All posts in the topic pet licensing
Summary
- There are 21 posts — by 17 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by caty royce at 2008 Apr 12 17:32 UTC
While it may be necessary to hire someone to attend only to this task, I agree
that it could become a life long employment slot.
In my 'hood, we do have the problem with too many pitbulls, not licensed and
not properly cared for.
Mpls. Animal control has greatly reduced it hours as well. They are now closed
all of Sat. afternoon and all day Sunday. Believe me, that is when we see a
great number of loose dogs running through the streets. The irresponsible
owners know that there is no enforcement.
When I received the paperwork to get new licenses and off lead park permits, I
was surprised to see the fees had risen over $50 for the dogs, yet the staffing
at Animal Control has dropped or remained the same. For the entire city there
are only 13-15 actual animal control officers. That is not enough to patrol
and handle complaints, as well as monitor the off lead parks to insure the
users are licensed and have the permits to use the facility.
We need to address this problem head on. With more
dangerous dogs and dogs running loose, we need consistent enforcement of
existing laws, and perhaps re-examine the laws we do have to make them
stronger. (and, no, not breed bans)
Gene Swanson
Lind-Bohanon
Liz McLemore has provided a table of the fees and also initiated a good discussion on this issue in two recent e-democracy posts: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/ZctxXCJUYZN6o1Ybydm1k http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/4aJSo6aFfDkDDHOmrlaPHV I think that $100 for a pet license and $100 for off leash park permits are excessive. Of course there are people who will probably never pay the fees or fines. Considering all the violent dog attacks reported recently, Animal Care and Control's policy of DOING NOTHING if a pet is attacked and killed is outrageous. http://www.startribune.com/local/17247504.html If it ONLY attacks a pet the violent dog can continue to run loose...to attack or injure at will. Animal Control ONLY takes action if a HUMAN is injured or killed. A violent dog should be removed from it's owners before it gets loose on the streets or immediately captured and controlled if it gets loose. Madeline Douglass Kingfield Downtown East
I'm sure that animal control has raised the annual license (and yes it is an outrageous amount) in order to make a lifetime license look like a better buy. As to raising the off-leash park permit - after an administrative fee for the city - the majority of that amount should go to the Park system for the upkeep of the dog parks. I'm curious as to whether the raising of the off-leash fee means that the city is getting more administrative money or that the park system needs more upkeep money. Considering the condition of the Lake of the Isles dog park in terms of upkeep I have to question where that money is going to. But the raises in these fees, taxes and assessments, while at the same time a lowering of quality in our services, is symptomatic of a city administration that is not paying attention to basic services, which is why they were elected. Lisa McDonald East Lake Harriet> To: <email obscured>> From: <email obscured>> Subject: Re: [Mpls] pet licensing> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 02:12:02 +1200> > Liz McLemore has provided a table of the fees and also> initiated a good discussion on this issue in two recent e-democracy posts:> > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/ZctxXCJUYZN6o1Ybydm1k> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/4aJSo6aFfDkDDHOmrlaPHV> > I think that $100 for a pet license and $100 for off leash> park permits are excessive.> > Of course there are people who will probably never pay> the fees or fines.> > Considering all the violent dog attacks reported recently,> Animal Care and Control's policy of DOING NOTHING> if a pet is attacked and killed is outrageous. > http://www.startribune.com/local/17247504.html > > If it ONLY attacks a pet the violent dog can continue to run loose...to attack or injure at will.> > Animal Control ONLY takes action if a HUMAN is injured> or killed. > > A violent dog should be removed from it's owners before it gets loose on the streets or immediately captured> and controlled if it gets loose.> > > > Madeline Douglass> Kingfield> Downtown East> > Madeline Douglass> Kingfield, Minneapolis> Info about Madeline Douglass: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/madelinedouglass> > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7BaKTg9YuSrM5NTSsxZVNh>
