California has one of the highest tax bases in the U.S., if not THE highest. Add to that, a lot of bleeding-heart do-gooders who want everyone to bear the cost of social and special interest programs for a few. Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me that a city would charge $100 for an unaltered animal ... they have a big push to eliminate the need for all the hundreds of thousands of animals that get euthanized each year. I'm sure the fee would be less if the dog is neutered.
Most counties/parishes in the U.S. require licensing for your pets. Yes, they try to sugar-coat it by saying it's a way to reunite you with a lost pet (and it is), but the funds are needed to pay for the facility where lost animals are taken in the first place. They need a building to shelter the animals; the building must be maintained and staffed. There is food, and bedding, and veterinary attention required. And if the animal is not reunited with its owner or adopted out, there is the matter of humane euthanasia.
So who should be responsible for defraying the cost? Animal owners, of course. They are the direct beneficiaries of the facilities, such as they are. And how are these expenses defrayed? With the cost of licensing - a reward/penalty cost structure (less money for neutered animals, more for those who are not ... the ones responsible for the overpopulation in the first place).
So I wish I didn't have the extra expense, but I understand it. I have to pay for my driver's license and my car tags, too - not so vastly different from paying for the privilege of having my beloved companions. |