Nanny State

The Man Bites Dog-Owners


Here is what Los Angeles, the city with the highest-paid City Council in the country, is doing to close its perennial budget gap:

Mixed messaging

A license for a sterilized dog costs $15. An owner with an unaltered dog has to pay $100—plus possibly $120 more for the breeder's license technically required for unaltered dogs. […]

If, as council President Eric Garcetti contends, roughly two-thirds of the city's dogs are not licensed, that could mean at least an additional $3.6 million in fees even if all those scofflaw dog owners paid only the lowest license fee.

On Tuesday, the council unanimously approved a motion to have the Department of Animal Services coordinate with the Department of Water and Power, which keeps a handy database from its meter readers of residences with dogs.

The task of locating unlicensed dogs falls to eight full-time canvassers for the Department of Animal Services, who roam the city looking for canines with no licenses or expired licenses and handing out information on spaying and neutering.

Just a few miles from City Hall, canvassers Carliose Lane and Alex Marquez were going door to door Tuesday afternoon on a quiet South L.A. street. In a day, they will canvass as many as 50 homes, chatting with residents in English and Spanish and convincing people who suspiciously eye their uniforms of dark green slacks and jackets that they are neither police nor immigration officers.

The story saves the best bite for last: It's all about saving the important government job of door-to-door revenue-squeezing!

Garcetti says the stepped-up effort to license dogs is good for the city as well as the canvassers.

"It will be a real loss to the community if we lose the services they provide," he said. "This will help protect their jobs as well as the services."

Mark my words: Cat owners will be next.

NEXT: The Ron Paul Delusion

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Mark my words: Cat owners will be next.”

    They will have to pry my cat from my cold, dead fingers…

    1. If you die in your house tonight, your cat will eat you.

      1. good, less for the kids to clean up in the morning.

        1. There will be hairballs…

          1. I… drink… your…Friskies…milkshake!

          2. nah, I keep mine neatly trimmed.

  2. Whoever is writing your headlines? Triple their fucking pay right now.

    1. You’re kidding, right? This is a far cry from the days of How Much is that Dodgy Innuendo? , that’s for sure.

      1. Or Cavanaugh’s infamous Nearly Headless Nick headline for this story.

  3. Sorry fishy. Flush……..

  4. Many of the same people who will tell you that cropping ears and docking tails is “cruel” will urge you to chop off your dog’s nuts.

    1. I think there’s a difference. Killing deer is good for deer in aggregate, but the deer certainly don’t enjoy it. Inflicting pain for cosmetic purposes is indeed cruel.

      1. Chopping off a dog’s balls is also a result of vanity. You are essentially saying “I don’t really feel like being a responsible dog owner, so I’m going to chop the dog’s balls off so that I don’t have to alter my behavior.”

        1. Good point. A responsible dog owner would not have unplanned-for puppies to deal with.

          1. Nor would a dog owner who needs to have his dog’s balls cut off.

            And I don’t know that what you say is true. Shit happens, even with the most responsible dog owner dogs can get pretty excited at an opportunity to play with some other dogs, and dogs don’t take long to fuck.

            1. dogs don’t take long to fuck

              Just slow down your stroke speed.

        2. I’m going to chop the dog’s balls off so that I don’t have to alter my behavior.

          It also alters the dog’s behavior and mostly for the better. Just get him some Neuticles and he’ll never know what he’s missing. Either that or truck nuts. Those things just scream class.

          1. I’ve heard that myth about altering the dog’s behavior “for the better”. Other than the instance when a female in heat is on the loose, an unaltered male is superior. I’ve never seen neutering “calm” a dog down other than the fact that a dog would calm down at 2 or 3 years of age anyway. I want my dog to defend his territory, i.e., my house. Since getting rid of unwanted humping and spraying is easy, I just don’t get the rush to chop ’em off.

            That said, I suppose it is better to have a neutered dog with owners who are merely lazy than an unaltered dog with owners who are actively irresponsible.

            1. Dogs are like married men, they don’t need their balls

              1. And… almost all of them are born with two balls too many.

            2. I’ve heard that myth about altering the dog’s behavior “for the better”.

              I don’t think these things are myths; I think that it is pretty soundly established that the procedure provides both medical and emotional benefits for the dog. And that is not the City’s justification for the fee anyway. It is just a naked cash grab.

              1. “I don’t think these things are myths.”

