Horses in the Machine?
By Gabriel Denison

          The concept of inserting microchips under the skin of an individual for tracking and identification purposes was first introduced in sci-fi fiction, but is now a possibility for pets and children.  The practice is debated, however, and now, especially in the after math of Hurricane Katrina, the debate has spread to the equine world.  Should we microchip our horses?
          As Central Oregon has the highest ratio of horses per every owner in the state, the subject is relevant to horseowners.  There is more to the microchip than meets the eye, and the clock is running down on our time to make decisions. 
 Stephanie Church, News Editor of The Horse: Your Guide to Equine Health, is in support of microchipping.  “I don’t own a horse right now,” she says, “But I will be microchipping my next one.  The only down sides I can see are the disagreements over ISO standards, and the realization you cannot rely on anyone else to match you with your horse without proper proof of owning the microchip.” 
In lessons learned under fire, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina shows that microchips are only as reliable when used in connection with completed silhouettes in a database.  Martha Littlefield, DVM and LDAF Assistant State Veterinarian, reported that data was “searchable…but very difficult to search,” before Katrina and Rita.  “We’ve gotten on the ball, and we are going to get all those files updated.”  Most Katrina horses were identified using Coggins papers.
Microchips do make things easier, as Littlefield points out.  In chaotic situations, it can be difficult to attempt identification by checking tattoos, brands might be hard to distinguish, and visual verification is not the best for animals and owners in crisis.  The microchip is permanent way of identifying a horse, like a collar for a dog or a cat, and large animals can be “wanded” fairly easily.
However, no matter how Utopian this may sound, there are down sides to the microchip miracle that must be considered.  Laura-Phelps Bell, a multi-discipline trainer for 25 years, and developer of the “Combined Training” technique, comes out strongly against microchips. 
“In many cases of theft,” she points out, “Unmarked horses are the ones taken from the pasture, while those marked clearly by freeze or heat branding are left behind.  A microchipped horse is an unmarked horse.”  She also points out that wands must complement the chip they are scanned with, or the chip will not read.  “ You cannot count on slaughterhouses having all potential wands, or taking the time to try one or two on horses that have been sold for slaughter.”   The chip is not foolproof protection against urban dangers, or old fashioned horse thieves. 
On December 6th, 2005, the Symposium on Racing and Gaming met near Tucson, Arizona to discuss accepted identification forms for Thoroughbreds, Standardbreds and other gaming breeds.  A panel of experts decided that microchips were acceptable, but only as secondary identification to DNA and tattooing.   
There are murmers of other concerns among horse owners as well.  The concern microchipping is a fad, and if the databases disappear, there could be nothing to fall back on in a disaster situation has been voiced, as well as the creation of an economic class system where wealthier owners microchip and receive benefits, while middle and working class horse lovers are prohibited from recognition.
Angela Baznik, recently moved to La Pine, also voices her political concerns.  “With the government tapping our phones, I’m not sure I want to my animals listed in a huge data base some where…I don’t think it’s necessary.”
Mary Zanoni, Ph.D of Cornell University, has conducted research on the National Animal Identification System that suggests Angela’s concerns are not without merit.  She perceives the NAIS as a “threat to rural freedom,” which the USDA promotes as a nation-wide, all-livestock registration and tracking system.  This would consist of a mandatory premises registration, mandatory microchipping, and the information keyed to a federal database for satellite-assisted location of home/farms.  This would also track and regulate the movement of animals: a calf at the auction, or a horse to a local show.
The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, available on the Internet at www.farmandranchfreedom.org, opposes The National Animal Identification System, as it requires large scale animal producers to register their animals in groups, but forces individual owners to register their stock individually, and pay to for this mandatory regulation. If premise is voted into law, fines could be issued for non-compliance in the NAIS program, and all privately owned animals could be seized and/or destroyed if not in compliance with the regulations of the NAIS.
Lynn R. Miller, owner of the international publication, Small Farmer’s Journal, feels the mandatory registration of all domestic farm animals, including horses, will “destroy most of what is the rich and valuable tradition of family farming in America.”  In his recent editorial, he informs his readers ” if no substantial public outcry” is heard before July of 2006, the NAIS will become law, and begin “the most destructive and misguided farm regulation in the history of farming.”  Mr. Miller encourages all livestock owners, and especially horse owners in Central Oregon, to contact the USDA to oppose the regulations set out for the NAIS.  Mary Zanoni also urges rural horse owners to resist participating in any “voluntary” program to register your horses or farm with the a federal program.
The ultimate decision always lies with the individual horse owner, and his or her belief system, but the time has come to consider if we want our horses listed in The Machine.