Pet Food Tax
Folks who know me understand I HATE taxes. Despise them. But I'm also a pragmatist. You need to have a better solution before you can Just Say No to Taxes.
OK, click here for the story.
The Animal Welfare department has no money. The not so secret is they raided a puppy mill in the fall of 2007 and the number of animals in need of care drained the animal welfare budget. This state can't afford to shut down another puppy mill and will not be able to do so for years to come. It doesn't matter what laws exist on the books, there is no money to enforce them. Keep in mind this is separate from each town's Animal Control Officer, this is basically the state animal control.
The income for the Animal Welfare Department is almost completely dependent on dogs. Dog Licenses, breeder licenses, kennel and pet store licenses make up 80% of the revenue, the other 20% is tax on pet food - most of which is dog food. Only 50% of the dogs in this state are licensed.
According to the state's web site, in 2004 most complaints were received on dogs (398, 50%), followed by horses (186, 23%) and then cats (108, 14%), farm animals (63, 8%) and birds (37, 5%). I do not have a break down of how much each of these costs (it wouldn't be fair to assume each complaint costs exactly the same), but it seems patently unfair to me that most of the money comes from the half of dog owners that probably don't result in a phone call to the state. It seems to me that everybody should pay.
The fairest solution to providing actual funding to the Animal Welfare Department that I can think of is a pet food tax, with the revenue going directly to animal welfare. I don't know how to tax farm animals, but there are bagged grains that most horses eat that could be taxed. I understand that folks who feed home-made diets wouldn't contribute, however, we have half the dog owners failing to contribute now. This would make long strides to spreading the burden among all pet owners. Folks who own many pets, like breeders and cat hoarders, would pay more. I would also propose that the dog licensing then become free of charge. That would get compliance up near 100%.
I would prefer a system where the subject of the complaint paid. But I have to tell you, I have shared dinner with the state veterinarian and she told me some horror stories. Most of the folks who are the subject of the complaints are dirt poor.
Does anyone else have a better suggestion that would actually work? Would you be willing to pay an extra 50 cents for a 40 pound bag of food, especially if your dog license was free? What about you bird lovers -- would you pay extra for bird seed if the state could afford to actually clean up the feral cat problem in this state?
OK, click here for the story.
The Animal Welfare department has no money. The not so secret is they raided a puppy mill in the fall of 2007 and the number of animals in need of care drained the animal welfare budget. This state can't afford to shut down another puppy mill and will not be able to do so for years to come. It doesn't matter what laws exist on the books, there is no money to enforce them. Keep in mind this is separate from each town's Animal Control Officer, this is basically the state animal control.
The income for the Animal Welfare Department is almost completely dependent on dogs. Dog Licenses, breeder licenses, kennel and pet store licenses make up 80% of the revenue, the other 20% is tax on pet food - most of which is dog food. Only 50% of the dogs in this state are licensed.
According to the state's web site, in 2004 most complaints were received on dogs (398, 50%), followed by horses (186, 23%) and then cats (108, 14%), farm animals (63, 8%) and birds (37, 5%). I do not have a break down of how much each of these costs (it wouldn't be fair to assume each complaint costs exactly the same), but it seems patently unfair to me that most of the money comes from the half of dog owners that probably don't result in a phone call to the state. It seems to me that everybody should pay.
The fairest solution to providing actual funding to the Animal Welfare Department that I can think of is a pet food tax, with the revenue going directly to animal welfare. I don't know how to tax farm animals, but there are bagged grains that most horses eat that could be taxed. I understand that folks who feed home-made diets wouldn't contribute, however, we have half the dog owners failing to contribute now. This would make long strides to spreading the burden among all pet owners. Folks who own many pets, like breeders and cat hoarders, would pay more. I would also propose that the dog licensing then become free of charge. That would get compliance up near 100%.
I would prefer a system where the subject of the complaint paid. But I have to tell you, I have shared dinner with the state veterinarian and she told me some horror stories. Most of the folks who are the subject of the complaints are dirt poor.
Does anyone else have a better suggestion that would actually work? Would you be willing to pay an extra 50 cents for a 40 pound bag of food, especially if your dog license was free? What about you bird lovers -- would you pay extra for bird seed if the state could afford to actually clean up the feral cat problem in this state?
Posted by Todd Chrisman at May 26, 2009 
Categories: Home Life, Veterinary, Politics, Breeding Whelping Selling Pups, pests, Horse
Categories: Home Life, Veterinary, Politics, Breeding Whelping Selling Pups, pests, Horse
I also support the tax. I've had dinner with the folks in the Animal Welfar Department who are working hard to improve things for the animals on the state. Lack of funding is their biggest obstacle. As it currently stands, the responsible dog owners are footing the lionshare of the bill for providing services to the animals in need in this state. State law obligates that care be provided for these animals. This tax would more equitably distribute the costs of providing for these services.
One comment I have seen repeatedly in response to the statistic that only 50% of the dog in this state are licensed is the idea that the ACO's need to do a better job at the local level. There are a few pitfalls with this theory. In many towns, the ACO is an extremely part time position, frequently less than 10 hours a week. The biggest way that unlicensed animals are currently "ratted out" is through the mandatory reporting of Rabies vaccine administration. This has been in place for almost two years now. On a monthly basis veterinarians are required to submit to the state copies of all canine Rabies vaccine certificates for all dogs vaccinated against Rabies the previous month. If 50% of dogs are still unlicensed, that leads me to believe that many of these dogs aren't seeing a veterinarian on a regular basis. If the dog isn't currently licensed and isn't seeing a veterinarian, it's going to be very hard to find these dogs who are falling through the cracks. I would also support the idea of stiffer fines for owners whose animals who are found to be in violation of the already existing state laws in regards to vaccine status and licensing. Perhaps stiffer penalties would increase compliance.
Reply to this