Mandatory Microchipping and Fees Proposed in Indiana

Thursday, February 01, 2007]
Indiana House Bill 1719, introduced by Representative Bardon, seeks to require that all dogs over six months of age be microchipped, that a new state-run microchip registry be developed, that owners of intact dogs be assessed a $50 annual fee, and that "Beware of Dog" signs be put up for every intact dog. If passed and signed into law, the changes imposed by this bill would have a detrimental impact on dog breeders in Indiana. It is vitally important that breeders and dog owners contact their representative and the committee chairman to express their opposition.

As part of the American Kennel Club's ongoing efforts to promote responsible dog ownership, we encourage dog owners to properly identify their pets. We believe, however, that the final decision about identification—whether by collar, tattoo or microchip—should be made by the owner, not the government. The AKC also supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the right of responsible breeders and owners. Imposing financial sanctions on owners of dogs not spayed or neutered is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. These laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners who will purposefully not comply with this bill's provisions. This proposal will unfairly punish responsible owners who are already complying with local animal control laws, while irresponsible owners will continue to make problems for the community and local shelters.

For example, the proposed set of laws would require:
All dogs over six months of age be microchipped with a state-sanctioned chip.


All microchip data be stored in a state-run registry.


All owners of dogs not spayed or neutered be assessed a $50 per year per dog fee.


All owners of dogs not spayed or neutered to post a sign for each dog saying "Beware of Dog" and containing a warning symbol for children.


Violators of any of these requirements be subject to a $500 fine.
What You Can Do:

Contact the members of the Indiana House Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedures who will consider this bill. (For those legislators listed without e-mail addresses, go here.)

Representative Scott Pelath, Chair
Indiana House of Representatives
200 W. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
1-800-382-9842 (from anywhere within Indiana)

Representative Russ Stilwell, Vice Chair
1-800-382-9842 (from anywhere within Indiana)

Representative Terri Austin
1-800-382-9842 (from anywhere within Indiana)

Representative Earl Harris
1-800-382-9842 (from anywhere within Indiana)

Representative Robert Kuzman
1-800-382-9842 (from anywhere within Indiana)

Representative Denny Oxley
1-800-382-9842 (from anywhere within Indiana)

Representative Matt Whetstone
1-800-382-9842 (from anywhere within Indiana)
[email protected]

Representative Randy L. Borror
1-800-382-9842 (from anywhere within Indiana)
[email protected]

Representative Ralph Foley
1-800-382-9842 (from anywhere within Indiana)
[email protected]

Representative P. Eric Turner
1-800-382-9842 (from anywhere within Indiana)
[email protected]

For more information, contact AKC's Canine Legislation Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail at [email protected].

My note to this- I am glad I do not live in Indiana. A "Beware of dog" sign- at my door???? WITH MY DOGS???? Also- with home owners insurance, if you have a 'beware of dog sign" on your property, number one its hard to get coverage as its considered a liability declaration etc, not to mention to the state if your dog did bite someone- you knew you had an aggressive dog- and would probably be put down. ( I would have to post a sign as I would have two of 4 intact dogs..)
Also- you can not microchip some large breed dogs until 8 months old as the skin is moving too much and the chip will move unable to be read. My vet didnt suggest doing Zubin in a chip until he was 9 months old for this same reason...

What?! I don't want to have to pay to have a un-neutered dog. What if I get another show dog? I'll move back to TN before I comply with this. I don't want the government to keep track of my dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lute

What?! I don't want to have to pay to have a un-neutered dog. What if I get another show dog? I'll move back to TN before I comply with this. I don't want the government to keep track of my dogs.

---

Yea- I have two show dogs- and "beware of dog"????? Zubin and Galina???My therapy dogs??? My " never met a stranger" dogs??? My " I love everyone " dogs??? They have got to kidding or crazy!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borzoimom

Yea- I have two show dogs- and "beware of dog"????? Zubin and Galina???My therapy dogs??? My " never met a stranger" dogs??? My " I love everyone " dogs??? They have got to kidding or crazy!!

---

exactly! My most vicous dog is Beanie...the POMERANIAN! :rolleyes:

isnt this just stupid???!

On the surface it looks nice, but it's so flawed...like you pointed out, sometimes it's not ideal to chip a dog at six months, and some owners of intact dogs are very responsible.

On the flip side, many owners of unaltered dogs (from what I've seen in my area) are not responsible enough to know how to keep their dogs from reproducing (It seems so SIMPLE, doesn't it? *shakes head*) and $50 a year isn't terribly high.

It seems that a policy like this has the potential to be very helpful, but will also put undue strain on responsible owners. I don't know what to think of this.

I know know Cathy either. They tried this same logic of charging more for the license for a unaltered dog- .. I dont know..
I do know this- when I had my shepherds, I could not put up a beware of dog sign at my house. I could put that there were trained police dogs- etc but no sign " of threat" only knowledge.. And this was from Allstate ( I think..) at the time.

I don't think it's right. Government should not be able to dictate how we chose to identify our dogs. And I really don't see how it could be enforced.

This will be the same thing again- only the ones responsible enough to follow the law will pay- the others will continue..

