License cats, why don’tcha?

On my morning run, I saw 8 cats roaming the streets on the prowl. I saw no loose dogs. Yet, Montgomery County dog owners are getting hit with a 25% hike in the dog license fee. It’s time to start licensing cats- at least ones that are outside.

The Dayton Daily News article:

License fees are increasing from $16 to $20.

via Dog license fee hike prompted by increase in dogs at shelter.

Cats can spread disease, use our gardens as litter boxes, and can get hit by cars. The Montgomery County Animal Resource Center takes care of them as well. Why are dog owners the only ones paying for the service?

Equality- it’s a good thing, for people, as well as pet owners. It’s time we stop treating dog owners differently than cat owners- license the cats.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! If you wish to support this blog, please head over and use our services at The Next Wave Printing for all your printing needs. We have 4 Color Business cards starting at just $13.50.

17 Responses

  1. Marianne Stanley August 27, 2009 / 10:00 am
    I have lived in Arizona, California and Texas and NOWHERE else are dog licenses as expensive as they are here………and they’re going UP?!??? We have five dogs and Dayton has already hit us with almost $500 more a year in levies……and are proposing more…..yet, we, the least – wealthy in the area, are being clobbered repeatedly. No wonder foreclosures are so high! And here’s where we need YOU, David…….. everywhere else I lived had deep discounts if you 1) had multiple pets and 2) had them neutered. Sooooooooo, despite the fact that we have rescued shelter pets and all of ours are neutered thus saving the county in costs, we are going to get slammed. Nice.
  2. Joe August 27, 2009 / 10:08 am
    Cats are everywhere in South Park. I’ve heard certain houses in the neighborhood put out food for them regualrly. Take that away and the population will naturally decline over time.
  3. Shannon August 27, 2009 / 10:09 am
    Charge us more for doing the right thing just to pay for others that drop their off pets? I agree, charge cat owners.
  4. David Esrati August 27, 2009 / 10:16 am


    And the only difference between cat food and rat food is one letter.

    And- btw @Marianne- charging less for neutered pets is a great idea.

  5. Marianne Stanley August 27, 2009 / 10:20 am
    Truly, David…….every state where I’ve lived except here (and I was born and raised right here in Dayton) charges less if you have multiple pets (just like car insurance decreases for multiple vehicles) and for neutered pets. I believe we were paying $6 or $7 a year in Tucson, Arizona and in San Antonio, Texas.
  6. David Lauri August 27, 2009 / 11:34 am
    We could license kids too.  Didn’t you have problems earlier this year with a pack of unruly kids roaming your street?
  7. Larkin August 27, 2009 / 11:35 pm
    David, don’t get me started on charging more for keeping intact animals. We have reasonable animal laws on the books already, and IF they were enforced the situation would be more manageable.  All that charging more for intact animals does is punish and persecute law abiding people and has absolutely NO effect on shelter populations. H$U$, a massive lobbying group (that does NOTHING for animals, and has one of the worst ratings for any so-called “charity”) and PeTA (the ONLY “shelter” in the country with a euthanasia rate of more than 95 percent) are working together to try to enact this kind of BS municipal ordinance or state law in many parts of the country; resulting in states and municipalities that enact laws that fly directly in the face of the constitutional rights regarding illegal search and seizure.
    Every one has a “hot” button. This one is mine. I need to know more about your opinion on this.
  8. David Esrati August 28, 2009 / 6:36 am

    @Larkin- “intact animals” for breeding is one thing- “intact” because you are too cheap to sterilize- another.

    I’m only talking maybe $4 a year difference. I’m sure one of your litters more than makes up for this.

    I’d rather just license cats- the “intact” bit- was thrown in by Marianne and sounded intelligent to me. Not everyone should breed (animals).

