ELKHART -- The city has a bit of an animal registration problem, officials say, and the numbers prove it. About 400 dogs and cats were registered with the city controller's office this year -- far below Elkhart's actual pet population.
The city's ad hoc animal control committee wrestled with ways to fix that registration issue at a four-hour Tuesday meeting. How, the members debated, can the city increase the number of properly licensed animals, while also encouraging owners to pursue proper medical and tracking measures?
"We need these animals altered, vaccinated and microchipped," said committee chairman Rod Roberson. "If we're not about trying to raise money, we should be about trying to get these pets there."
The draft ordinance the committee is using as a basis for discussion offers one solution: a base fee for spayed or neutered dogs and cats ($20) and a higher fee for unaltered animals ($30). It also includes a harsh fine for residents who don't license their animals (between $100 and $500).
Some committee members, though, said such costs would prevent exactly what the city is trying to accomplish. High fees will deter residents from registering their animals, said Anne Reel, executive director of the Elkhart County Humane Society, especially considering the current $3 and $6 licensing charges.
"Jumping by that much with the fees -- they don't need to be that high," she said. "It will discourage it."
Dr. Rick Nelson, an Elkhart veterinarian, said altering animals and inserting tracking microchips are expensive processes, and high licensing costs will add further burden to animal owners.
"A lot of people who own pets are not affluent people," he said. "Times are tough, and a lot of times, elderly people, those who are not as fortunate, this is all they've got."
Nelson proposed an alternative licensing price structure, which the committee adopted for its revised ordinance:
* One-year licenses-- $12 for altered cats and dogs, $18 for unaltered (if microchip is implanted, cost drops $3)
* Three-year licenses -- $30/$45 for altered/unaltered cats and dogs ($24/$36 if microchipped)
The committee also debated at length how stiff the penalty should be for residents caught with unlicensed animals. While the city wants to encourage licensing, members said, it doesn't want hordes of abandoned animals due to fear of large fines.
Roberson proposed a flat cost of $250, similar to the city's noise ordinance, which has been an effective nuisance deterrent and revenue generator. A one-size-fits-all fee makes a judge's life easier, he said, and sticks with precedent.
"I completely disagree with discretion," Roberson said. "If we have a no-nonsense policy on noise, how can we have a tolerance on licensing?"
When the measure came to a vote, six of nine members disagreed with Roberson. In the next draft, fines will range from $100 to $500, determined by the city judge by case.
The committee will not meet Thursday as scheduled. A new ordinance draft will be put together in the coming days, and the committee will reconvene then.
The group still must address the breed-specific dog ban and feral cat issues before it can send an ordinance on to the council. A public hearing also will be held before any recommendations are made final.
GOSHEN WILL WAIT AND SEE
The topic of a dangerous animal ordinance came up in discussion among Goshen City Council members Tuesday evening, but the group decided to gather more information and take a wait-and-see approach.
Julia Gautsche brought up the topic, saying "our animal ordinance isn't, I don't think, real up to date."
Tom Stump pointed out there is an ordinance against animals running loose and asked Gautsche what she meant by dangerous animals.
Chic Lantz chimed in, saying he considers pit bulls dangerous, pointing out the scars his granddaughter has from an attack by a pit bull a decade ago. "You become more compassionate when it happens in your own family," he said.
Stump, though, argued pit bulls are only dangerous when they're trained to act aggressive.
Gautsche said any ordinance from Goshen shouldn't focus on a breed but on dangerous behavior.
Everett Thomas suggested before the council spends much time on crafting an ordinance, it needs to see how much of a problem it is by getting data from the police department and the Humane Society of Elkhart County, which handles animal control for the city.
Mayor Allan Kauffman said dangerous animals are a problem.
"There are some neighborhoods in town where people are afraid to walk around outside," he said.
He suggested, though, that the council may want to see what Elkhart decides "and then modify it for our use."
Stump agreed with that sentiment. He also argued, "If you're going to pass a law against dangerous dogs, you ought to pass a law against dangerous people who train them, too."