, 15 with tags. Seven multi-Cat household licenses
were issued for approximately 75 cats. Forty-four percent of the licensed cats were
already microchipped prior to licensing; approximately 475 cats were microchipped in
conjunction with cat licensing.
Cat Population Data
We received a total of 193 stray cats from Novato from November 1994 through April
1995; 252 live and 42 DOA's. During the same period in 1995-96 we received 164 cats;
135live and 29DOA's. This represents a 15.1% decrease in total number of incoming
stray cats from Novato; a 10.6% decrease in five cats and a 31.0% decrease in DOA's.
This compares to an overall 5.9% increase of incoming stray cats countywide, both five
and DOA. If Novato's numbers are removed from the countywide figures the difference is
even greater: a 16.7% increase in total incoming stray cats from the non-cat licensing
areas of the county.
Enforcement Data
Field Services handled I I cat-related complaints from November 1995 through April
1996. Field Services issued 23 fix-it citations for failure to license cats and nine for failure
to sterilize. Seven cats have been spayed and neutered in response to the handling of
complaints, and two sterilization are pending. Only two citations were forwarded to the
courts for further action.
Financial Data
Revenue
A total of$3,950.25 was collected for 872 licenses, as follows:
Microchip and registration (354 @$7)............................$2,480.00
Registration only (already chipped) (382 @ $2)............... 764.00
License tags (15 @ $15)..................................* **'*******.***' 225,00
Senior/disabled discount (45 @ $5.25)............................. 236.25
Multi-cat household licenses (7 @ $35 for 75 cats).........._145.00
$3,950.25
Expenses
$5.95 per microchip (475 X$5.95)..................................$2,826.25
Staff time (38.2 hours)..................................................... 485.58
$3,311,83
Revenue forwarded to City of Novato.........................................$ 638.42
COriCIUSIOA
' Six months is a relatively short period of time from which to draw conclusions about the
impact of the ordinance. The decrease in incoming stray cats from Novato may be an
anomaly due to the loss of Hamilton housing. The premise that a cat licensing and
sterilization ordinance would raise public awareness about a cat owner responsibility may
be further validated by future results. Enforcement efforts were low-key and dedicated
staff time was held to a minimum. Net revenues in Year Two are anticipated to be higher,
as the 382 already-chipped cats that paid the"introductory" two dollar fee will be charged
the full seven dollars, while the $5.95 microchip expense for the 475 cats that were
chipped will be eliminated, for a potential income of$4,736.25.
We look forward to the year end analysis and hope for a continued commitment by the
City of Novato to this life-saving and cost effective program.
Pat Miller
5/16/96
MEMO
Marin Humane Society
MICROCHIP REPORT
May 1.2, 1996
TO: All Staff
FROM: Pat Miller
RE: Microchipping
We have`completed our seventh full year of microchipping with a record 203
recoveries for the year (congratulations and 2 movie tickets to Susan Harper
for the 200th recovery!). In seven years we have implanted more than
14,900 chips and recovered 737 animals. During our first chipping year,
1989-90, we recovered only 19 for the entire year -- we've come a long way!
Approximately 500 of this year's chips were implanted as part of the Novato
cat licensing program. A total of 872 cats were licensed in the first six
months of that program; 44% of the cats were already microchipped prior to
licensing.
Winners of the staff microchip incentive program are:
Field Services -- Malia Gianelli, 21 recoveries
Customer Care -- Carol Skaggs, 9 recoveries
Animal Care -- Paula Mullen, 11 recoveries
Each winner receives 10 gallons of gas -- a prize that is getting more valuable
by the minute!
Although we are concluding our scanning incentive program, we are still
keeping track of recoveries for reporting purposes. Please continue to put
copies of all recovery paperwork in my mailbox. We will continue to
announce microchip milestones such as reaching 300 recoveries in one year
and scanning our 1000th recovery -- they could both happen this year!!!
t.
y6�.
MICROCHIP STATS TO DATE
(Approximate)
year #implanted #recovered dogs cats rabbits
5/1/89-4/30/90 1500 19 17 2 0
5/1/90-4/30-91 1800 79 47 32 0
5/1/914/30/92 2000 92 63 29 0
5/1/92-4/30/93 2000 114 86 28 0
5/1/93-4/30/94 2200 121 85 36 0
5/1/94-4/30/95 2400 128 86 42 0
5/1/95-4/30/96 3000 203 133 69 1
TOTALS 14,900 737 500 236 1
AUG 05 '96 17:06 P.4/10
i
r
n ' 1.,�P
( i,:naitic:ati.n-,-(«<�,itri,iiiut•Etc<trlc•;r-
May 31, 1996
Rick Coilord, SAWA Board Member f
Chair, SAWA Electronic Identification Committee lk
Executive Director,The Vancouver Humane Society and SPCA
2323 W.26th St. Extension
Vancouver, WA 98660
Dear Mr. Collord.
