Post in Elite (licensed) feline owners, unite!

Mar 22 17:26 UTC

 wrote:
> Despite the fact that the city's motive may indeed be a need for revenue,
> there really ARE good reasons for the city to promote licensing (and hence
> vaccination and sterilization) of pets, though I think the best incentive
> might be a cheaper licensing cost ($30/year per vaccinated/sterilized pet
> seems a little steep to me, especially for an indoor animal).
>
>
Mark Anderson:
I don't understand the connection.  I've always vaccinated and
sterilized my cats, but have never and will never license them.  How
does paying for a license make it more likely that you will spend even
more for vaccination and sterilization?  It's the latter that I would
approve of by animal control.

Cheryl Luger wrote:
  As far as the checked  box on the city report, I figure you were being
tongue-in-cheek. For others, it means it's within the city budget for that
department...or won't affect other city budget expenses..  But since one
comment at the council included  the benefit of getting more revenue, the
appropriate checked  box should  have been 'increase in fines...for cost
recovery'.

Mark Anderson:
I wasn't being tongue-in-cheek at all.  I think I get it now.  The "no
financial impact" box is checked if the proposal itself doesn't ask for
more funds, I take it?  Or you are thinking that the increased license
money would more than offset the increased cost?  I assume that license
money doesn't go to the budget for animal control, so the fact that they
bring in more revenues doesn't mean they have more funds to push licensing.

Thanks for your input.