Uni's $100 ID tag - Page 3 - YorkieTalk.com Forums

browniesmom622 · 07-16-2009, 11:32 AM

I'm all for anything that will get people to spay & neuter there pet's!

capt_noonie · 07-16-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roxies_mom

Thnx for answering. Next week Roxie is getting her shots and Rabies is one of them. I will see what my vet says about it. As far as I know from the past the vet usually does it and you send in for the tag or they do. I've never had issues with anyone contacting me and telling me they have to have anything. Just a card from the vet saying they are due for something. That's why I asked if this was something that happens when the dog has akc papers. Since Roxie is only a pet for me to love and spoil I never sent her papers in. On the other hand my daughters husky does have papers and the county over from us where she was living (not anymore) sent her a paper telling her a fee was due and if she didn't pay it she would be fined. She's in the process of trying to get the dogs papers from her ex to get it straightened that the dog doesn't live in that county anymore.

As far as my situation, I don't think it has anything to do with papers or registry. Uni is not even AKC anyway, she is ACA which basically means nothing

. I just don't understand, this rabies shot was her 2nd round, they were late. But the first time (at four months) I didn't get any notice from the county, even though the law here is any dog over 4 months old must be licensed. So this round of rabies is for three years, but now that i'm in their system, i will have to pay this every year now.

What for Uni doesn't drive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by browniesmom622

I'm all for anything that will get people to spay & neuter there pet's!

Yes i am going to get her spayed, but the two days they gave me to pay up was not sufficient time for me to get it done. I think that's what I am most upset about. Well i was planning on getting her fixed within the year anyway. Now I have an actual deadline so I don't have to pay this ridiculous amount again next year.

hugz4all4 · 07-16-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tammy8833

wow we only pay 10.00 a year here per dog

$100 dollars!!

holy crap!! I only pay 5.00 for each of my dogs, but they are all fixed. Its 10.00 for unfixed animals. Another reason why Im so glad I live in the boonies.

roxies_mom · 07-16-2009, 01:57 PM

I also am not understanding how this is supposed to make people get their dog spayed or neutered!?

capt_noonie · 07-16-2009, 02:08 PM

Well in CA the difference in fees between spayed and unspayed is huge. $24 vs $100, so unless you want to pay $100 every year, better get them spayed.

angelakc · 07-16-2009, 02:23 PM

I have never heard of this at all. I know that we have to pay for the rabies tag but thats all. I better check up on this...

tjdmom · 07-16-2009, 03:31 PM

First of all, I'm up in NY and I think the only place taxed worse than us is CA so I sympathize with you all there! Does anyone really think that this money is going to be spent on spaying and neutering dogs? It would be nice if the money was used for that. Unfortunately, it's just another way for the politicians to put their hands in your pocket. If we really wanted to encourage spaying and neutering, we would have some programs where people could get it done for low of free prices. Maybe even have mobile clinics that could go from county to county to do it. And wouldn't that be a great way for people to volunteer - hey maybe even HSUS and PETA could sponsor it! No way is that going to happen. This isn't about the animals, unfortunately. It's just like the cigarette tax (does everyone have that like here in NY) They make a ton of money off of it. Do they want people to quit smoking? No way! If people quit smoking where are they gonna get the money from the revenues they make? I guess they're going to go after pet owners to replace it. And if you think it's gonna stop here, think again. Everytime we give away a little bit of our freedom thinking it's no big deal it brings us a little closer to the kind of country that has no freedom at all. For me, that's not something I'm ready to give up.
All right.... I'll get off my soapbox now.....

lillymae · 07-16-2009, 08:51 PM

This plan for licencing fees for dogs has been in the making in California for at least 20 yrs that I know of. And they are trying for licences for cats as well. Maybe have already done it in some cities. Also the same time 20 years ago when the talk first started about the licence fees, they talked about breeders paying a $500.00 a year Breeders fee. I know how you feel about Ca. taxing you to death and I don't agree with it. However I do totally agree with some other form of pet overpopulation control besides euthanasia. As it is now 50% or more of the pet population in Ca. are born to die and it is sickening. So Yes I Do Agree With The Fees for Unaltered Pets.

lillymae · 07-16-2009, 09:14 PM

And by no means am I saying there are no responsible pet owners in Ca. But unfortunately not enough. And it's not just Ca. As I said before I agree with the fee and I wish they did this in all states.
I have friends in Ca. who breed and show dogs and they have no problem with the licencing fees or the breeders fee, as the breeders fee will cut down greatly on back yard breeders who over breed and don't care about the well being of the dog or the pups. If you think about it , if back yard breeders can't be making their dogs pop out puppies like theres no tomorrow. It will actually benefit Reputable breeders. I would rather pay $5000.00 for a healthy dog then $1000.00 to $2000.00 for one with many costly health issues. Wouldn't You?

capt_noonie · 07-16-2009, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lillymae

This plan for licencing fees for dogs has been in the making in California for at least 20 yrs that I know of. And they are trying for licences for cats as well. Maybe have already done it in some cities. Also the same time 20 years ago when the talk first started about the licence fees, they talked about breeders paying a $500.00 a year Breeders fee. I know how you feel about Ca. taxing you to death and I don't agree with it. However I do totally agree with some other form of pet overpopulation control besides euthanasia. As it is now 50% or more of the pet population in Ca. are born to die and it is sickening. So Yes I Do Agree With The Fees for Unaltered Pets.