Please find attached the answers to questions transmitted by your letter of April 15, 1996.
I apologize for the delay in responding. As you know, we are working diligently on the
universal walk-by and hand-held readers. I felt it was important to include preliminary
results for your information.
If there are any questions,please call me at I-800-INFQPET or page me at 1-800-704-
1738.
Sincerely,
4��4�
Wayne C ulber"th
Vice Chairman TraceNET Technologies,Inc. (InfoPE'1)
WW C!'egw
._r
' AUG 05 '96 17:05 P.2/10
ASociety of Animal,
Welfare Admin "
stra.for
guesti�ons to InfoPET, AVID and HomeAgain
The follo%ing is a list of questions raised by the SAWA Committee on Electronic
Identification. All three compardes have been sent the same list along with a ,request
for their written response to any or all of the questions, within twenty-one days (by 1
May b, 1996). Please refer your answers to the number and letter for each question listed
below. Any responses will be shared with the SAWA.membership. This list cw-t help
agencies still waiting to determine their role and responsibilities with mia:ochippi.ng and
scanning animals.
f
1. Scanners
a. When is the universal scanner going to be made available to all shelters? :.
b. Will the different scanners identify and read all microchips,regardless of the microchip
manufacturer? _
C. Can shelters have this guarantee in writ in from all the companies?
d. How.often will the scanners be upgraded?
C. Will the scanners currently being used be guaranteed to picas up all the'old and new chips
being used?
f. How close does the scanner need to be to the animal (especially for a walk-by or walk-through-
scanner)?
alk-throughscanner)?
9- Are there new versions or prototypes of scanner devices planned?
h. How soon until they will be out on the market and will they be available to shelters free of
charge?
IM
2. Failure Mate
a. Will the scanners read the chip with one single pass,99% of the time, at a;distance of at least
two inches?
b. What is the reported rate of chips migrating from the implant site?
C. What percentage of scanners placed have been returned for repair?
d. What are the causes of failure?
e. What does your data show regarding incidence of microchip failure?
f. What are the causes of failure?
g. Can shelters,through implant,animal handling!or scanning procedures,.affect the reliability
of a microchip?
h. Will your company share the information on failure or migration of chips with anirnal care
and control agencies?
3. Databasehregistry
a. Is the datapase available 24 hours a day, 7 days a.week?
b. is there a 1-800 number'and who operates it?
C. What backup and security measures are taken?
d. What are the protections placed on this database to prevent it froin being used for any other
functions,services, mailings, etc.?
e. Are there scripts available to learnt what the operators tell the public?
f. brow long is the database guaranteed to be maintained and kept?
g. What steps are taken to regularly update the mailing(registry list? :2
AUG 05 '96 17:05 P.4/10'
Society of Animal
Welfare Administrators
Questions, page 2
h. Will those on the registry receive any mailings and if so,what kind-/
i. Can the individual agencies maintain their own database of the animals they have implanted?
j. What steps must an agency go through to notify the database when a cNpped animal has
been found?
k. What measures will be taken to ensure the registration is sent in after the microchip is
implanted?
1. What steps must an agency go through to acquire owner information after contacting the
database provider?
M. What response time(s)will be guaranteed-that is the time from contact until the requesting
agency has a name and contact number/address with which to contact the last registered
owner?
n. Will the database be available on-line or by voice only?
4. Costs
a. Will the price of the scanner(s) and subsequent upgrades or replacements of the scanner(s) be
free of charge so that it is reasonable to legislatively require all licensed shelters in a state to
scan each animal entering the facility for a transponder?
b. M.-at guarantees,if any,can the company give that the prices for the microchips will be kept
as low as possible?
C. Will there be any incentives for shelters to scan,market and/or implant chips?
d. How can an agency have a microchip program that brings in additional revenue to help the
anintals?
e. What are all the.costs involved?
S. Ethical Marketing Practices
a. What input will shelters have with future marketing campaigns?
b. Could space or advertising funds be made available to promote licensing or other,aspects to
beirtg.a responsible pet owner?
C, Will the ads continue to imply that if an animal doesn't have a microchip that it will be
euthanized in shelters?
d- Can agencies be notified prior to the start of any major marketing campaigns in the area?
el What are the chances of one veterinary Clinic offering all three chips?
f. Why would one clinic just sell only one type of chip?
