An ordinance regulating the keeping of domestic animals for breeding purposes received an initial first-reading approval from the Bartholomew County Commissioners Monday.
“This is something we have really worked on for the past eight months,” commissioner Chairman Larry Kleinhenz said. “But we have been talking about it for the past three to five years.”
A second and final vote on the ordinance will be at 10 a.m. on Monday, Aug. 30.
The first part of the proposal states that any person who breeds dogs, cats or other non-agricultural animals for purposes of selling the offspring shall not have more than 10 unaltered females more than 12 months old.
It will also be unlawful for any owner to abandon a dog, cat or other animal within the county. However, the proposal does allow feral cats to be trapped and spayed or neutered by an agency contracted by the county before the wild feline is returned to where it was originally found.
While Kleinhenz said he disagrees with releasing feral cats because they will kill other animals, he said he agreed to the provision to gain the support of the other two commissioners, as well as a number of animal advocates.
Current fines for violations will be increased to $100 per day. The fines would keep increasing for each passing day the problem goes unresolved, the commissioner said.
The proposed regulations eliminate any mention of a county animal control commission, which county attorney Grant Tucker says has not been in existence for several years. The ordinance also eliminates licensing requirements, and repeals a 1978 ordinance that conflicts with the new set of regulations.
When asked if more progressive measures regarding animal rights and safety are planned, commissioner Tony London said the county will continue to monitor the situations and make necessary changes. However, London said he is concerned about enacting an aggressive regulation that results in unintended consequences.
However, London added that large-scale dog breeding operations are not wanted in Bartholomew County, and much of the ordinance is intended to address those concerns.
On Monday, Kleinhenz was asked whether the new ordinance was written to address concerns about kennels near Hope.
“No,” Kleinhenz said. “But to clarify that, (the Oberholtzer case) is certainly a catalyst that has helped create this hearing today.”
While the commissioner’s chairman said the dog kennels near Hope was not the first animal breeding issue the county has faced in the last 10 years, “it has influenced the necessity of it,” Kleinhenz said.
Most of the 10 residents who listened and spoke up through a streaming Zoom video conferencing system expressed their appreciation to the commissioners for addressing the matter by updating the ordinance.
