Pet licensing: Owners, vets have mixed views

by Staci Giordullo

Patricia Powell didn't always walk on the right side of the law. Her crime? Not licensing her two dogs with the city of Los Angeles.

"I thought it was a bunch of B.S.," says the Angie's List member. "I thought it was a way for the city to gouge more money out of us."

However, Powell says she changed her mind after volunteering for a cocker spaniel rescue group that worked closely with the Los Angeles Department of Animal Care and Control. She learned the money generated from licensing fees went to support a variety of animal services including the shelters, cruelty investigations and emergency animal rescues during natural disasters.

"Once I saw what the money went toward, I felt differently," she says.

Pet licensing has its benefits

Angie's List members nationwide echo Powell's dual sentiments. In an online poll, nearly half of respondents who own a cat, dog or both say they don't think licensing is necessary or are indifferent. Yet 51 percent think it's a good idea.

Animal welfare experts say the benefits of licensing are threefold: it makes vaccinations mandatory, can help reunite a lost pet with its owner, and allows cities to track the number of cats and dogs for health and safety concerns.

Pet licensing isn't a new notion. The first paper licenses for dogs in this country appeared in Massachusetts in the late 1840s. Today, nearly all major municipalities require licensing or registration for dogs and a number of them are beginning to require cats be licensed.

Sixty percent of Angie's List members polled say licensing is mandatory in their area.

"Registering your pet is a part of responsible ownership," says Marti Ryan, spokeswoman for the Hillsborough County Animal Services in Tampa Bay, Fla.

Member Matthew Suriano of Bernardsville, N.J., works as a police dispatcher and says he's constantly receiving calls about stray animals.

"If the dog is licensed, all I have to do is pull up its number and give the owner a call," Suriano says. "It's so much harder to track down an owner if the dog or cat isn't licensed."

'Money well spent'

Depending on where you live, you can license your animals at city hall, a veterinarian's office, an animal shelter or your local animal care and control department. Costs tend to be minimal — most cities charge less than $20 annually — but those with pets that aren't spayed or neutered often pay up to twice as much.

Money generated by licensing fees usually go toward an area's animal service budget to help support the day-to-day operation of local shelters, wildlife encroachment and animal control. Ryan explains the money also protects the public in a less-obvious way.

"People who violate the limits with animals usually move on to other things," she says. "There's a relationship between animal abuse and [other] crime."

Cats and dogs are required to be registered in Florida's Hillsborough County, which isn't a problem for member Tom Farrugia of Largo. Despite the county doubling the license fee last year from $10 to $20, he maintains it's a good idea for his two indoor cats to be registered.

"It's important to help the shelters cover their expenses," he says. "It's money well spent."

Enforcement concerns

While pet licensing is a widespread practice, enforcement is a problem in many places. Penalties for unlicensed pets typically include a citation and a fine, but as state and local budgets dwindle, fewer enforcement agents are available to uphold the law.

Doug Junker, license examiner for animal control outside Minneapolis in Bloomington, Minn., says pet licensing in his community is based more or less on the honor system.

"We have two animal control officers who handle everything from dog and cat licensing to problem raccoons," Junker says. "We know we're not getting all the dogs. We try to keep the cost minimal — we're not after the revenue. We just want to make sure a dog is registered in case it bites someone or is lost."

Minimal enforcement is why Angie's List member Rollie Marcovitch of Bloomington believes so few pet owners get licenses.

"Unless the city had an awfully big staff and an awfully big budget, I don't know how they'd enforce it," she says. Marcovitch doesn't license her cat but she does license her dog, an 8-year-old boxer named Tai, even though she frets about the required rabies vaccinations.

Tai has kidney problems and although Marcovitch prefers a holistic approach to her pets' care, Tai still gets a three-year rabies vaccine to minimize health risks and meet licensing standards.

"I understand there have to be rules, and in theory, if everyone got a license I could see how it'd work," she says. "But I choose not to vaccinate my cat and that's required for a license."

Veterinarians on the front lines

She isn't the only one who thinks pet licensing is bunk. Dr. Dan Jordan of highly rated Animal Avian Hospital of the Village says the licensing system in Houston targets the wrong pet owners.

"Those who are already responsible pet owners are penalized and the deadbeats who never set foot in a veterinary office get off the hook," he says, referring to a city law that requires all vets to turn over names and addresses of customers whose cats and dogs receive rabies vaccinations.

The city, in turn, uses that information to ensure pet owners are complying with licensing laws. If an owner is found to be out of compliance, they are issued a letter to inform them of the laws.