6. Communication
a. How can we work with the companies to assure than.every state has trained individuals,
including but not limited to licensed veterinarians, perform the actual implant procedures
using correct procedures every time?
b- What is being done for the smaller shelters to implant if they do not have veterinary services
in ti,:eir facility?
C- How often and in what fashion will the companies c=ommunicate with each shelter!
d. The AVMA is concerned about the lack of common standards and is suggesting "a -Intral
database that meets the needs of the animal-owning public and has acceptance ofaij
stakeholders." What is your company's response to this statement?
e. WhAt is the relationship between your Company and the AVMA?
f. Are chert other uses being developed for the microchip once it is in ar:-anirnal? if so, wlia( are
the oiher applicatioms or functions that microchip will serve?
AUG 05 '96 17:87 P.5i10
_ 1. Scanners
a, The timing on universal reader availability That will mc!�,IThesshelter
is uncertain. There are currentlytwo efforts directed toward the
universal reader.
1) There is a cooperative effort between InfoPET, AVID, and Trovan,to
develop both a walk-by and a hand-held version. This developm'
prii should
be finished by the first part of June. It is planned that prototypes be placed
in shelter"Beta"sites for final verification of performance, PrPouctican
units should be available by mid•to4ate summer depending on,any
problems encountered in the testing. This,effort is being conducted under a
written agreement between the three parties signed on February 1.6, 1996.
2) Destron/Schering have developed an enhanced version of their.Pocket
Reader which reads the Destron,AVID, and Trovan microchips.! An
evaluation of this reader several weeks ago demonstrated perforzuance
which falls far short of shelter requirements as described below.;All offers
to collaborate on improving their reader performance have so far not been
accepted. Destron commented that they have several thousand:qf these
readers produced and ready to put in the market. "Performancql is what it is
and if the shelter personnel try hard enough(and long enough).theyshould
be able to find the microchips."
b. Development efforts by the Trovan/AVID/InfoPET team are directed at reading,
the microchips currently being implanted in the U.S,pet market; i.e.,:Destron,
AVID, and Trovan(WoPET). Destron claims to read three additionW
protocols;however,as stated before,the basic performance of their t- adcr does
not qualify for shelter use.
c. InfoPET and Trovan will guarantee the performance of their readers and will not
place into shelters readers that do not meet minimum shelter perfotz Ce
requirements.
d. All three companies have committed to backward compatibility of any new
improvements in their transponders. Therefore, upgrading the readers is not 1
anticipated: Readers provided by InfoPET will:be fully maintained in full
performance operations capability at all times through maintenance,:r�pair,and
replacement if necessary.
e: As stated above, the objective is to read the microchips currently being
implanted by Destron/Schering, AVID,and IrnfoPET. It would be ichpossible to
guarantee the readers today could anticipate and read future chips wl' eh°might
be introduced.
f. The current InfoPET hand-held reader has a wide read area when reading.at a
distance of four inches and reads well at five inches. The walk-by reader has
full body coverage at,l2 inches and in low electrical noise environments reads
well at 16 inches. The other readers on the market which are all.handTheld, read
at between two and three inches with ama.11 area coverage.
�R
AUG 05 '96 17:07 - P.6/10
V •I
AIM user requirements (attached) require a hand-held reader to read over an area
of one foot square(1 a4 square inches) at a distance of four inches while the
relative motion (scanning) between transponder and reader is one foot per
second. The current InfoPET hand-held reader meets these requirements. The
other readers on the market fall far short of these requirements.
Any universal reader should either meet the AIM user requirements or whatever
the individual readers customized for use with the particular transponder
performs at, A universal reader cannot be expected to perform better than the
individual systems.
1nfoPET's current development status.shows a performance level (hand-held)
equal to or better than each individual system performance.
TROVAN: Greater than 5", over AIM user requirements read area
DESTRON& AVID: 2"-3"with good read area.
Walk-by reader in a low electrical noise environment:
Trovan: 16"-18"
Destron& AVID: 6"-9"
The electrical noise environment varies with different shelters and locations
within shelters. Definite improvement is required with Destron and AVID read
performance in noisy conditions.
Evaluation of the Destron Pocket-EX Reader shows Maximum read distances for
Trovan to be 2",Destron 2 1/2",and AVID 3". Read areas are very small and
time to read is long.
g. See a. and b. above.
h. See a,and b. above. Since 1988,readers have always been free of charge to
shelters. It is planned that this policy will continue in the future.
2. Failure Rate
a, The InfoPET readers on the market easily meet this requirement and will
continue to meet it on the universal reader. The TnfoPET universal reader under
development should also,meet this requirement for the other two microchips.
