Proposed Tax on Pet Products

I was incredulous reading of Los Angeles’ plans for a tax on pet products. It seems that politicians have a pat solution to any problem--throw money at it--and if the money is not available, generate a tax to provide it.

Animal overpopulation has been a chronic problem for urban areas throughout the United States since the turn of the century, and animal control agencies were developed to respond to the problem. But nothing put forth in the article provided any logical connection between a user tax and problem-solving.

How, for example, would raising the price of pet food (via a tax) prevent irresponsible pet owners from allowing their dogs to forage in trash, a concern that was mentioned in the article? If anything, making people pay more for pet food would encourage such behavior.

How would raising the price of pet-related paraphernalia discourage irresponsible owners from allowing their animals to breed at will? Or from abandoning their animals in the streets? Simple logic dictates that rendering pets more expensive to maintain will not counteract, but nurture, such irresponsible behavior. And since the tax is regressive, pet owners who can least afford it--those on fixed incomes such as the elderly--will be hardest hit by it.

Pet owners already pay for the costs of animal control through renewable licensing fees. Mandatory neutering fees, paid for at the time of adoption, also subsidize animal control work. And pet owners also pay social consequences in the form of restricted, discriminatory housing. A user tax plan would only add to the burden of owners who already sacrifice for the privilege of keeping pets in an urban environment.

The current animal control programs that serve the city and county of Los Angeles happen to be excellent. Their efforts are also supplemented by volunteers, numerous nonprofit shelters and humane organizations, private low-cost spay/neuter clinics, and professional low-cost vaccination clinics provided by the Southern California Veterinary Medical Assn.

Could animal control programs use more money? Absolutely. But a pet use tax is not the way to go. Research performed by myself and others distinctly indicates that association with animals is not only a natural state of affairs, but also a desirable one. It would be unconscionable of government to penalize this constituency simply because they want a pet to love.

CLARK M. BRICKEL

Los Angeles