Proposed Tax on Pet Products

Patt Morrison’s article (April 29) regarding a proposed tax on pet products to finance low-cost spay/neuter clinics, inoculation programs and pet education projects seems like a commendable idea.

I do not object to paying a bit more for these products. However, the tax does again place the burden primarily on the already responsible animal owner and does little to deal with the ever-increasing problems caused by backyard breeders and irresponsible and abusive animal owners.

I suggest that the state also institute a tattoo program for dogs and cats. It might work like this: All dogs and cats purchased from pet stores and breeders would be tattooed at the time of sale. Likewise, all dogs and cats released from shelters, pounds, and adoption programs. Plus, all dogs and cats spayed or neutered by private veterinarians or public clinics. The program would work something like car registration, with each animal receiving an identification number registered in the owner’s name.

If the animal is obtained when too young for surgery, the new owner would be required to have the animal spayed or neutered before breeding age. The veterinarian performing surgery would fill out the appropriate form, which would be returned to the state. If the owner did not return such a completed form within a specific amount of time, the state would levy a heavy fine.

Only persons in possession of expensive breeder’s licenses would have specific pets exempt from spay/neuter regulations. Backyard breeders would be heavily penalized. This is not an attempt to eliminate the lovable mongrel! The breeder’s license should not be dispensed with regard to breed origin.

Under this system, fewer dogs and cats would be born and fewer would find their way into the barbaric decompression chamber. Lost animals would be more likely to find their way home and people who abandoned, neglected, or abused animals, or whose animals created problems, could easily be identified and punished. Moreover, our readily identifiable animal companions would be less likely to end up in the hands of unscrupulous animal researchers.

The already responsible animal owner would incur little or no extra expense. The irresponsible owner would be forced to take responsibility for ownership--or forgo it altogether--certainly a primary goal of this program! The animals would benefit most of all.

Tattooing is inexpensive, easy to do, relatively or entirely painless, and not at all unsightly if the animal is tattooed, for example, on the inside thigh. (I am not advocating the cattle-branding of our dogs and cats!) The state might consider underwriting such a program for the first year or so to encourage compliance.

SCARLETT SANKEY

La Mesa