"Che current Destron universal reader does not meet this requirement by a.wide
margin.
b. About one in every 10,000 implants. The small number that du move are easily
detected with our walk-by or hand-held reader with their long read distances and
broad read areas.
c. About a )-3%return rate, many of which are.Cor physical damage.
2
AUG 05 '96 17:08 P.7i10
d. Physical damage, battery not properly charged or needs replacement, a small
number of electronic part failures.
e. After proper implantation there have been no reported transponder failures in the
past three years.
f. No failures experienced with Trovan microchips. Prior to 1991 when lnfOPET
was distributing Destron transponders, the raost prevalent failure was due,to
leafage of body fluids through the glass end seals.
g. Yes. Implanting techniques are very important. Depending on performance:of
the individual scanner, great care must be exercised not to "miss" a microchip.
Handling, except as related to scanning, has little relationship to microchip
reliability.
h. Yes,
3. Dat#base(registry
a. Yes,with live"people"support.
b. Yes. Registry personnel during normal working hours. After hours and on
weekends calls are directed to registry personnel who have remote electronic
:access to the registry for instant recovery service.
c. Daily back up of all data with secure off-site and on-site storage.
d. Secure access by authorized employees and UQ access by non-employees. The
information on the database is not sold,exchanged, or given away. The data is
used for legitimate recovery and other owner services only.
e. Yes.
E A minimum of 20 years after the last entry is made.
g. The registry is updated d&4 with new registrations and changes to existing
registrations. Confirmation letters are mailed on,all updates and new entries to
ensure accuracy of the data. There is no charge to update data.
h. Pet owners receive confirmation notice of original registration data and of any
.changed data that is made later,such as change of address, alternate contacts,
medical data, etc. The new registrant also receives a unique numbered external
tag to aid in immediate recovery without necessarily requiring impoundment of
the pet into a shelter. The registry database information is only released for
individual recoveries to authorized shelter personnel.
Maintenance of local databases by individual agencies is encouraged as an
additional back-up and as a primary recovery aid while owner information is
being transmitted to and processed by InfoPET.
j. Call 1-800-INFOPET 24 hours per day, seven days a week. infoPET will do a
"-call back"to validate the legitimacy of the call,provide the owner information
t a the agency, and if necessary provide assistance in locating the owner.
k. At the time of implant, the pet owner is provided with a registration brochure;
which includes a description of the National Pet Registry, benefits, a registration
form, and in for completing and returning the registration form. The
shelter staff sends the initial data to InfoPET by mail or electronically. InfoPET
automatically mails a reminder notice to the pet owner ten days after the
microchip implant date. ,A second notice is sent to the pet owner•25 days after
3 `
AUG 05 196 17:09 P.8/10
the first notice. Infol,ET maintains a record of all microchips sent to shelters
and veterinarians so the microchips can be traced at all times.
t. The agency will be given the owner information at the time of the return
validating call from IdoPET to the agency. If the registration.has been received
and entered into the registry,the owner information will be supplied in less that
30 minutes and typically within 5-I0 minutes. InfoPET encourages the use of
Electronic Data Transfer(EDT) of the temporary registration at time of implant.
Several major shelters are using this method. The result is lessening of the
possibility that a pet i5 picked up prior to the information being received at
InfoPET, Agencies often find that EDT a6o saves'staff administration,time.
in, .See 1. above.
n. Online access to the database is do-able,but raises concerns over privacy of the
data and security of the database from overt or inadvertant contamination or
destruction. With a person assisting the shelter, issues like the.registration not
yet being received sari be immediately addressed and alternative owner location ,
paeans implemented. Online availability of the registry will be addressed on a
case;-by-ease basis.
4. - Costs
a. Yes.
b, InfaPET has several agreements in place which approach the pricing issue in
several ways;
1) "Most favored"pricing; i.e., shelters would be assured of the lowest price
available to any customer under similar terms and conditions.
2) Multi-year buying agreements to take advantage of quantity discounts.
3) Guaranteed not to exceed pricing over an agreed upon number of years.
4) Competitive pressures.
5) 1nfoPET has never increased its price to shelters in almost nine.years in
business,
c. . The largest incentive, of course, is the ability to return more pets to their owner
and the ability to monitor and promote responsible pet ownership. In addition,
financial benefits to the shelters increase dramatically with the number of
miorochipped pets in the community:
1) decreased time to find owners and more.owners located.
2) less cost in boarding and caring for animals picked up.
3) more costs recovered through redeemed pets.
4) more fines received from citations issued to irresponsible pet owners.
5) InfoPET has a partnership program whereby the shelters receive increasing;
financial returns based on participation levels by the pet owners.
d. See c. above. InfoPET works with each individual shelter agency to structure a
program best fitting their needs. InfoPET offers assistance where desired in
structuring appropriate vdinances and procedures to enhance/enable a
microchipping program in the community.
4
AUG 05 '96 17:10 _ P.9/10
a 7
e. The cost to the shelter of the InfoPET microchip packaged in,individual ;
sterilized single-use needles is $5.95. infoPET has incentive programs provided
to shelters which significantly reduces this price through microchip and/or
monetary rebates. Scanning equipment is provided and maintained at no cost to
the shelter.
5_ Ethical Marketing Practices
a. InfoPET does not market its microchips in areas where there is no local scanning;
coverage. In those areas where the shelters are a part of the InfoPET scanning
and recovery network, InfoPET works closely with the shelters on marketing
and promotional campaigns. In many cases these are joint campaigns with the
shelters.
b. "Yes.
c. InfoPET has never implied that if an animal doesn't have a microchip that it will
be euthartized in shelters. There are no plans to do this.
d. Absolutely.
e. That is their choice. Inf6PET does not insist that a clinic commit to exclusive
ase of the InfoPET microchip.
f. Veterinary clinics in general take professional pride in offering their clients the
b=products and services. InfoPET encourages the veterinarian to thoroughly
evaluate the three microchip systems and select the one that will best serve their
clients, all factors considered. Once this choice is made, why offer a lesser
product?
6. Communication
a. InfoPET has training aids for shelters to ensure the staff are trained initially and
on a recurring basis. InfoPET personnel are; available to personally assist in
training; as necessary- It is advisable for the shelter to develop an association
with local veterinarians so that immediate assistance is available it required. l
InfoPET will assist in preparing enabling ordinances/statutes if required.
b. In most states the Veterinary Practices Act allows the microchip implant
procedures to be done by individuals "under the supervision"of a veterinarian. 1
In most cases, the owner of the animal is allowed to do the procedure. ,At the
time of adoption,the shelter owns the animal. In some cases the actual t
implanting is done by local veterinarians either at the shelter or at their clinic for
free or for a nominal charge. Shelters quite often handle required spay/neuter in
a similar fashion.
c. The same 800 number used for recoveries is also used as a"hot" line for
participating shelters 24 hours a day for questions, equipment support, t
restocking microchips, etc. Periodic visits are scheduled with the agencies so `
that direct interface is provided between the staff and the company.
d. InfoPET has had numerous discussions with the AVMA staff andBoard
members addressing this issue. We are quite open to continuing;these
discussions.
AUG 05 '96 17:10 F5.10/10
e. There are no formal contracts or agreements with the AVMA,but we feel that
cooperation and dialog with the AVMA to maintain ethical and performance
standards that are in concert with the veterinary profession is very important.
f InfoPET's primary thrust is the positive unique identification of the pet with a
microchip that can be reliably read at the shelter and is priced such that it will be
widely accepted by pet owners. Combining other functions such as temperature
measuring, read/write capability, etc., are lhtll within the state of the art. As
InfoPET considers these other uses, care is taken not to lose sight of the primary
objectives as stated above.
6
Contra. Costa Hu- -ma-ne Societ ,
P.O. Box 1355 ❖ L 54.9 ❖ (510) 284-8586
-- -.....- ��C
AUG 1 31Qa�
ERK 84,�RD°�5 A c�lSORS August 13, 1996 .
To: The Contra Costa County Board&Supervisors
Statement on
"Microchipping Identification Program by Animal Services Department"
My name is Rose Lemberg. I-am_legislative chair for the Contra Costa Humane Society
andsecretary of the Board of Directors.
We commend Supervisor Bishop and thank her for her concern for the welfare of the
animals in this county. We know that this proposal for a microchip identification program
is a result of this concern.
However, we ask that the Board table this proposal until problems that exist,
including the need for a universal scanner, are solved and the new equipment has
been tested in field studies.
I would like to present my credentials. I am a volunteer advocate for animals who:
• served as District 1 appointee to the Contra Costa County Animal Services Advisory
Committee for its entire existence, from 1981 until 1986. This was a policy
committee, charged with evaluating the new (at that time) animal control ordinance.
• has read, analyzed, tracked, and occasionally helped to write countless pieces of
animal-related legislation in the past twenty years and has been a frequent
participant in the legislative process in Sacramento. This has included animal
control issues.
• provides updates on state legislation to a number of organizations and individuals,
including the California Animal Control Directors Association, the State Humane
Association of California, and columnist.Gary Bogue of the.Contra Costa Times.
