Cash-strapped LA going after unlicensed dogs

Source: Associated Press

LOS ANGELES – Cash-strapped Los Angeles is going to the dogs — literally.

The City Council voted on Tuesday to have two departments share information in order to track down people who haven't licensed their pets.

Council President Eric Garcetti estimates two-thirds of the city's dogs are unlicensed. Licenses cost $15 for a sterilized dog and $100 for an unaltered pet.

Getting all dogs licensed would mean at least an additional $3.6 million in fees to the city.

The Department of Animal Services has eight full-time people whose job is to find and license dogs. The Department of Water and Power keeps a meter-reader database of homes with dogs. The council ordered the departments to coordinate to find the pooches.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100224/ap_on_re_us/us_dog_licenses

Not a place you want to call home.

Whew. Bullet dodged!

.

What is the world coming too.. :crazy:

Are you telling me they can't find 3.6 million in cuts? Hmmmmm, peeking in bushes and hunting dogs OR cutting 3.6 million. Those eight people should be making sure the animals in their care are clean and fed instead of checking for tags.

Unaltered?!?!?!?!? i think i take umbrage at that.

i think its fine. if i pay for a license, everyone should pay for a license. its $15.

if you insist on having an unaltered pet (i'm looking at you, macho pit bull owners), too bad.

This isn't about health or safety but $$$. Governments bankrupt themselves with giveaways to the rich and then balance the budget by taking from the poor. If you think not, then wait till a governmental entity near you begins "coordinating files" to balance their budgets.

:(

Antonio Villaraigosa proving he is a lackey who can't run a city, is what it is

It is an efficient use of resources that are already available to enforce an accepted city regulation. Pet owners who are unwilling or unable to comply probably shouldn't be pet owners.

This is a real question.

I'm also curious about what you consider the difference to be between an 'accepted' city regulation and an unaccepted one? Are the unaccepted city regulations ok to break?

I have no info on the reasoning is behind the regulations existence in the first place, but I assume it is a public health policy thing. I am not a hard liner, but if you can't come up with $15 per pet, I have real doubts about your ability to care for one. There are always exceptional circumstances, of course, and I hope that a review process, as well as charitable sources, exist to account for these.

As for my view on the law in general, I think those that are commonly ignored or unenforced shouldn't exist. If LA doesn't like the law/reg, they should change it.

It's a public health issue.

The fee structure encourages people to spay and neuter their dogs so there aren't so many unwanted puppies.

I can't see a down side.

Why should I fork over $14/year for a license that does not come in handy? My dog has that stupid microchip so that they can probably track everything I'm doing in my home, but say it's so they can track my dog down if she were to get lost.

I am responsible and have her spayed.

She gets the best of the best kibbles there are to buy along with 2 (2-3 mile) walks every day.

And I should not be a pet owner?

The City of LA should should back off and focus on more important issues, such as infrastructure.

I'm a responsible vehicle owner and keep my car well maintained.

The methods won't work, and the law of inintended consequences will come into play, but I approve of the goal.

If you can't afford a vet, don't get a pet.