# License Fees



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

Just noticed that my city has changed the way they are issuing dog licensing tags. Used to be for $30.00 and a microchip I could buy a life time license for my neuterd dog. The thinking and promotion was that they want the animal licensed incase the pet is lost they are easily identified. 

Now the life time fee is gone and the annual fee for a neutered dog is $20.00. You keep the tag and pay a renewal fee annually. Seems like a money grab to me now. The web site now is talking about this fee being used for animal control funding firstly. What a shift. Get the responsible owners to pay for the others who don't bother, don't believe, dont want to spend the $'s. 

Off to write an email to my city, so they can file it under the "too bad, so sad" file.


----------



## BlackPuppy (Mar 29, 2007)

I pay $19 a year for each dog. We get a new tag every year. And they need the new tag because they get very worn.


----------



## Kittilicious (Sep 25, 2011)

I wish my city had a lifetime fee, that would be sweet. It's $10/dog yearly and $20 if you don't renew it by May 1st. Before last year it was only $15 if you didn't pay by May 1st.


----------



## idahospud49 (Jan 28, 2011)

Looove my little towns!!  $5 for the year if the animal is fixed, $7 if it is intact.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

I don't pay a license fee at all.

In New York's animal laws, there's a clause exempting any service dog, therapy dog, search and rescue dog, detection dog, or war dog from having to pay licensing fees. You just show them whatever certification your dog has (like SAR or a Therapy Dog ID card) and they give you your tag but you don't pay a fee.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

Service dogs are free, and they fee is half priced for senior owners (not senior dogs).

Liftetime fee was great. Paid it once and forgot about it, plus it was cheaper.


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

Ya, i totally see it as a money grab. Dax isn't licensed. I guess that makes me a bad owner. I would do it if I could do a lifetime one, but don't feel an annual one is worth it.


----------



## 1sttimeforgsd (Jul 29, 2010)

Our city dog tax here is $4.00 annually. There is no difference in the price for un-altered pets.


----------



## cowgirlup_22 (May 11, 2011)

Dang,wish they did a lifetime one here where I live..*sigh* In my town its $8 for dogs that are s/n and $13 for un altered dogs and the fee is due every December I think. The fine for getting caught with an unlicensed dog is around $230-$320..My friend has a Shih-Tzu that is 3 yrs old and she has never gotten him licensed..until after he ran away and I found out that he wasn't and had told her that she better hope that she gets to her dog first before AC or the police cuz she would get stuck with that huge fine..Found her dog about 2 hours later and the next day she was up at the public works building(think thats what its called) getting him licensed


----------



## ozzymama (Jan 17, 2005)

The City of Waterloo did a lifetime license at one time, they no longer offer it. When I was in Kitchener I think it was $20-30, I can't remember how much it is here, $20 or $30? I gotta get the new dogs and pay $10 to get a replacement for Oz's  It made it a week on his collar.


----------



## CassandGunnar (Jan 3, 2011)

Ours is kind of screwy. It's $12 per dog, for a 3 year term, but the terms are set. For example, the current term runs from Aug 1 2009 to July 31 2012. If you move to town in the middle of the term (or at the end) you pay the same $12 fee as I did at the beginning of the term.
No one seems to be able to explain that to me, but I guess for $4 a year, it's not that big a deal.

Only a local government (or any government) would come up with something that goofy.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs (Jul 7, 2010)

idahospud49 said:


> Looove my little towns!!  $5 for the year if the animal is fixed, $7 if it is intact.


Ours is $3 if the dog is s/n, $8 if intact.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

sharkey19 said:


> Ya, i totally see it as a money grab. Dax isn't licensed.* I guess that makes me a bad owner*. I would do it if I could do a lifetime one, but don't feel an annual one is worth it.


If it is the law, than you are being irresponsible. We had to raise our license fees to $10 because people just did not bother to license their dogs. When the dog warden needed a new truck, instead of getting the dead-beat-dog owners to pay their part, they just stuck it to those of us who pay every year. Owning a dog is a privilege not a right. 

I wish that when they did BSL, they would exempt current licensed dogs. People who did not bother, their dogs can go. Ok, so it is just an irritable point with me. Since no one is going to walk up to you and demand to see your dog's license, there is absolutely no reason to NOT disobey the law. If your dog does do something, and you admit ownership of the dog, then they can issue a fine. A fine of what? Here it is twice the normal fee. Big deal. I would be $500 ahead of the game as the dog warden has never asked me about my dogs' licenses for over ten years. 

We continue to pay for them year after year because it is the right thing to do. There is a tax on dog ownership, and if you want to own a dog, then you have to take part in paying. Generally the money goes to purchasing the tags, paying the auditor's department to distribute licenses and keep paperwork, paying the dog warden, paying for housing strays for a set time period, and so much to compensate owners of livestock in the event that dogs have killed or injured their animals. lf everyone who owned dogs in this county paid their part maybe we could have a shelter with all indoor runs, maybe we could afford to vet the dogs at our shelter rather than putting down a hundred or so young dogs because of a parvo outbreak. Maybe our county could run a shelter rather than everything totally dependent on volunteers. 

It is frustrating to hear people proudly exclaim that they do not license their dog. It does not cost _that_ much.


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

selzer said:


> If it is the law, than you are being irresponsible. We had to raise our license fees to $10 because people just did not bother to license their dogs. When the dog warden needed a new truck, instead of getting the dead-beat-dog owners to pay their part, they just stuck it to those of us who pay every year. Owning a dog is a privilege not a right.
> 
> I wish that when they did BSL, they would exempt current licensed dogs. People who did not bother, their dogs can go. Ok, so it is just an irritable point with me. Since no one is going to walk up to you and demand to see your dog's license, there is absolutely no reason to NOT disobey the law. If your dog does do something, and you admit ownership of the dog, then they can issue a fine. A fine of what? Here it is twice the normal fee. Big deal. I would be $500 ahead of the game as the dog warden has never asked me about my dogs' licenses for over ten years.
> 
> ...


Well in my area it costs about $40 a year. If we get caught without one, it is $75. So ya, I would rather take the risk because odds are I would save more money. As I student, I need to save money where I can. And for someone who has had their dog to the vets on an almost bimonthly basis for various issues, I need to save money where I can. I am a far more responsible owner than most people. My dog is well cared for, sees the vet regularly, is well socialized and trained. Frankly, licensing isn't that much of a priority for me with regards to pet ownership. I would rather donate all that money to a shelter than pay a license fee, which I have, if that is your argument.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

I don't mind paying an administration fee for licensing fees for my pets, and I love the lifetime fee option. I think the fine for an unlicensed pet should be than it is. I do mind paying $20.00 a year to help recover the costs of running the human society just because I own a pet. 

