It's everywhere.....

[Pipedream Farm]

In parts of Utah, households are only allowed to have a certain number of dogs. Do you think it might cut out at least some of the puppy mills if breeders are only allowed to breed say 1 breed and not 4 or 5?

No, because puppy mills typically will have a kennel license placing them in another category than "household".

 

Laws that limit the number of litters (or taxes each litter) will likely have exemptions for puppy mills since the law typically considers them in a similar category as livestock producers where a limit (and tax) would infringe on their right to do business.

 

Most of these new laws are attacking the problem from the supply side; the disposable pet mentality (the real problem) must fixed from the demand side (the puppy buyer who then decides they no longer want the adult dog). As long as there is a demand, someone will supply it either legally or illegally.

 

Mark

[Guest WoobiesMom]

Most of these new laws are attacking the problem from the supply side; the disposable pet mentality (the real problem) must fixed from the demand side (the puppy buyer who then decides they no longer want the adult dog). As long as there is a demand, someone will supply it either legally or illegally.

 

Mark

 

Amen! I spoke to the AC head in my county who said part of the reason that these *(*&%^&%^ puppy stores are popping up in my county has to do with the scarcity of the tiny toy breeds available. As long as people (mostly teen girls and their silly moms) want these pocketbook puppies, the mills are going to meet that demand.

 

But the puppy mill situation is a different thread. WRT the thread at hand, I think limiting the number of animals, requiring kennel licenses (to put breeders on the radar) and taxing litters would be better than a blanket fee to all intact animals. I also think dogs and cats should be in a separate category than agricultural livestock in states like MO.

 

As far as the disposable mentality, how do you combat that? If you make it harder to dispose of a dog, I think you drive pet surrender underground and go back to those days of the canvas sacks filled with rock, boxes on sides of highways and you'll have owners sneaking to the local shelter under cover of night to tie the dog to the pound so the owner can avoid the fee/fine/whatever. Or worse, taking them to the woods and killing them.

 

Education is the key. I love the ads with the puppy in the pet insurance ads with the tagline "I don't understand the 'I can't afford it' part". Maybe if shelters and rescue groups pooled their resources for PSAs that showed the dog being a part of the family and then being left as the family drives away from a pound or something.......

 

I just don't know sometimes. Too many pets have become like the latest accessories, cute and fashionable today, so "yesterday" tomorrow. All I can do at this point is educate my own kids, which I have. We do not have disposable pets. In fact, all 3 are rescues. My kids are big into shelter pets and would only go purebred if there were allergies like my son had in the past. And now that my daughter has been educated about puppymills, she lectures all her teen friends constantly about not buying from puppy stores, not buying designer breeds, and not breeding their pets. In fact, she lost alot of favor at the step family's house b/c the evil stepmother wanted to breed the nearly cripple Yorkie because she thought it would be "neat". I think my daughter got through to her.

 

I think spay/neuter incentives are a better way to encourage casual pet owner compliance and cut into that source of the population. Maybe pet store gift cards, discounted vet fees, reduction of property taxes, etc.

[HighDesertSpice]

I wasn't making an analogy merely suggesting that as a society, through our government, we make rules that may in fact govern what one may do with one's private property.

That may be true, but unless all owners of intact dogs can ensure that all other owners of intact dogs behave in a responsible manner, the probability of some cost to the society due to the existence of intact dogs increases. One way of mitigating that risk is to "tax" all owners of intact dogs at a higher rate.

 

 

I disagree. If you care for and control you dog appropriately, you will prevent unwanted pregnancies. It's really simple--AND requires that you are organized, knowledgeable and plan ahead.

 

If it's an analogy you want; any given male driver under 25 may be a good driver who always obeys the rules but as a group, males under 25 are far more likely to have an accident. As a result, they pay higher insurance premiums. As a group, owners of intact dogs are more likely to contribute to a town/county/state's pet overpopulation problem. So, as a group, they are going to pay higher licence fees.

 

So then you missed my point earlier. INSURANCE is not a license or a use fee. It is the cost of replacement AND asset protection. It is about risk assessment. It is required partly for political reasons (follow the money) and partly to protect drivers from irresponsible drivers. If my car is destroyed by an irresponsible driver, he/she is required to carry enough insurance to cover my loss. It is not primarily a use fee. It does not cover the useage of a car on public infrastructure, ie roads, that require signs, curbs, maintenance, et al.

