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.