To me that cost should be shared amoungst all members of society and should be added to our property taxes, just like schools, libraries, community centres, parks, wadding pools, children's playgrounds, greenspaces, etc. The human society is a public service. 

Yes my property taxes will go up, but the shelters will have more money to pay for the costs of caring for lost, stray, injured animals. Instead of looking for $20.00 a year from a handful of people (small % actually license their pets) funding will be much greater and the human society will be able to do so much mroe.


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

selzer said:


> It is frustrating to hear people proudly exclaim that they do not license their dog. It does not cost _that_ much.


I also didn't "proudly exclaim" this. Just stated it as a matter of fact, and what was my personal opinion. And frankly, I don't think anyone has the position to judge what costing "not that much" is to someone. You don't know what position money-wise any person is in. A $40 license fee could mean the difference between paying that fee, or buying a bag of dog food. 

Yes ideally, every dog owner has unlimited means to pay for everything for their dog, but lets be realistic here, that is not the case. Never mind the fact with today's economy people are losing jobs left, right and center. 

So don't judge when you have no idea who you are talking to about things costing too much. That is just rude and ignorant.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs (Jul 7, 2010)

selzer said:


> We continue to pay for them year after year because it is the right thing to do. There is a tax on dog ownership, and if you want to own a dog, then you have to take part in paying.


I was going through old mail and found the envelope with my dogs' registration in it, that I apparently forgot to mail. Being as it's October, and license fees are due in January, I'm pretty sure I could "get away with" not licensing my dogs, but I dropped it in the mail anyway. 

Every single dog owner on my road lets their dogs run loose (there is a "containment" law that states your dogs have to be leashed if you leave your property) and I'm pretty sure none of them pay license fees. I follow the law in both cases... IMO it's just responsible. 

While I can sympathize with the argument about not having money to pay the fees, I don't agree with it. IMO, it's just another of the expenses that you factor in when choosing to own a dog.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs (Jul 7, 2010)

sharkey19 said:


> A $40 license fee could mean the difference between paying that fee, or buying a bag of dog food.


Again, this argument simply doesn't hold weight to me. If a person is so bad off that they cannot license their dog because they need the money for dog food... well... they probably should've considered that before getting the dog.


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

I would gladly pay more in licensing fees (I pay $7 per year per neutered/spayed dog, no new tag every year), if it meant that the town had more money for enforcing the local leash laws.


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

Rott-n-GSDs said:


> While I can sympathize with the argument about not having money to pay the fees, I don't agree with it. IMO, it's just another of the expenses that you factor in when choosing to own a dog.


I understand that. But working in a vet hospital I can tell you that most people do not have the money to cover all costs associated with pets. We can all talk until we are blue in the face about looking into costs before getting a dog, but people will still get them whether or not they have what we consider "enough" money. Never mind people who find themselves in tough situations that they were not when they originally got the dog (for example, this past year, I lost my job, our car was stolen, and my dog was in the ICU). They have to make choices about what is important to pay for. Between food, a vet visit, and licensing, I doubt licensing would top the list. And frankly, I would rather a dog be in a loving home of people who might not afford a license than in a shelter.

I am not encouraging people not to get their dog licensed. I just personally do not see the value in it for myself right now. I need that money for other things. When I am working and can afford to do it, I will. 

We all need to accept the fact that people will get dogs, whether or not they can afford to pay for everything associated with it. Just like people will have children they can't afford.


----------



## Deuce (Oct 14, 2010)

I pay $4.00 a year in November because Deuce is neutered. Non fixed dogs it's $12.00.


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

Rott-n-GSDs said:


> Again, this argument simply doesn't hold weight to me. If a person is so bad off that they cannot license their dog because they need the money for dog food... well... they probably should've considered that before getting the dog.


You know as well as I do I am sure that we can say this all we want, but people still won't do it. And again, in today's economy, people are finding themselves in positions they didn't think they would be in. 

If we think that animals should only go to homes where people can afford everything, well, there will be a lot of animals in shelters.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

sharkey19 said:


> I also didn't "proudly exclaim" this. Just stated it as a matter of fact, and what was my personal opinion. And frankly, I don't think anyone has the position to judge what costing "not that much" is to someone. You don't know what position money-wise any person is in. A $40 license fee could mean the difference between paying that fee, or buying a bag of dog food.
> 
> Yes ideally, every dog owner has unlimited means to pay for everything for their dog, but lets be realistic here, that is not the case. Never mind the fact with today's economy people are losing jobs left, right and center.
> 
> So don't judge when you have no idea who you are talking to about things costing too much. That is just rude and ignorant.


I been out of a job for three years at the end of October. I live alone, so there is no one to help me with the household expenses. Unemployment ran out in January, I guess I know what $40 buys -- my cost is greater than yours. I continue to pay for the privilege to own my dogs. 

I was a student once too. I paid my license fees. 

I said proudly because you are announcing it on an internet forum. "I would do it if I could do a lifetime one, but don't feel an annual one is worth it." That is pretty proud and arrogant.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Here in Lakewood its $14 for s/n a year and $28 a year for unaltered dogs.

I do it because its the LAW. If you can't afford the BASIC requirements for a dog such as proper food, clean water, medical care, and proper shelter and grooming, and can't follow laws in regards to owning then you shouldn't own a dog.

Like Selzer said, owning a dog is a privilege, not a right. If you abuse it you get that privledge taken away.


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

selzer said:


> I said proudly because you are announcing it on an internet forum. "I would do it if I could do a lifetime one, but don't feel an annual one is worth it." That is pretty proud and arrogant.


Not at all proud and ignorant. I should have been clearer, I don't feel it is worth it for me _right now_. My cats were licensed a couple of years ago when I could afford it, and luckily it was a life time one. You are totally misinterpreting what I am saying. 

"I was a student too..." Well that hat sounds proud and arrogant to me. You maybe had better luck as a student than I have considering my loss of job, dog in ICU, sick cat, stolen car, and tuition fees/cost of living (within the year that I have had my dog). I don't come on here judging people, just trying to offer perspective. Don't judge me by comparing yourself to me.


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Like Selzer said, owning a dog is a privilege, not a right. If you abuse it you get that privledge taken away.


So you would rather see those animals in shelters than loving homes? Even if those homes can't afford the vet visits/license fee?

If this happened, there would be even more dogs in shelters than now. Its not a realistic view. I understand the view, I used to have it. Maybe because in school we have a course that teaches us not to judge people's situations I am now the odd one out on this. I now understand that we can never truly understand another person's situation because we are not in it. Anyways, I have said this a few times now, and clearly no one else sees this point, so I won't bother arguing it anymore. 