"I don't like the idea of forcing my clients to register," says Jordan, who informs his clients about the licensing law but doesn't submit their names to the city without their consent.

Member Michelle Rossi agrees with Dr. Jordan.

"I think it discourages people from going to the vet or giving accurate information if they know it's being provided to the city," she says.

Rossi has lived in Houston for five years with her two cats and says she was unaware licensing was required.

"I think pet licensing has some theoretical benefits; however, I see it as a monumental task for the city and a burden on pet owners."

Houston vets get fines unless compliant

Dr. William Folger of highly rated Memorial Cat Hospital in Houston says when the city first issued the ordinance in 1985, he refused to submit his clients' information and was willing to fight the issue in court.

"Nothing happened," he says. "The city didn't push the issue so we kept chugging along."

That is until last September, when the city mailed letters to all Houston veterinarians in violation and threatened a $500-a-day fine until they complied.

"That caught my attention," Folger says. "My patients were upset, but I told them I couldn't afford that penalty."

Houston's regulatory affairs department mailed the letters after the city's Bureau of Animal Regulation and Care came under their direction.

"[BARC] was neglected and mismanaged, and was transferred to our department to get fixed," says Chris Newport, department council liaison.

He says two months after the letters, veterinary compliance went from 20 percent to 64 percent.

"A lot of folks just didn't know there was a pet licensing law," he says. "We can't do it without the cooperation of the veterinarians."

Animal control officers are now issuing citations for a first offense, instead of a warning, if your pet is found wandering.

"You won't have to come to court and pay the fee if you get your dog vaccinated and licensed," he says.

Indianapolis: A pet licensing holdout

While some areas struggle to enforce licensing laws, others don't have any such laws to worry about. According to Angie's List research, Indianapolis is the only city out of the nation's 30 largest not to require pet licensing because Indiana state law limits the fees municipalities can collect.

"Whatever license fee we'd charge could only be sufficient enough for us to pay for the administrative cost of the licensing system," says Teri Kendrick, administrator of Indianapolis' Animal Care and Control. "It could not generate additional revenue to feed and cover medical expenses for animals in the shelter. I'd have to know what the argued benefits and deterrents are before I could say I think licensing is a good or bad idea."

Indiana law does require pets be vaccinated for rabies and that veterinarians submit pet owner names and addresses along with vaccination information to the county's board of health.

Member Matthew Kettlebar of Westfield, Ind., says proof of vaccination should be a sufficient form of licensing.

"It's already a de facto license that ties my name to my dog and my veterinarian," says the owner of an English mastiff. "I feel any other licensing is an attempt to generate funds from pet owners — a pet tax."

Although some agree they shouldn't have to pay extra for owning a pet, Marti Ryan of Hillsborough County Animal Services points out that pet ownership is a privilege, not a right. Comparing it to owning a car, she says you can't drive without taking responsibility or without registering with the state.

"These are fees, not taxes," Ryan says. "User fees for those who want to love and nurture animals."

Want to know the pet licensing laws in your area? Ask a highly rated vet from Angie's List or call your local animal control department.


More Like This

Don't Get Scammed by Online, Pet Store Purchases

humane-society-rescue.jpg

dog rescue
The HSUS assisted the Houston County Sheriff's Department in Gordon, Ala., in the rescue of approximately 150 dogs and 50 cats found living in deplorable conditions. (Photo courtesy of Kathy Milani/The HSUS)

Not all breeders and brokers are as professional as they seem. Meet with any breeder before purchasing a puppy, professional breeders suggest.

Comments

Reasons I will not license my dog: 1. My dog is already vaccinated for rabies 2. My dog does not roam or run at large 3. I do not participate in any services related to animal control or animal shelters, so the fee is in no way benefiting me personally. 4. My dog already has an ID tag and tattoo. I don't need a government issued license for my dog to be identified. 5. Being licensed does not prevent an animal from being abused. 6. I could use that money to buy food or supplies for my animal. 7. Vaccine mandates are too strict and do not take into account the individual animals health. 8. License fees vary with the age of the owner which is age discrimination. 9. I am not going to pay higher fees because my dog is in a natural state and has testicles. 10. I don't want to be in a database as a dog owner. Invasion of privacy. 11. Licensing can alert authorities to if you have a breed which becomes banned and subject you to police harassment and possibly have your dog seized. 12. Gives animal rights groups more ammunition to pass restrictive legislation against pet owners. 13. My animal family member is not a taxable commodity. 14. The government already takes enough of my money.