As a result of these activities, I have many contacts in animal control and animal
protection agencies throughout the state.-I have recently used-some-of these to obtain
evaluations of the=current state-of-microchip technology by those in the field. This folder
which-I hold in my hand has in it information I have collected.
Almost everyone I have called, including those who are currently scanning, agrees that
microchipping is a very complex issue and that there are a number of problems. My
previous letter to you and its attachments summarized most of these problems. Very
briefly, major problems include the need for:
• A reliable, easily-used field-tested universal scanner which does not place personnel
at risk.
Written assurance indemnifying shelters from involvement in legal disputes among
manufacturers. Such a dispute is now in the courts.
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 2
From Contra Costa Humane Society August 13, 1996
• Reliable microchips. which do not migrate. Anti-migratory.substances need long-
term tests before.they can be deemed completely safe for pets.
• Guaranteed database maintenance, easily accessed, for the life of the animal.
e Less "smoke and mirrors" on the part of industry representatives.
• Public awareness that microchipping is not the ultimate answer. It should be
considered a backup system. Pets still need visible ID's and owners still need to
actively search for their pets. We are very concerned about owners having a false
sense of security.
I am attaching a selected short list of references who are the most knowledgeable, as well
as a letter which Gary Tiscornia, Executive Director of the Michigan Humane Society,
sent to a microchip distributor last week. Mr. Tiscomia is on the nationwide Society of
Animal Welfare Administrators Electronic Identification Systems Committee. The
Michigan Humane Society handles about 53,000 animals per year and is one of two
shelters in which the American Humane Association proposes to conduct a field study of
all three types of microchips.
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Rose Lemberg
831 Balra Drive
El Cerrito, CA 94530
(510) 527-2194
Please send any correspondence to.
my home address for the sake of
expediency.
attachments
"
. p2
Selected Resources for Information on Microchipping Identification Systems
Carl Friedman, San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control (415) 554-9411
Nancy McKenney, Humane Society & SPCA of Seattle/King County, WA (206) 649-7550
Member, Society of Animal Welfare Administrators
Electronic Identification Systems Committee
Patty Mercer, Houston SPCA (713) 869-9176
Dan Morrison, Southeast Area Animal Control Agency, Downey, CA (310) 803-1629
Legislative Chairman, California Animal Control Directors' Association
Member, Society of Animal Welfare Administrators
Electronic Identification Systems Committee
Bob Rohde, Denver Dumb Friends League (303) 696-4941
President, Society of Animal Welfare Administrators
Gary Tiscornia, Michigan Humane Society (810) 852-7420
Member, Society of Animal Welfare Administrators
Electronic Identification Systems Committee
•`
]Hu
SO CI E`7C'�Y
Rochester Hills Detroit Westland
August 7, 1996
Ray Worley, D.V.M.
AVID Regional Sales Director
P.O. Box 516
Bridgman, MI 49106
Dear Ray,
-It was-good-talking to you last week. During the course of-our-
conversation,
f our-
conversation, you inquired as to the Michigan Humane Society's position
regarding utilization of microchip teclulology to reunite lost companion
animals with their owners. The following is'a brief overview of our position,
its rationale and the threshold.requirements for our participation as an agency`
which scans for and implants microchips.
We will wholeheartedly embrace the use of this technology for
identifying and returning companion animals to homes-once an operationally
effective universal scanner (one which identifies the code on all companion
animal microchips on the market) is genuinely available(physically and
economically) to all shelters and the failure rate of the encapsulated microchip.
is demonstrated to be acceptable.
Marketing schemes must be structured to assure that all stray/incoming
animals in a market are scanned or the promise of a quick return of a lost pet
will be illusory at best and fraudulent at worst. Assuring that all shelters have.
the tools (sca>ulers) to make marketing efforts legitimate must be a high
priority. Whether this means scanners are provided to shelters at low cost,
for free or that shelters will be provided with sca>,uiers and be paid to.scan,
remains for the market to sort out. -
A tlire sliold requirement for our participation will be our testing of
production universal scanners (not prototypes),on all commercially-Available
companion animal microchips in our high volume (53;000 animals per year)
shelter environment. If we find that a scaiuier works acceptably in our
3600 Auburn Road Rochester Hills, MI 48309 (810) 852-7420 Fax: (810) 852-0965
y
Ray Worley, D.V.M:
August 7, 1996
Page 2
shelters by detecting all microchips tested witllout difficulty or tortured
manipulation and we rind that a brand of microchip does not fail in the
animal's body over a short period of time, we will be ready to begin
{ negotiations with the vendor or vendors of the successful microchip
companion animal identification system or systems.