Anyone who uses that argument is really not being realistic about how things are.

And yes, its a bylaw. Does everyone know all their city's bylaws? I would be very surprised to find that no one here has broken one.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

sharkey19 said:


> Not at all proud and ignorant. I should have been clearer, I don't feel it is worth it for me _right now_. My cats were licensed a couple of years ago when I could afford it, and luckily it was a life time one. You are totally misinterpreting what I am saying.
> 
> "I was a student too..." Well that hat sounds proud and arrogant to me. You maybe had better luck as a student than I have considering my loss of job, dog in ICU, sick cat, stolen car, and tuition fees/cost of living (within the year that I have had my dog). I don't come on here judging people, just trying to offer perspective. Don't judge me by comparing yourself to me.


Nope, just used your own words. I never said you were ignorant, you said I was ignorant, I said arrogant. I know what it is to be unemployed. I am not misinterpreting what you said, you added to and changed your story somewhat after I expelled some of my anger. 

I am tired of paying for dead-beat dog owners. I do not think the government should pay for pets. The costs of pet ownership should be covered by EVERYONE that owns pets. My sister is a single mother with two adopted children. She owns no pets, because she understands that they cost money and time and she has other uses for her money and time right now. Why should she pay for other people's pets? Why should she cover the costs of people who are irresponsible with their pets? And why should I pay almost double what I used to pay because people don't think licensing their dog is worth it?


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs (Jul 7, 2010)

sharkey, you initially stated that you don't pay licensing fees. 

I stated that I felt that people should factor licence fees in when they get a dog. You stated that you work at a vet hospital and you can't force people to pay for things like licenses. You said:



> We can all talk until we are blue in the face about looking into costs before getting a dog, but people will still get them whether or not they have what we consider "enough" money.


But... let's not talk about "people." Let's talk about you. I assume you are a responsible dog owner because you seem to care a lot about not just your own dog, but homeless dogs in shelters, other people's dogs that might not be properly cared for, etc.

Well, all I'm trying to say (and perhaps other posters as well) is that a part of responsible dog ownership is paying the license fees, regardless of financial situation or your feeling on whether the fees are necessary.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

sharkey19 said:


> So you would rather see those animals in shelters than loving homes? Even if those homes can't afford the vet visits/license fee?
> 
> If this happened, there would be even more dogs in shelters than now. Its not a realistic view. I understand the view, I used to have it. Maybe because in school we have a course that teaches us not to judge people's situations I am now the odd one out on this. I now understand that we can never truly understand another person's situation because we are not in it. Anyways, I have said this a few times now, and clearly no one else sees this point, so I won't bother arguing it anymore.
> 
> ...


If you cannot provide basic care, than no you should not own a pet. That does not mean that you will always have the money to replace a hip in a bank account. You may have to give your dogs meds for pain and forgo surgery. If your dog is hit by a car and it is going to cost thousands to save and reconstruct the dog, than you should still go and have the dog humanely euthanized. A person in a vet office should not judge a person's circumstances. That is, if they must make a decision based on the whole picture including the finances. But if you cannot afford to provide meds for your dog's pain, then yes, you should not own the dog. I don't think we have a right to keep a dog in a condition where that dog is suffering because we are unable or unwilling to provide some type of relief for the dog. 

But your $40 vet fee is not $2000-$4000 to replace a joint. It is the cost of legally owning a pet where you live. Just because you do not have the money to replace a hip, does not mean you should throw up your hands and not pay what you can pay, and what you should pay. 

You know the law. So that is not an excuse either.


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

selzer said:


> Nope, just used your own words. I never said you were ignorant, you said I was ignorant, I said arrogant. I know what it is to be unemployed. I am not misinterpreting what you said, you added to and changed your story somewhat after I expelled some of my anger.
> 
> I am tired of paying for dead-beat dog owners. I do not think the government should pay for pets. The costs of pet ownership should be covered by EVERYONE that owns pets. My sister is a single mother with two adopted children. She owns no pets, because she understands that they cost money and time and she has other uses for her money and time right now. Why should she pay for other people's pets? Why should she cover the costs of people who are irresponsible with their pets? And why should I pay almost double what I used to pay because people don't think licensing their dog is worth it?


I am not a fan of dead beat owners either, lol. I don't consider myself one for not paying dax's licensing fees this year because of my financial situation (and yes, if it was a lifetime thing, I would be more likely to have gotten it, but because I know I would have to pay next year, etc, I am taking the risk to wait until I can afford it annually myself). As I said before, when I was in a better place financially, I did pay.

I understand what you are saying about your sister. Unfortunately as a civilized society, we cover the costs of a lot of things we don't necessarily agree with (I would rather not pay for some animal abuser's lunch in jail for example, or for subsidized child care since I don't like children or plan on having them). But it is what goes with living in this society. We give and we take. 

I also think that people would be far more likely to license their pets if they offered lifetime licenses, as well as spay and neuter (assuming you could only get the license with a spay/neuter).


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

selzer said:


> But your $40 vet fee is not $2000-$4000 to replace a joint. It is the cost of legally owning a pet where you live. Just because you do not have the money to replace a hip, does not mean you should throw up your hands and not pay what you can pay, and what you should pay.


I totally agree with this. I ended up paying the thousands though, so unfortunately when I lost my job, when january came around, the license fee just didn't appear worth it to me when I had all these other costs to cover and am going to have to pay again next year. So, yes, I took the risk of getting caught for not paying what "I should pay", but from my point of view, his medical expenses were more important.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

It sounds like the penalty for not buying a license is so low and the risk of ever being caught is so low, that it simply does not make sense for you to pay for the license. I guess if I chose that route, I wouldn't broadcast it if I did not want people who do pay for it every year to get angry. 

In Ohio the dog warden cannot go to your house and ask to see your license unless they are called there for some other infraction. At least in Ashtabula County that is the case. So the chances are you will not get caught. 

But just because the penalty is whimpy and the chance of getting caught is minimal, is that a sufficient reason to refuse to follow the law?

I think that they should go after those who refuse to pay and charge them 10 times the annual licensing fee, and they should go back 5 years. So if your dog is 4 and your annual fee is $40, and you never bought the dog a license, then your fee should be $1600. If you do not pay it, it connects to your income taxes. Then people would just go ahead and pay the $40 license -- then it would be worth it.


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

I feel so lucky, we dont have to license our dogs where I live. If it wasn't much though I wouldn't mind paying it so long as, like someone said, it was split up like everything else.


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

selzer said:


> But just because the penalty is whimpy and the chance of getting caught is minimal, is that a sufficient reason to refuse to follow the law?