I don't have a problem with the licensing per se, but where I live there is a 3 PET limit. So that means if you have 2 cats and 2 dogs (which for most normal people isn't too many), you are breaking the law and you cannot get them licensed without admitting that you are breaking the law and possibly facing consequences such as having your pets taken away. This is why I have not licensed any of my pets. Just today I received a notice in the mail saying that I needed to register one of my dogs because I had just gotten him vaccinated a couple of months ago. I don't believe that the vets should be required to transmit this information to the city without the owners consent. As many others have pointed out this law only targets responsible pet owners who are taking their pets to the vet. It does not stop animal abusers or the like because they are probably not taking their pets to the vet anyway. Legally speaking pets are considered "property" yet they try to put a limit on how many you can have when there are no limits on any other type of "property" that you can own. Any idiot can own 500 dangerous guns if they want to, but we can't have more than three pets in our household? This law of forcing vets to turn over vaccination information to the city can have negative effects as well since people who do have more than three pets might now think twice about taking their pets in. Again, the licensing isn't a problem but the strict limits on pet ownership that need to be reviewed.

This is RIDICULOUS!!! RESPONSIBLE animal owners who follow the law, and have all the vaccinations required are being SCREWED and PUNISHED by the government -- with these fees for licensing purposes. First of all the vaccinations are COSTLY, and the license where I live is $60.00. This has got to stop. The government is always trying to get money any way it can-- I think that if you can show proof of vaccinations; then licensing should be FREE. The rabies vaccine and all the other are EXPENSIVE. I know people that don't follow the law, and I can understand why. This type of thing discourage people from becoming RESPONSIBLE pet owners. The government is in our business way too much.

pets owners should have a license to have a pet

It is just another way for towns to write checks they cant back. they will just fine tax payers for late fees on license like me a 50.00 dollar fine for 15 days late because I was waiting on vet appointment.bull.plymouth ma.

I wish all this time and effort would go towards neutering all of the dogs and cats in a city, county, state......making laws that every pet has to be neutered, no breeding. No chaining of dogs outside for more than two hours. No wildlife as pets, no lions, tigers, pythons, etc. We waste our time with piddly things like this when real,serious issues are at hand. BY the way my dogs are licensed and vaccinated and neutered as are my cats and ME! I agree, those who could care less about their pets don't bother with licensing anyway. PLus my fees for lic. should go towards a NO KILL shelter rather than the dog warden here who houses them just to kill them at a later date.

I think if they use the fees to save animal life, good, but I don't think or nor do I trust the "Government" to know I have a dog or cat. Let me ask you all? What if this wacky Progressive Liberal government near Nanny state we have decides that our dogs or cats carry some flu or disease to humans? And then because you license your animal now they know just where to go round em all up and kill them! May sound crazy, but this country is loosing freedoms everyday! Oh ya and let's add that Muslims arn't suppose to touch dogs! So let's say down the road when there are more muslims in this country that others they want to start killing dogs/???? It isn't the now we need to think about all the time, it's the future! thanks

Mr. Kirby, you got some real problems there! I am a great pet owner, so good in fact that I dont subject my dog to unnecessary vaccinations--how about "all"- and she is 11 going on 4 and in great health. These regulations were enacted many years ago and have not been updated. I am not going to poison my dog for the sake of 1950s thinking. Period. Now come and get me! Put the handcuffs on, drag me to the slammer. My license fees seem to go to people who neglect their dogs, how about they pay for animal control and shelters?

Dont mind licensing - maybe if more were licensed we could more easily control them from using our flowergarden for their 'duty' and we could more easily report neglect and/abuse of neighbors' pets.

Studies show that the obtuse vaccinations required are causing cancer in pets, especially in dogs, most commonly at the common injection site. Licensing in my town requires all vaccinations YEARLY, there is no every three years as well as the fee. We pay the fine two years, relicense, then pay the fine two years. Just to protect our dogs health. Funny, we can write a letter of exemption for our human child, but are forced to fork over hundreds of dollars for our dogs protection.

Unfair. Tax cats

I think a YEARLY license fee is a bunch of crap. A one time fee would be fine. A pet becomes a member of the family even if it's not yours. I took care of the vet bills for my mothers' cats. One of them Max was extremely ill. I have no regrets about taking care of him because I knew my mother was raised to believe animals were just animals. A yearly fee is too much. If I have to do that, I need a deduction on my income taxes.

