Published: February 17, 2007 12:08 am            

Pet owners simply are not interested in following rule

According to city officials, fewer Clinton residents are licensing their pets. This is a problem, they say, because the licensing structure is in place to help generate a database of rabies vaccinations as well as to help reunite lost pets with owners.

The fee for each license doubled from $5 to $10 a few years back as the city revamped its fee structure in an effort to replace lost revenue. However, the party line now is that the license fees are in place to replace the administrative costs associated with the program.

We think $10 per animal each year is a fair fee. But Ward 1 City Councilman Bob Soesbe estimates only 10 percent of the 15,000 to 17,000 pets he believes are in Clinton have proper licenses. On the high end, that means there’s some $150,000 in potential income if everyone who owned a pet filled out the proper paperwork.

Eliminating the fee isn’t the only answer. The $10 isn’t so much the inhibitor, it’s the time and effort to go through more red tape that people find frustrating. And it would take a good deal of time to process an extra 15,000 license applications, so some revenue would be helpful.

City Clerk/Finance Director Deb Neels said her office is planning to place a license application in sewer bills to encourage pet owners to license their animals. This is beyond laughable, because the only thing more frustrating than a late sewer bill with an inflated user fee is one that also asks for an extra $10 per Rover or Fido.

At-large Councilman Ron Mallicoat suggested the council consider a requirement that veterinarians fax all rabies certifications to the city so officials can determine who owns pets. It would be simpler still to mandate that pet owners pay their veterinarians the extra $10 each time an animal gets a rabies vaccination. The vets could funnel the money to City Hall, the list would be updated and there would be less paperwork for the pet owner.

Beyond that, it would catch everyone responsible enough to take their animal to the veterinarian. As it stands, people usually are found to be in violation of the license law only if their animal is caught by the animal control officer. Literally thousands of animals go unlicensed because neither they nor their owners end up in legal trouble, and the police department has far, far more important things to do than go door to door and ask to see proof of legal pet ownership.

In the end, the issue is simple. The vast majority of pet owners do not want to go to the trouble of registering their animal. If this is important to the city, the council must pass a law that not only forces pet owners to register, but also installs a system with far smaller cracks through which to fall.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.