Ok. So is it safe for me to assume here that everyone has followed every law their whole lives? No one has driven a little over a speed limit? Driven with one headlight/taillight? Filed their taxes a little late? Left some dog poop on their own property to clean up the next day/after winter? Have their dog bark during the day? Technically all of those are breaking the law where I live.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Our licenses are going to double next year...from 10 to 20 for altered and 20 to 40 for intact. I don't mind paying it...*it helps support our county shelter*. 

My county is very poor, and not many even license their dogs in the more rural area's. Many of the strays that are in the shelter, are tied out dogs that have freed themselves in some way, usually have worn collars, dragging chain. Owners won't claim them because they will be fined(not licensed) So they get euth'd if a rescue doesn't pull them.
I know this increase will have even more not licensing. 
The other nearby counties are higher. My county is finally getting on board to stay consistent with them.


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

onyx'girl said:


> Our licenses are going to double next year...from 10 to 20 for altered and 20 to 40 for intact. I don't mind paying it...*it helps support our county shelter*.
> 
> My county is very poor, and not many even license their dogs in the more rural area's. Many of the strays that are in the shelter, are tied out dogs that have freed themselves in some way, usually have worn collars, dragging chain. Owners won't claim them because they will be fined(not licensed) So they get euth'd if a rescue doesn't pull them.
> I know this increase will have even more not licensing.
> The other nearby counties are higher. My county is finally getting on board to stay consistent with them.


See this is another thing, with my city, they do not tell you at all about where the money for licensing goes. If it goes to shelters, I would hope they would be more transparent about that instead of just saying "you must pay this...but we won't say for what..."


----------



## ozzymama (Jan 17, 2005)

Above the moral obligation to license one's dogs, I also look, it's a free trip home. My dogs are well contained, always leashed unless recall is proven... But no one is perfect, we use sitters, leads break, collars break, idiots open your gate. Something happened, those tags are on, my dog comes home. Without me worrying about the $200-300 fee for not having my dog licensed to claim him back, or it's a weekend and I can't find his papers and the vet is closed and they want to make sure he has shots... Or they are going to do them and bill me or keep him til I can prove paperwork... It's peace of mind.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

No licenses for me, thanks. I don't live in a city or town, and the county doesn't require a license.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

No license required for me either. Yay! Neither city nor county require a license around here. 
I buy ID tags, and a microchip, for my dog--seems like it would do the same thing as a license tag only without the anual fee.


----------



## Cetan (Oct 8, 2011)

Caledon said:


> Just noticed that my city has changed the way they are issuing dog licensing tags. Used to be for $30.00 and a microchip I could buy a life time license for my neuterd dog. The thinking and promotion was that they want the animal licensed incase the pet is lost they are easily identified.
> 
> Now the life time fee is gone and the annual fee for a neutered dog is $20.00. You keep the tag and pay a renewal fee annually.


I am not a lawyer, much less a Canadian lawyer...

I would assume if you've got a lifetime license, you would be grandfathered into the new program and not need to pay the annual fee. Especially since it's an actual law, and not a consumer product or service.

Then again, I'm not familiar with how Canada works, but as an American, if that happened to me and I was expected to pay the annual fee to remain licensed, I'd be throwing red flags up all around.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

Yes those that bougt lifetime tags are grandfathered. Bought them for my dog and my two cats. 

I'm just objecting to the change of policy and the reason behind it. It's 20.00 for a neutered dog or cat. It's more than double if your pets are not neutered. 

I dont mind paying an administration fee, which the lifetime fee really was. I wouldn't mind if the penelities were upped for not having a licence or for breaking the leash laws etc. 

Get the ones that break the law.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs (Jul 7, 2010)

sharkey19 said:


> Ok. So is it safe for me to assume here that everyone has followed every law their whole lives? No one has driven a little over a speed limit? Driven with one headlight/taillight? Filed their taxes a little late? Left some dog poop on their own property to clean up the next day/after winter? Have their dog bark during the day? Technically all of those are breaking the law where I live.


We're not talking about random laws, we're talking about laws pertaining to dogs. This is a dog forum, after all... let's keep it in context.

If we let our dogs run off leash when there is a leash law, we might lose the ability to bring our dogs into certain areas at all.

If we don't pick up after our dogs, again, certain areas will be closed to them (in Wisconsin, the nice, grassy areas in rest stops are off limits to dogs, and owners are expected to exercise their dogs on the concrete where the truckers park).

If we don't license our dogs, we have to expect that sometime someone will come up with a consequence that will actually MATTER (aside from a monetary fine).


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

Not withstanding the debate about whether the fee should be paid or not, I skimmed it...

Luckily, even though I live in a large city, our county doesn't require a dog license.

Personally speaking, I wouldn't pay a higher fee for an intact dog (IE: the poster who said it was going from 20 to 40 for an intact animal). So IF we had a license program, I wouldn't claim an intact dog (though as of two wks ago, I no longer have any intact dogs...last one was finally old enough to go under the knife). I know their reasoning is that intact animals cause more problems for the city therefore taking up more resources, but my intact Malinois didn't cause them one single penny, so I wouldn't just roll over and pay it.

That said, our vet is in a different county and they have all sorts of rules and regulations about mandatory speutering. Must be speutered by 6 or 9 months or some craziness like that and there are fines and regulations that go along with the vet even treating an unaltered animal over that age if you live in that county. Not sure what I'd do if that was an issue here, given that I don't speuter puppies. Thankfully I do most of my own vet care, outside of major medical and operations obviously.


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

In the areas that do not have licensing laws, how do officials make certain that rabies vaccines are UTD? Where I live, licensing is mandatory and to get one you must show proof of vaccination.


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

Here, they don't check or verify rabies or anything of the sort. Can't speak for other places.

The only time this would be an issue and get checked is if the dog was impounded by animal control for running at large, etc, or if there was a bite reported.

In regards to counties/cities using licensing to make sure dogs are UTD on vacs, it's really pretty pointless. The people keeping the pet licenses up to date are generally going to keep vac's up to date. Those that aren't getting the rabies vac aren't going to be likely to get the license, and vice versa.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

Rerun said:


> Here, they don't check or verify rabies or anything of the sort. Can't speak for other places.
> 
> The only time this would be an issue and get checked is if the dog was impounded by animal control for running at large, etc, or if there was a bite reported.
> 
> In regards to counties/cities using licensing to make sure dogs are UTD on vacs, it's really pretty pointless. The people keeping the pet licenses up to date are generally going to keep vac's up to date. Those that aren't getting the rabies vac aren't going to be likely to get the license, and vice versa.