                Settled science? The medical benefits are the removed organs can’t get cancer. This is a negligible number. The “emotional” benefits are purely made up. Remember, it is you that would rather take the dog’s hormones away rather than correct the unwanted behavior. As such, it is your emotions that are affected. Moreover, the vast majority of dogs that are neutered before 1 year old would calm down anyway. Repeat: these dogs calm down with age regardless of neutering.

                Anyhow, I was merely commenting on the attitude that chopping ears is cruel, but chopping balls is not.

                  1. And fixed female dogs die sooner.

                    A veterinarian does not necessarily have to remove the ovaries from a dog to sterilize it. Regardless the only way the local pound and the greyhound breeders will let you take the dogs is if they are spayed or neutered.

          2. swillfredo pareto, neuticles? I thought it was a joke. What’s next? breast implants for poodles?


      Did you know that when you have your dog spayed it is very likely that in her later years she will have serious and costly problems? I learned this the hard way, from a Vet who treats Lassie (for prostate issues).

      Without the uterus and whatnot, the dog’s vagina tends to collapse inward, causing urine to get trapped in the folds of her labia every time she pees. This irritates the skin, which leads to perivulvar dermatitis. Worse still, is that the trace bacteria normally found in a dogs vagina goes wild. Treatments are costly (thousands for a vulvoplasty — if the dog is not too old — or else thousands on antibiotics if she is). And these options don’t always work.

      I am starting to wonder if spaying isn’t a vet scam to make money at both ends of a female dog’s life.


      And remember, if your dog does get pregnant, a gunnysack of puppies in a bathtub is very inexpensive solution.

      1. And remember, if your dog does get pregnant, a gunnysack of puppies in a bathtub is very inexpensive solution.

        Well, in Florida it can get you a year in jail. Not something I’d call cheap.

        I don’t know if Florida’s animal cruelty (AKA vetinarian income guarantee act) are the worst in the country, but they sure seem like it.

      2. As I noted above, spayed females die younger.

      3. “vulvoplasty “???

        Female genital mutilation is ILLEGAL!

  5. Here in Atlanta, if you take your pet to a veterinarian, they are required by city ordinance to report your name and address to the city as a pet owner. If you have not already purchased a license ($25) the city sends you a polite letter asking you to send in your check. If you ignore the letter you get a second one, not so polite, informing you that if you do not pay the license fee you will receive a citation. If you do not appear in court to answer the citation a warrant will be issued for your arrest.

    Didnt the Founding Fathers revolt over shit like this?

    1. Pretty much the same in Florida.

    2. If the reg is local you can always drive far enough to avoid it (which I have done). That’s rather harder with state laws.

      But of course, the ever-so-civic-minded goons who get paid to enforce this shit will just start thinking of new ways to catch you.

      1. I haven’t gotten a new pet since this law went into effect so I haven’t spent much time trying to figure out how to circumvent it. Yes I could drive to a nearby city without such an ordinance. Or I could give a fake name and address at the vet’s and pay cash.

    3. So, when you visit a vet in Atlanta, instead of your own name and address, provide the name and address of some petty politician who supports this policy.


  6. First they came for the dog owners, and I said nothing.
    Then they came for the cat owners, and I said nothing.
    Finally when they came for the frog owners, there was nobody left to say anything.

  7. I love how the main rationale for why pets need to be licensed is because it’s the law.

  8. I’m waiting for the disparate impact law suit on behalf of Hispanics.

  9. Cats should be banned.


      1. I have a 32% chance of survival!

        1. I only have a 9% chance.

          Curse this tired and broken body.

          1. Wth, how could you have 9%?

            1. I am sickly. And I’ve already died twice. The third time might be the charm.


  11. My uberbulldog would not go quietly.

  12. Having lived in southern Mexico for much of the last year, this is striking as one of the big differences between living in the U.S.–packs of street dogs are everywhere in Mexico. And it’s because they don’t have animal control services like we have in the United States.

    And I think it’s remarkable how much animal control does for people in the U.S. It’s a public safety issue, and it’s a public health issue. It’s really pathetic and disgusting what people get away with actually…

    It’s a form of welfare, really. You don’t bother to spay or neuter your pets, and then they have puppies, and you do the responsible thing and take them to the pound? …’cause it’s free?

    I guess it was better than leaving them in the street, ’cause at least you saved the city the cost of animal control having to go pick them up–but don’t expect a “thank you” from me!

    People who let their dogs breed and take their puppies to the pound are the same as welfare queens. I understand why we don’t prosecute such people–’cause we’d rather the puppies were brought in than left to form packs on the street, but you’re a pathetic human being if you let your dog have puppies you can’t place or afford to keep.