Let's try to confuse people with the facts here. The Minneapolis license fee remains at $30 annually for each sterilized dog or cat, or $200 for a lifetime license for a sterilized pet. It is not $100. There was a change in various animal fines, most notably the fine for not having a license. That fee was raised from $25 (or less than the cost of a license) to $100. If you get nicked, you can apply the fine toward the cost of a lifetime license. There are provisions pending for a reduced license fee for a second animal and a senior discount. Steve Brandt Kingfield >>> "Madeline Douglass" <email obscured>> 4/9/2008 9:12 AM >>> Liz McLemore has provided a table of the fees and also initiated a good discussion on this issue in two recent e-democracy posts: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/ZctxXCJUYZN6o1Ybydm1k http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/4aJSo6aFfDkDDHOmrlaPHV I think that $100 for a pet license and $100 for off leash park permits are excessive. Of course there are people who will probably never pay the fees or fines. Considering all the violent dog attacks reported recently, Animal Care and Control's policy of DOING NOTHING if a pet is attacked and killed is outrageous. http://www.startribune.com/local/17247504.html If it ONLY attacks a pet the violent dog can continue to run loose...to attack or injure at will. Animal Control ONLY takes action if a HUMAN is injured or killed. A violent dog should be removed from it's owners before it gets loose on the streets or immediately captured and controlled if it gets loose. Madeline Douglass Kingfield Downtown East Madeline Douglass Kingfield, Minneapolis Info about Madeline Douglass: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/madelinedouglass This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7BaKTg9YuSrM5NTSsxZVNh
Steve is correct - the fine was raised, not the license fee. The old fine
structure was silly, it cost $30 to license your pet but the fine for not
licensing was $25 - cheaper to take your chances and pay the fine in the
unlikely event you get caught.
I am all in favor of licensing and enforcement. Licensing requires that your
animal be up to date on vaccinations, it provides a way to return lost animals
(microchipping is better), the fee structure encourages spaying and neutering,
it's a way to track dangerous animals and it raises revenue.
I don't know if the fine revenue is dedicated to support Animal Control or
whether it goes into the general fund. Does anyone know the anser to that?
According to the Minnesota Monitor, there are only 124 licensed cats in
Minneapolis. We own 3.25% of all the legal cats in the whole City!
Barry Clegg
Nicollet Island
I am probably not one of dog owners from which you wish to hear. I do not like
leashes and try to walk my dog during times that possibly, offended people will
not be out (i.e. 12 AM) to avoid the issue. Leashes do not stop attacks as
many owners have been dragged by their dogs and lost control of their dog with
a leash. A trained, voice command dog is much less likely to be uncontrolled.
Also, I feel that some aggression between dogs is necessary and typical of pack
behavior. In the dog world, life isn't a sixties communion of love and there
is an order to be maintained.
THOSE STATEMENTS MADE, all people who have pets need to be responsible owners.
Licensing is part of being a responsible owner since it allows others to link
your pet to you. It may be out by mistake or does some damage. The owner
needs to be held accountable. The fees for licensing should be paid by those
that benefit, which is largely the owners. However, all citizens benefit from
licensing since these pets are a typical part of our communities and need to be
managed. I do not know the real costs of these dog parks or of our animal
control services (They control more than just dog pets.), but the cost sharing
probably needs to be in the range of 60 or 70 to 40 or 30.
Why are dogs the only licensed pet? Why are not CATS! The damage that cats do
to urban natural environment is great. Hence, cats should not be running free
without their owners as dogs are regulated.