Same here. The only time I can think that they would actually check your rabies tag in this area would be if the dog bit someone, or if you wanted to get into certain obedience classes/boarding facilities. I had to show proof of 2 sets of puppy shots for Rayne to get into puppy class.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

Here the only time anyone checks if your dog has a city license is if you want to get a city dog park tag (which we have). Technically both the license and rabies vacc are mandatory- dogs are supposed to have a rabies vaccination AND be licensed but unless a dog winds up in the pound or you want a dog park permit, it's not like they go around and check door to door or something. So I don't know how much of a difference the license makes in ensuring dogs have the rabies vacc. except that you have to have a rabies vacc to get a city license and you have to have both to get a dog park permit. If you don't get a license or a dog park permit no one is checking if your dog has a rabies tag. IIRC there is a higher fee to spring an unlicensed dog out if they get impounded, and you're required to pay for a license (and rabies vacc if needed) before they release the dog, but that is only if a dog ends up at animal control. You can be fined if you don't get a license, but they first will give you several 'warnings' and I have never heard of anyone getting one, I don't know how they would know that a dog does not have one.

They raised the prices here recently too, it is $5 for a s/n dog and $50 for an intact dog, those are per year. They recently started giving 3 year licenses for dogs who get a 3-year rabies vaccination too.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

selzer said:


> Owning a dog is a privilege not a right.


Disagree strongly - it IS a *right* as an American to own a dog. After all, it is our "right" to have children!? 



sharkey19 said:


> We can all talk until we are blue in the face about looking into costs before getting a dog, but people will still get them whether or not they have what we consider "enough" money....


Agree... and it is quite difficult to know just how much money an animal will cost. You can't predict the unpredictable. You can't know you'll need thousands later on. If everyone was required to have a two thousand dollar escrow before getting an animal, there wouldn't be nearly as many pet owners. (Where would they be, in that case? Placing an even heavier burden on the shelters?)



selzer said:


> I think that they should go after those who refuse to pay and charge them 10 times the annual licensing fee, and they should go back 5 years. So if your dog is 4 and your annual fee is $40, and you never bought the dog a license, then your fee should be $1600. If you do not pay it, it connects to your income taxes. Then people would just go ahead and pay the $40 license -- then it would be worth it.


Wow, *super* harsh! Here in Des Moines, it is $15 for neutered, $35 for non-neutered. I think that's a little high and I resent the added cost for not neutering. If you do not renew your license by March 1st (I think it's March, might be Feb or Apr), you are then assigned an additional $50 fee. You're seriously wanting to take $1600 from my taxes over a DOG LICENSE? Wow! Seriously! That's $1600 dollars worth of training, doggie treats and extras I wouldn't be able to do, yikes.


I can afford my licensing fees; that's not the issue. I resent the cost because I am not costing the county two and a half cents because I own dogs.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

sharkey19 said:


> So you would rather see those animals in shelters than loving homes? Even if those homes can't afford the vet visits/license fee?
> 
> If this happened, there would be even more dogs in shelters than now. Its not a realistic view. I understand the view, I used to have it. Maybe because in school we have a course that teaches us not to judge people's situations I am now the odd one out on this. I now understand that we can never truly understand another person's situation because we are not in it. Anyways, I have said this a few times now, and clearly no one else sees this point, so I won't bother arguing it anymore.
> 
> ...


I volunteer at an animal shelter(they are not horrible places like most make them out to be.) and I am a student(who is fortunate enough to live at home). Yes, I would rather see an animal in an animal shelter where its getting the proper medical care, food and water than with someone who can't give that to them. I also would rather see a shelter take an animal out of a situatuon where they can adopt that animal out to a home where their basic needs are met.I have friends who have dogs who I believe should not have the dogs because they dogs are not int he best conditions and deserve better because the dogs are not well taken care of. No they don't top of the line overly expensive things, just the basics.

Dogs, cats and other pets are NOT cheap and are NOT a right. You are taking care of another life! Don't bring in another life into this world if you can't afford to.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

In my area the licenses are given out by the local animal shelter, SEACCA, so all the fees go to them, along with the rabies, which is also required here.

Here in Lakewood, I think they are starting to crack down on people who own animals. I don't know if its just for Lakewood, or if its for all of Los Angeles county.

Anyone else noticing it in their areas?


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

chelle said:


> Disagree strongly - it IS a *right* as an American to own a dog. After all, it is our "right" to have children!?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IMO, Its not, your "right" to own a pet. Owning a dog or any other animal can be taken away. Just like with a drivers license, you abuse you loose it.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

chelle said:


> I can afford my licensing fees; that's not the issue. I resent the cost because I am not costing the county two and a half cents because I own dogs.


I think this was hashed out and argued in another thread, I'll try and find it.

But I agree with you. I don't think it's right for dog owners to pay extra fees to the county or city, just because they own a dog. What are the benefits dog owners are getting the the rest of the community (non-dog owners and do NOT pay the fees) isn't also getting? Animal control, the whole community benefits from this. The shelter, even people who don't own dog see a benefit because we don't have thousands of stray dogs running around. If the city needs money for AC or the shelter, then everyone should have to pay their part.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

chelle said:


> Disagree strongly - it IS a *right* as an American to own a dog. After all, it is our "right" to have children!?
> I would like for you to tell me where this right is listed in our constitution or in the Bill of Rights. Localities can and do ban dogs. I believe they have upheld bans that have not grandfathered in existing dogs. If your local government decided to make dogs over 40 pounds no longer legal within the city/township/county/village/state. They could do it. They may get voted out of office, have the law repealed, etc, by the demands of the people, but they could do it. It is not a right, it is a privilege.
> 
> 
> ...


Just pay the fee.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Klamari said:


> I think this was hashed out and argued in another thread, I'll try and find it.
> 
> But I agree with you. I don't think it's right for dog owners to pay extra fees to the county or city, just because they own a dog. What are the benefits dog owners are getting the the rest of the community (non-dog owners and do NOT pay the fees) isn't also getting? Animal control, the whole community benefits from this. The shelter, even people who don't own dog see a benefit because we don't have thousands of stray dogs running around. If the city needs money for AC or the shelter, then everyone should have to pay their part.


If you look into whatever governing agency levies the license fee, they tell you how the money can be spent. 

For us it is the Ohio Revised Code. Counties levy the license fee. It cannot exceed a certain amount. If it is raised by more than $2, so much of a percent must go to the Ohio Veterinary something or other to deal with canine diseases. Each county spells it out how them money is to be spent. And the vast majority goes to dog-services, the dog warden, housing for siezed or stray animals, reimbursement to farmers if their livestock is killed by dogs, and after keeping back an amount for the dog and kennel fund (for animals killed by dogs), they are to donate to a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals or children. 

It is kind of like a fishing license. If you want to fish, then you have to help pay the game warden, help pay for rivers and streams and lakes to be stocked, help pay for the price it costs the county to have fishing available. If you want to hunt, you have to pay a fee, buy a license and possibly a deer or turkey tag. If you want to own a dog, pay the fee. 

