*Proposed* USEF Microchip Rule

[Christa_P]

[QUOTE=poltroon;7256729]
I appreciate the intent, but I am not 100% in favor as written. $100 (plus a vet call) isn’t a lot if you’re off to Florida or Thermal, but for someone showing at only one or two Recognized shows a year, that’s adding to the tipping point of the USEF membership, plus a horse recording, plus the expenses of the actual show. Thus, I would expect that one impact would be that more people will choose to stick with unrecognized or local outings.

If I were writing this, I might restrict it to A rated divisions, or perhaps only to horses showing for USEF year end awards.[/QUOTE]

It might seem like a lot, but it is once in a horses’ lifetime, not every year, and if combined with another farm call (spring shots) there would not be an extra vet call. IMO this makes the cost reasonable.

[Tackpud]

[QUOTE=Trevelyan96;7257787]
I’m all in favor, except for this part.

What do you do if your vet is not ‘controlled’ by USEF? My horse is already chipped, so will I have to do a 2nd one if the manufacturer or vets are not on the USEF control list?

It might just be the wording, but it could be important for many who’ve already had their horses chipped.[/QUOTE]
This is a sticking point for me as well. I live in the middle of nowhere and don’t have access to a lot of vets, so what am I supposed to do if my vet isn’t one of the chosen few? I have no opposition to having my horses microchipped - I think it’s a great idea. But I’d like my vet to be able to do the procedure without having to pay for him to be a USEF member or whatever they’re going to want to have them be a controlled vet.

[danceronice]

[QUOTE=Peggy;7250483]
When this came up before I asked my vet how easy it would be to remove a chip and she said very difficult, exacerbated by the fact that they migrate slightly so you don’t know exactly where they are. A horse with a removed chip would certainly not be showing in any conformation or model classes afterwards and I imagine it would leave a pretty obvious scar.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and while it’s not COMMON, sometimes they migrate a lot. Part of my job at the zoo involved transcribing necropsy reports and one necropsy turned into exploratory surgery as the scapular AVID chip they KNEW was in there wasn’t anywhere near where it had been implanted. The scanners aren’t hyper-specific, so it was still readable , it just wasn’t anywhere near where it was supposed to be. And that was a DEAD animal where they didn’t have to worry about covering up an incision. I guess a concern would be (and none of my animals are chipped so I have no idea if it’s possible), but if data can be scanned, can it be hacked and altered? Or would you have to hack the database? Or what would it take to deactivate the chip without removing it? In the long run that might be easier than gouging out a chip, but it would seem any method of tampering would be more work than even top pony or hunter prices would be worth.

[vineyridge]

Here is the actual proposed rule:

Proposed Change:
EQ100 Microchip Identification [CHAPTER SUBCHAPTER EQ-1 REGULATIONS FOR ALL SEATS, EQ100 ELIGIBILITY TO
COMPETE] add and renumber as necessary:

3.Starting December 1, 2014, all horses receiving a new USEF Horse Recording or a new USHJA Horse Registration or a change of name with an existing USEF Horse Recording or USHJA Horse Registration must have an implanted microchip ID. The microchip ID device must be approved by the Federation and no substitute microchip device is permitted. A list of Federation approved microchips is available at www.usef.org.
If the horse has a Federation approved microchip previously implanted by another recognized Federation or a Breed Registry, that number will be incorporated with the new USEF Recording and USHJA Registration number.

4. All horses that apply for a name change to an FEI Passport must have an implanted microchip ID.

5.a. Starting December 1, 2014, for USEF Hunter competitions Rated C and above, every horse competing in classes restricted by the horse’s age, experience or other classification, must have an implanted microchip ID in order to compete. The microchip ID device must be approved by the Federation and no substitute microchip device is permitted. A list of Federation approved microchips is available at www.usef.org.

5.b. All horses competing in age restricted classes must have one of the following: registration papers issued by a World Breeders Federation Sport Horse (WBFSH) recognized registry; a United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) recognized registry (list available at www.usef.org); a Certificate of Pedigree from a breed or sport horse registry; or an Age Verification Form signed by a veterinarian in good standing with the AAEP (American Association of Equine Practitioners). Breed registries must provide the following information; age verification, DNA verification and UELN (Universal Equine Life Number).

6.Starting December1, 2015, all horses recorded with USEF and registered with USHJA must have an implanted microchip ID in order to compete. The microchip ID device must be approved by the Federation and no substitute microchip device is permitted. A list of Federation approved microchips is available at www.usef.org.

The thought is admirable, but the rule could be much better drafted.

The lists referred to in the rule don’t seem to exist at the present time.

I wonder how the TB studbooks worldwide will be considered. I KNOW they don’t issue UELNs with registration.

[MHM]

Now I’m wondering if in fact this rule would apply to ALL horses that show. I believe under the current rules, your horse has to be recorded with the USEF for your points to count for year end awards, but if you don’t care about that, you can just show with an ID number, without paying the recording fee.