It's entirely possible to prove a healthy life for an indoor cat and many cats never go outside, so it doesn't make much sense for Minneapolis to require all cats to be licensed. I don't think there are entirely indoor dogs, so there is a difference in our care of the two species. This isn't exactly my issue since I now live in Edina (which doesn't license cats, only dogs). I do have my kitty vaccinated, just in case, but he never goes outside or goes to work with me in Minneapolis. Fredda Scobey who works in Cedar Riverside Ed Davis <email obscured>> said: > I am probably not one of dog owners from which you wish to hear. I do not like leashes and try to walk my dog during times that possibly, offended people will not be out (i.e. 12 AM) to avoid the issue. Leashes do not stop attacks as many owners have been dragged by their dogs and lost control of their dog with a leash. A trained, voice command dog is much less likely to be uncontrolled. Also, I feel that some aggression between dogs is necessary and typical of pack behavior. In the dog world, life isn't a sixties communion of love and there is an order to be maintained. > > THOSE STATEMENTS MADE, all people who have pets need to be responsible owners. Licensing is part of being a responsible owner since it allows others to link your pet to you. It may be out by mistake or does some damage. The owner needs to be held accountable. The fees for licensing should be paid by those that benefit, which is largely the owners. However, all citizens benefit from licensing since these pets are a typical part of our communities and need to be managed. I do not know the real costs of these dog parks or of our animal control services (They control more than just dog pets.), but the cost sharing probably needs to be in the range of 60 or 70 to 40 or 30. > > Why are dogs the only licensed pet? Why are not CATS! The damage that cats do to urban natural environment is great. Hence, cats should not be running free without their owners as dogs are regulated. > > Ed Davis > Eastside, STP > Info about Ed Davis: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/eddavis > > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e- democracy.org/r/topic/3irYRrzvSdOhKLfBwj4lIG
So under this scenario can Animal Control get a warrant to enter your home to
determine if you have cats in your home and that they are licensed?
Barb Lickness
Whittier
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change
the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead
McLemore, Brandt and Clegg were correct about the fees, I was wrong, thanks for the correction! But...I was hoping there would be some debate on this policy, which should be changed. MD said: "Animal Care and Control's policy of DOING NOTHING if a pet is attacked and killed is outrageous. http://www.startribune.com/local/17247504.html If it ONLY attacks a pet the violent dog can continue to run loose...to attack or injure (kill) at will. Animal Control ONLY takes action if a HUMAN is injured or killed." Madeline Douglass Kingfield Downtown East
Let's start by saying that I do NOT think any cat should be allowed outside without a leash. Anyone who has ever had to clean cat crap off of a two or three year old child who was playing in his own sandbox in his yard knows what I mean. I do not think any animal that is kept entirely in a house, without ever going outside should be licensed. That goes for canaries, parrakeet's, goldfish, and husbands. NO public official without a warrant from the court and accompanied by a police officer would ever be allowed in my house without my permission. And if they came I would simply ignore them until they kicked the door down. Of course without a warrant and that police officer flashing it they would only do that once in their lifetime. (Of course any cat found in your house is a stray someone must have let in.) The City does not do anything about all the feral stray cats now, and someone expects them to do something about licensed cats? How about those unlicensed prostitutes waking around without a leash. This joke is nothing but an attempt to collect more "Fees" and provide smoke so someone might think they are doing something. Gosh, we sure need two year terms so we could get these folks to worry about real problems instead of fluff. After addressing the real criminal problems, the homeless problem, the over taxation problem, the bad fiscal management problem, and the fact that about 15% of elected Minneapolis politicians have gone to jail in the last eight years for political corruption, then they can address those cats. Until then please pay attention to real City problems for a few hours leave those nasty sparrow eating cats alone. This licensing thing is an example of the City officials playing games. Remember it is also against the law to sell drugs but the City does not stop that. Those arrested for it are almost always out in a few hours, so who the heck is going to pay attention to cat licensing and a City ordinances about it. Jim Graham, Ventura Village __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Steve thanks for the correction. Also Barry I agree with you about licensing.
My dogs have always been licensed and the two current ones have lifetime
licenses. Even when I was buying yearly licenses it was worth the money. It was
the best insurance you could get to have your pet returned. On the rare
occasion one of my dogs got out and was picked up by animal control they
brought them back to the house. It doesn't get any better than that. Also if
someone finds your dog they can call animal control and get your address and
contact info to return your animal.
So given that, rather than hiring someone else,they should make sure the phone
gets answered frequently for these types of queries, do a public info campaign
about the value of licensing (door to door service) and piggyback on existing
institutions (vets and pet food stores - giving them a cut of the license fee)
in order to increasing licensing. Hiring another person is definitely not the
wisest expenditure. In an era of less resources - working with what we have is
the way to go. It seems every time we turn around the city hires another
specialty person i.e. for pet licensing, homelessness, emergency preparedness,
etc. - the list goes on and on.
