Los Angeles dogs have to be licensed
Canine crooks, Los Angeles dogs have to be licensed
February 24, 8:57 AMLA Headlines ExaminerKasey Jones
AP Photo/Reed Saxon
The city of Los Angeles in in the middle of a $212 million budget shortfall, projected to more than double next year and as a result the city wants your pooch accounted for.
Cutting education budgets and firing employees left and right isn't enough, now officials are going after any unlicensed dogs.
If all dogs become licensed there's an estimated $3.6 million in revenue for the nearly bankrupt city.
According to City Council President Eric Garcetti, around two-thirds of the city's dogs are unlicensed. The cost of licenses are $15 for a sterilized dog and $100 for an unaltered pet.
For the hundreds of thousands of dogs that are possibly unlicensed in Los Angeles, the city has hired a mere 8 full time people to track down these canine crooks. It's safe to mention Los Angeles has a 15 per cent jobless rate -- one of the highest of any major US city. Maybe these 8 will help?
In order to find the dogs, the 8 employees will talk with the Department of Water and Power, which keeps track of homes with dogs.
Officials are going to great lengths to get a handle on the city's budget and economic crisis.
"The last time we saw this kind of drop in revenue was the Great Depression," Miguel Santana, the city's chief financial officer, said. "It speaks to how severe this budget crisis is."
02-24-2010, 10:04 PM #2
They are doing this all over California, in Kern County they are going door to door giving 30 day notices to people who have unlicensed dogs, after 30 days if its not done they will be charged a $375 fine per dog.
A easy $15 is nothing, but what about the ones that don't have altered pets? Kern County wants $60 for a license for an unaltered pet. It also has a lot of low income people, a lot of people who can't afford to spay or neuter their animals,(we have a mobile clinic that is booked all the way up till May who charge $40 for dogs and $20 for cats, they do not offer free s/n here like they do in LA) and IMO if you can't afford that you shouldn't even have a pet, but that's not the case, people who can't even feed themselves here have pets. I would see offering some $#@!istance for the licensing but yet the counties are just starving for money... Its a no win situation for some of these people.
02-25-2010, 09:39 PM #4
See that sounds much more reasonable. California is ridiculous when it comes down to money situations, they always want us to pay more for everything except milk. lol
If memory serves, the city of of West Hollywood, CA recently sent ACOs door to door, to check for licensing status of pet dogs.
It's a trend that will travel across our cash starved state.
Quite frankly, I am all for it. As a responsible dog owner, it's the least you can do. In our suburban (L.A.) town, we pay about $16.00 per altered dog; and about $25.00 per intact dog.
If I look at the ever-present feral cat population, I wonder why no one has thought about a small licensing fee for cats. It might encourage folks to get their felines fixed ...
Jewelz: some of the free spay/neuter programs the city used to offer have been eliminated ( for - you guessed it - money reasons ).
02-25-2010, 10:20 PM #6
I, personally, don't feel any sympathy for Los Angeles citizens. If they can't afford to license their dogs then how can they afford medical care, food, and so forth??
It's all part of being a Responsible Dog Owner!
---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 PM ----------
Isn't all of California a pretty high cost of living state?
02-26-2010, 01:43 AM #8
02-26-2010, 01:51 PM #9
SnL is against dog licensing...or licensing of anything other than sex offenders. If the government wants to license something...lets start with one thing....and get it right. Leave peoples dogs out of your equation plz.
02-26-2010, 02:08 PM #11
licensing cats? I really think the government has enough on its plate
---------- Post added at 02:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------
Its not hard to enforce though if you really want to....shoot everyone who dosnt license their cat in the face and drag them out to the curb for everyone to see. bet the registration rate is real high ;) pick your fights (laws) and make sure you win (enforce) em.....
03-19-2010, 09:09 PM #12
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- michigan, usa
03-20-2010, 10:09 AM #13
Owner under 60 / animal altered $5
Owner under 60 / animal unaltered $10
Owner 60 and over / animal altered $3
Owner 60 and over / animal unaltered $6
Library Convenience Fee $2
So, I would be paying $10 for both dogs. I've never licensed my dogs. Never even thought about it. But technically it's safer. But how do they know? What if the tags come off when ACO picks them up? Theres no chip in them that says they're licensed. Then ACO can do whatever they want with them. I think it's a flawed system.
03-30-2010, 01:48 PM #14
For Riverside county:
License Fees: 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year
Unaltered Dog $100 $175 $250
Spayed/Neutered Dog * $16 $25 $35
Senior (60+) ** $10 $15 $20
* If not indicated on the rabies certificate, please provide proof of spay/neuter. ** To receive the reduced senior rate, the dog must be spayed or neutered, and proof of age, such as copy of a driver*s license, is required.
Last edited by RS and Bathory; 03-30-2010 at 01:50 PM. Reason: Formatting
03-30-2010, 02:32 PM #15
They should find a better way of trying to rape citizens. What's to keep people from dumping there pets somewhere? Don't see any good out of this. I'm glad I don't live in LA county.
I'm actually in LA county and yes they have to be licensed after the age of 4 months old and have proof of rabies shot. If the dog isn't spayed or neutered yes you have to pay $60 i believe it is but its also against the law if your dog isn't spayed/neutered anyways unless they are show dogs or you have a breeders license.
"Pit bulls" or any mix of a "pit bull" get free spaying/neutering and microchipped anyways in LA county so basically you are saving money. So to pay the license fee i personally think its not a big deal and just being responsible.
Unfortunately "Pit bulls" have a negative rep as it is, so i will not give any reason for anyone to be able to take my dogs away from me for even a second.
03-31-2010, 04:30 PM #17
03-31-2010, 05:48 PM #19
03-31-2010, 05:50 PM #20
By ohmidog! in forum Dog BlogsReplies: 0Last Post: 05-06-2011, 05:00 AM
By ohmidog! in forum Dog BlogsReplies: 0Last Post: 02-26-2010, 04:51 AM
By Vicki in forum Dog Ordinances & LawsReplies: 0Last Post: 02-25-2010, 12:45 PM
By ohmidog! in forum Dog BlogsReplies: 0Last Post: 11-05-2009, 05:50 AM
By ben.peterson in forum Dog DebatesReplies: 49Last Post: 10-31-2009, 09:47 PM