Dog Licenses???

[Julie1760]

100?? Wow, I'm sure glad I don't live in California.

Here we pay $3.00 for a spayed/neutered dog, 6 if not.

[yorkie mad]

wow , we don't have dog licenses in England

[Bravo916]

Go flippin figure...guess what I got in the mail today...

Looks like I have to make another contribution to the California budget deficit (as if I already dont pay enough in taxes)...

Licensing is $60/yr plus a "late" fee of $15. What irks me is all of this propaganda they include about how the purpose of licensing is to reunite lost pets with their owner--give me a break. That is what a microchip is for. Their "license" is no better than the $5 tag you buy at Petco and equally as ineffective. Instead of including all of this garbage about "reuniting lost pets" I would have more respect for them if they just came out and said the truth: that this is just another revenue-generating gimmick for the municipalities to fleece the responsible pet owners of California.

Wow....I feel a lot better now that I've got that all off my chest!

[mnewco]

I think that it is wrong to make someone pay to have an animal. This is just a way for the city to dig more money out of people. Yes, the vets report them to the city. I found out the hard way. They started about a year ago here. I haven't paid it yet so I am not too worried about it until they get a little more aggressive about it.

[capt_noonie]

Yup I totally agree with you Bravo. Well said.

And imagine I was complaining about the petco tags that cost $10. Ha! I know those don't work, I thought of them more as accessories for Uni's collar.

[capt_noonie]

Originally Posted by mnewco

I think that it is wrong to make someone pay to have an animal. This is just a way for the city to dig more money out of people. Yes, the vets report them to the city. I found out the hard way. They started about a year ago here. I haven't paid it yet so I am not too worried about it until they get a little more aggressive about it.

Well, they might get you for late fees and non compliance fees as well.

[Lee B]

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.

[capt_noonie]

Originally Posted by Lee B

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.

Another very well written posts. I understand why they do it, it's just that I'm broke and it really sucked to have to pony up $100.

[Bravo916]

Originally Posted by Lee B

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.

My question to you is when was the last time your pet was in a shelter? Why are you so willing to pay for something that is not your responsibility?

Speaking from my personal experience I have never been a bebeficiary of the shelters services, low cost spay-neuter programs nor have I ever contributed to the animal overpopulation problem.

I have the right to keep my pet intact and I control who he breeds to which when the time comes will only be to my breeders dogs and they will all be sold spayed/neutered and on very strict contracts.

I find it very difficult to digest how I am responsible for the byb's and mills who create the pet overpopulation in the first place.

[capt_noonie]

Bravo, is your $60 a year fee for a kennel license or just for one dog? I am just wondering if it is just in OC that it is $100 per intact dog. I think I read somewhere else on here that in Riverside co it is $50 for an intact dog. We used to live there, coulda save $50!

[Bravo916]

It is for one dog. I am not a breeder nor do I have a kennel--I'd hate to see how much that'd cost in these neck of the woods anyways.

I wonder what AC would say if I told them I don't own his testicles--which is the truth. For all intents and purposes he is neutered lol.

[capt_noonie]

LOL, oh ok, I thought you were a breeder or a shower. Is that him in your avatar? Gorgeous!

But I thought everything up north was more expensive than down here? I guess not huh? Oh no wait, you said he was neutered? So it is more up there then.

[Bravo916]

I do show. I have one finished champion and a puppy who is on his way to becoming a ch.

I am not a breeder though. I'd background check people first so its better I stay away

[capt_noonie]

Oh that's very cool. Oh, duh! I see your signature now. "Ch" Diesel. Way to go!