|
|
Post by trillium on Jan 24, 2009 15:07:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by oneidea on Jan 24, 2009 16:31:59 GMT -5
My issue with most licensing proposals is that it only "taxes" owners who are compliant with the law, and there is typically very little effort put into enforcement.
The other issue I see with this law is that it is requiring owners to vax their horses for rabies, which is something I wouldn't personally do. I don't see any way for owners to get a waiver for the vaccination if it is contraindicated for their horse, either... so it could force owners to vaccinate (against vaccination mfr and veterinary advice) in order to comply with the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by schwung on Jan 24, 2009 21:43:07 GMT -5
I tend to agree with you Oneidea....I support the concept of this, but I think it will end up doing very little to solve the problem that it was intended to solve. Well, I guess I don't know what problem NH is trying to solve - maybe they are only trying to bring in additional revenue, who knows. But the idea of licensing horse ownership to prevent overbreeding, hoarders, etc. but you are right, it does little to deter offenders and ends up only hurting responsible horse owners.
That said, I would willingly pay it if there were a plan to use the funds in some way to help fund animal control seizures or rescue groups that have to clean up the messes that it doesn't address.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyann100 on Jan 24, 2009 22:33:01 GMT -5
That seems like a good idea in theory, but first I'd love to see harsher penalties put on the idiots out there that abuse and purposefully neglect their animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by coconut on Jan 25, 2009 14:36:13 GMT -5
In an interesting and related topic... I just got my 2009 Pet License Renewal yesterday and discovered a 50% increase!!That was unexpected! 2008 was $20 per altered pet & now it's $30. Unaltered pets went from $60 - $90! Of course I'll pay it because I've gained a unique perspective on the whole animal neglect issue over the last few years but I can imagine there are households across King County thinking...."WHAT THE HECK?!" I was told last year by my local city hall licensing clerk that the next time I renewed to walk it in and they would give me a free micro-chip voucher for my two cats. My Dog's already done. But I've been looking for that renewal so I can get my cats done as well. So I'm probably not as bugged by the increase THIS year because I feel like I'm getting something in return. The information that came with the renewal indicates that " The fee increases are needed to ensure that we progress toward the Saving Lives! objectives: reuniting lots pets with their owners; ensuring appropriate care for animals in our custody, and enforcing animal cruelty and other animal control laws. The license fee increases will allow the program to cover its cost and reduce or eliminate the subsidy from general tax dollars. We are about three-quarters of the way there."Furthermore under a heading called Unlicensed pets: " You're doing your part. What about others? beginning in 2009, there is a $75 fine for failure to license dogs/cats. An educational campaign to encourage pet owners to follow the law will be followed with an enforcement campaign."Personally, I support a license for horses. Yes, it would initially be just the responsible horse owners who would pay but I've discussed this topic with many people and while they a) don't want the government in their hobby & b) don't think it's enforceable, I've always hoped that this type of program will self-supply a budget to enforce it and may help prevent some neglect because MY perfect vision of an enforcement program would include a staff who's job it is to do periodic farm calls and build relationships with the owners themselves. I think this would go a long way towards properly accounting for horses on a moral level as well as support the effort financially. I've even contemplated hiring a full time person to take care of the small business I own and actually go WORK at such a program if it ever existed. I think it could be much more than a license enforcement job. I believe that it would give Animal Control and the general public a liaison to assist on many levels of equine welfare. ...those are just thoughts I've had over the last year when I have to ask myself "How could this neglect have been prevented?"...too many times  and I also have to wonder if all the other responsible cat/dog owners are out there questioning why their cat/dog license dollars are going toward some of the high-profile equine neglect cases without an actual contribution into the system from equine owners and/or community themselves. You know I personally don't care as long as help is being provided but when my neighbors get their bill and wonder why the costs of animal control have sky rocketed they're probably going to wonder about the stories I've shared with them about seizures, medical bills and court costs in equine cases. |
|
|
|
Post by oneidea on Jan 25, 2009 15:24:35 GMT -5
Yes, I'm not sure what problem NH is trying to solve but knowing NH, enforcement is going to be non-existent in many areas...
It looks like $10 would be slated for animal control, $10 for the general fund and $5 for the state vet fund. It's hard to say how much of that $10 for AC would specifically benefit horses.
IMO, licensing does little to prevent neglect and abuse any more than slaughter does. We have laws in place that are not enforced. We have governmental agencies that are not adequately funded or given the tools they need to address the neglect and abuse cases they see. Historically, licensing is one of the LEAST effective funding mechanisms we have. Laws, licenses, fines, even criminal prosecution will never stop some people from doing the wrong thing. In the most egregious cases, there is often mental illness involved - and NOTHING seems to "cure" those folks. For the general asshat neglectful owner who decides not to feed/worm/trim their horses for years at a time, I doubt they will be signing up to licensing them either... so once again, the burden is placed on responsible owners to foot the entire bill.
Another issue is that this law does not provide a provision for rescue exemption. Many licensing laws have provisions that exempt rescues and NGO humane orgs from paying licensing fees for a short term... I've personally seen 6-12 months, but even that would be inadequate for many horse rescues that don't "flip" horses regularly. How many horses can private rescues, that ARE trying to help the situation, afford to license?? Count up the horses SAFE has had for more than 6 months x $25.... What about therapeutic riding programs? Trainers with lesson horses? Trainers that bring horses in from out of state to train for 30/60/90 days or more? What would the provisions for those horses be? There are alot of holes here... And while $25 may not seem like a lot for the single horse owner, but when you multiply it by a dozen or more it adds up, and often hurts the pocketbooks of those who are already heavily invested in and supportive of the horse community, including donating time/money to rescue. IMO, this law would not make Joe Asshat with 30 head running wild and breeding rampantly on his back 40 stop and head down to the licensing agency to buy 30 licenses...
And, finally, I would be opposed to any law that requires I vaccinate my animals (or my children or myself!) without a waiver provision for philosophical and medical reasons. I have both pets and children with chronic medical conditions that should not recieve some vax (according to the vax manufacturers themselves!!), so under a law like this I would have to choose between doing what is advised medically and what is required to be in compliance with the law. When a law prescribes a "one-size-fits-all" approach to something as personal as medical/veterinary care, I get worried...
All in all, this is not a law I would support.
|
|