I don't understand the fuss. My dogs have been licensed since and I'm 72!. If you don't want your dogs to have "Kennel Cough", you have to get the vaccine against that. If you don't want you dog to have distemper which usually results in some neurological problems, you will have to get a vaccination . Like fleas and ticks, you have to deal with them, too. Yes, some dogs will have problems with specific vaccinations, just as some of are allergic to certain antibiotics. If you grew up in the polio times, you would have been VERY glad to have had that vaccination available. Once we did have one, most polio went away. Look animals need care as humans due. Having a pet is a responsibility and it is expensive these days. Keep that in mind and maybe you'll not get that big Mastiff that you don't walk 4 times a day, and get a smaller dog...which will still have to be walked 4 times a day. You need to love pets before you buy and before you understand what it takes to keep one happy and well.

Licensing of dogs and cats used to be a way to raise fund for animal control. Unfortunately, so-called animal rights groups are now trying to use licensing as a way to mandate spay and neuter. And no, I am not a "backyard breeder" or puppy mill. I train my dogs and compete with them in sanctioned events. Some of the proposals endorsed by these groups would put an end to obedience and agility events

I've been active with animal welfare groups. Up until 2 years ago I always licensed my pets (some cities require cat licenses). It is not enough money to help county & city shelters desperately in need of funds. Irresponsbile pet owners usually don't license their pets and don't get them shots. All licensing fees are revenue generators and really don't protect the public (hairdressers and contractors are great examples of this).

when you license your animal it gives your animal control office a way to assure that that animal has a rabies vacc. that should be enough for all who love their animals. with out the rabies shot your animal if it were to bite someone it will go to the local humane society for 10 days at your cost. with that license your animal now gets to do a 10 day quarantine at home under your care. seems pretty simple.

I don't mind getting a license for my dog once, but a fee every year?! A fee that goes to what.....supporting other animals in shelters?! I'd not like the money's going toward filing paperwork for my dog, or upkeep for him. This is a totally shame and just another way for the city to get more money from you. We should be ashamed we let the city take hard earned money out of our pocket, for a made up reason like a license renewal.

If your dogs have their required vaccinations and the vet sends this to the state, why do I have to pay an additional fee to have them "licensed". Seems like they only know I have a dog if I am doing the right thing by them and taking them to the vet!

I was surprised to see how many people posted about objections to licensing. I am lucky enough to live in a town with a dedicated 'above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty Animal Control Officer. He's helped the entire community: We had a messy Canada Goose problem that has diminished; he's on top of the coyote situation (their numbers are growing); and he helps teach our children to respect animals. On top of all that, he's helped me find my dogs when they have escaped the yard. He maintains good relations with residents while at the same time keeping a wary eye for animal abuse. So, the licensing fees that pay for the database, maintaining a holding area for the lost and strayed, and his salary are worth it. The Town gives a small discount to senior citizens--a touch of decency in this fee-laden world. It may be that we have a good system because licensing and Animal Control are in our Department of Public Health. The staff do their jobs in a firm but pleasant way. I am conservative about vaccines, but an annual vet visit is a must for a pet's health. Rabies is an AWFUL disease and all warm-blooded creatures are vulnerable. Plus, most groomers here require proof of bordatella (like whooping cough) vaccination. In sum, I have been happy to live in a community where the system is set up to care about pets and wildlife. Sorry to hear that some other municipalities foster indifference or suspicion.

I have two indoor cats who NEVER leave the house (and haven't for the last 17 years). The cost and risk to the cats to vaccinate per "law" was unreasonable. I fully support rabies vaccines for animals that roam and are not supervised. Otherwise, we are not serving the public or our animal friends. Use your money for animal rescue centers.

I feel that we get little benefits from licensing our pets. And it puts us on public record as dog owners which AR groups LOVE.

One of the problems with licensing your dog is having to deal with the morons at City Hall. For instance, in my city, you can't purchase a duplicate license tag for dogs that wear a training collar on a walk and another while home or on your own property. The bureaucrats in my City thought I was trying to get away with getting an extra tag for another dog that I wasn't telling them about. When I insisted this was not the case one person looked at other with the kind of look that says, "He's going to be trouble, get the Taser ready."

Licenses are just another tax - pure and simple. The responsible pet owners are hit with fee after fee after fee. For what? To pay for the acts of the irresponsible few. I think everyone should pay a fee for dogs - not just owners. After all childless people have to pay taxes for schools. Think of it also, if the purpose of license is to protect society then, then that society includes non dog owners. Why should I as a pet owner have to carry the weight also for people who do not even own dogs? Taxes is a way to get money and more money plus keep a data base for when your city decides to put a limit on the number of pets you are allowed to have. That way they can come to your door and rip them out of your arms. The only fool proof means of getting a pet returned (if they happen to end up with a shelter or vet) is microchipping.

