All posts in the topic Elite (licensed) feline owners, unite! (Short link)
Summary
- There are 12 posts — by 8 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Liz McLemore at Mar 23 22:10 UTC
Apparently my 3 cats constitute a full 2.4% of the licensed domestic felines in the city of Minneapolis. Out of an estimated 115,000 cats in the city, the City of Minneapolis has only 124 of them licensed. The city proposes to change that. Check out their recommendations for both carrot and stick at http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2008-meetings/20080404/Docs/Pet-Licensing-RCA.pdf. Liz McLemore Bancroft neighborhood
<email obscured> wrote: > Apparently my 3 cats constitute a full 2.4% of the licensed domestic > felines in the city of Minneapolis. Out of an estimated 115,000 cats in > the city, the City of Minneapolis has only 124 of them licensed. > > The city proposes to change that. Check out their recommendations for > both carrot and stick at > http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2008-meetings/20080404/Docs/Pet-Licensing-RCA.pdf. > > Mark Anderson: A couple comments on those recommendations: 1) I noticed there was lots of discussion on how to increase licensure and how other cities have increased licensure, but not one sentence on why we need to increase the number of licenses. It'd be nice if there was something we could do in this city that didn't involve getting permission. 2) I noticed the memo had checked "No financial impact," even though every idea they had would cost the city money (as well as pet owners, of course). Am I not understanding what "No financial impact" means? Could someone please explain the nomenclature?
I can certainly understand the reasoning for wanting dogs who will be
taken to the off-leash public parks to be licensed but I really can't
understand why the owner of an indoor pet should be required to pay an
annual fee (or a one time $200 fee).
Lets set aside the in-betweens for now (pets on leashes, pets allowed
unsupervised access to enclosed yards, etc.). Can someone explain to
me why a litter trained pet that is never taken outside other than in
a cage when it goes to the vet requires a license? And if an indoor
only cat or dog does, why not a rabbit or sugar glider or a parrot or
a tortoise?
$30/month over 20 years of life for a small pet is $600, and $900 if
you've got two - not a small amount of money.
- phaedrus (jason.goray), 3-6, minneapolis, minnesota, usa, earth.
don't ya know, the city needs the money?
The report reads well...best practices and all. IIt is a good example of how
a report should be done.
There are some public health concerns involved. One of the goals is to have
pet owners vaccinate (combined with the all ready existing
discount on the license for spayed and neutered animals). Can't get a
license without proof of vaccination.
That aside...
This was part of the 'dangerous dogs' ordinance last fall. Cm Lisa Goodman
had it separated out from that part of the proposed law. during council
sessions she raised many concerns about it being overly punitive. She has been
a vocal advocate for many companion animal concerns (Loring dog park was her
idea-she and her aid spent many hours on this plan-- as is the current state
legislation to allow dogs at outdoor patio/cafes). There is also another
document listing the fee increases and fines (somewhere among the Public safety
and regulatory agendas ...it's a pretty steep increase).
I'd be a ****I'd be a little more concerned *** with the provision for
'door to door canvasing'. I can just imagine when the canvasing starts at low
income senior highrises...those cats never get out...but that's the law.
For home renters and owners, see a kitty in the window...and it will be
recorded in the city's inventory. This was a concern when this issue came up
back in the early 90's. City wireless will make inventoring easier. One
cartoonist even came up with a visual of a little ol ' lady walking her dog,
being detained by the city...in the background was a mugger doing his work.
Cm Colvin` Roy was able to amend this license requirement to exclude those
doing animal rescue work thru a licensed 501c As I used to do alot of that
and still know many who do...we appreciate her amendment.
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'.
The report is ambitious (their plan calls for quite a few 'person' hours) and
I can't see how it won't have a financial consequence and stay within the
budget..unless animal control cuts back on other costs...like food and vet
care for impounded animals or less humane ways of euthanasia.
So per their 'outreach' efforts, be prepare for a visit..
Since companion animals are near and dear to my heart, I chose to use my 2nd
post on this issue and not posting the happenings at the library board .
By the way, one of my favorite cartoons back in the 60's was that of a
landlord about to enter a tenant's apt....behind the door was a 300 lb.
kitty.
Caption: here landlord, landlord, landlord.
best wishes,
cheryl luger
nokomis east
I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder
to see them not ashamed.
--- Jonathan Swift
I think we can honestly say that it's money, pure and simple. Another source
of funds, another vein to bleed in the insatiable need for more money. I
agree with phaedrus...... there is no need for an indoor pet to get a
license. There is no material need to the city if my cats are licensed.
