Tue, Dec 2

South Bend - Your Local News Leader

Controversial animal ordinance to be discussed Monday

by Kelli Cheatham (kcheatham@wsbt.com)

Tools

Controversial animal ordinance to be discussed Monday

By WSBT News1

Story Created: Jun 9, 2008 at 5:59 AM EST

Story Updated: Jun 9, 2008 at 9:04 AM EST

ST. JOSEPH CO. — It has sparked controversy between some pet owners and St. Joseph County leaders. The County Council is meeting Monday night to talk about an animal ordinance some veterinarians and pet owners call "unfair."

Multimedia

Watch The Video

The ordinance was passed in January 2007. Those against the ordinance say it violates their privacy. Opponents are afraid it targets certain breeds of animals. They also say pet owners who keep their pets vaccinated are punished.

People in favor of the ordinance say it's meant to control animal over-population — especially strays.

The ordinance requires pet owners living in St. Joseph County — outside the city limits of South Bend and Mishawaka — to have their pets vaccinated, micro-chipped and registered.

The ordinance also limits pet owners to 3 pets per household. It requires veterinarians to turn pet breed and owner information over to the Humane Society.

The county council is expected to listen to some concerns about the ordinance at a meeting at 5:30 Monday night, on the fourth floor of the County-City building.

The meeting is open to the public, but public comment will not be allowed.

View Oldest Comments First

Tuesday, Jun 10 at 2:57 AM anonymous wrote ...

Hey Holier than thou, what kind of crack was that inferring that poor people can't take care of their children? People like you are what's wrong with the world today. They should euthanize you!!!

Tuesday, Jun 10 at 12:50 AM scared wrote ...

Some people can't even take care of 1 pet. it all depends on the owners. We have rights, but they are always being tweeked or manipulated. We need to reflect how we feel when we vote. I believe that this issue impacts people of all political convictions so lets not point fingers and place blame and actually band together to protect our rights as equal citizens for a common cause.

Tuesday, Jun 10 at 12:14 AM jenagain wrote ...

welcome to china, only boy babies...whoo, something like out of the bible,poor moses.I disagree with such a law, If a household is able to support and care for their pets ,leave them be.

Monday, Jun 9 at 10:37 PM Anonymous wrote ...

Did anyone consider the impact the ordinance would have on the shelter if people had to give up pets because they had more than 3? Maybe they should look at what is coming in this spring compared to last to see if the ordinance has had an effect on the overcrowding. They need to concentrate on irresponsible breeders and petowners than those who are responsible and take them to the vet. What is wrong with 4 or 5 pets as long as they are all altered, vetted and provided for?

Monday, Jun 9 at 10:33 PM 3? wrote ...

I have read the ordinance and also the residential zoning laws and cannot find where it states the limit is 3. I downloaded these from the SJCHS and the County City Website. Besides pets do best in pairs so why not 4?

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:58 PM Anonymous wrote ...

Voting for this ordinance: Rafael Morton Kevin Kubsch Mark Catanzarite Michael Kruk Randy Przbysz Heath Weaver Voting against the ordinance: Dennis Schafer Mark Root Dale DeVon Vote accordingly at the next election.

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:06 PM Kel wrote ...

This is ridiculous. We have 4 small toy breed dogs; which, are all considered another part of our family. There would be no way that I will have someone tell me to get rid of one of them. We take care of them like they are one of our children and should not be told how many pets we are allowed to have. Find a way to punish those that are abusing the right to pet ownership--- don't put us all into one category.

Monday, Jun 9 at 7:50 PM Jack wrote ...

I really enjoy my lawn mower..do you think we can get a license for them? I think it would bve swell. How about a license for the 10 fish my son has in his tank..oops..maybe I should not have said that..bet there is a limit of those too. How about a fee for every fish i catch when I go fishing? Please..tax me more...

Monday, Jun 9 at 7:27 PM Anonymous wrote ...

It's the county highway's fault. They're to blame.

Monday, Jun 9 at 6:42 PM Anonymous wrote ...

I do understand trying to make pet owners more responsible, I think they are targeting the wrong ones. People who aren't responsible don't take their animals to the vet anyway! Subsidized spay/nuetering might encourage people to think more along responsible lines. This crosses the line of over government.

Monday, Jun 9 at 6:27 PM Jennifer wrote ...

Hey 4:51 mishawaka. get a life, you moron. Apparently you are not an animal person. Maybe you should go wallow in the mud like the pig you are!!! Most of us are responsible pet owners no matter how many we have!!!