Lisa McDonald
East Harriet> From: <email obscured>> To: <email obscured>;
<email obscured>> Subject: Re: [Mpls] pet licensing> Date: Wed, 9
Apr 2008 10:52:56 -0500> > > I'm sure that animal control has raised the annual
license (and yes it is an outrageous amount) in order to make a lifetime
license look like a better buy. As to raising the off-leash park permit - after
Actually, what the article said was that Animal Control only QUARANTINES animals that attack humans, presumably because of the expense associated with a quarantine. A quarantine is really only useful in determining whether the attacking animal had rabies (always a good idea to know this) and really doesn't do any good in treating the problem past the quarantine period (10 days). Animals that attack other animals CAN and frequently ARE declared "Dangerous Dogs." If your dog is declared dangerous under the ordinance, it must wear a muzzle when outside, be on a maximum 3 foot leash, if kept in an outdoor kennel, the kennel must meet certain requirments (so the dog can't dig its way out), must be microchipped and must be current on vaccinations and licences. Dangerous Dogs are not eleigible for offleash permits. I also believe there may be an insurance requirement. Minneapolis current Dangerous Dogs cna be viewed online at http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/animal%2Dcontrol/DangerousDogs_List.asp - (interesting the St. Paul posts pictures of busted Johns and Minneapolis posts pictures of its dangerous dogs - draw your own conclusions). But as you will see if you look at the site, many are labelled as dangerous because they attacked another animal. Barry Clegg Nicollet Island
Great information Barry, thank you. What i found simply amazing was that of all the pictures at that site, not one was a pit bull. caty royce, bancroft On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Barry Clegg <email obscured>> wrote: > Actually, what the article said was that Animal Control only QUARANTINES > animals that attack humans, presumably because of the expense associated > with a quarantine. A quarantine is really only useful in determining > whether the attacking animal had rabies (always a good idea to know this) > and really doesn't do any good in treating the problem past the quarantine > period (10 days). > > Animals that attack other animals CAN and frequently ARE declared > "Dangerous Dogs." If your dog is declared dangerous under the ordinance, it > must wear a muzzle when outside, be on a maximum 3 foot leash, if kept in an > outdoor kennel, the kennel must meet certain requirments (so the dog can't > dig its way out), must be microchipped and must be current on vaccinations > and licences. Dangerous Dogs are not eleigible for offleash permits. I > also believe there may be an insurance requirement. > > Minneapolis current Dangerous Dogs cna be viewed online at > http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/animal%2Dcontrol/DangerousDogs_List.asp<http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/animal-control/DangerousDogs_List.asp> - (interesting the St. Paul posts pictures of busted Johns and Minneapolis
A pit bull is a Staffordshire Terrier and you will find indeed find
exactly one on the site Barry linked. Any terrier is likely to be
dangerous under the city's criteria, simply because of what they have
been bred for: mostly finding and killing vermin. Some of the other
breeds are a surprise to me and finding them declared dangerous may
say more about the people involved in the various incidents resulting
in the declaration than the dogs; I certainly hope the dangerous
designation is applied only to killers or attackers of *licensed*
cats and dogs.
My apologies for being a johnny-come-lately to this discussion, but it's
been a busy period at work.
Barb Lickness asks: So under this scenario can Animal Control get a
warrant to enter your home to determine if you have cats in your home and
that they are licensed?
Certainly if Animal Control is "tipped off" they can do so, but I'd be
interested in hearing about others' experiences with Animal Control.
Until a couple of summers ago, I had no idea that people needed to license
their pets with the city. Then one of my neighbors developed a vendetta
against another neighbor, and he reported the neighbor for having too many
pets in the home (she had just inherited an additional cat after her
mother died). Animal Control contacted her: she admitted to having the
additional pet and was required to pay a fee and license the animal. One
of her pets died shortly thereafter, and I believe she was then required
to provide a death certificate to Animal Control (presumably so she
didn't have to continue licensing the animal). She had always kept the
animals vaccinated, so apparently she was never fined for that.