 

It's the fatal flaw in libertarianism. If everyone was smart and responsible, you wouldn't need laws and regulations infringing upon the disposition of personal property and upon personal freedom, but they're not and so you do. If everyone was a responsible pet owner who prevented unplanned litters, and only bred high quality offspring for which they had pre-screened responsible, educated, and aware buyers then laws like these would not be popping up like mushrooms after a rain, but many owners of intact dogs are idiots, or greedy and unscrupulous, and therefore the cost of owning an intact dog will go up.

 

Hmmm, you missed the point again. Laws address irresponsibility and lawlessness. Personal freedom is guaranteed to the lawful; and withdrawn from the lawless. And you advocate taxing the lawful because of the behavior or the lawless/ irresponsible. Not only do you propose punishing the lawful, but you also support and advocate taking the resources of the lawful because of the lawless. That is backwards. The lawful instead profit from appropriate behavior. It's a law of the universe. Who would want to take others' resources without cause? Can you see how backward this logic is?

 

You may argue, "charge higher fees only to those who are irresponsible puppy millers, or who give pups up to shelters". That would be a fairer way to go but try imagining how to administer such a program. It would be a nightmare of appeals and lawsuits, so much easier to just implement a gonad tax across the board.

 

Yes, taxes are indeed expedient. But does that make them right or the logical course? The harder thing to do is usually the better thing to do.

But then doing the better and the best require character.

 

HDS

[Guest WoobiesMom]

Those are good points HDS. If a 25 yr old male doesn't want to or can't afford the insurance, he can still get a license and pay a flat uninsured motorist fee that is not indexed to age (at least in places that I've lived, not sure about VA specifically). And the point you make about withdrawing rights from the lawless when they violate a law is an excellent point. I've changed my view because of these debates here on MSN.

 

I support limits on large volume breeders, separating out dogs and cats from livestock for USDA regulation reasons, litter taxes that are flat and fair to all who choose to breed, mandatory microchipping of intact animals found roaming at large on first offense, mandatory SN (within acceptable medical limits) of those animals if found roaming at large a 2nd time, massive incentives for SN, and a PSA campaign to educate about this concept of disposable pets.

 

Thanks for changing my mind.

 

Oh, and outlawing commercial sale of puppies and kittens in retail stores. That too

[Rosanne]

In Pennsylvania it is illegal to drive without insurance.

 

I wasn't really even following your guys' part of the conversation (not thinking that hard!), but thought I'd throw that tidbit out there - some parts of the country do require it. HOWEVER, even a 25-year old male can buy the cheapest insurance out there, with the lowest payouts and highest deductibles etc.

That also doesn't mean he has to pay more to GET a license. Just to own a car. So he could, say, drive someone else's insured car, for no fee at all...

 

So.. . . in my mind that sort of jives with the idea of being to get a license for an intact dog, but not being to "use" him without paying a lot

[HighDesertSpice]

I think this is a case where good campaigning could be very effective. A few examples in mind: MADD, pet adoption, anti-abortion, the pink ribbon for breast cancer, and others. I mention these NOT to be un-pc, but they are cases in point where very active campaigning, and not taxing, have had very good results.

 

In the case of MADD--the results included ads (purchased by a variety of interests who got on the bandwagon as a community service)--leading to "friends don't let friends drive drunk", designated driver, et al.

 

Pet adoption: there are some excellent efforts on going by private individuals as well as by foundations. Mutts are esteemed once again, and not everyone has to have a purebred animal.

 

anti-abortion: I mention this one as it is controversial, addresses what some regard as unacceptable behavior, but which is not illegal. The campaign was to present certain facts to the public. It has resulted in fewer abortions.

 

Various walk a thons, fundraisers, et al take place all over the country, sponsored by nearly every hospital and major health clinic for breast cacner awareness.

 

I think the campaign would link irresponsible breeding to euthanizing dogs, neglect and abuse, for example. Many people may hear about it, but are not presented with the costs, the dogs that are put down needlessly, et al.