Monday, Jun 9 at 4:51 PM Mishawka wrote ...

Yes there should be a limit of how many pets you have. My god, we aren't living in farm country. If you have to have more animals than common sense move to the country. That way you and your animals can wallow in the mud alone. Disgusting!

Monday, Jun 9 at 4:33 PM c wrote ...

Your vets are going to loose money and close, They will move. Your people are going to close their little shops because any loss of income from people buying will put them out. They will move. The pet owners are going to feel bullied and they will move. Way to go. I see your counsil is brilliant. They fit right in with Bush. ST. Joe county is in a downward spiral. I am so glad im not there. Sad part is that this will spread.

Monday, Jun 9 at 4:08 PM ...And further more wrote ...

The South Bend Tribune published a story today titled "Garage sales affected by rising prices". Here is an excerpt. "Another garage sale shopper, Raymond Frazier of South Bend, said he wasn't looking for anything in particular but might seek to make a few bucks should he find something he thinks he can resell. He said he was recently laid off from a factory job, and that he and his wife now subsist on breeding cocker spaniels". SHUT HIM DOWN. You have his name, now make a difference.

Monday, Jun 9 at 3:48 PM Anonymous wrote ...

If my dog has fleas, can I at least choose to keep the dog instead of the fleas when big brother comes to take some of them away?

Monday, Jun 9 at 3:46 PM Holier than thou wrote ...

Oh my goodness I'm sorry, but I have to agree with this. It's quite a simple fact that poorer people are less capable of looking after animals (don't get me started on their children). Making decent people pay a small amount like $500 to have a pet is an excellent way of ensuring only the deserving get pets. If the poorer people want a pet, then maybe they should work a little harder, assuming they even have a job that is. I for one support this Proposal !

Monday, Jun 9 at 3:37 PM Jack wrote ...

What about the strays? How is a license going to stop or help them. If I have a license for a gun can shoot the stray? If so, in the county or city limit?

Monday, Jun 9 at 3:18 PM Michelle wrote ...

I can see registering my pet but I dont think anyone should have to pay to licence their pet..it is not a business..come on our lovely government..this is a bunch of bull!!!!

Monday, Jun 9 at 3:06 PM against this wrote ...

It's nobody's business how many animals I have. This is an complete invasion off privacy!

Monday, Jun 9 at 2:20 PM Anonymous wrote ...

Scared you hit the nail on the head! This is very typical Democrat thinking. Look at all the gun laws that only keep honest people honest. This is no different than Obama wanting to take away everyones guns so only the criminals will have guns!

Monday, Jun 9 at 2:17 PM Unclear wrote ...

Based on the information in this ariticle, it is difficult to determine reason for this. "Overpopulation" is the reason listed, but if people take care of their animals and don't infringe on my rights as a neighbor - what is the issue? It would see that the upkeep of the animals (keeing them on one's property and not causing noise / damage to neighbors / breeding) should be paramount. I live in SB where I believe there is already such an ordinance and people rarely follow them anyway...

Monday, Jun 9 at 2:16 PM Big John wrote ...

Everone contact Kelli and WSBT to air this one the News. Watch out Cindy and Deb,KELLI is a great repoter. Thanks you so much

Monday, Jun 9 at 2:09 PM Goshen wrote ...

Hey 7:59AM Mishawaka, It's none of your business how many animals I have as long as I am taking proper care of them. Mind your own business.

Monday, Jun 9 at 2:05 PM Another Mike wrote ...

Pretty soon the government will tell us how many squares of toilet paper we can use to wipe our rear ends. I'd like to see someone try to take away any of my 2 cats and three dogs. They would never make it past my wife.

Monday, Jun 9 at 1:54 PM Dana wrote ...

So if my dog has puppies, I am in violation of the three pet law? Does this law only apply to cats and dogs?

Monday, Jun 9 at 1:52 PM Big John wrote ...

I'll try to put this simple for you. I have never had friend that should more love for me, he sit on my shoulder at night when I come home, he 3lbs. of pure love. This is one thing I wont let someone tell what to do. Everyone let your voice be heard tell the council to mind thier own business.

Monday, Jun 9 at 1:43 PM John wrote ...

Seems to me that all politicians should be micro-chipped. Then whenever one of them gets a knuckle-headed idea like this one, their constituents (or pets) could remotely zap them to reactivate any brain cells that aren't already dead.

Monday, Jun 9 at 1:42 PM Marlaina wrote ...