Yes, as far as in OC cat licensing is optional. But I wonder who would want to come forward and pay that? The law states that if you are feeding a stray cat for at least 15 days that you are now its owner and you must pay the fee. If not, then you must report it to animal control, where it may most likely be put down. If you do not do either of those, then you are now a criminal. sheesh

QuickSilver · 07-16-2009, 09:20 PM

Omigosh, you are supposed to license cats now?? I don't know why that seems so insane... but then I think licensing dogs is a total racket.

capt_noonie · 07-16-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lillymae

And by no means am I saying there are no responsible pet owners in Ca. But unfortunately not enough. And it's not just Ca. As I said before I agree with the fee and I wish they did this in all states.
I have friends in Ca. who breed and show dogs and they have no problem with the licencing fees or the breeders fee, as the breeders fee will cut down greatly on back yard breeders who over breed and don't care about the well being of the dog or the pups. If you think about it , if back yard breeders can't be making their dogs pop out puppies like theres no tomorrow. It will actually benefit Reputable breeders. I would rather pay $5000.00 for a healthy dog then $1000.00 to $2000.00 for one with many costly health issues. Wouldn't You?

From what I understand, the first rabies shots are not administered until at least 4 months of age. BYB will sell their pups way before they hit the 4 month mark, and thus no record of them or their pups.

lillymae · 07-16-2009, 11:11 PM

They will still have to pay the breeders fee. If they don't and they get caught from what I heard they will pay 3 or 4 times more. So it it will not be worth it for them to continue breeding. The city will probably start requiring the new puppy owner to state where they got the puppy. That's how they will keep track of the breeders. Something like a birth cert..Same as when you spay and get a spey cert from the vet . You take it in when you get the dog liscence. That would be easy enough to do. I really don't know why they didn't do it 20 yrs ago when they first started talking about it. Can you even imagine how many animals would not have had to die in shelters over the last 20 years, makes me sick to think about.

lillymae · 07-16-2009, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Omigosh, you are supposed to license cats now?? I don't know why that seems so insane... but then I think licensing dogs is a total racket.

And I agree Mine have ALWAYS been illegal, But ALTERD. But without the fees there would be no shelters then where would we be? And believe me the shelter gets plenty of my money. I would be the person who goes out of my way to adopt the dog in the biggest mess that costs a fortune to bring back to life, and I get no donations. This is my calling. This new fee will not empty the shelters, but if it saves any lives then in my opinion it's a start . Obviously trying to educate the public hasn't worked, so maybe hitting them where it hurts will ( the pocket book). All I know is that something has to stop the cruelty, neglect and SELFISHNESS of these people.

QuickSilver · 07-16-2009, 11:47 PM

As a California resident, I don't buy that at all. The responsible people who are taking their dogs to the vet are not the people whose dogs end up in shelters. That's like making people who jog pay for lung cancer research. As usual, the private sector has done what the government couldn't, ie microchips. I volunteer at a rescue and most of my charitable contributions go to shelters. I would be interested to see what portion of funds comes from the government and what comes from private contributions. What if your animal IS a rescue?

Dog licenses make no sense. Driving requires public roads, universal recognition of traffic laws, etc. I can see maybe requiring licenses for "dangerous" breed dogs, beause there could be an argument for public safety. There's a tax for dogs because the government can get away with it, plain and simple. Honestly, there will be an air tax next. Hey, we all breathe it, we should pay for it, right?

07-16-2009, 11:32 AM	#31
browniesmom622 Donating YT 3000 Club Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: ny Posts: 11,253 Blog Entries: 5	I'm all for anything that will get people to spay & neuter there pet's! __________________ We Love our Yt Angel! My Website< > FB page

07-16-2009, 01:57 PM	#34
roxies_mom YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: central illinois Posts: 1,396 Blog Entries: 1	I also am not understanding how this is supposed to make people get their dog spayed or neutered!? __________________ "My sunshine doesn't come from the skies, it comes from the love in my dogs eyes"

07-16-2009, 02:08 PM	#35
capt_noonie www.yorkierescue.com Donating Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Las Vegas & Orange County Posts: 17,408	Well in CA the difference in fees between spayed and unspayed is huge. $24 vs $100, so unless you want to pay $100 every year, better get them spayed. __________________ The T.U.B. Pack! Toto, Uni, & Bindi RIP Lord Scrappington Montgomery McLimpybottom aka El Lenguo the Handicapped Ninja 10-12-12

