In most municipalities in the US, dogs (and sometimes cats, too) require yearly licenses. The fees from these licenses are used to fund the animal services our municipalities provide. In some municipalities (like mine) there is no other source of municipal funding for animal-related services. Consequently, if people don’t buy tags...there will be no animal services.
Because the annual license has historically been tied to the timing of the rabies vaccine (thereby denoting the animal’s current-on-vaccines status), everyone refers to this license as the “rabies tag.”
But it’s more than that. Especially now that rabies vaccines are no longer required annually (veterinary science has deemed the every-three-year vaccine perfectly acceptable), it’s time the “rabies tag” graduated to a more apropos moniker: “the pet owner’s shelter tax.”
OK, so that’s not quite fair. After all, our municipalities do have a compelling interest in ensuring that each individual pet is cared for in a manner that addresses the public health imperatives of any given region.
The problem is how to enforce this kind of care. Whether it’s all about rabies vaccines, yearly stool checks or whatever else the public health officials of a given region deem necessary, there’s gotta be a way of setting a bar for animal healthcare. You may disagree, but I believe this regulatory infrastructure is crucial to public health. Think what would happen should a major zoonosis ever emerge to rival the threat of rabies.
A recap (since I know it’s confusing): So is the license about animal services funding, pet healthcare or public health?
Ideally, it’s about all three. Keeping tabs on pets’ health is undoubtedly in the interest of public health––especially when it comes to major cross-species diseases like rabies. The problem is that tagging for public health (as was historically the impetus behind individual licensing of dogs) is no longer the focus for most municipalities.
Instead, the license fees have become public funds for animal projects. In the most miserly municipalities (again, like mine in Miami), license fees are all that get applied to the entire County’s animal services budget. In other words, compliant pet owners pay the whole bill for any and all municipal animal care (shelters, animal control, cruelty investigation, wildlife encroachment, etc.).
Those who don’t own pets are typically pleased by this policy. Why pay for animals when we don’t own them?
Sadly, it’s this exact rationale that built the system’s stark fiscal divisions and thereby institutionalized it’s limitations. Though animal services extend to protecting public health as a whole and reflect the full spectrum of animal-human interaction, municipal officials are loathe to allocate funds to "pets” given the politically short-sighted distaste for choosing services for animals over those that more directly affect people.
However, the reality is that throughout most of the US, compliance with licensing only extends to about 30%-60% of dog owners. Where cat licensing is required, the compliance rate is far, far lower. Make no mistake, enforcing licensing is a logistical nightmare that relies on the responsible and law-abiding to support the whole of society in cases like Miami's.
Even worse is the fact that when the system fails its humans and animals (as it often will when so poorly designed), when strong-arm tactics are employed in enforcement (which is what municipal service providers feel compelled to do given their limited sources of funding), or when the law-abiding public begins to feel put upon (as is only natural given the built-in unfairness of the system), the entire organizational structure breaks down and nothing is successfully achieved.
More on this tomorrow, including the vet’s role.
***
On Today's DailyVet post: Do tax breaks for your pet make you HAPPY?
Add Comment10 Comments
FWIW, my county has 3-yr licenses to go with the 3-yr rabies shot.
Galadriel September 29th, 2009 11:40:56 AM
You probably also support Obamacare. When I saw the word "enforcement" I cringed. The last thing we need in petcare is more bureaucrat enforcement.
I have 4 feral cats, a mom and 3 kittens that are now 15 month's. The female kitten spends most of her time indoors and sleeps in my bed. One of the males is as comfortable indoors as outside and the other male prefers his outdoor life but occasionally comes in and asks for some TLC. Mom is wild and only comes around for food. All have been spayed or neutered and have had their shots. We apply tick medicine periodically and remove the occasional dog tick. We have provided penicillin when their wounds get infected and treated one for tapeworm. All this was paid for personally. I owe my town nothing! I will not get licences and don't get the town provided shots.
One of my kittens was trapped by the local animal shelter (a service paid for by the town). He was 3 to 4 months old. Because he was feral they would not return him to me. They put him on death row after 7 days of observation. Just before he was executed I was able to use a contact to get him back. I will not give any money to the town or the animal shelter.
Your article was well meaning but just like Obamacare too many of you look to the government to fix everything you view as a risk. I don't!
Ian September 29th, 2009 12:27:41 PM
I had a 150 lb Shepherd-Malmute mix who was an escape artist... well it wasn't an art, he'd just plow through whatever was in the way. The only thing that finally held him was chaining him to a 400lb block of steel and concrete, and even then he dragged it around the yard and trashed the lawn and patio furniture.
We always kept him up on shots and licenses but I felt the city was double dipping. My fees paid for the enforcement officers that herded him into the pound when he was on a lark, so they could fine me for his escape as well.
There is no respite for the wicked...
Bob Jones September 29th, 2009 12:51:25 PM
lan: You misunderstand Dr. Khuly. She's primarily trying to explain why it's an ass-backwards system and how it got that way. But you illustrate a fine point with your lax approach to petcare. Though I'm happy to hear that you take care of your outdoor cats, you have to know that the majority of people who feed outdoor cats do not spay, neuter or treat them when they're ill. Who's going to pay for their care if we have no animal services? To each his own? And if your child is bitten by one of these cats outside your personal colony? Would that make you feel any different?