Is it just me or did we not just here about over crowding at the humane society??? Now we're gonna try to pass new ordinances that will result in more people being unable to take care of their pets?? What a fantastic idea to over-over-over populate the shelters! I have 3 dogs and 1 cat - all are well taken care of, all but one have microchips and all are spoiled. I don't need an ordiance to tell me how to take care of them as I'm sure many others don't. Punish those who abuse; not all of us!

Monday, Jun 9 at 1:00 PM Don Orban wrote ...

What do you expect, with all of the revenue they are losing from people who quit smoking they have to find a new way to get into the publics pocketbooks.

Monday, Jun 9 at 12:49 PM Mike wrote ...

Time to Vote out of office all county council members. Can't drink, Can'ty smoke, can't drive without a seat belt, can't get in a boat without a life vest, can't ride a motorcycle without a special permit, now can't have more that 3 pets. ---- Sounds to me like we are just losing more and more of our personal freedoms every day.

Monday, Jun 9 at 12:26 PM Judy wrote ...

So now the government has the right to tell us how many animals we can and cannot own! And no public comment? How about taxation without representation?

Monday, Jun 9 at 12:21 PM Cindy wrote ...

You all could do what I do, I By pass the vet altogether. I give my dogs the shots they need myself.This way there is no records of owning a pet. I keep a chart of all the shots I've giving in a safe place.

Monday, Jun 9 at 12:10 PM Judy wrote ...

I rescued a cat 4 yrs. ago and 1 in Jan. 06 freezing and starving. Both were checked out and "fixed". They are inside all the time. I will not Micro-chip. And now will not take them to the vet. If sick I will drive 2 hours away to my parents for a vet that will not REPORT me to authorities. Do not regulate. If they want to do something great. Find a way to spray or neuter for very little or no cost. This should save money for the county in the long run.

Monday, Jun 9 at 11:59 AM St Joe resident wrote ...

Go to the meetings, vote out the people who don't know how to solve the issues in a fair and realistic way. Microchip my dogs, no thanks. You want my kids next? How about a tatoo on my forehead?? Would you like to choose the clothes I wear each day? Or how about the church I go to or people I visit with. These are issues of ehtics. I am responsible for my animals. Less laws more freedom...buy vaccines yourselves and give the shots, check it out

Monday, Jun 9 at 11:54 AM Barry wrote ...

This is double taxing us. We pay property taxes for the shelter. Also the 1 million $ the city gave wnit could have helped south bend animal control.

Monday, Jun 9 at 11:45 AM Anonymous wrote ...

No public comment? Guess it's time to replace the council members along with the school board members.

Monday, Jun 9 at 11:42 AM Anonymous wrote ...

Guess I will be sure to use vets outside of this area...I will not register my animals..and they don't have the manpower to enforce it......

Monday, Jun 9 at 11:38 AM Terry wrote ...

This will be just another counter productive ordinance , voted on and passed by do-gooders who don't have a clue. So now responsible people who take care of their pets will go to some out of the county vet so the vet police don't have to report them or they will stop taking them to a vet period. In the end it will be like alot of ordinances that are passed and don't accomplish a thing.

Monday, Jun 9 at 11:27 AM J wrote ...

I agree with most comments. You can tell the people who take care of their pets and the people who do not. I don't think we should have to pay the price for being responsible. It is also true that people who do not take care of their pets are surely not going to take them to the vet especially if they have to pay extra fees. So how are you going to keep track of those animals.Don't we pay enough taxes on everything else.

Monday, Jun 9 at 11:21 AM Big John wrote ...

How about we put these people out of office,concider them stays and have them put down. Animals only have our voice.Maybe these people in office should donate some time in a shelter and earn their money.They could even donate the some of their raises the voted in for themselves.

Monday, Jun 9 at 11:20 AM Anonymous wrote ...

i think something needs to be done we have a lady living next door to us with 2 big dogs that r left out all day and most of the evening Barking! and then she has i dont know how many others and animal control will not do anything about it, we had to buy our own animal trap, because she feed and leaves her garage door open so all these cats go and reproduce!!!

Monday, Jun 9 at 10:53 AM Jennifer wrote ...

This is about as stupid as it gets. I am a responsible pet owner with 3 little dogs. I didn't realize the politians are keeping up with everyone's animals and what they do and don't do. How about minding your own business. Responsible pet owners can't help that some people are stupid but yet you want us to pay and be punished for it? Don't think so!

Monday, Jun 9 at 10:52 AM Kellie wrote ...

