So Many Licenses »
Charlotte-Mecklenburg animal control is going to catch up on their billing.
If you don't pay, they can fine you from $50 to $500. What? Where does the government come up with this stuff? What right do they have to reach even deeper into my pocket whenever they feel like doing so?
A: I rescue an animal.
B: I pay the costs associated with owning that animal, including getting the animal fixed, getting shots, check-ups at the vet, food, toys, more shots and shelter, among other things.
C: Along comes the government with their hand out because I do all of this?
Does anyone "C" the problem? It's ridiculous.
We love dogs. We have two (uh, make that four). They were strays. One likely wouldn't have survived another day. They are now the pictures of health and happiness. They eat. A lot. We go through two of those 40-pound bags every 4 to 6 weeks. They require shots. Constantly, it seems. One has ear infections, so visits the vet pretty regularly. They have to be cared for when we aren't home.
What service does the local government provide for our registration? None. We paid for the microchips. We paid for the name tag. We paid for the shots. We pay for everything, and still the government wants more. Is the government trying to stop people from owning pets? That's just wrong.
Look, I hate to see animals - even cats, which I don't particularly like - suffer. But why penalize the people who are responsible to make up for the people who are not? Why not penalize the people who are not responsible instead? Why? Because they won't pay - they didn't pay in the first place. Why in the world are they going to pay a fine, too? Governing to the lowest common denominator is simply not the answer.
Maybe if they can't afford to provide a service, the government should take the novel approach of just not providing that service.
Comments (1)
Update: It appears that I'm not the only one up in arms about the issue. However, it also appears that others are fuming because the money doesn't go to actually help other animals.
While that might make it an easier issue to swallow, it's still wrong to coerce those who are being responsible into taking care of those who aren't. If I want to do so, that is of course fine. But if I don't, I don't. Get off my back.
The answer of it simply isn't acceptable to set up a pet license program, and then let so many pet owners avoid paying isn't itself acceptable. A much better one would be to just scrap the program entirely, and point people to the resources that are really useful (such as the Avid microchip).
The best part is that solutions such as this one are not provided by government, but instead by entrepreneurs who saw the need for a new product and acted upon that need. You want to participate, you can. You don't, you don't. How easy is that?
Posted by Chad Everett | March 12, 2004 6:06 AM