If you want to drive or use a water craft or haul a trailer, you have to pay for that.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

selzer;[COLOR=black said:


> 2286031]Well, yes you are. If the county banned dog ownership altogether and had a policy of shooting dogs any dogs found with in the county limits, they would not have to have a dog warden, they would not have to cover the costs that irresponsible people cause by letting their dogs roam, kill livestock, etc. By allowing dog ownership within the county, they then have to make laws governing those dogs, and pay to enforce those laws -- yeah a joke, I know. So the fact that we are currently allowed to own dogs, does actually cost money, and dog owners have to cover those costs.


You wouldn't need a dog warden if you didn't require licensing. 

Irresponsible people who let their dogs roam and kill livestock are the same irresponsible people who are NOT going to license or vaccinate their dogs. So it's actually that the responsible owners are paying for the losers of the community......yeah, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 

My county has animal control. It has at least 3 shelters I can think of off the top of my head. We have dog parks, doggie events, dog festivals, adoption events. And there aren't many roaming dogs at all. And there are no dog licenses or dog wardens. So what exactly are your licensing fees getting you that I don't have???


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

selzer said:


> It is kind of like a fishing license. If you want to fish, then you have to help pay the game warden, help pay for rivers and streams and lakes to be stocked, help pay for the price it costs the county to have fishing available. If you want to hunt, you have to pay a fee, buy a license and possibly a deer or turkey tag. If you want to own a dog, pay the fee.
> 
> If you want to drive or use a water craft or haul a trailer, you have to pay for that.


Yeah, but with all those licenses (fishing, hunting), the person buying the license gets special privileges and benefits. Like being allowed to fish and hunt, which DO require the wardens and upkeep. If I want to drive, the county has to build my road. 

But me having a dog, most of the time in my house or yard, does not require anything from the county. It's not costing the county anything when I am a responsible dog owner.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Do you have an 8.25% sales tax, ours is 6.5%. Maybe your property taxes and income taxes are higher too. Hard to say, but all that stuff does not just drop from some magical cloud called God or Government. It is paid by you people. Whether everyone pays or just pet owners pay is the difference.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Klamari said:


> Yeah, but with all those licenses (fishing, hunting), the person buying the license gets special privileges and benefits. Like being allowed to fish and hunt, which DO require the wardens and upkeep. If I want to drive, the county has to build my road.
> 
> But me having a dog, most of the time in my house or yard, does not require anything from the county. It's not costing the county anything when I am a responsible dog owner.


Why? If they did not have a game warden and did not charge a license, well then I could just kill the deer I want, and hunt and fish all I like and I would not have to follow any rules. 

There are laws pertaining to dogs here. They have to be leashed or under control. If they are not then someone has to go get them. All of that costs money. That money could be paid by everyone, but our area wants to keep other taxes lower by making those who play, pay. 

And, if your dog commits an indescretion, ie bites someone, and that dog is licensed -- your responsibility. If not, still your responsibility, but they may be able to sieze the dog and charge a lot more of a fine. If the dog is lost, if your dog does not have a license, they keep the dog three days and euthanize it. If it does they have to call and keep the dog for up to 2 weeks. 

Actually I am glad that there is a license deal. It makes dog ownership more formal, more important. Something not to be taken lightly.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

selzer said:


> Do you have an 8.25% sales tax, ours is 6.5%. Maybe your property taxes and income taxes are higher too. Hard to say, but all that stuff does not just drop from some magical cloud called God or Government. It is paid by you people. Whether everyone pays or just pet owners pay is the difference.


Oh gosh, I don't know what our sales tax is. I know someone pays it. And that difference between just pet owners paying or everyone paying is the whole point. 

If my dog ever got picked up by AC, I agree they should fine my butt to get her back. If I use the service more than the average Joe, I should have to pay for it. But right now I, as a responsible dog owner, am not using county AC or animal services any more than a non-dog owner. So why should I pay more than a non-dog owner?

I found that other wayyyy back when, discussing licenses.
http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...og-license-watertown-proof-spay-neuter-4.html


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

It sounds like you don't.

We break it up here and charge pet owners for things that relate to pets. That is how it has been decided that we do it. Our legislature put together the code, and if people don't like it, they need to put those people into office that want to do away with it. The answer is not to feel it unnecessary or unfair and just refuse to comply.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

selzer said:


> Why? If they did not have a game warden and did not charge a license, well then I could just kill the deer I want, and hunt and fish all I like and I would not have to follow any rules.
> 
> There are laws pertaining to dogs here. They have to be leashed or under control. If they are not then someone has to go get them. All of that costs money. That money could be paid by everyone, but our area wants to keep other taxes lower by making those who play, pay.


Because that's not your deer, that the county's deer  You have to pay to shoot what isn't yours. And you have to follow the rules because we don't want to kill them off. My dog is my dog. And there is no danger that she is going to become an endangered species anytime soon.

If my dog is unleashed and someone (AC) has to go get them, FINE ME! I broke the law, I pay. Just like you said, I play, I pay.



selzer said:


> And, if your dog commits an indescretion, ie bites someone, and that dog is licensed -- your responsibility. If not, still your responsibility, but they may be able to sieze the dog and charge a lot more of a fine. If the dog is lost, if your dog does not have a license, they keep the dog three days and euthanize it. If it does they have to call and keep the dog for up to 2 weeks.
> 
> Actually I am glad that there is a license deal. It makes dog ownership more formal, more important. Something not to be taken lightly.


People who think like you do, the responsible dog owners, the ones who don't take owning a dog lightly, are the ones paying the fines and almost never using those services you're paying for.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

selzer said:


> That is how it has been decided that we do it. Our legislature put together the code, and if people don't like it, they need to put those people into office that want to do away with it. The answer is not to feel it unnecessary or unfair and just refuse to comply.


Oh I agree with you there. If it was a law in my area, I would be getting a license every year...while still trying to get the license law changed and complaining about it


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

They are my deer. I am a resident and property owner of the state of Ohio, and therefore they are as much mine as anyone else's. All the insurance companies and I would like to kill them all off. Sorry but I am on deer number six I think, and I am tired of getting my vehicles fixed.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

selzer said:


> They are my deer. I am a resident and property owner of the state of Ohio, and therefore they are as much mine as anyone else's.


Well, technically you own about 1/650,000 of each deer. (Or 1/however many people are in your county). Alternately, you own one deer. The one that just smacked into your car.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I am five ahead of the game.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

Emoore said:


> Well, technically you own about 1/650,000 of each deer. (Or 1/however many people are in your county). Alternately, you own one deer. The one that just smacked into your car.