Negotiations will, of course, have to address many of the concerns
noted;in the Society of Animal Welfare Administrators (SAWA) survey to
which AVID has responded, but the preceding paragraphs represent our core
concerns.
Assuming we can establish a satisfactory relationship with a-vendor or
vendors, we will implant microchips in all adopted animals (12,000 per year)
and will actively market the product as a valuable pet protection tool,in our
three veterinary hospitals (45,000 client visits per year) and through off site
clinics.
We believe that a system which combines effective.and easily available
scanners with reliable microchips priced competitively so that many ,
consumers can afford to protect their pets will have a substantial positive
impact on animal protection in the United States. However, because of past
puffery and exaggeration, we.feel that verification of performance claims
prior to embracing the technology is critical to maintaininig fidelity to our
mission as an animal protection organization.
Thank you again for y ur interest". Please call me at (810) 852-7420 if
you have an questions.
icer
ary W iscornia
Executive Director
pc: Rick Collord, Chainnan, SAWA Committee on Electronic Animal
Identification
Dr. Patricia Olson, AHA Director of Veterinary Affairs and Studies
Bruno F.i ! i c? . . 82432263263
P. 01
0&1� wf17• L
t�runo Rico 4 A/0
74prownting Overseas Manufacturers
1dsa*Wia 4 Luria,Qacm`it,to 14S* U.9,A phgnatfsx(5ta)92D-72trd
19 � � Rx .�K .� �S- 13
Av7 sr 12, '
Cb r 1. 1
�2 1.tv t�,� 4�T�jq,
r
M .
i�
e.,
1
v
AUG 9'96 15:23 FR HUMANE SOCIETY 4153621349 TO 15103351913 P.02i02
T
171 Be] Marin Keys Boulevard
Novato. CA 94949
(415) 883-4621
August 9, 1996
Supervisor Gayle Bishop
18 Crow Canyon Court #124 ,
San Ramon, California 94583-1659
Dear Supervisor Bishop,
In regards to your meeting on Tuesday, August 13, regarding the proposed microchip ID
program, we won't be able to.attend, but I did send Marcy the six month stats on our
program and wanted to let you know our feelings regarding the program. Our experience
shows that with proper administration and an enthusiastic and supportive staff, the
microchip licensing program can have a significant impact on the number of stray animals
returned home.
Best of luck in your endeavors.
Sincerely,
toD-"C� �)�
Wendy Ramlan
Executive Assistant
Q PAPEA
TOTAL FAGE.002
AUG 9'96 15:22 FR HUMANE SOCIETY 4153821349 TO 15103351913 P.01i02
THE Nn 4 ERIN 11 U, N1 A, NE �Sl0CIETY
Opening our doors and our hearts ro all animc:s for over $7 years.
0� � � t � �e cr ;he oldest chaxwues � �iariL. :he :�iariu
aaM=e SOciev arovides SttelLvr to =re -$tm
8,J00 aaimais eaca veal morn hoses to h=a--s :ted
f Date: 1 HZart±s M llamas. 98-;OQ% of the anirnaIs made avail-
{
j able for adcadon :md mew Domes throw our pro-
To:
7be titan Humane Socier is at "Doen doe .e� ,te+
1
Fax T. f l q 3 that tins no MITEAI away, We are Me=,24 hours a day,
seven,days a we:k IOr arim�ic,c
I , .
SRARE
#
No. of pales: co\n r -k{ :he SFAXS- (,So=-'al ;in=-Antal Maaonships)
# prom brings to love cf =mals to those living at
Noyes: convalescent centers and-special schools as well as
I he!pin; seafors, the disabled and people with.MDS
(� w� Cwt c� woo live It home wim tbe44r animal*=anions.
ky� 4K,
ROVER
The Society's sn:,rte: -waee!s, Rove: provides low-
and cost Y3Cv'lion mic=b1p !-D.clinics eve;y month
at various locations d=ughout Marin. For atxoming
dates and locations nail(415) 883-462-1.
it ANTYUL BES-kv OR & T.ALIv-r,iG
Voted Best ir, ,Marin, the I%YES Uainine deua=ent
offers dcg obedience ela= aad drop-:n aminal behav-
ior C=Wta:.=. Frofessiona.i animal behaviorsts are
! on-ca?.l daily to counsel owners and belp knp people =
,# a,nd pets to;e:be.:.
T 7- MkRI�N_ l 'UN v�ES OClF_�Y - (415�88 3-4621 �Fk �(4 �5) 82- 1X49
TEL No . AU9 6 ,96 26 :48 No .003 F .02
• � ' ' •,�iY.i1HW1v A,1en:,�tivr .MyyyR'M•1'�/:MlwrSm • e • • .. .