 

I also think a community wide campaign would be most successful. Each community would be presented with facts about the costs, the numbers, the route to better management. Each community would monitor their effectiveness by say, seeing the results in a thermometer type graphic. Children would be taught about the facts in biology, 4-H, et al. Community celebrities would be involved as spokespersons and to generate interest. Perhaps ALL of the local animal clubs would join cooperatives for this specific purpose--educate the demand side, as Mark puts it, on the benefits of responsible ownership, breeding and management. People on this board have a lot of knowledge that they *may* think the general public has, but which in fact it may NOT have. Much like these other topics--the special interest groups knew their respective topics in depth BUT they had to take it to the streets and keep it out there, and keep focus on it, until the problems trended downward. I really believe there is a LOT of opportunity to persuade and educate "the masses".

 

PS: my dogs are NOT intact--one by my choice; the other by mandate.

[HighDesertSpice]

Those are good points HDS. If a 25 yr old male doesn't want to or can't afford the insurance, he can still get a license and pay a flat uninsured motorist fee that is not indexed to age (at least in places that I've lived, not sure about VA specifically). And the point you make about withdrawing rights from the lawless when they violate a law is an excellent point. I've changed my view because of these debates here on MSN.

 

I support limits on large volume breeders, separating out dogs and cats from livestock for USDA regulation reasons, litter taxes that are flat and fair to all who choose to breed, mandatory microchipping of intact animals found roaming at large on first offense, mandatory SN (within acceptable medical limits) of those animals if found roaming at large a 2nd time, massive incentives for SN, and a PSA campaign to educate about this concept of disposable pets.

 

Thanks for changing my mind.

 

Oh, and outlawing commercial sale of puppies and kittens in retail stores. That too

 

Well, i'm VERY honored too to be able to discuss these important things and privileged to be able to exchange these ideas with you--you obviously have genuine humility.

 

I like your ideas of mandatory chipping and mandatory sn for mutliple roaming offenses...and for sn incentives. I would go for that. And I would give each community the chance to decide if that is how they would address their particular problem, if they see it that way. I'm still not on board with taxing litters; but I will look into the USDA part you mention (I don't understand it) and give thought to how to control mass volume breeders. Perhaps this is still best and most effectively attacked from the supply side.....

 

Great ideas! I was all involved and indeed stuck on the abstract, and you came up with some very good solutions.

[Guest WoobiesMom]

OH! WRT challenging these laws I think an excellent approach is that they violate the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. In VA, we currently have abusive driver fees that only apply to VA residents that went into effect on July 1st. It's being challenged in many courtrooms because it unconstitutionally (according to opponents) applies penalties unevenly. It seems to me that a higher licensing fee for intact animals violates this amendment as well.

 

Heh, who'd've thunk it, I was all for them in the beginning! Guess you can teach an old dog new tricks! Just had to hit that Constitution bone to turn me right around!

[IronHorse]

Which group do people think is most responsible for the bulk of the abandoned pets in this country?

 

1. BYBs

2. Hobby Breeders

3. Puppy Mills

4. other

 

Mark

 

4. other

(statisics as unreliable as they often are will far and away point to the pet owner as being the primary source of abandoned pets)

I am of the opinion that behind every MSN legislation there is an animal rights group

stoking the furnace.

Mandate Laws that are punitive to GOOD breeding pratices and the outcome will be the loss of GOOD breeders and the loss of sound genetic diversity.

Truthful Education (not propaganda or false representation) directed towards the DEMAND side of this paticular issue (pet populations) is IMO the key to reaching a proper balance.

Without going into a long winded rant why I am adamantly oppossed to animal rights groups I will just toss out this link which I believe is pertinent to this thread.

 

Opposition to Mandatory Spay/Neuter Legislation

[Pearse]

I disagree. If you care for and control you dog appropriately, you will prevent unwanted pregnancies. It's really simple--AND requires that you are organized, knowledgeable and plan ahead.

 

That "if" is the crux of the matter is it not? In terms of the cost of intact dogs as a class to the community as a whole it matters little what I as an individual do. It matters what owners of intact dogs as a group do. If significant numbers of that group are irresponsible, then the community will be inclined to make it inconvenient for the group to exist.

