Thursday, February 25, 2010

Los Angeles... meter readers gonna GETCHA!

The Los Angeles City Council voted (13-0) this week to require the Department of Water and Power to turn over their database to Animal Services about animals noted on private property. Tony Cardenas also asked that the actual number of dogs or horses be included. If you have more than 3 dogs and/or cats, you will be cited for having an unlicensed kennel and forced to get rid of some animals. One councilman wants to pursue cat licensing also.
If notified by DWP that there are dogs or cats or horses on your premises, they will send out a letter to your house and if there is no response someone from Los Angeles Animal Services will be sent out to your property to harrass you.

Their objective? To raise $3-4 million in revenues to help ease the City's budget crisis.

That's corrrect....The money won't go to buy food for homeless dogs in shelters. It won't go to provide low-cost medical care for pets belonging to seniors and the poor. Nor will it go towards laying in a new supply of dog catcher's snares. The cash from dog fees and fines will dump into the trough to feed the city pork.

They plan to raise money from our pets to spend on OTHER city projects, admininstration, salaries etc. More pencil pushers to dream up more ways to harrass the average citizen.
No big deal, just a tiny little license fee, right? WRONG!

Recently, the city of Los Angeles enacted a mandatory sterilization law. (Unfortunately it applies to pets, not the city council members). One who applies for a license and expects to keep his pet intact must request a special permit, delineating his reasons, and proving that he deserves to exercise his right to make his own decisions. There's no guarantee an exemption will be granted, and it can be revoked at any  time. The license fee for an intact dog is $100 PER YEAR. Also, you must pay the breeder's permit fee....even if you have no plans to breed the dog. This fee is $225. Per dog, Per year!

Since when is government justified to penalize for actions that haven't been taken yet? How fundamentally wrong is that?

The concept of dog licensing was originally implemented as a way to track rabies vaccination compliance... PERIOD! Licensing was instituted in the name of public health. But let the camel stick its nose under the tent, and now Big Government thinks they have the right to dictate all terms and conditions of animal ownership.

Saddest of all, when owners are faced with unreasonable, punitive fees and fines, many more animals will ultimately end up at the city shelters. With the current deep recession, people are lucky to be able to afford food, much less pay steep fees and/or huge veterinary bills for unnecessary speuter surgery. Now, some must choose between food and keeping their pets.

And get’s all based on meter readers’ notes and opinions here and there, no official survey, nothing like that. Kinda like hearsay or listening to gossip. So a meter reader hears a dog bark, could be a different house, a visiting dog, a stray, or a tape recording for that matter! Maybe there is a cat sitting on your porch. Then AC gets a whiff of potential license revenues, and demands money from the home owner. If you do indeed own an unlicensed pet, next you are forced to pay fines and have your animal submit to costly and unnecessary surgery, against your wishes....or you must relinquish your pet.

What happened to liberty, due process and....Christ almighty, what happened to PRIVACY! Meter readers peering over your fence to conduct a dog license "sting"?

Oh, why do I even ask? This is animal control and government. ‘Nuff said.

Wouldn't society be better served if the meter readers reported meth labs and gang activity?

No money in that, though.

1 comment:

  1. Yes, much easier to attack citizens than criminals making drugs and killing each other... even the cops will want to get in on the "easy money"... what happens when someone does not HAVE the money to sterilize or pay a $225 permit? Easy... dead dog walking.