Microchip ID Plan for L.A. Pets Has Gone Astray

Two years after authorizing a plan to implant identity microchips in pets, Los Angeles city officials have yet to implement the program--even though it could potentially save thousands of animals from being euthanized.

The program, mandated by the City Council in January 1998, calls for electronically tagging all dogs and cats adopted out of the city’s six shelters. Animals that wind up back in the shelter could be quickly and easily identified and the chip would serve as proof that they had been sterilized and vaccinated.

At shelters around the state and across the nation, hundreds of animals a week are being reunited with their owners because of the electronic tags, according to companies that produce the devices.

But in Los Angeles, officials say the shelters are too understaffed and the computers too outdated to get the program underway.

Councilwoman Laura Chick, whose Public Safety Committee endorsed the proposal, expressed anger that city officials “didn’t come back and report that they had not implemented this program.”

“They got a direction from the council to do this and agreed with the direction and yet I am learning from a reporter that it has not been implemented,” Chick said. “That simply is not responsible government in my opinion.”

Dan Knapp, general manager of the Department of Animal Services, said in a memo to the Animal Regulation Commission last March that the department couldn’t spare staff or funding for microchipping because of state mandates requiring the city to hold animals for a longer period--up to six days, from three previously--before they can be killed.

But those mandates have not stopped other departments, including Ventura County, from continuing similar programs, officials there said.

Knapp did not return calls for comment last week. But other department officials gave differing reasons for the failure to implement the policy.

Jackie David, department spokeswoman, blamed it on the department’s outdated computer system, which still requires a high degree of paperwork.

“Our system is basically a dinosaur. We’re in the stone age,” she said.

But another department official blamed lack of staff for the delay.

Bob Perino, senior systems analyst for the animal services department, said computer software to manage the program is available, but the department doesn’t have the staff to implant the chips and record the necessary owner information.

“We’re talking about a whole bunch of time. A couple of bodies at each shelter would have to be devoted to that task,” Perino said.

“I know the technology is out there and it obviously is being done [in other cities], but we are so short-handed in the kennels as it is,” he said.

The department is planning to update its computer system within the next few months.

But retired department workers and volunteers, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested another reason for the delay. The City Council action authorized the department to charge people adopting pets $15 for fitting the electronic device, in addition to about $70 in fees for neutering and vaccinations.

Charging the additional fee might discourage adoption at a time when animal rescue groups have launched a pitched effort to get people to adopt pets out of shelters. In many cases, animal rescue groups shell out the money themselves to adopt pets and later try to find homes for them.

“Adding another fee makes everyone a little nervous,” one rescuer said. “The basics for spay/neuter are fine. But when you add more costs, it gets tough.”

*

The program works by injecting a transponder the size of a grain of rice under the skin in the scruff of the animal’s neck, similar to a vaccination. Each chip is encoded with a number unique to the animal and linked to a database identifying the owner. The chip can be read with a scanner similar to those used at supermarket checkouts.

Millions of pets across the country have been implanted with the tags in the last few years--at shelters, by humane groups and in the offices of private veterinarians. The program has resulted in the return of tens of thousands of lost pets to their owners, often within hours of their disappearance.

Ventura County has implanted chips in more than 15,000 animals adopted out of its shelters over the last five years. An average of eight pets a week are returned to their owners from county shelters, plus others impounded at the Agoura shelter, said Kathy Jenks, Ventura County animal regulation director.

“It’s been a great program,” she said, adding that it takes little extra time. “It’s all computerized. I don’t see that it would add any more than two minutes’ total time. It’s just like giving another shot.”

The department already checks all pets arriving at the shelter with a scanner to determine if they have an identifying chip. Scanners were provided for each of the city’s six shelters by the city’s contractor, American Veterinary Identification Devices of Norco, said Michael E. Burns, the company’s director of shelter programs.

When a chip is found, a shelter worker can call a toll-free number to report the identification number. The service does the tracking.

Although implanting chips is fairly easy, David, of L.A.’s Animal Services Department, said the process of recording owner information is more complex. She said the city’s current computers lack an efficient and easily retrievable data system.

Burns, however, said the process is as simple as having the adopting owner fill out a card that is mailed back to AVID. The company’s database is backed up onto the database of the California Veterinary Medical Assn. to ensure that records are not lost in a disaster, Burns said.

Another microchip identification system is HomeAgain, developed by the Schering-Plough Animal Health Corp. of New Jersey. Its system is linked to the American Kennel Club and its Companion Animal Recovery program.

Although the companies are competitive, scanners furnished by both read all types of chips.

However, David said the city wants the ability to track animals in its own computer system, which would allow officials to monitor, for instance, how many times a pet returns, which could indicate a violation of leash laws.

“We’re striving for absolute efficiency,” David said. “We’re willing to wait in order to make it right.”