That chip costs a decent amount of money, I don't know if the counsel realizes this, but alot of us don't have that right now, and I don't like the idea of being forced to mark my pets. It's equivalent to forcing people to get a chip or a tattoo to mark you by.

Monday, Jun 9 at 10:42 AM ...and further more wrote ...

Focus on the irresponsible backyard breeders. There was just an article in the news this morning that a laid off factory worker is living off the $ from breeding cocker spaniels. Put these people OUT OF BUSINESS. Eliminate these breeders and provide low cost spay and neuter programs. The politicians need to look at the OBVIOUS places to start and address the problems and not the symptoms.

Monday, Jun 9 at 10:38 AM Think it through folks.... wrote ...

I suspect that since this is a COUNTY meeting and the H.S. "services" the county, Ecker is behind this. Since farms are located in the county, this ordinance jeopardizes farmers and puts the farm vets in a bad position. And "South Bend" puts it best...there is nothing mentioned about SPAYING AND NEUTERING. That is the most important issue here for overpopulation. If the politicians want to build a proactive relationship with vets and owners, coordinate and subsidize a spay neuter program.

Monday, Jun 9 at 10:35 AM Mike wrote ...

VERY UNFAIR!!!! We have many pets ourselves and take good care of them all. It would be unfair to enforce this law. I agree the animals should be vaccinated to protect their health and ours. Let's spend the time more wisely and go after those who don't take care of their pets and are not responsible pet owners. Next they are going to tell us how many children we can have!!!!!

Monday, Jun 9 at 10:29 AM Virgie wrote ...

This will not cut down on strays, the people that dump those dogs don't care about their animals, and will ignore this ordinance. This will only limit the caring owners!

Monday, Jun 9 at 10:21 AM Anonymous wrote ...

I see, I cannot have more than three pets but our former police officer neighbor can go ahead and shot and kill a dog in his yard. What happened to logic????? It seems like the pet owners you need to worry about are the ones that do not take their pets to the vet. The best way to limit stray pets is to encourage spay and neutering.

Monday, Jun 9 at 10:19 AM LOL! wrote ...

And so many morons want our government in charge of their health care?! See what you get when you let the government "control" something?! LOL!

Monday, Jun 9 at 10:17 AM Mark wrote ...

Public comment will not be allowed? You know, someone else used to make decisions affecting the populace without their input.

Monday, Jun 9 at 10:03 AM Anonymous wrote ...

Your vet, has a disclaimer on the desk. (mine does) about what information and fee's are charged. If your pet is spayed/neutered it is less for license. I would like to say, I hope it does control animal amounts on properties, as at my old house, the neighbor has minimum 10 dogs 30 cats 2 goats and wants a cow and horse and lives on 1/1/2 acres.. the smell is awful. I've called and nothing has been done.. please control that household.!!!

Monday, Jun 9 at 9:51 AM dr.mike wrote ...

I think this is much needed. People aren't taking care of the pets as well as they should!

Monday, Jun 9 at 9:35 AM Mike S. wrote ...

I'm for having pets vaccinated. With all the strays its a good idea. Punish the people that let their pets run loose and unvaccinated, not people that really take care of their pets. Lets worry more about crime and the condition of our roads than this!

Monday, Jun 9 at 9:29 AM Lu Anne wrote ...

This ordinance only punishes the responsible pet owners. We spay/neuter our pets, vaccinate them regularly and take care of them. They are a part of our family. Sometimes they are the children some of have never had. The problem is with the people who don't vaccinate and spay/neuter their pets. They don't have any records anywhere so how are they going to be made to abide by the laws when they don't now? Try finding them - they know how to stay out of the mainstream. I don't agree with this law.

Monday, Jun 9 at 9:21 AM Steve-O wrote ...

I have a female boxer about 2 yrs old that is looking for a new home, if anyone is interested let me know. i dont want to take her to the shelter as you can see from the stories around here.

Monday, Jun 9 at 9:09 AM Anonymous wrote ...

Conflect of interest to me. This law was written by the the head of the Humane Society. I have two cats that our indoor cats, they never go outside, so why should I license mine. The best thing that could be done, is all vets spay and nueter for the cost of materials only. Maybe more people would have their animals done. Both of my girls have been spayed and I think that they are more loving and less aggresive. The law should have been written by a committee of pet owners and vets.

Monday, Jun 9 at 9:08 AM T Gaskill wrote ...

I'm not sure how I feel either way on this but they say it's an open meeting. Why isn't it open to public comment then?

Monday, Jun 9 at 9:06 AM Scared Reader wrote ...