 

 

So then you missed my point earlier. INSURANCE is not a license or a use fee. It is the cost of replacement AND asset protection. It is about risk assessment. It is required partly for political reasons (follow the money) and partly to protect drivers from irresponsible drivers. If my car is destroyed by an irresponsible driver, he/she is required to carry enough insurance to cover my loss. It is not primarily a use fee. It does not cover the useage of a car on public infrastructure, ie roads, that require signs, curbs, maintenance, et al.

 

I didn't miss your point and I understand the fundamental difference between insurance, taxes, and licence/user fees. The analogy was to actuarial risk. A private business (insurance co) knows that, as a group, males under 25 have a higher risk of accidents. Therefore, they charge them a higher insurance rate. A municipality knows that intact dogs, as a group, are more likely to produce dogs that will end up in shelters than sterilized dogs, therefore they make owners of such dogs pay higher licence fees to offset the cost of running the shelter, or as a disincentive to own an intact dog. Neither situation says anything about individual drivers or individual dog owners.

 

Hmmm, you missed the point again. Laws address irresponsibility and lawlessness. Personal freedom is guaranteed to the lawful; and withdrawn from the lawless.

 

Some laws address irresponsibility. Laws are simply the rules by which a democratic society governs itself, and democratic societies restrict personal freedom in all sorts of ways where "lawlessness" is not an issue.

 

 

And you advocate taxing the lawful because of the behavior or the lawless/ irresponsible. Not only do you propose punishing the lawful, but you also support and advocate taking the resources of the lawful because of the lawless. That is backwards. The lawful instead profit from appropriate behavior. It's a law of the universe. Who would want to take others' resources without cause? Can you see how backward this logic is?

Yes, taxes are indeed expedient. But does that make them right or the logical course? The harder thing to do is usually the better thing to do.

But then doing the better and the best require character.

 

In the abstract, I would agree with you but I don't live in the abstract. If everyone was civic minded and altruistic, most of the laws on the books, and most government regulation, would be unnecessary. However, the reality is that greed, ignorance, and self-interest are more common motivators and therefore some regulation is necessary.

 

I do not like the fact that I pay five times the annual licence fee for my dogs as my neighbour whose dogs are spayed/neutered. My dogs are never at large. None of them have been bred - yet. One is spayed as she will never be bred. However, I don't think it's unreasonable that the city I live in has decided it is necessary to charge differential licensing fees as a means of encouraging people to spay and neuter their pets. I think that the City of St. Paul has a reasonable policy.

 

Low licence fee for spayed/neutered animals.

Higher, but reasonable, licence fee for intact animals (such that over the life of the animal a spay/neuter would be cheaper).

Fines for unlicenced animals that are multiples of the licence fee.

Fines of animals "at large" and higher fines if the animal is intact and at large.

No forced sterilization of all pets.

 

If community activism and educational activities ( such as those done by MADD) were to reduce the problem of full animal shelters to the point where it was no longer a problem for most communities, then I think you could make the case for eliminating differential licencing, and given the alternative (forced sterilization legislation) I think that differential licencing fees is a compromise I can live with.

 

In a utopia, the just do not suffer for the transgressions of the guilty but such a utopia has never existed and probably never will. Compromise and imperfect solutions are fundamental to democracy, which is the most inefficient form of government ever conceived of and which is tolerable only because of the alternatives.

[workindogs]

I had an interesting conversation with a family member in California.......not normally politically active, I was surprised to learn that she had joined a grass roots opposition to AB1634. She was infuriated that legislation would reach into people's private lives and threaten the "beloved mutt".....the ultimate companion and family dog. She has little interest in purebreds or preserving working breeds (except for law enforcement and service dogs)....merely that this legislation means the demise of the type of dogs that have bless her lifetime (70+ years).

 

A different perspective but one that has spurred her into political activism. Kudos to her!

 

Elizabeth

[HighDesertSpice]

That "if" is the crux of the matter is it not? In terms of the cost of intact dogs as a class to the community as a whole it matters little what I as an individual do. It matters what owners of intact dogs as a group do. If significant numbers of that group are irresponsible, then the community will be inclined to make it inconvenient for the group to exist......

 

 

About the "if": to be fair, i was speaking of the simple case where one owner had only one intact dog, or they did NOT have one of each--accidents happen, yet it can still be controlled.