Furthermore, if these are your cats and you feel you have the right to care for them, then you should be keeping them on your property. They shouldn't be free-roaming just because you like it that way. And why don't you put tags on them or microchip them, as most would consider basic? At least then the big bad government meanies wouldn't be stealing your cats and killing them (a story I frankly don't believe since every shelter I've ever dealt with would be happy to let you take a cat off their hands).
Mark September 29th, 2009 12:52:06 PM
Whee! All-righty, then! So, who gave them those shots? Are you always going to have that "contact?" And what about people who find strays, or who need to relinquish their dogs for some legitimate reason. You think there should not be a state-run shelter? Excuse me, I have obviously wasted my time trying to talk sense to someone who doesn't speak that language. Anyone who makes the leap from rabies control to health care reform clearly has a few loose screws.
In any case, in our jurisdiction the veterinarian gives you a rabies tag with a code number when he/she administers the vaccine, as well as a vaccination certificate which indicates whether the vaccine is 1 year or 3 year. Licenses, which are mandatory, are one year, and you must submit documentation to verify vaccination and neutering status. Non-neutered pets pay a higher fee. Both fees are reasonable. The most annoying thing is that even if you got a three year vaccination, you have to re-submit your proof the next year. But expecting otherwise would be a stretch with our local government.
The plus about the "rabies tag," which usually has the name of the vet clinic on it, is that if a biting incident occurs, you have ready information on hand about your dog's vaccination status, hanging right off his collar. Since the license need not be coordinated with the vaccination (they all go from July to June, while you may have had your dog vaccinated in January), it is very useful to have that proof on hand.
Since our local government provides free vaccinations periodically, which protects the public and the animal population, I have no problem with the licensing system.
Susan September 29th, 2009 12:59:05 PM
Forgot to mention. LOVE Obamacare. In fact, don't think they are going far enough. :)
Susan September 29th, 2009 01:05:38 PM
Two points on licensing:
Being non-compliant doesn't necessarily mean you aren't law abiding, it can also mean that no one bothers to tell you that your county requires it and it doesn't occur to you. I only recently learned -- while discussing things with members of my local shelter board -- that I am supposed to have my cats licensed. Either no one has ever mentioned this to me before, or it's not been required where I've previously lived. It just didn't occur to me that my indoor cats would need to be licensed. I don't necessarily object, I just wish someone would have mentioned it.
I believe that EVERYONE shoudl help fund animal services in the community, not just pet owners. I guess I just assumed some of our county tax went for this purpose. God knows the municipal shelter needs more funding, but even more than increased funding, it needs TRUE oversight, which has been lacking.
I don't support the idea of forcing vets into the role of license fee gatherers. I believe that it is forcing an administrative role on vets for nothing in return, and also, in cases where clients have severely limited funding, or have other reasons to fear being brought to the attention of the law (such as illegal immigrants) bringing up the topic of licensing and associated fees at the vets may actually result in the client disappearing with the animal or not seeking services at all.
Not good. Let the lazy counties inform their citizenry of the licensing rules, and collect them. I mean, they don't so much as post this information in the paper, for crying out loud.
Stefani September 29th, 2009 07:19:32 PM
Unfortunately, my county doesn't offer 3-year licenses--despite what the AVMA says, Palm Beach County "requires" that animals get rabies every year.
However, I'd rather have animal costs covered by a regular tax than a tag fee. The argument that people who don't own pets shouldn't have to pay for county animal care doesn't hold water according to the rules that our society has agreed upon--otherwise, I, as a childfree person, shouldn't have to pay for the taxes that support schools! (If we were to change this rule, then yes--I'd be perfectly happy to apply the 40% of my property taxes that go to local schools to animals instead).
Sarah September 29th, 2009 09:08:23 PM
I can't remember seeing this issue raised on here in the past so, risking opening a whole new can of worms,... Many have religious and/or moral objections to many forms of health care and/or medications and/or vaccines. Just made me wonder how many of those extend those objections to their pets, if any of the vets hear that.
The biggest problem I see with licensing is that it's so often tied to municipal restrictions on the number of allowed pets. With these records computerized, now there's a nice little running file for the pet and the owner which discourages licensing. It's also ridiculous to put the cost of irresponsible animal people (those generally responsible for the animals running lose) on the responsible pet owners (they're the ones who volunteer to license). Not to mention that pet ownership has ZERO relationship to wild animal incursions which are most definitely a public issue. I suspect those without pets would be even more likely to be "invaded" by wild animals. Like burglars, wild animals are looking for the easy targets and that's not the yard with the big barking dogs!
Beyond that, I find it truly annoying how many licensed pets don't make it home upon being picked up after escaping even though they are wearing their license or other tags!
PJBoosinger September 29th, 2009 11:07:40 PM
As to lan and the Obamacare thing: I think Mark and Susan said it best. Making the leap to "Obamacare" is a strange and vexing comparison. You're right, though. I am in favor of our tax dollars serving public health. And situations like yours illustrate perfectly why a tax is needed in lieu of licenses. Every single citizen should pay for animal services, whether they have a dog, a cat, twenty of them or none. It's a far cry from universal healthcare, though.
Dr. Patty Khuly September 30th, 2009 04:03:11 AM
Add Commment