(There is a material >>want<<, but not a material need.) Our three cats
are/were never licensed and never will be. It's nobody's business but mine.
Mike Thompson
Windom
I really can't
> understand why the owner of an indoor pet should be required to pay an
> annual fee (or a one time $200 fee).
The answer is, there's no legitimate reason except to extract more money
from the citizens. Outdoor pets? Sure, why not? There is a public
interest in having a tagged cat or dog so they can be returned to owner or
identified in case there is trouble. But indoors, not a chance. They better
add hamsters and other pet rodents then too.
Otherwise the recommendations seem sound, especially the lifetime license
and the "fix-it ticket", as well as the discount for chipped critters.
Kevin Wynn, Dad
Minneapolis, MN
2005 Ural Tourist - "Tpehora"
I cannot open the link to the PDF file in the original post. I'd like to see
the rationale for these initiatives. Can somebody relink?
Is there a big problem in this city with indoor cats transmitting disease?
What is the rationale for additional enforcement? My initial impression is
that this is government gone wild, the kind of thing that motivates people to
vote Republican or Libertarian.
Legislation should remedy a problem or address an exigency. When it does not,
it is a sign of: (a) bureaucrats with too much time on their hands; (b)
leaders who are unable to identify real problems; or (c) a money grab that
inflates government at the expense of individuals.
Without further information, it seems that this initiative most likely falls
under the last category, an attempt to raise funds. I'm all for users paying
for their own services. I believe, for example, that car owners should bear
the burden of paying for construction and maintenance of roads and highways
with license fees and gas taxes and toll roads. But taxing indoor cat owners
for the services of animal control does not follow this logic. Animal control
deals primarily with issues of bats and raccoons and people who do not keep
their dogs behind fences, none of which has anything to do with owning an
indoor cat.
I also understand that the primary rationale for licensing cats and dogs is to
ensure vaccination against rabies, and hence protection of people (correct me
if I'm wrong here). Yet canine/feline transmission of rabies to humans is
nonexistent in the developed world, including in the United States. From some
research I did a few months ago, I learned that the only cases of suspected
canine transmission of rabies in this country are from people who had been
traveling in poor countries. Most domestic cases of rabies are from bats and
raccoons. Certainly no suspected cases from any cat, much less indoor cats.
To sum it up, I cannot see an evident rationale for increased enforcement.
Perhaps others on this list can enlighten me. Until then, I'll take this as
another example of city government gone amuck, trying to raise a buck.
Michael Mackey,
Uptown
I just checked the city's link: it's still valid, though you may need to cut and paste it into your browser: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2008-meetings/20080404/Docs/Pet-Licensing-RCA.pdf 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). There are especially good reasons to license cats. Cats are polyestrous, which means they can go into heat almost spontaneously (and several times a year). According to an article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Association, a 2004 study of free-roaming domestic cats indicated that "Cats produced a mean of 1.4 litters/year, with a median of 3 kittens/litter (range, 1 to 6). Overall, 127 of 169 (75%) kittens died or disappeared before 6 months of age. Trauma was the most common cause of death." I've heard that cats really do reproduce at staggering rates: one source I found on the web speculates that "2 uncontrolled breeding cats produce: 2 litters a year, at a survival rate of 2.8 kittens per litter. Continued breeding will produce 12 cats the first year, 66 cats the second year, 2,201 cats in the third year, 3,822 cats in the fourth year, 12,680 cats in the fifth year, and on and on . . . ." Domestic cats are also prone to disease, including feline leukemia--a disease that won't spread to humans, but it certainly will spread to other felines. And I agree with those who argue that it does seem silly to license indoor pets. However, the city's dilemma is likely to be this: what guarantees do they have that your animal is indeed kept indoors? And what happens if the animal escapes (as mine have occasionally done, though they are indeed indoor animals)? Liz McLemore Bancroft
<email obscured> 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.
Has Minneapolis always licenced cats? I know Saint Paul doesn't, though they
require a cat to wear an ID tag when outside.
> 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.
I think that anyone who can conceive of having an indoor only non
sterilized cat hasn't spent much time with non-sterilized cats of
either gender. With a female, its the noise and with a male, its the
spraying.
I pretty much agree with the sentiment above - since I've been an
adult/lived non-rurally, I've sterilized all my cats. I would be
willing to pay a small one time registration fee if it meant I would
have a better chance of recovering my cat should it go walkabout, but
a recurring fee? No way.
In general, I _could_ support the following approach:
* A one time small fee to _register_ your animal. This fee means that
if your animal is discovered wandering but has some means of
identification, the authorities can get it back to you. One would not
be required to register their animal, but to not do so may make
recovery much more difficult.