 

About groups vs. Individuals - groups generally are influenced by individuals, or a few of them, who work with passion around a clear message. In many but not all cases. That's my point about the campaigning. As a general principle, I don't agree with your statement UNLESS your area is truly completely overwhelmed with irresponsible dog owners--and that this group cannot be influenced toward change. Is that really the case?

 

I do not like the fact that I pay five times the annual licence fee for my dogs as my neighbour whose dogs are spayed/neutered. My dogs are never at large. None of them have been bred - yet. One is spayed as she will never be bred. However, I don't think it's unreasonable that the city I live in has decided it is necessary to charge differential licensing fees as a means of encouraging people to spay and neuter their pets. I think that the City of St. Paul has a reasonable policy.......

 

This is all philosophhical of course, but it sounds as though as an individual you are not part of the class of "irresponsible" intact dog owner group. How many others are also paying the 5x's fee also behave and act responsibly as you do. It seems to me that there are actually two groups--the irresponsible and the responsible. And the first is penalized by the actions of the later. I do not support laws that function in this way. I can't think of another case where I would find this law acceptable and effective and just. Why create a subpar law?

 

In a utopia, the just do not suffer for the transgressions of the guilty but such a utopia has never existed and probably never will. Compromise and imperfect solutions are fundamental to democracy, which is the most inefficient form of government ever conceived of and which is tolerable only because of the alternatives.

 

More philosophical leanings: Laws do not exist to create utopia. They exist precisely because of the entropic direction of moral society. They exist to preserve some form of justice. I'd be very curious to know if St. Paul is actually getting the results it intended by charging you and others like you 5x's the sn license. (I also don't share you views on democracies usefulness, but that's another discussion for another day.)

[juliepoudrier]

And the first is penalized by the actions of the later. I do not support laws that function in this way. I can't think of another case where I would find this law acceptable and effective and just.

While I understand and agree with your reasoning for not supporting such laws, the fact is that such laws do exist and they exist exactly because of the irresponsible contingent of whatever group the particular law targets. In some cases the laws aren't punitive toward the responsible members of the population, and in others they are. I personally don't mind paying more for keeping an intact dog, but where I most recently lived the difference was 2x ($5 vs. $10). Raising the latter amount to 200x ($100) is an amount I consider punitive. While I pay the license fees as they are now, I probably would simply "go underground" with my intact dogs if license fees were raised to an amount I consider punitive. And since I'm a responsible dog owner who has always properly licensed my dogs (when I knew for a fact that many people didn't even bother), I have to wonder if raising fees so high wouldn't actually be counterproductive and just encourage the few people who are abiding by the current law to just stop. (I recognize that I'm already on the books somewhere so of course they could come looking for me if I suddenly stopped licensing dogs, but it's not that hard to hide dogs either.)

 

I remember when I lived in a small town and stray cats (not true strays because they had owners who were feeding them, but they were outside cats that other people found annoying for the usual reasons) became an issue, the town proposed a law restricting the number of cats someone could own. I wondered how they planned to enforce such a law, especially for those of us with indoor cats. Yep, it would give the AC folks an excuse to pick up outside cats that no one would claim as theirs, but did the town powers-that-be really think they could come in my house and count the number of cats I had there (as if they'd ever even see the shy ones)? Laws need to be sensible *and* enforceable, or they're really pointless, IMO. And I really don't see how S/N laws or huge license fees for intact dogs are either sensible or enforceable, but maybe I'm just dense.

 

J.

[Bill Fosher]

In the case of MADD--the results included ads (purchased by a variety of interests who got on the bandwagon as a community service)--leading to "friends don't let friends drive drunk", designated driver, et al.

 

MADD has also worked to criminalize DWI and enhance penalties for drunk driving. It's not all about awareness and education from their standpoint. Far from it.

 

When I was a reporter, I covered a three-count vehicular homicide case in which a 21-year-old woman was sent up for 15 to 20 years. It was the first time she had been arrested for anything. She was way drunk, crossed over the center line, and killed three people in a car coming the other way. She pleaded guilty and admitted her wrongdoing, and tearfully apologized to the families of the people she had killed.

 

MADD was on the courthouse steps arguing that the the sentences should have been consecutive, in other words, 45 to 60 years, rather than running concurrently, and criticizing the DA for his "soft" plea deal. The rhetoric was so sharp that two of the victims' families issued a statement thanking the DA for his handling of the case, and pointing out that locking up the driver for the rest of her life wasn't going to bring their loved ones back. MADD was arguing in favor of mandatory minimums and enhanced penalties, not public eduation.