It looks like it wasn't thought completely through. These are all good points that I think the Indiana legislators should be made aware of. I wish there was a national micro-chip registry, though.

I think the Microchipping is a good Idea, however the whole "beware of dog" thing, just gets me. I dont understand the point????

I do agree, that non-fixed dogs should have to pay, simply because it will cause people who arent "breedrs" to stop/slow down the accidental breedings, as people will pay to have their pets fixed, so they dont have to pay the yearly fee. and the serious breeders, shouldnt have a porblem with this, as they will se the bigger picture, of less unwanted litters.

Zubin and Galina are both intact. "BEWARE OF DOG"????? You have GOT to be kidding.. Zubin has barked ONE TIME in his life- and Galina not at all..
I do not know what they are trying to accomplish here, but it looks like to me someone has an agenda. As my husband said last night- did that mean that if a dog ends up in a shelter that isnt chipped- do they have the right to put it down without trying to find the owner?????

This is a very good bill and I do hope it passes. The bill info printed here
leaves out the real guts of the bill & it's benefits to all dog owners in Indiana.

Since most animals bites come from unneutered animals, it makes good
sense to fine owners for unneutered dogs with funds going into a county
fund to provide low cost or free spay/neuter clinics, award damages
to victims of animal attacks, amoung other benefits to all animals and
their owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

This is a very good bill and I do hope it passes. The bill info printed here
leaves out the real guts of the bill & it's benefits to all dog owners in Indiana.

Since most animals bites come from unneutered animals, it makes good
sense to fine owners for unneutered dogs with funds going into a county
fund to provide low cost or free spay/neuter clinics, award damages
to victims of animal attacks, amoung other benefits to all animals and
their owners.

---

You are entitled to your opinion and I posted this looking for opinions on all levels.
Well I sure would not live in that state if it passes. I am a responsible dog owner with show dogs working to do the best in the breed- and stray dogs was never caused by me.. The law abiding citizens will pay will the rest- the ones BREAKING the leash lawsor dog running at large etc- will continue to do so.. And they need to contact the underwriters of any insurance company holding liability etc insurance on someones pets that "Beware of dog signs" are required by the state" so it doesnt raise peoples rates for posting such. And who the heck would microchip a 6 month old large breed is a total joke. You cant read that chip if it moves- and in a large breed- it will.
Zubin was only 27 inches at the shoulder at 6 months old- now almost 37 at the shoulder.... If he had been chipped at that age- no way could you find that chip.. And any vet would tell you the same thing.

I think the proposal has some good points and some bad points, but it is a start.

I don't think it is appropriate to force owners to put up a beware of dogs sign, but perhaps implement a new sign that simply makes notice of a pet with an altered / unaltered check box. I know from EMS experience that there are stickers that can be placed on a window that say "In Case of Emergency Rescue Us" and it has options to fill out pet types and quantities. Maybe a sign in this manner is better suited.

The microchip requirement is a great idea. Most responsible owners have their dog chipped anyhow, so it really doesn't increase the cost and it is a one time fee. The age limit simply needs to be amended to take into consideration large breeds.

The more controversial issue is the yearly fee for unaltered pets. I agree with this fee and my main reason is enforcement. If used properly this law will give animal enforcement agencies teeth to go after back yard breeders and irresponsible pet owners. Imagine the pressure that could be placed on backyard breeders with dozens of unaltered dogs being bred every few months. The down side is that responsible owners of unaltered pets will also pay the price, but is fifty dollars a year all that much when compared to the cost of owning and showing dogs anyhow? I think the trade off of being able to fine bad owners is much greater.

As it is written now, I don't think it should pass. With a couple changes I think this could be a very good law.

BYB RARELY get licenses for their dogs- they are shut down here all the time with that as an additional fine. Most of the time, in cities they are also already over the limit in the number of animals- how is that going to stop them from doing it more so. Our neighbor down the road had 50 pit bulls- only turned in because a neighbor got mad with the noise- never had a license on any dog for the whole history- one she claimed at like 15 years of breeding..
It seems like to me the law abiding people are hurt by laws that even physically makes little sense with the chipping at such a young age.. And the added insurance cost as any insurance company says this type of sign is a " sign of threat" of known impending danger if the dog does bite.
My dogs are chipped- chipped as early as they are physically able, and checked with each vet visit you can still read the chip.. And my dogs would not sooner bite someone if their life depended on it.. This appears to me as just a way to harass law abiding people while the problem continues with those that already do NOT follow the laws..
BTW- I forwarded this to two borzoi breeders in Indiana- they are moving if it passes- literally.. They refuse to put beware of dog signs on THEIR property, or microchip a dog before 6 months old..
The needle used for a chip looks all but like a turkey baster- Its not a little needle.. This is pain with NO GAIN in a large breed..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

This is a very good bill and I do hope it passes. The bill info printed here
leaves out the real guts of the bill & it's benefits to all dog owners in Indiana.

Since most animals bites come from unneutered animals, it makes good
sense to fine owners for unneutered dogs with funds going into a county
fund to provide low cost or free spay/neuter clinics, award damages
to victims of animal attacks, amoung other benefits to all animals and
their owners.

---

I agree, there are just too many irresponsible pet owners. yes it makes it harder on the responsible ones.