    I’ve gotten dogs and cats spayed and neutered for under $20. I’ve gotten them done for free, your local humane society can tell you when the next drive is, for goodness’ sake, don’t be pathetic.

    Good for the City Council!

    1. Just to be perfectly clear, the problem is that the dog you take to the pound cost taxpayers money.

      Just because you might not have to pay, doesn’t mean those dogs get taken care of for free. So how ’bout giving the taxpayers in your town a tax break?

      Spay or neuter your pet you disgusting welfare queen!

      1. You don’t bother to spay or neuter your pets supervise your dog, and then they have puppies, and you do the responsible thing and take them to the pound? …’cause it’s free?


        1. If your dog is somewhere where Animal Control can see them and notice that they haven’t been fixed, then there’s a danger of them copulating. And until we have a Roe vs. Wade for dogs, that is a legitimate public concern.

          1. Read the article, Tulpa. These aren’t dogs running loose. And even if they are running loose, charging a higher license fee doesn’t do anything to stop the dog from copulating.

            1. License fees are $15 for sterilized dogs. They cost $100 or more for unaltered.

              If you don’t fix your unlicensed dog, and animal control catches it loose, you have to pay more…

              Why isn’t this as it should be? Am I missing something?

              1. Because nothing in the article refers to “catching it loose”. The article talks about a database taken from the utility companies and having city workers go to those places to check on dogs. Nothing is said about rounding up loose dogs.

                1. How is this not a warrantless search?

  13. Mark my words: Cat owners will be next.

    How long til they go after children owners?

    1. For the children.

    2. Women, poor, Korean restaurants hit hardest.

      1. Wrong. Just wrong. Hilarious, but wrong.


  14. “Mark my words: Cat owners will be next.”

    Great! Dogs piss on the sidewalk and never pay a ticket, while cats, well, they eat birds and smother babies. Not to mention that I HATE waiting in line at the supermarket behind some idiot who’s buying 27 cans of gourmet catfood for his damn tabby.

    These are the people who should be paying off our national debt. I’d even support high-speed rail, as long as pet owners are the ones who pay for it.

    1. Have you ever actually tried gourmet cat food? Much better than “light” tuna, but not as good as solid albacore.

      1. No wonder it’s FDA approved!

    2. “Great! Dogs piss on the sidewalk and never pay a ticket…”

      This is a different topic, but someday there should be a thread about how “public property” seems to be starting to mean that no one’s allowed to use it.

      1. All public property is theft.

      2. Sorry, dude. Pissing on the sidewalk is not a public use.

  15. You mean “undocumented animal companions.”

  16. chatting with residents in English and Spanish and convincing people who suspiciously eye their uniforms of dark green slacks and jackets that they are neither police nor immigration officers.

    Telling everyone they meet: “We’re from the government, and we’re here to help you.”

  17. Busting my chops about my perfectly well behaved but unlicensed dog is a valuable service to the community. I don’t know how we would survive without them.

  18. Licensing? Not such a fan. We’re compliant, however. Spay and neuter? Encourage it on a volunteer basis.

    Everyone in our neighborhood has dogs. EVERYONE. We have 4 ourselves. While of course OUR little angel dogs haven’t ever gotten loose, the neighbors’ do. When dogs get loose, they go all Steve Smith Octomom/dad on other dogs that got loose.

    Then you’re left with the Jane Roe dogs and no Planned Puppyhood. And that fills up the pounds, and then we get to euthenize kill a bunch of unwanted dogs later. Sucks, but that’s the way it is.

    So – we’re all for the spaying neutering, cause people aren’t perfect about managing their dogs. If you’re not into it, fine.

  19. What the city of Los Angeles always fails to realize is that you can live in Los Angeles without living in Los Angeles proper.

    Many cities and towns in the immediate area have far less draconian laws, regulations, and taxes. Thankfully, because I live in one.

  20. Dog licensing is a revenue raising device. That is all it has ever been.

    1. We pay our yearly license, our dog has never gotten loose, and the one time we actually needed some feral cats removed, Animal Control said they were too damned understaffed and busy to do it.

      I have nothing against Animal Control, but that sort of irritated me, and then I got to thinking about government run healthcare…

      1. Feral cats… There is a remedy for feral cats, it’s called .17 HRM. By “feral”, I assume you mean homeless and not someone’s pet.

        1. .17HMR is overkill. A .22LR or even .22 Short would be plenty. Hell, even a .177 pellet rifle would do in a pinch.

  21. Is that Wally on the cat link page?! WTF?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.