So I wonder if all the horses that show now with just an ID number can skip the chip? That would make much more sense to me, since that means all the people who show in the unrecognized divisions or only go to USEF shows once in a while would not be affected.

[vineyridge]

All the chip has is a number that is linked in the database to information there. You’d have to hack the database to change the information one would think.

[poltroon]

One of the things I don’t like about the language is the phrase “other classification” because I don’t know what that means. I assume it includes, for example, height, so it would apply to all ponies. Why not just spell it out, please?

[vineyridge]

[QUOTE=poltroon;7258121]
One of the things I don’t like about the language is the phrase “other classification” because I don’t know what that means. I assume it includes, for example, height, so it would apply to all ponies. Why not just spell it out, please?[/QUOTE]

Microchipping would certainly prevent the “ringer” ponies who start life as roans or Appaloosas and end up bay at WEF.

[Ruby_G_Weber]

Forgive me if this has already come up… What happens when one horse has multiple chips?

[Peggy]

[QUOTE=Ruby G. Weber;7258502]
Forgive me if this has already come up… What happens when one horse has multiple chips?[/QUOTE]In theory that shouldn’t happen since the vets are supposed to scan the animal for an existing one before inserting one.

Though if a horse has one of the disallowed ones, I guess it’s going to end up with a second, allowed one. Again, in theory, whoever inserts the second one should link it to the original one or make sure the data matches.

Not sure if the scanners can pick up the signal from one of two or if they somehow annihilate each other’s signals.

[SnicklefritzG]

I’m not interested in microchipping my horse. He’s has a lip tattoo, so I’m not interested in yet another fee, blah blah blah

[vineyridge]

[QUOTE=poltroon;7258121]
One of the things I don’t like about the language is the phrase “other classification” because I don’t know what that means. I assume it includes, for example, height, so it would apply to all ponies. Why not just spell it out, please?[/QUOTE]

It would also apply to classes limited to TB or Non TB.

As to a tattoo being equivalent, many tattoos are very hard to read and cannot be as easily used for verification of identity.

[kirbydog]

How would it be decided who gets scanned, and how would it get paid for? Added to the USEF drug fee; a “drug and scanning fee”? Would every horse on the grounds get scanned, just the ribbon winners, or randomly selected horses, same as for drug testing? Would non-showing horses have to get chipped? And, who would be doing the actual scanning of the horses? I think this is not a bad idea,but I can see it opening a whole lot of wormy cans…

[Huntin_Pony]

It all seems sad to me. People are required to put a permanent inorganic device into their horses’ bodies because people can’t be trusted to tell the truth and/or keep good records. Sad, sad, sad.

Another reason not to show. Good thing I’m old and I enjoy non-competitive pursuits with my horses.

[trubandloki]

[QUOTE=Huntin’ Pony;7258958]
It all seems sad to me. People are required to put a permanent inorganic device into their horses’ bodies because people can’t be trusted to tell the truth and/or keep good records. Sad, sad, sad.

Another reason not to show. Good thing I’m old and I enjoy non-competitive pursuits with my horses.[/QUOTE]

I prefer to look at a microchip as a good way for me to identify my horses if there is ever an emergency that causes me and them to be separated. The microchip being used to properly identify a horse at a show is more of a bonus than anything else.

[Pennywell_Bay]

[QUOTE=Huntin’ Pony;7258958]
It all seems sad to me. People are required to put a permanent inorganic device into their horses’ bodies because people can’t be trusted to tell the truth and/or keep good records. Sad, sad, sad.

Another reason not to show. Good thing I’m old and I enjoy non-competitive pursuits with my horses.[/QUOTE]

I agree it is sad and you had me with your post until the"inorganic part".

I have (relatively) permanent fillings in my teeth so I can eat, and holy crow- do I have bionics in my arm, leg, neck and head from a horrific car accident. =)

I’m annoyed I may have to micro chip my horses because other people cheat, but having done “thousands” in the almost 20 years at my job (not horses), I assure you, they are not harmful (but they do migrate and some even have a way of coming out).

[Huntin_Pony]

Pennywell:

It’s not that I think the microchips are harmful. I agree that there is enough of a track record to demonstrate that.

Trubandloki:

Yours is a good perspective and I agree that microchipping is a great option to have, especially for emergency situations.

My problem is that I’d rather not implant my horses with anything when there’s nothing wrong with them (vs human dental fillings or joint replacements, for instance). I understand the motivation and I understand that it’s not very risky to the horse. It just makes me sad, that’s all.

C’est la vie.

[MHM]

[QUOTE=Pennywell Bay;7259044]
I assure you, they are not harmful (but they do migrate and some even have a way of coming out).[/QUOTE]

Wait, how do they come out?!? Are you talking about use in small animals? Do I need to make sure my dog still has his microchip?