 

BTW, this woman later appeared in some of MADD's literature talking about how she had taken three lives and ruined her own and that of her family by making a bad decision. Her message was that it was too late for her and her victims, but others could still make the right choice.

 

I don't mean to impugne MADD's work. Certainly it has gone a long way to normalize the concept of designated driver, and to folks seeing taking car keys from a drunk as an act of friendship, rather than a put-down. But they are not an education-first organization.

[HighDesertSpice]

All of this is very interesting information. In the case of MADD, i hadn't realized how "passionate" they are with the trials....but it is worth noting that they focused on "criminalizing" the drunk driving, ie harmful behavior. I would not want to clog up the courts with minor infractions....but would want to make this behavior really unpopular and unacceptable.

 

I do agree with Pearse in that if a community ON THE BALANCE is on the "irresponsible" side ( substitute whatever term you will), then trying to control the problem with MSN may seem reasonable--but the local communities should get that decision, IMHO, not the states--unless there are really very little variations across the state.

 

But as Julie points out, really how can this be enforced? And how to do it in a way that reduces the costs on the balance (costs of controlling the problem on the whole)? Which brings me back to the campaign.....MADD worked to criminalize drunk driving per what Bill says. Perhaps the dog associations can work together to criminalize the unwanted reults, be it mass puppy milling, misuse of dogs, et al. I would hope that they would NOT work to criminalize responsible dog ownership / breeding.

[Liz P]

Here is a possible solution I'll throw out there for debate. Please do find the holes in my suggestion.

 

A one time dog license fee that would cover the cost of neutering and a rabies vax for the dog. A person buys a dog and pays about $200 (more or less as needed) to get a license. The person then gets a certificate to get the pet neutered and vaccinated against rabies for free. The person MUST get it vaccinated for rabies so many will just have them neutered at the same time (takes out the laziness factor of not wanted to go to the vet). Pets caught running loose without a license will be held until the owner pays the fee. The owner may choose to have it neutered while the dog warden is holding it. Each year after the original fee is paid the license only costs $5, or whatever is needed to cover the costs of the town to keep the records, regardless of whether the dog is intact or not. If a dog is picked up for wandering multiple times (3+ ???) or found to be dangerous the town can force the owners to have the pet neutered (cost was already covered by the original license fee).

[Tassie]

Hi Liz

 

A question ( since we don't have rabies here in Australia) - is it OK for the dog to have a rabies vacc. at the same time as de-sexing? Many vets here don't like to combine vacc (C3 or C5) with surgery.

 

Would you consider putting microchipping in with your initial list? In New South Wales, where registration is relatively cheap and life-time, all dogs (and cats) are required to be microchipped, and that is coming in in other states. More feasible now there is an ISO chip which can be easily read, unlike the previous situations with company specific chips and readers.

 

And wouldn't you still need to make some provision (like higher, though not punitive) fees for dogs which for often very valid reasons, remain entire. (Like our municipality, the higher fee could be pro-rata rebated once a dog was de-sexed.)

[Liz P]

Hi Liz

 

A question ( since we don't have rabies here in Australia) - is it OK for the dog to have a rabies vacc. at the same time as de-sexing? Many vets here don't like to combine vacc (C3 or C5) with surgery.

 

Would you consider putting microchipping in with your initial list? In New South Wales, where registration is relatively cheap and life-time, all dogs (and cats) are required to be microchipped, and that is coming in in other states. More feasible now there is an ISO chip which can be easily read, unlike the previous situations with company specific chips and readers.

 

And wouldn't you still need to make some provision (like higher, though not punitive) fees for dogs which for often very valid reasons, remain entire. (Like our municipality, the higher fee could be pro-rata rebated once a dog was de-sexed.)

 

1) Not at all ideal, but we do it anyway with shelter animals, feral cats, etc. As far as "herd health" is concerned it works. (herd health = if enough animals within a population are immune there will be little to no incidence of a disease within that population)

 

2) Maybe, depends on the cost. Make the cost too high and people will try to hide their pets. Also, many people in the US are paranoid about the government and might try to hide their pets to avoid having a microchip inserted (because they don't fully understand what a microchip really is). A tattoo seems like a safer (more acceptable to the masses) alternative. But then again, a tattoo could be faked...