No, 2574 P, 1 •
r"rcr^:DOkPET
DATAPET, INC,
E121yonic 6pjgW identification }
Post Office Box 2980 • DanvWe,CAiifornis 44526.7880 • TEL:(510)831-4696 . FAX: (510)831.9142
I
August 6, 1996
The Contra Costa County .Board of Supervisors
c/o Supervisor Gayle Bishop
18 Crow Canyon Court 0120
San Ramon, Ca 94583-1669
Honorable Members of the Board:
Please vote YES on
"Microchipping Identification program by Animal Services Dept".
Twenty-nine years ago I became alarmed as to the number of
dogs and cats killed in shelters across the US each your. As
a doctor of veterinary medicine I thought that I might find
a way to decrease these' numbers.
It is estimated that normal death losses (disease, accidents,
old age) account for about 6 million annually yet we kill
17 to 20 million each year. This is a national tragedy.
over this time frame of 29 years I have investigated
tattooing, collar tags, simple description of the animal, dental
implants, intradermal tattooing without the use of a needle
and RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) . Allow me a few
words regarding each:
1 ) . Tattooing-- to provide a legible tattoo requires
skill and sedation of the animal, Sedation and
time required to place the tattoo creates a cost
that Considerably limits the --number of pet
owners wishing to participate. Tattoos tend to
fade, not everyone has the skill and the animal
is placed at risk in sedating.
2) . Collar tags- there is no substitute for a visual
tag be it the owners tag or the licensing tag.
Unfortunately many owners refuse to place the
license tag on the collar, collars are lost and
tags may fall off due to metal fatigue. The
evidence is quite clear-animals in shelters have
no visual identification or they would not be
there.
TEL No . Aug 6 , 96 15 : 48 No .003 P -03
/
2/�3 T �
F DATAPET
3) . Animal description- Try deucribing 3 black cats,
four Dalmations or two German Shepherds so that
the description is unguostionable.
4) . Dental. implants- Here again tho animal must be
sedated raising the fee too high and placing the
animal at risk.
5) . Intradermal tattooing- I spent four years and
considerable monies attempting to perfect- a method
whereby dye would penetrate into the dermis allowing
for a lasting ID without using needles-it did not
work.
6) . RFID (Radio Frequency identification) is the
"State of the Art" in animal identification today.
This is a technology that has been proven on
millions of animals in Europe and in the US. As
with any industry time and competition will work
out the bugs. It is unfortunate that the present
manufacturers did not decide, seven years ago, to
standardize their industry, but that is now what
is taking place.
NO METHOD OF ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION CAN BE FOOLPROOF, BUT TRE
COMBINATION OF A VISUAL TAG PLUS RFID AND REGISTRATION IS AS
CLOSE AS ONE CAN GET TODAY. THIS IS A POTXNTIALLY "LIFE
SAVING" PROGRAM.
ISO( International Standards Organization) and AIM (American
Industrial Manufacturers) have declared the FDX B transponder
(microchip) to be the world standard in both large and
companion animals. To stay in business manufacturers will
have to manufacture this standard.
All manufacturers have the ability to produce this transponder
now. Two such companies (Allflex, S.A. and Destror,) presently
have the ISO compliant FDX B microchip and reader.
Performance is exceptional with a digital reader, as opposed
two an analog reader, which one company is ready to market.
As mentioned, there is no substitute fora visual tag, but
So often either the tag was never placed on the collar, or
lost clue to metal fatigue or the collar was lost.
TEL No . Aug 6 , 96 15 :48 No . 003 P . 04
_. .._ "'0' c,ou r. 3/J
FDArAPPI
If it were mandatory, or made so that there was a lesser
licensing fee for animals so identified. considerable
monies would be saved by shelters and most importantly,
lives would be saved. This the general public would
appreciate-even those who do not own pets.
No system can be perfect but the RFID allow:} for that animal
that may have lust its tag to bo identified rather: than to be
destroyed.
A very strong, nen profit foundation is currently interested
in maintaining the national database.
The transponder (microchip) is encased in a hermetically
sealed glass capsule that does not allow for any tissue
reaction. While it is quite possible to carry bacteria
into the skin with such an injection it would be as rare
as doing so with d vaccination.
Mr. Jim Seiler, CEO of Allflex, S.A. probably knows more
about this industry as anyone and I have asked him to
reply also.
It looks to me that we have everything to gain and nothing
to lose by providing an additional, means to identify an
animal and save a life.
Sincerely,
Lester M. Schwab,DVM
President