THAT'S why you need a deer hunting license! So you can shoot those other lucky people's deer, those people that managed to avoid hitting their deer.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

selzer said:


> In Ohio the dog warden cannot go to your house and ask to see your license unless they are called there for some other infraction.


Sue, they planned just this in one L.A. community and you would have thought the world was coming to an end.

Dogs in Thousand Oaks checked for licenses, vaccinations | abc7.com 

My uncle lives in a Ventura County city and he is the one who first mailed me a newspaper clipping detailing all the bruhaha.
Sheilah


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

I beleive they did that in the City of Toronto too. Don't think it was received very well either.

A little bit too aggressive I think even though my pets are meeting the legal requirements. They should hang out at the dog parks and other local areas and do random checks, just like the RIDE program does at peak times of the year.


----------



## Deuce (Oct 14, 2010)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Here in Lakewood its $14 for s/n a year and $28 a year for unaltered dogs.
> 
> I do it because its the LAW.
> 
> ...



Yes and Yes!


----------



## Deuce (Oct 14, 2010)

sharkey19 said:


> Well in my area it costs about $40 a year. If we get caught without one, it is $75. So ya, I would rather take the risk because odds are I would save more money. As I student, I need to save money where I can. And for someone who has had their dog to the vets on an almost bimonthly basis for various issues, I need to save money where I can. I am a far more responsible owner than most people. My dog is well cared for, sees the vet regularly, is well socialized and trained. Frankly, licensing isn't that much of a priority for me with regards to pet ownership. I would rather donate all that money to a shelter than pay a license fee, which I have, if that is your argument.


*Guelph has a City by-law which states that all dogs over three months old in Guelph need to be licensed. These licenses need to be renewed each January. A fine of $75 will apply if your dog is not licensed as per City of Guelph By-law # (1991)-14008. 

It is essential that all pets wear some type of identification in case they get loose accidentally. Although cats are not licensed by the City, a name tag is important. Microchipping, in addition to a name tag, is ideal in case the collar or tag is missing.*


----------



## Deuce (Oct 14, 2010)

Caledon said:


> I'm just objecting to the change of policy and the reason behind it. It's 20.00 for a neutered dog or cat. It's more than double if your pets are not neutered.


I may be the "odd man out" if you will, but seeing how i'm pro spay/neuter I appreciate the fact that the fee is double for unaltered pets. Just sayin'


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> IMO, Its not, your "right" to own a pet. Owning a dog or any other animal can be taken away. Just like with a drivers license, you abuse you loose it.


Guess we can agree to disagree here? I do *NOT* feel it is a *privilege*, I am a fully-tax paying American and if I want a dog/cat/ferret, whatever, I shall own it. Because I live in a free country. I do not need the state to tell me what kind of pet I can have. They can intercede if I am not properly caring for any animal, but otherwise, the state can butt right out of it all. 



Klamari said:


> .... I don't think it's right for dog owners to pay extra fees to the county or city, just because they own a dog. What are the benefits dog owners are getting the the rest of the community (non-dog owners and do NOT pay the fees) isn't also getting? Animal control, the whole community benefits from this. The shelter, even people who don't own dog see a benefit because we don't have thousands of stray dogs running around. If the city needs money for AC or the shelter, then everyone should have to pay their part.


Agree. It's just one more way to bring in revenue. We are paying for those who let their dogs roam and get caught by AC. We're paying for all the irresponsible owners who don't bother to pay. We're paying for a lot of things that we have zero responsiblity in.



selzer said:


> Just pay the fee.


I will and I do, but I do so very unhappily and knowing I'm being raped. Refer to above.!



Deuce said:


> I may be the "odd man out" if you will, but seeing how i'm pro spay/neuter I appreciate the fact that the fee is double for unaltered pets. Just sayin'


I don't appreciate this. I won't allow my dog to have an oops litter or any litter. I'm being punished because I'm allowing my male dog to fully develop before neutering. (Which, let me add, I was very strongly advised by this board to let happen! or he would've been spayed weeks ago!)


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Chelle, do you have the right to grow marijuana plants in your back yard? It is afterall YOUR back yard, if you want to grow some weed that government can just butt out. 

How about the right to have a meth lab in your basement? If you buy the equipment and buy the ingredients why should you NOT be able to do it in your own basement? 

Well, there are laws against both. So you do not have the right to have certain things or to do certain things in your home. Sorry. Dogs are currently legal, at least most breeds. But laws can be made at any time making them illegal. And there is nothing in the constitution or bill of rights that says differently, unless you pull up the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I can not be happy without dogs, and therefore you cannot take my dogs. But I think you will lose that argument, I would be surprised if the drug fiends have not tried it. 

Our rights we have and we would have to give them up. But privileges we have to work to maintain. If it becomes more costly, more troublesome, dangerous for things to be allowed, they can make legal things illegal. 

I would be spitting mad if I had to pay more to keep my bitches intact, and I would fight against such a law. But if they passed the law, I would follow the law, in so much as paying extra for the privilege to keep them intact. But if they forced me to spay/neuter, well I think I would have to consider civil disobedience. It is one thing to shell out money, it is another to be forced to cut on a dog.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

Here it's $30 a year for a neutered/spayed dog, and $60 for an intact dog if I recall correctly. I would love a lifetime fee!

I can't complain, our animal control is great. My dog has escaped a few times once he learned how to open doors/gates, and he was found and picked up within 20 minutes each time.

I strongly disagree with the increased price for an intact dog. We don't even have an animal overpopulation here. Our shelter is deserted half the time except for cats.


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

In the city of Kitchener-Waterloo, ON I pay about $30.00 for each dog (both dogs are intact) if I get the license before March 1st (which I do). That is for the re-newel. 

A new tag will cost $40.00 within 7 days of ownership and increases quite a bit if you purchase a tag after the 7 days (up to $85.00 if you wait 120 days).


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

selzer said:


> *Chelle, do you have the right to grow marijuana plants in your back yard?* It is afterall YOUR back yard, if you want to grow some weed that government can just butt out.
> 
> *How about the right to have a meth lab in your basement?* If you buy the equipment and buy the ingredients why should you NOT be able to do it in your own basement?
> 
> ...


Oh no, no, no, I just know you aren't comparing pot farms and meth labs to dog licenses??!!!  Just not comparable things IMHO. The former presents a threat to civilized society. Potheads, well, they just drive too slow, but the criminal activity connected to marijuana is a serious concern. Meth labs, wow, very dangerous potential to harm people. Not all that long ago, a meth lab in an apartment lit the apartment building on fire a few miles away. (We have a pretty bad meth problem here.) Sure, dogs present a human danger, but in extremely small proportion to marijuana traffiking and meth labs. Soooo not going for that comparison. 