Licensing is not the cure to lost animals. I had a dog that was with someone else when it got loose. When I found her, she had been hit by a car and was no longer wearing her collar, her license tag was lost for good. She had been microchipped, so had I not found her someone could have found me. Microchips are a better alternative than licensing. Our shelter here has a discounted retrieval fee for dogs that are tagged or chipped. I like that idea, give the responsible owners a break because dogs do get loose. The dogs that don't get loose get an ever bigger break. Reward those that are doing it "right" not punish everyone. The people that aren't responsible owners are not going to vaccinate and most certainly will not license and may even have dogs that are more likely to run free. They are basically gambling that they won't have to pay to retrieve their dog. They also may be the type of people that decide it is cheaper to get another free puppy than to pay the impound fee leaving their dog in the shelter.

I agree with the good doctor.. a dog license is a TAX pure and simple to fund all sorts of government programs.. if you think your "dog tax" dollars are only going to build or fund "shelters'.. think again.. most of the funds go the "general" fund.. and CJ .. yes licensing is an HUGE impingement on your rights.. now you may not care about your rights.. but I care about mine.. I agree about vaccines.. they should be given..ONCE.. or at least much less than they are.. your own history tells us why licensing does not work.. so you are the one who needs to chill and while you are doing that.. read the Constitution

If you cannot or don't want get your pets vaccinated and licensed, then you don't deserve to be a pet owner. They give us such unconditional love, they deserve to be taken care. There have been many instances were my dog and I have been charged at by dogs. Many have come very close to making it over a fence. I always take my cell phone and call that cities Animal Control.

I see both sides of this issue, but mostly lean toward licensing. Where I live, we have no licensing and NEED it bad! Animals are abused, neglected and owners go unprosecuted. Most of the time, they don't even have their pets taken away from them! It's totally disgusting! We have laws in place, but not a lot of money to enforce them. And not a lot of desire or smarts to enforce them. For that reason, I believe whole-heartedly in pet licensing. I grew up in an area that had it and this situation is totally foreign to me. But I do think you need to let the vets off the hook. Not just because it's an undue burden on them and their record keeping, but I believe it deters people from taking their pets to the vet when they need to. The vets should inform clients about licensing laws and provide the rabies info, but not have to report their clients to the licensing agency. That's kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's detrimental to the pets' health. All licensing fees should go toward animal care and control agencies, to supplement, not replace, taxes assigned to that department. We need to channel the money to help the animals and responsible pet owners need to pony up because they should understand the problem more than the average (non-pet owning) person. It's unfortunate, but reality.

Knowing local requirements of licensing is just another responsibility of pet ownership. I can register my pets for a three year duration to coincide with shots, and at a reduced rate. The funds raised by pet registration helps reduce the risk rabies infected pets by owners who do not vaccinate at all. It also provides shelter to discarded pets and to those with a pet that may get out and get picked up before being struck by a vehicle. Requiring vets to enforce registration is another story. It is not their responsibility to enforce laws but to keep our pets healthy and happy.

For those who don't believe vaccinosis is real, you should read Ann Driscoll's book, "What Vet's Don't Tell you About Vaccines". And check out the following websites; http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/Adobe/AdverseVaccReactions.pdf http://www.angelfire.com/biz/froghollerfilas/VaccBlanco.html http://www.austinholistic.com/PetVaccinationsI http://www.austinholistic.com/PetVaccinationsII And then read the duration of immunity studies done by the leading rresearcher in this field; http://www.critteradvocacy.org/Duration%20of%20Immunity.htm Vaccinosis is real, it happens every day and thousands of animals are suffering as a result.

I think just microchipping your pet should suffice--in fact, when I tried to get licenses for our 3 dogs, I was informed there was a 2 dog limit within the city limits of our city--our city also is in financial straights, and has recently raised the sales tax making it the highest in the county--so even if licensing was an option for 3 dogs, I have no doubt the funds spent would end up elsewhere and probably not benefit the city shelter or other animal programs. Licensing has just turned into another revenue source for cash strapped municipalities with little benefits seen

Pet licensing is required in my city. I know many pet owners don't realize this, but I comply. The only vaccine required is rabies. In fact, I only vaccinate my dogs for rabies. I, like Ann, think over vaccination is a health risk for pets. My veterinarian agrees to blood titers upon my request. My dogs still show immunity for commonly vaccinated diseases 3 years after the vaccine.