At that point, I called the city and got all my pets licensed (I had
always kept up with their vaccinations). Like others on this list, I
questioned the logic of having to license indoor cats, but my hope is that
if they do somehow escape (as one of mine did during a house fire two
years ago), the city will make sure they're returned home safely.
Liz McLemore
Bancroft
Ed,
We have leash laws for many reasons more than untrained dogs and owners.
I have a neighbor three doors down with an attitude similar to yours. Two
springs ago I watched her happy wandering dog run into my next door
neighbor's yard and chomp down on a male cardinal fledgling. I chased the
dog off and found the fledgling bleeding from the head with the parents
watching from a nearby bush. I rushed the fledgling off to Wildlife Rehab in
Roseville. I attended a release event at a later date and inquired about the
cardinal. They said it was destroyed due to a skull puncture.
There is ZERO chance any of this would have transpired if the owner had kept
their dog leashed.
How many birds or rabbits will your dog destroy before you consider off
leash aggression to be too much?
I adopted a 12 pound poodle from the shelter 2 weeks ago. We walk him during
lunch and sometimes very late at night. How much pack aggression do you
consider acceptable when passing us on a walk?
Bottom line- having your dog off leash serves only YOUR needs.
Justifications such as "leashes do not stop attacks" and "some aggression
between dogs is necessary" are so pathetic they do not merit a counterpoint.
You've inspired me to call the city today to discuss the leash law,
enforcement, and reporting. I hope one of your neighbors is reading this
thread and does the same.
Steve Basile
Standish
Licensing and leash law enforcement are two different issues. Licensing will
not have an effect on whether or not people follow the leash laws. I don't
see how it will.
I agree with your assessment of the owners.
Mike Thompson
Windom
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:30:18 -0500 (CDT), Liz McLemore wrote:
>Like others on this list, I
>questioned the logic of having to license indoor cats, but my hope is that
>if they do somehow escape (as one of mine did during a house fire two
>years ago), the city will make sure they're returned home safely.
"Animal Control" is a misnomer. They are *dogcatchers*. They have no
visible expertise or services related to any other animal, aside from a
readiness to take your money. Is anyone aware of any case where they
have returned a cat?
"Animal Control" is also very inconvenient and user-unfriendly toward city
taxpayers.
For example, they have a list of animals they have picked up, as well as a list
of dead animals they have removed, to help people locate a lost pet. However,
these lists are kept in a paper notebook at their offices. You have to go way
over there in person, during the limited hours they are open, to look at these
lists.*
But you can't phone to check on these lists, nor are they available online. It
seems like it would be a simple thing to put them online on the city website.
Heck, the Animal Control Officer could even do that from in their truck --
didn't we pay a $1.2 million a year to have wireless mobile access from city
vehicles?
The city website has room for all the Mayors' Press Releases since 2006, and
his speeches since 2003 -- why can't it include something like this that is
actually useful to the taxpayers?
If people could check for missing pets online, instead of having to drive over
there, think of the savings in gasoline, and pollution in our city. As well as
reduced wear and tear on our streets.
*And you have to sign in before you can look at these. I've no idea why;
probably some Homeland Security rule to keep America safe from foreign
terrorists finding out about our lost pets!
Christine Painter wrote:
> When I received the paperwork to get new licenses and off lead park permits,
I was surprised to see the fees had risen over $50 for the dogs, yet the
staffing at Animal Control has dropped or remained the same. For the entire
city there are only 13-15 actual animal control officers. That is not enough
to patrol and handle complaints, as well as monitor the off lead parks to
insure the users are licensed and have the permits to use the facility.
>
>
Mark Anderson:
The city has 13-15 animal control officers?! What the heck are these
people doing?! I am shocked that we have so many. Does anyone know how
these people spend their time? I can imagine one person tracking down
stray dogs that have been called about. Maybe two when it gets busy. I
suppose there must also be someone to talk to residents with dogs that
neighbors have complained about, so they can determine if the dogs are
to be labeled "dangerous" or even be put down. What does everyone else do?
Need help? Please contact technical support and we will follow-up in 24-48 hours.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using the open source web-based mailing list manager GroupServer.