Should anyone ever attempt to make a law banning dogs... it would go over just as well... as... say... Prohibition. When laws are made that are seen as just and fair by the majority, they don't tend to meet with *as much* public disobedience. When they become anarchistic (is that a word?), people will rise up and refuse. "They" can make things illegal all they wish, but when "they" cross the line with the majority, it doesn't work. People do have a sense of what's fair and what isn't. At least here in America, they do.

Again, I do not see dog ownership as a privilege -- it IS MY RIGHT and I can't be swayed from that belief. (just wondering... in China, you can have only one child... can you have only one dog, too??? that just came outta left field, but ?? )

You say your bottom line is when you're forced to spay/neuter, and in which case, you *would* be civilly disobedient and disregard the law. Don't you see others also have their "bottom line" issue? And maybe it comes *before* actually having a knife taken to the dog? 

I pay my dog license fees. I do so gritting my teeth and irritated. Here, you must get a dog license before the dog reaches six months of age. If you don't, you get surcharged $50. So in my situation, when Bailey was born, I had to pay the 2011 fee of $35, but now I'm due (next month) for the 2012 license, so another $35. There is no pro-rating. Who knows if I'll neuter him in the next year, which would reduce to cost to $15... (I doubt it, due to advice received here , I want to wait 'til he's two unless sexual issues become a real problem.) So, I've paid $70 to license my dog. Let me add I have never once used any city service in relation to any dog I own or have ever owned. Never once. 

I do not like government intruding in my life any more than what is necessary to sustain civil peace.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

And neither do I like that the government intrudes in our lives. But they do. You do not like the drug analogy -- it used to be that drugs like coke and ppium were not illegal. But now they are. Guns are a little bit of a special deal as they are called out in the bill of rights. But still the government tries to curtail. How about horses, cows, chickens, pigs, or goats. Can't own them in many places. 

I have called the dog warden on the neighbor's dog as it kept trying to attack me and my dogs. I have never cost them any money though. My dogs have never been picked up by them. Still, I feel less animosity for my dog license than I do about other things. 

I think if they want to increase their revenues they should go after those who don't pay before going after dogs with reproductive organs intact. 

As for China, not too long ago, there was a rabies outbreak somewhere there and they killed tens of thousands of dogs. Government order, either you put the dog down or we will sieze and kill it and they did, clubbing them to death in front of their owners. BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Dog cull in China to fight rabies


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

chelle said:


> Guess we can agree to disagree here? I do *NOT* feel it is a *privilege*, I am a fully-tax paying American and if I want a dog/cat/ferret, whatever, I shall own it. Because I live in a free country. I do not need the state to tell me what kind of pet I can have. They can intercede if I am not properly caring for any animal, but otherwise, the state can butt right out of it all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Actually, there are certain animals you can't own in certain states as they are illegal to own.

Comparing paying a license fee to being raped, is just wrong and offensive(no I have not been raped.) but comparing something so little to something so harsh and evil is just wrong.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Actually, there are certain animals you can't own in certain states as they are illegal to own.
> 
> Comparing paying a license fee to being raped, is just wrong and offensive(no I have not been raped.) but comparing something so little to something so harsh and evil is just wrong.


Yes, there certainly are certain animals you can't own, due to the incredible risk to citizens. Owning a tiger and owning a dog aren't the same thing.

Well excuuuuse me for my terminology. My gosh, really? And if you want to get technical, I did NOT make a comparison; I said I felt like it was happening... however it has (very thankfully) never happened to me, so I guess since we're getting technical and picky, we can say I have no authority to make that statement! Withdrawn! I'm wrong! Next time you tell me how I should phrase it, please.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

chelle said:


> Yes, there certainly are certain animals you can't own, due to the incredible risk to citizens. Owning a tiger and owning a dog aren't the same thing.
> 
> Well excuuuuse me for my terminology. My gosh, really? And if you want to get technical, I did NOT make a comparison; I said I felt like it was happening... however it has (very thankfully) never happened to me, so I guess since we're getting technical and picky, we can say I have no authority to make that statement! Withdrawn! I'm wrong! Next time you tell me how I should phrase it, please.


And some communities feel that there is a serious risk to people and property by certain types of dogs, they can and do disallow ownership of them. This is why we as a whole need to discourage negligent behavior, and irresponsible behavior.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

selzer said:


> And some communities feel that there is a serious risk to people and property by certain types of dogs, they can and do disallow ownership of them. This is why we as a whole need to discourage negligent behavior, and irresponsible behavior.


True enough.


----------



## TankGrrl66 (Jun 29, 2010)

In my county, it is about 20 bucks to license a dog per year...about 100 bucks if the dog is unaltered.

You must have proof of rabies vaccine as well...and they make you register your dog twice in the first year. 

These fees are just like other taxes...the 'responsible' pay them to foot the bill of the hordes who don't give a rats ***


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

chelle said:


> Yes, there certainly are certain animals you can't own, due to the incredible risk to citizens. Owning a tiger and owning a dog aren't the same thing.
> 
> Well excuuuuse me for my terminology. My gosh, really? And if you want to get technical, I did NOT make a comparison; I said I felt like it was happening... however it has (very thankfully) never happened to me, so I guess since we're getting technical and picky, we can say I have no authority to make that statement! Withdrawn! I'm wrong! Next time you tell me how I should phrase it, please.


Sadly some people do. You can't own any animal you want, and if you want to own a certain animal you have adbide by certain rules in order to be allowed to own them.

Still, its rude to say such a thing. I am not being picky, just I thought it was unecessary to phrase it that way.No I won't tell you, thats your job.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Sadly some people do. You can't own any animal you want, and if you want to own a certain animal you have adbide by certain rules in order to be allowed to own them.
> 
> Still, its rude to say such a thing. I am not being picky, just I thought it was unecessary to phrase it that way.No I won't tell you, thats your job.


I've been accused of being rude more than once. Honestly I didn't have any intention of hurting anyone with that wording.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

Update. Just got a very nice email back from my city. The main purpose of my email was to voice my opinion about them eliminating the lifetime fee. I'm grandfathered but I stil bought into the idea. 

I was one of the few who actually purchased a lifetime license. The problem they were having with it is that owners were not updating information when it changed. Pets that were lost had outdated information in their file. Good point. The city also admitted that this system did not generate enough revenue. 

In addition to the change in tags they are going to become more active enforcing it. Fines for not having a license will be going up from $110 to $250. Big jump. They are also running more active information ads about dog/cat licensing. 

Unfortunately responsible pet owners still will be providing most of the funding to run animal control. 

The email was wordy and not a form letter. Scored a big point for my city.


----------

