Proposed $500 Fee for Unneutered Pets

Re “Barking Up the Overpopulation Tree,” Voices, Nov. 1:

Gini Barrett writes, “Most of the people . . . who have a problem with [a $500 licensing fee for any dog not spayed or neutered] are middle-class whites.” This is because these “middle-class whites” see this scheme for what it is. They realize that they are being asked to subsidize that irresponsible segment of our population who do not bother to license, fix or control their pets. If these people will not bother to license their dogs at $30 per year, what makes the Animal Regulation Commission think they will bother to do so at $500 per year?

The result of such an ordinance would be that responsible citizens would become further disenchanted with governmental bureaucracy. Many will simply stop licensing their pets in silent protest. The “solution” will only make the situation more intolerable. I am also certain that the thinking of responsible middle-class whites is very similar to the thinking of responsible middle-class blacks, Latinos, Asians and all other responsible segments of the population. As the owner of a spayed dog, I would gladly accept my $10 licensing being increased to $20, if I knew the revenue would be used to enforce current laws and regulations.

WARREN B. MERRIMAN

Los Angeles

* A $500 fee for the right to keep unfixed animals is a step in the right direction.

Breeders should not be exempt, nor cat owners. Responsible pet owners have nothing to fear from the ordinance: Elderly and low-income citizens who can’t afford the $25 it costs to have an animal neutered can get vouchers.

There’s no excuse for an unfixed animal. The only people who will holler about this ordinance are the fast-buck artists and the deadbeats who treat animals like trash. Let them start paying for the right. Responsible owners and taxpayers support this ordinance.

TERRI MITCHELL

Los Angeles