First off, Dr. Rosset, assuming you're a medical doctor, can you explain to Ann there why "vaccinosis" is a complete and total bull? There is no evidence in the many many studies done on vaccines in both animals and humans that vaccines cause any kind of harm, except in rare allergic instances. They also protect whole populations from very dangerous and deadly diseases. Second, pet licensing isn't about being a nanny state or big brotherish. It's to protect citizens and their pets by keeping a database. That way a loose dog that attacked an old granny can be tracked down, or a dog that has been injured can have a notified owner. Anyone who thinks these simple licensing programs are impinging on "personal freedoms" needs to chill, seriously. Lastly, on a personal note, I vaccinate and care for my dogs very well, and when I received a notice from the city about pet licenses, I did go down to city hall to get them registered. It didn't happen. The first time I went down there, they told me I needed proof of vaccination and spay/neutering, which I didn't have on me. The second time, I brought the booklet my vet gave me with those records, and the city wouldn't accept it! They said they needed receipts from the vet, which I didn't keep on file because I thought the booklet counted as the same record, since it is filled out by the vet at the time of service. If my city wants higher compliance, they shouldn't demand that us pet owners should magically know what papers they need to retain and bring in. The notice I received in the mail didn't say anything about it!

Dogs licensing is good for dog owner, lost. As for Veterinarians, we need them but here in Las Vegas, we been over charge....

I think using licensing fees to help animal causes is a great idea, and that registration can be of benefit to both pets and owners if used wisely and with restraint. However, cities forcing vets to report their clients is a bit Big Brotherish, and frankly I'm not sure I want any government agency legislating knowledge of my personal business. They're requiring vaccinations, which in the case of indoor-only cats at least may be unnecessary and even harmful - are they going to start limiting the number of pets you're allowed to have? And "pet ownership is a privilege, not a right"? Who made this decree? Last I heard, in this country we have the right to live with a reasonable expectation of privacy in our own homes. A license to drive is an entirely different matter - the license gives you permission to use a dangerous machine in public places and (in theory anyway) keeps bad drivers off the streets where they could kill people. With a few rare exceptions, pet owners are not endangering anyone. It's a false and misleading comparison.

I like how the author shows the shortcomings of these types of laws, particularly the costs associated with enforcing them. She also touches on how these laws force pet owners into annaul visits to vets' offices for vaccines, which is an unnecessary and excessive expense. She fails to mention the dangers of vaccinosis and the growing body of evidence that annual vaccines do far more damage than good -- damage that rescue advocates blame on irresponsible breeding and inbreeding but that is actually caused by too many vaccines too often.

Unless you have a problem with the rabies vaccination (and that's a whole nother issue), I can't see why it is a problem to license your pet. The license fee is small and the reward is great if it helps to find a lost pet. In addition, you are most likely helping defray some of the costs of helping abandoned or abused animals. You have to have a license to drive. How much more important is an living creature?

Anytime someone says your right is not a right take notice because it is someone who wants you to pay for your right. Owning a pet is part of your property rights. Next they will start taxing you for having children. Anything the government can talk you into taxing they will. People are always willing to take your hard earned money away from you for any reason. There is no reason to tax responsible people who do not let their pets roam. But animal rights cult members want to tax you so they can take away your animals. Why should the government even know how many pets you have? This nanny state is getting out of control. Now on animal planet they have been attacking people who have psychological problems that should best be left to a doctor and the sufferer. Who is to say how many are too many pets. Some people are capable of taking care of many animals and some are incapable of taking care of one animal. So Animal Planet is trying to limit how many pets you can have and so are cities. Why because they want your money and they want to control your lives. That is the only purpose behind microchipping. First you get use to having your pets chipped, then its so good for pets then why not chip your children, then you will know where they are at all times. Then you have lost all privacy and you now belong to a police state. That is where this is going in American total police state socialism. Not individual freedom or liberty and justice for all.

Add comment

Anonymous reviews are Internet graffiti.  Angie's List has real reviews from real people.

What is Angie's List?

Angie’s List is the trusted site where more than 2 million households go to get ratings and reviews on everything from home repair to health care. Stop guessing when it comes to hiring! Check Angie’s List to find out who does the best work in town.

Local Discounts

Daily deals up to 70% off popular home improvement projects from top-rated contractors on Angie’s List!