SOUTH BEND — Disagreements continued Monday night over whether animal immunization records should be kept private in St. Joseph County. An ordinance implemented last year requires pet owners outside South Bend and Mishawaka to pay a fee to have their pets vaccinated and micro-chipped.

The new law also requires records of those vaccinations to be turned over to the St. Joseph County Humane Society.

But some St. Joseph County veterinarians say the new law goes too far because it violates their clients' right to privacy. They met with County Council members earlier this year to ask for the ordinance to be amended.

On Monday, the veterinarians presented a short list of what they'd like to see changed, but that didn't end the disagreement.

Granger veterinarian Dr. Donn Kryder says he agrees with the majority of the ordinance, because animals "do need to be controlled." But there's one part of it he's refused to follow.

"The issue is not whether people should license their dogs, or get them spayed or neutered," he said. "The issue is privacy."

Kryder, and other veterinarians, including Dr. Jeff Vogl, have refused to turn over rabies vaccination records from clients who don't give permission for the information to be released. They say the records are well maintained for at least three years in their offices, and should be protected under privacy laws from being released to the county.

"[This ordinance] forces veterinarians to be the police, tax collectors and disseminators of our clients' private information," Dr. Kryder told the County Council during an informal meeting Monday.

He and Dr. Vogl say their clients worry that the Humane Society will use the records to fine pet owners who don't keep their licenses up to date or keep more animals at their home than allowed.

Under the ordinance, most pet owners who live in a residential area inside the county, but outside South Bend or Mishawaka city limits are only allowed to have up to three licensed pets per household.

Humane Society Director Dr. Carol Ecker says enforcement is not the intent or the ordinance.

"We have no time for that," she said. "Our idea is not to have them get rid of those animals. I would just as soon find maybe someplace else for a couple of them to live. But we need to address this with the zoning."

Dr. Ecker says zoning officials can, and have made exceptions for more than three pets per household on a case by case basis, and she is willing to sit down and discuss whether that portion of the ordinance needs to be rewritten.

St. Joseph County Council member Mike Kruk agrees. He helped draft the updated animal ordinance, and says it is intended as a public health ordinance, aimed at reducing the amount of stray animals with diseases like rabies that could be spread to humans.

"They have not gone after anybody that has not complied with it," he said. "They have not gone after any vets that have not been working with it. We have refrained from any of that, because that's not the way we want to approach this. We want people to voluntarily comply with it."

Some veterinarians at Monday's meeting said both they, and their clients, are doing exactly that.

Dr. Doug Morris says the seven vets at his practice have followed the ordinance from day one.

"We're fine with the ordinance as written, and our clients are supporting it," he said. "We take an oath to promote public health, and that's what this does. It's our job to do the paperwork or to do what's necessary behind the scenes to make sure that as high a percentage of the animal population in St. Joseph County is immunized against rabies as possible."

As for the $5 or $10 licensing fee?

"It's simply a license to help pay for the homeless and the unwanted [animals]," said Dr. Morris. "It's the same way your car license or driver's license helps pay for roads."

Dr. Kryder says he has no problem with the licensing fees. During Monday's meeting, he even offered to promote them and sell them if the two sides could strike a deal on the sharing of clients' vaccination records.

Since the ordinance went into effect, Dr. Ecker says the county has paid $13,474 to veterinarians across the county to pay for their time in collecting licensing fees, filling out paperwork, and sending copies of vaccination records to the Humane Society. The county has collected $17,033 from the licenses, proving, she said, that this is not about "making money."

Instead, she told councilmen, it's about public safety.

Since the ordinance was enacted, the Humane Society has added 8,604 new animals to its vaccination database, including several hundred from Mishwaka. South Bend pet records and licenses are kept and handled by South Bend's Animal Control Department.

It's information, Ecker says, that can help save lives.

"Two weeks ago we had two children bitten in the face by dogs. Neither dog had a rabies certificate, but both dogs supposedly were vaccinated. But we had no records, no nothing," she said.

The ordinance allows the Humane Society to quickly look up an animal's history, and allows medical professionals and law enforcement officers to take more appropriate action, she said.

But the information sharing that is happening now, could be put on hold.

A new state law labeled Indiana Senate Bill 316 is set to take effect on July 1, and under it, pet records can't be legally released unless an animal attacks or bites someone.

Dr. Kryder says this means the vaccinations performed at his clinic can't legally be shared with the Humane Society.

But Dr. Ecker, who testified before the committee drawing up the state law, says St. Joseph County's ordinance should be exempted from that portion of the law because it's aimed a "protecting public health." She says rabies vaccination records should be exempt under the law once it takes effect.

The question is, will the state law help settle disparities over the county's ordinance, or drive the two sides even further apart?

Dr. Ecker says she plans to ask Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter to intervene, and decide the matter once and for all.

In the meantime, Kruk says he remains hopeful that the two sides can come to an agreement. But only if both are willing to "give and take."

"We are open to looking at different things," he said. "Whatever is going to work for the largest amount of people and the largest amount of vets is eventually, I think, where we want to head."

No date has been set for when the County Council might take up the issue again.