07-16-2009, 02:23 PM	#36
angelakc <3 by Zsa Zsa & Pixie Donating Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: sunshine state Posts: 738	I have never heard of this at all. I know that we have to pay for the rabies tag but thats all. I better check up on this... __________________ Zsa Zsa and Pixie have me wrapped around their paws "Whoever said you can't buy happiness forgot little puppies"

07-16-2009, 09:20 PM	#41
QuickSilver Thor's Human Donating Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 5,929 Blog Entries: 31	Omigosh, you are supposed to license cats now?? I don't know why that seems so insane... but then I think licensing dogs is a total racket. __________________ If you love something, set it free. Unless it's an angry tiger.

07-16-2009, 03:31 PM	#37
tjdmom Donating YT 500 Club Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: upstate ny Posts: 5,847	First of all, I'm up in NY and I think the only place taxed worse than us is CA so I sympathize with you all there! Does anyone really think that this money is going to be spent on spaying and neutering dogs? It would be nice if the money was used for that. Unfortunately, it's just another way for the politicians to put their hands in your pocket. If we really wanted to encourage spaying and neutering, we would have some programs where people could get it done for low of free prices. Maybe even have mobile clinics that could go from county to county to do it. And wouldn't that be a great way for people to volunteer - hey maybe even HSUS and PETA could sponsor it! No way is that going to happen. This isn't about the animals, unfortunately. It's just like the cigarette tax (does everyone have that like here in NY) They make a ton of money off of it. Do they want people to quit smoking? No way! If people quit smoking where are they gonna get the money from the revenues they make? I guess they're going to go after pet owners to replace it. And if you think it's gonna stop here, think again. Everytime we give away a little bit of our freedom thinking it's no big deal it brings us a little closer to the kind of country that has no freedom at all. For me, that's not something I'm ready to give up. All right.... I'll get off my soapbox now.....

07-16-2009, 08:51 PM	#38
lillymae YT 3000 Club Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Idaho Posts: 4,544	This plan for licencing fees for dogs has been in the making in California for at least 20 yrs that I know of. And they are trying for licences for cats as well. Maybe have already done it in some cities. Also the same time 20 years ago when the talk first started about the licence fees, they talked about breeders paying a $500.00 a year Breeders fee. I know how you feel about Ca. taxing you to death and I don't agree with it. However I do totally agree with some other form of pet overpopulation control besides euthanasia. As it is now 50% or more of the pet population in Ca. are born to die and it is sickening. So Yes I Do Agree With The Fees for Unaltered Pets.

07-16-2009, 09:14 PM	#39
lillymae YT 3000 Club Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Idaho Posts: 4,544	And by no means am I saying there are no responsible pet owners in Ca. But unfortunately not enough. And it's not just Ca. As I said before I agree with the fee and I wish they did this in all states. I have friends in Ca. who breed and show dogs and they have no problem with the licencing fees or the breeders fee, as the breeders fee will cut down greatly on back yard breeders who over breed and don't care about the well being of the dog or the pups. If you think about it , if back yard breeders can't be making their dogs pop out puppies like theres no tomorrow. It will actually benefit Reputable breeders. I would rather pay $5000.00 for a healthy dog then $1000.00 to $2000.00 for one with many costly health issues. Wouldn't You?

07-16-2009, 11:11 PM	#43
lillymae YT 3000 Club Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Idaho Posts: 4,544	They will still have to pay the breeders fee. If they don't and they get caught from what I heard they will pay 3 or 4 times more. So it it will not be worth it for them to continue breeding. The city will probably start requiring the new puppy owner to state where they got the puppy. That's how they will keep track of the breeders. Something like a birth cert..Same as when you spay and get a spey cert from the vet . You take it in when you get the dog liscence. That would be easy enough to do. I really don't know why they didn't do it 20 yrs ago when they first started talking about it. Can you even imagine how many animals would not have had to die in shelters over the last 20 years, makes me sick to think about.

07-16-2009, 11:47 PM	#45
QuickSilver Thor's Human Donating Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 5,929 Blog Entries: 31	As a California resident, I don't buy that at all. The responsible people who are taking their dogs to the vet are not the people whose dogs end up in shelters. That's like making people who jog pay for lung cancer research. As usual, the private sector has done what the government couldn't, ie microchips. I volunteer at a rescue and most of my charitable contributions go to shelters. I would be interested to see what portion of funds comes from the government and what comes from private contributions. What if your animal IS a rescue? Dog licenses make no sense. Driving requires public roads, universal recognition of traffic laws, etc. I can see maybe requiring licenses for "dangerous" breed dogs, beause there could be an argument for public safety. There's a tax for dogs because the government can get away with it, plain and simple. Honestly, there will be an air tax next. Hey, we all breathe it, we should pay for it, right? __________________ If you love something, set it free. Unless it's an angry tiger.