  9. Shelia O August 28, 2009 / 6:51 am
    I have no problem with taking care of my 8 cats. They are indoor and are all spayed/neutered. I would even be willing to pay for liscencing if I owned any outdoor animals regardless of whther they were cats or dogs. The problem is irresponsible pet owners/pet parents (whichever term you prefer) who think that taking care of an animal is a short term deal. People need to realize that they are not something to be played with one day and tossed out the next. Taking an animal is a long term committment, and it breaks my heart to see all the little ones who run free because their parents were not spayed/neutered because of irresponsibility. When cats are adopted out they are already spayed/neutered by the agency and the cost is passed onto the adopting family – which is fine by me. Animal care is a hot button for me – but don’t tell me that there are no loose dogs – I have plenty in my neighborhood. I keep my gates closed so that I don’t have to wander through dog piles on my way to my house from my car.
  10. Larkin August 28, 2009 / 12:18 pm
    David, you’re talking $4, but your colleagues would not. They would look at other cities where the difference is $75, or $150, or like some places in Oregon, $500.  Per intact dog.
    In the last three years, we’ve had one litter of 5 puppies.  If  the dog has an emergency c-section, ANY money that you might be ahead on puppies is gone. On that last litter I spent $600 on health tests (on the puppies alone, not counting the thousands of dollars spent on the parents, or the thousands spent chasing CH. titles) , $200 on registration fees, $200 on vaccinations and microchips, $400 on supplements, puppy food, and other supplies. Yep, it’s a real money maker. And politicians think you can just “roll” those fees into the price of a puppy. Not to mention that you have to take the economy into consideration as well. Plenty of demand for a well-bred, well-socialized, healthy puppy out of champion parents, but not so many people who want to pay the price tag– especially when they can find a nice “backyard” bred puppy in the classifieds for $200. 
    A better solution is to offer subsidized spay-neuter programs. There are mobile clinics that provide this service. (You’d think these big animal lobbying groups like H$U$ would be behind this kind of program but they’re not, and heck, they can’t even find more than 40 million dollars that was donated to them for helping with Hurricane Katrina, for which they are under federal investigation.) It costs more than $200 to have a cat spayed at a standard vet clinic, and considerably more than that for  a dog. And don’t say, “Well people who can’t afford that shouldn’t have pets.” Then we’d be euthanizing even more animals. 
    This is a red hot issue, and people are rightfully mad. They’re expected to pay more for their intact animals, but they’re not the ones causing the problems. Those causing the problems can and do go on causing the problems. Voluntary spay = neuter programs have reduced the number of animals in shelters dramatically. Mandatory spay – neuter programs have had no measurable effect on populations, but have resulted in greatly increased costs in manpower needed for enforcement and court time.  
    You don’t want to take this on for the little return it would give you– it would not be a popular plank in your platform. 
    And I won’t live in a city that supports measures like these. 
  11. David Esrati August 28, 2009 / 12:31 pm

    @Larkin- it’s a county issue anyway. I’m only advocating licenses for outdoor cats. And, if we catch them loose, and you don’t pick them up in 10 days@$10 a day, with an initial charge of $30 for the license you didn’t buy, they get euthanized.

    Give it a break- and take your license hike.

  12. Larkin August 28, 2009 / 12:58 pm
    David, I’ve seen people lose their livelihoods, beloved dogs, and decades worth of time and effort when these kinds of ordinances go into effect. I’m not going to give it a break. I don’t mind the license increase– I think the Montgomery County regulations are very reasonable. But you can bet I looked long and hard before we bought the house here. But I will absolutely fight tooth and nail a license increase that differentiates between intact and neutered animals. 
    Good luck on picking up those loose cats, lol.  Most are feral anyway, the shelter is overcrowded with cats, most adult cats that go there are euthanized anyway . . . and certainly the ones that can’t be handled would be. 
    Your “in the box” thinking about this issue is disappointing. 
  13. Gene August 28, 2009 / 3:21 pm
    Bring Michael Vick to town and our dog over population would be controlled. Don’t know what he would do with cats……….
  14. Larkin August 28, 2009 / 4:42 pm
    Gene, they use cats for bait. And small fluffy dogs. 
  15. Cathy August 10, 2010 / 4:33 am
    I think all pets should have chips placed in them weither inside pets or outside but this is a one time thing and each owner pays to have it done and the animal is then registered with their area vet, etc then if the animal is sold or given to another the new owner pays to reregister the chip and they need to do away with this crap of licensing pets (DOGS) yearly. Its just another way to imbezel money from us animal (dog) lovers, it isn’t needed and these so called tags can easily be removed from the pet be anyone wanting to steal the animal so what good are they were if chipped …if stolen and sooner or later the animal will be recovered when it is tooken to the vet or the dog pound ends up with it.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *