As the city of Elkhart and Elkhart County forge ahead with the creation of their own animal-control ordinances, Jim Piechorowski, for one, thinks there ought to be some coordination.
"I think that's the best route to go," he said.
There are some common definitions, at least, that city and county officials could agree on, minimizing the possibility for confusion between incorporated and unincorporated areas.
A common definition for a dangerous animal, for instance, would be one good area to reach accord, said Piechorowski, who helped the county craft its ordinance proposal. The procedures after a dog "breaks flesh" in an incident would be another.
Such unity, though, could be a long time in coming.
County Administrator Tom Byers contrasts the differences between the city and county, particularly the urban and rural elements, saying they necessitate separate ordinances. Then there's the political wrangling that would be required to reach accord between the governmental units.
"At some point you have to be a little realistic," he said.
Anne Reel, executive director of the Humane Society of Elkhart County, has no problem with the way things are going. The city and county are approaching the issue from the right angle -- animal owners.
"They're placing responsibility back on the owners," she said. "That's truly where the responsibility begins."
SOME HIGHLIGHTS
A new draft of the city's ordinance-in-development will be available next week. The county's is already available and a hearing is set for Tuesday on the proposal.
Notably, both aim to crack down on irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs.
If an animal meets certain qualifications, it would be labeled dangerous under both proposals. The owner would then have to meet requirements to keep the animal, including increased fees, hefty insurance and proper housing for the animal.
Pet registration, meanwhile, is a notable area of difference.
The committee crafting the new Elkhart ordinance hopes to find ways to increase the registration rate of cats and dogs. About 500 cats and dogs were logged with the city this year, or about 1 percent of the estimated pet population.
The cost of registration and fines for failing to license a cat or dog would rise slightly in the city. The proposal would also offer incentives for animals to be spayed or neutered and implanted with an ID chip.
The county's proposal doesn't touch on cat or dog registration, something county officials feared would complicate the process, according to Byers.
'CORE ISSUES' THE SAME
Rod Roberson, Elkhart's city council president, said the ordinances will inevitably have some differences because each place faces unique animal issues. He heads the committee drafting the city ordinance proposal.
"But the core issues are to make the public safe and allow good pet owners to have an environment where they can love their pets," he said.
Piechorowski, though, notes the increasing urbanized nature of much of unincorporated Elkhart County, suggesting declining differences between the county and city.
Maybe over the long haul more unity might be possible, Byers said, if a common body responsible for animal control could be created.
"But I think we're a long way from being able to do anything like that," he said.