* A small annual fee to _license_ any animal that will be taken onto
public property. If an animal is found on public property without a
license, the animal's owner is subject to a fine and/or recovery fee.
Licensed animals would be required to be up-to-date on all
vaccinations and whatnot.
The recovery fee would be for animals found running loose and would be
set to basically cover the costs of capturing the animal, keeping the
animal until the owner is found, and finding the owner. A surcharge
to help cover the costs of animals where the owners aren't found would
be a reasonable addition to this fee.
A fine would be for when the animal is found with the owner on public
property, especially in off-leash areas. It might also apply to
owners who have an animal that is recovered over a reasonable number
of times. (Can someone confirm? It is not currently legal to let
your cat or dog outside unattended and unrestrained, is it?)
I could see the registration fee being a one time charge of something
like $15 for sterilized pets and $35 for non-sterilized pets with a
$20 refund for anyone who gets their pet sterilized at a later date.
As for the licensing fee for people who do want to take their pets
into public areas, it doesn't seem right that cats should pay the same
as dogs. For one thing, dogs both want and get dog parks. For
another, most dogs can do far more damage to a person than most cats.
I might do a sliding scale based on the weight of the dog. Maybe
$10/year for all cats and dogs under 20lbs, $15/year for dogs under 60
lbs and $20/year for dogs over 60 lbs. Maybe a $10 or $15 surcharge
for non-sterilized animals. The obvious place to renew the licenses
is at the vet so determining the weight shouldn't be a big deal.
If we're going to have to pay the same amount for cats, we should have
cat parks. Although, I'm having a rather hard time imagining a cat
park. I can certainly imagine a neat play space that a cat would
enjoy hanging out in, but I suspect that most felines would be rather
hostile to the idea of sharing it with other cats that they don't
know. I think in best, its better to have no cat parks and not expect
cat owners to pay as much.
Btw, I noted that the price comparison email I sent last night was
from the wrong address and bounced:
For the same price that it costs to register one neutered cat under
the current rules, I can pay the annual tabs for two motorcycles and
have enough left over for a cup of coffee.
That's Whacked.
And, if the cat isn't whacked, I can pick up a third motorcycle and
add a burger to that cup of coffee.
- phaedrus (jason.goray), 3-6, minneapolis, minnesota, usa, earth.
Apparently the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) supports cat licensing, as well as the American Humane Association, the National Animal Control Association, [and] the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians. Although I could not find a copy of the article on their website, I found a pdf version of HSUSs position statement here: http://spay-illinois.tripod.com/articles/licensing_hsus.pdf The HSUS position, published in 1995, supports licensing as a form of rabies prevention as well as a means by which lost pets may be returned home rather than taken to shelters (and hence are less likely to be euthanized). They claim that cat licensing is a vital tool for rabies control in rabies-epizootic areas. Cats have surpassed dogs as the number one domestic rabies vector--or link between rabid wild animals and humans. The HSUS also claims that offering licensing discounts for vaccinated pets actually encourages vaccination. (To my mind, this logic makes sense only in the context of fines imposed on owners of non-licensed pets; in most cases, vaccination is required for licensing.) The Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) is opposed to coercive (mandatory) licensing. Read their arguments here: http://www.cfainc.org/articles/legislative/cat-licensing.html While the CFA supports the objectives of rabies protection and the return of lost pets to their homes, it views city licensing initiatives as motivated by a desire for city revenue, arguing that licensing has been ineffective in reducing the rates of euthanized pets. They argue that mandatory licensing may in fact discourage people from feeding or caring for homeless pets. I have yet to find recent statistics in support of either argumentsomething I sincerely hope the city staff will provide as part of their research into the issue before Council votes on it. So far, the only research Ive seen by the city is a comparison of Minneapoliss rates to the compliance rates in other cities that license pets. If the city hopes to sell this program to residents, it needs to justify licensing from the perspective of animal or human welfare--or, perhaps, make it clear that licensing is a way to defray the costs of running animal shelters. In any case, the city should consider reducing its licensing rates if it wants better compliance. In Minneapolis, the current fee for spayed or neutered/vaccinated cats is $30/pethigher, I think, than the rates in many other cities. While the city is not likely to completely eliminate licensing fees, lowering them (and offering discounts for multiple cat households) may provide an incentive for people to license their felines. My experience is that once you license your pets with the city, the city bills you each year until the pet dies or passes to another owner (presumably, you must provide proof of these situations). In short, you're signing up for a yearly commitment (unless you opt to implant a microchip in your pet). Liz McLemore Bancroft