What is next are they going to have us chip our kids and then say you can only have 3 so when did the USA start taking its ques from China.

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:58 AM gd wrote ...

Is this discrimination? Why does the proposal only apply to county residence and not those living in South Bend and Mishawaka city limits. Their pets should also be included. Why burden county residence more? BE FAIR.

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:57 AM Yeah Right wrote ...

Two Words: CAROL ECKER

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:55 AM ev wrote ...

"turn the info over to the HUMANE SOCIETY???" the most worthless group who can't manage their OWN things now? what is the matter with our government? gee, let's see, here's a bunch of can't get it together to manage a hole in the ground...let's give them this now! sure glad I don't live in that county, and after this obsurd idea flops, everyone will say, yep, we wasted a lot of money and put alot of people and animals thru alot on THAT dumb idea.

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:54 AM Sammy wrote ...

As per usual our Government is sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong. If I choose to have 5 pets it is nobody elses business as long as I take care of them and they aren't running the street. If the county wants me to spay/neuter my pets and micro-chip them, they can fund it. My animals are fed, watered, loved and are in a fenced in backyard when outside. I don't need the government to tell me how to care for them.

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:52 AM Marie wrote ...

This Ordinance was passed in January 2007 by the County Council.

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:50 AM Don wrote ...

So now a heard of cattle will be 3 cows. 4-H kids can only raise no more than 3 rabbits or go to jail. People will not use vets because they will be thought of as Gestapo. Why are we not doing something more important...like keeping us out of a depresson.

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:45 AM Big John wrote ...

I think if anything should be done with the pet population it should start with these puppy mills and breeders there is no need for this treatment of animals. These people looking for a pure breeds are push these problems to higher levels.Look into the eyes of these animals and put the needle into them.HITLER

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:42 AM Brad wrote ...

AM Mike, I agree with you. This is beyond absurd especially in light of the Humane Societys' current state. The adminstration is not able to manage their own affairs and the county wants them instruct us on how to manage ours.

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:26 AM Walkerton wrote ...

The ordinance would keep track of stays?? Who is going to bring a staray to the vet. I get my dog vacinated. I don't want the chip due to his small size and the large needle they insert it with. I think it is wrong already that the vet collects dog tax from responsible owners and people who do not vacinate their dogs don't pay taxes on them. We are punished by being responsible. I also don't need the humane society spying on me, they have enough problems in their own house. DO NOT PASS THE LAW

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:21 AM South Bend wrote ...

They don't say anything about requiring you animal to be spay/neutered. They just say that the will need to be vaccinated, micro-chiped, and registered.

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:15 AM MIchael wrote ...

Shouldn't the county council be more worried about those that don't take care of their pets. This will do nothing to help with overpopulation and punishing responsible pet owners. I have more than three pets and now they are saying I have to give up pets to comply with this law. I will remember this come election day.

Monday, Jun 9 at 8:08 AM Big John wrote ...

What about the people who have more than three animals. This will cause more animals to be put down, because it will limit those people who are willing to adopt and care for these animals. If you can show that your animals are taking care of let it be.

Monday, Jun 9 at 7:59 AM Mishawaka wrote ...

I think the ordinance is good. After all, how many animals does one person need to have. If you want to be a pet owner then be a responsible pet owner. I hope they pass the law.

Monday, Jun 9 at 7:42 AM Samantha wrote ...

"It would require veterinarians to turn pet breed and owner information over to the Humane Society." Now THIS IS SCARY! NO NO NO! Veterinarians turning people into the humane society? What's next? Nieghbors turning on each other???

Monday, Jun 9 at 7:41 AM mike n. wrote ...

I swear our govenrment is the most useless piece of crap group of people. Who has the right to tell me to do anything with my pets. If i dont want it microchipped then im not...i dont care what the stupid "ordinance" says. Agreeing with the poster above, i have an older dog and i sure as heck am not going to get if fixed just to appease some old fart of a politician who sips expensive drinks all day and calls it a job.

Monday, Jun 9 at 6:38 AM Mike wrote ...

Just another example of our wonderful government at work. Let's punish and tax those that do have all their animals vacinated. This kind of orndinance only encourages us to refrain from having pets vacinated. Lets punish and tax those that don't vacinate and spay and neuter. I have four pets. Which one do I euthanize?? Only one is not neutered because he is a dog that is 15 years old. Too old to risk surgery. Rewrite this ordinace to encourage us to be responsible, not punish us for doing so.

Add a comment

Most Popular

Countdown to Digital TV:

WSBT Weather

Current Temp 27

More Weather