Mandatory Microchipping and Fees Proposed in Indiana

[cmayer31]

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.

[borzoimom]

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..

[caseysmom]

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.