 

3) I wouldn't mind paying a higher fee, just not a crazy one. I used to pay $30 per intact pet (vs $7 neutered) before I moved. If your fees per pet added up to $200 or more you could but a kennel license for $200 which would cover all your dogs, intact and neutered. I just haven't checked the prices yet in my new town. If the fee for an intact pet was on the order of $100 a year I would not be happy.

[Tassie]

Just checked my municipality's fees. If you pay within a month of the due date, yearly fee is A$65 for entire, A$20 for desexed. Goes up to A$75/A$25 if paid late. There are discounts for obedience trained dogs, for pensioner owners. Entire working dogs (with proof of working, are A$45 per year.)

 

The A$ is about 80cUS at present, so those fees seem to be to be in the reasonable range (though there are still people who won't register ....

 

Microchipping here comes at a one-off cost of between A$20 and A$40, depending where you get it done. Tattooing is not at all common here - except, I think for Greyhouds and German Shepherd Dogs. Microchipping is becoming very widely accepted - the more so each time there's a news story about a chipped lost dog being reunited with owner.

[HighDesertSpice]

Here is a possible solution I'll throw out there for debate. Please do find the holes in my suggestion.

 

I'm all for trying to come up solutions and thinking out of the box......but that said......

As i prefer that the dog regulations be local rather than state or even national, i would not support a one time fee. People and dogs are moved around, and the one time fee which is rather high, would not work in the next locale.

 

The other problem with high fees is that you limit the potential dog ownership pool due to the high cost. I'm not convinced that only people with that amount of disposable income--which can spent on dog fees--makes for a better pool of dog owners. I'm also taking into consideration that the dog owners are spending $$ on a good dog, and all that goes along with it. (Vet care, quality food, annual checkups or so, fencing, housing, training, et al....).

[Liz P]

The other problem with high fees is that you limit the potential dog ownership pool due to the high cost. I'm not convinced that only people with that amount of disposable income--which can spent on dog fees--makes for a better pool of dog owners. I'm also taking into consideration that the dog owners are spending $$ on a good dog, and all that goes along with it. (Vet care, quality food, annual checkups or so, fencing, housing, training, et al....).

 

I personally disagree with this statement. If you can't afford a $200 one time fee you shouldn't have a dog. If your dog were to get sick your only choice would be to put it to sleep or let is suffer. I see that all the time. People have a pet and can't afford a very reasonable vet bill so they just euthanize and get a new dog or let their dog die a slow, painful death. (One time a 5 yr old hunting dog cam in and needed a $400 operation that would cure it completely. The owner opted to euthanize and buy a new pup.)

[juliepoudrier]

3) I wouldn't mind paying a higher fee, just not a crazy one. I used to pay $30 per intact pet (vs $7 neutered) before I moved. If your fees per pet added up to $200 or more you could but a kennel license for $200 which would cover all your dogs, intact and neutered. I just haven't checked the prices yet in my new town. If the fee for an intact pet was on the order of $100 a year I would not be happy.

Around here the only way to get a kennel license is if you have 25 or more dogs (i.e., hunting packs or mills). I always thought a person with more than, say, four our five dogs, esepecially if some are intact, should be eligible for a kennel license. But I think what consititutes a kennel" really varies from locality to locality.

 

I personally disagree with this statement. If you can't afford a $200 one time fee you shouldn't have a dog.

And I have to disagree with your contention that a person who can't afford a one-time fee of $200 doesn't deserve to own a pet. The ability (or lack thereof) to come up with a one-time fee for licensing has no bearing on the owner's ability or willingness to pay for medical treatment when needed (how many times have we heard stories of people with plenty of $$ to pay for a procedure refuse to have it done and euthanize Fluffy instead?). I'm not rolling in the dough, and if one of my dogs needed expensive medical treatment, it would either go on a credit card or I'd make payment arrangements with the vet hospital. I have known poor/limited-income people who took excellent care of their pets but who would have a hard time coming up with a large amount of money at once for a license. But I would sure resent having to pay a $200 fee per dog, period. And I suspect a lot of folks would just skip it and play the odds that they wouldn't get caught.

 

J.