License Fees May Triple for Dogs That Multiply

The city Animal Regulation Commission voted Monday to more than triple the cost of licenses for un-neutered dogs in Los Angeles to $100, citing a public health crisis caused by 44,000 stray canines roaming city streets.

Despite opposition from owners of breeder and show dogs, the commission also voted to double the fee for a breeder’s license from $50 to $100.

The Los Angeles City Council will decide on the new fees which combined would generate $2 million in additional funds annually.

“It’s fairly dramatic for the city to do this at this point, but it’s necessary because of the public health crisis,” said Dan Knapp, general manager of the city Department of Animal Regulation.

Knapp said 80% of the city’s 760,000 dogs are unlicensed and therefore may not have been inoculated against rabies.

The city puts more than 30,650 dogs to death each year in its shelters because of overpopulation and the lack of adoptions, said Gretchen Wyler, who heads an Encino animal protection group called The Ark Trust Inc.

“I believe this [ordinance] will become the standard across the nation,” said Wyler, whose group is part of the Coalition to End Pet Overpopulation, which proposed the new fees.

Today, 42% of the licensed dogs are not spayed or neutered. Knapp estimated that in 2000, the first year the ordinance would be in effect, the rate would drop to 40%.

The new fees would make Los Angeles’ fees for unaltered dogs the highest in Southern California, officials said. In comparison, the license fee for unaltered dogs in San Diego and Sacramento is $25, while the fee is $16 in San Francisco, $22 in Glendale and $30 in Thousand Oaks.

*

Steven Afriat, Animal Regulation Commission president, said the fee increase should provide a major incentive for dog owners to get their animals spayed or neutered, because the license fee for an altered dog remains just $10. The panel recommended that the City Council approve a six-month amnesty period.

“We think this will shift a higher percentage of dog owners who are not altering their dogs to altering their animals,” he said.

The higher breeder’s license fees may also discourage backyard breeders who sell puppies on street corners, Afriat said.

The panel proposed that half of the new breeder’s fee go to education programs on licensing and responsible pet ownership, and that additional dog license revenue go to spay and neuter programs.

Critics say the proposal could drive more dog owners underground.

“It won’t accomplish a darn thing except penalize responsible people,” said Judythe Coffman of the California Federation of Dog Clubs.

Coffman noted that only 20% of the dogs in city shelters are purebreds, so the problem is not being caused by breeders.

“There is a very low compliance rate as it is. Historically, raising the fee lowers the [compliance] rate,” said Carolyn Osier, who testified against the proposals.

Osier represents a Burmese cat breeders’ group, which is concerned that higher fees proposed for dogs may eventually be extended to cats.

“All of the studies indicate that the animals least likely to end up in the shelters are those bred by responsible breeders,” Osier said.

She said the city is creating a “pet Gestapo”.

Only three dog breeders have registered in Los Angeles, although thousands of people are believed to be breeding dogs for sale, said Commissioner Gini Barrett, a member of the American Humane Assn.

*

Nor has the county had much success with its $125 breeder’s fee, said Kaye Michelson, a spokeswoman for the county.

“It’s one of those things that’s difficult to enforce. We don’t get the number of people getting licenses that we should,” Michelson said.

Critics said the city program will fail because the department does not have enough animal regulation workers to enforce the rules.

“We do a poor job now of enforcement,” Afriat said. “The council is going to have to give us the animal control officers to do the job.”

The commission also voted Monday to recommend that the charter reform commissions ask voters to change the name of the department from the Department of Animal Regulation to the Department of Animal Services, to reflect a more pro-animal philosophy.