City of Duluth considering crackdown on unlicensed pets
November 8, 2012 at 3:38 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Proceeds from more robust licensing would be used to make improvements to the city’s animal shelter. Continue Reading
City of Duluth considering crackdown on unlicensed pets
27 Comments
First of all I’m all for helping the shelter, but it seems to me they built a brand new animal shelter up by the airport. Do they still have a shelter by WLSSD at 27th west as well?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
3
Quagmire it is confusing how the two operations work with the City Shelter and Animal Allies. The CS is where a stray, dumped or injured non identified pet is taken by authorities or public. They hold for an owner to claim, asess the animal and then arrange for a transport if unclaimed to Animal Allies.
At AA the pet is then put up for adoption, vetted and spay/neutered in most cases. I am all for chipping, ids and licensing….however a non cost or very low cost spay and neuter program would be the wonderful.
I do animal rescue so am working with some interest in this idea. Just wanted to try and explain the two facilities. Carrie Lane does a wonderful job at the City Animal Shelter to make it a decent place to visit.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
1
There is a no/low cost spay and neuter program in Duluth. It is Northland Spay and Neuter
http://www.northlandspayneuter.org/ 2002 West Superior Street Duluth, MN 55806
(218) 623-6342 They have done thousands of spay/neuters in their first year.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
1
I have to ask if this is passed would worry that people who do not have the funds will be less inclined to adopt a pet. It is hard enough to feed, vet and pay for any meds for our fur babies with this economy. Our dear citizens can not even comply with the leash laws so doubt that it can be regulated without a nanny state.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
5
A crackdown? Really? Have they finished the “crackdown” on the lakewalk smokers already?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
12
This is all because of a revenue problem. I have a better idea. This state needs to do what Washington and Colorado have done and legalize marijuana. States and cities can benefit from the increased tax revenue and licensing fees while saving money at the same time by not having to prosecute and incarcerate people for a marijuana offense. That money will benefit society rather than enrich the criminal enterprises. This will also solve the problem of the much more dangerous synthetic crap being sold at the LPOE and other places. The only reason it is considered a gateway drug is because one has to obtain it from the same criminal enterprises as the hard drugs since it cannot be obtained legally. Legalization will happen, it is just a matter of when. Pet licensing and the cost of the necessary manpower to enforce it will not net enough proceeds to even bother.
Hot debate. What do you think?
31 
23
I just “love” Stauber’s idea…in order to get my dog licensed, I needed to provide proof of hs rabies shot…so, how am I to get him the rabies shot if the vets are not suppose to render services without the license??????
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
55 
4
Wonder what it will actually do the animal abuse cases when people are not able to get veterinary care because they’re not licensed. I probably wouldn’t go through all the trouble to get a rabies shot for a dieing animal and then buy a license for it in order for it to get treated at a vet. Probably would start looking for vets outside of Duluth to use as well if that mandate came down as well. So hopefully the local vets are ready for all the anger and upset this will cause toward them and how this will impact their business.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
6
Kat I shuddered when I read your post. Only responsible pet owners will comply I suspect. It may even make the work of rescue even more grueling as some will dump animals.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
3
I agree probably on the most responsible pet owners who are already complying will comply with this. I get my rabies shot every time I need to for my dog but not my two solely indoor cats. Can’t imagine how much my dieing cat would have suffered had I not been able to find a vet to treat it until I jumped through all the hoops. Or worse yet not been able to find a vet to help put the cat to sleep when the suffering was too much because of all the hoops. How many pets won’t be able to get health issues fixed (some of which are painful) due to this? How many pets will get dumped with health issues because of this? I see this being counter productive.
Honestly I would go out of town to a vet before participating in this charade with the local vets.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
1
Question, If you have a cat that is spayed and declawed, and never leaves the house, what business is it of the city to require a license? Isn’t this akin to an invasion of privacy? What’s next, licenses for hamsters? If the city needs money, start charge fees reflecting the costs of providing said services. It may sound calloused, but the fees for recovering rover should be high enough to cover the costs of running the pound. We don’t run the pound for people who take care of their pets, but for the offenders. Why should conscientious owners be forced to pay the freight for the deadbeat owners? And if rover bolts and isn’t claimed within a reasonable time, rather that putting a habitual offender back up for adoption, euthanize him. If pet owners were faced with high costs/fines of recovering their pet, or worse, knowing that their behavior will result in the pet’s demise, maybe they’ll pay more attention to them, or not get one in the first place.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
9
If they want compliance, they should make it easier and cheaper. Making it more expensive and the penalty worse is not going to make people happy to sign on.
Also, I don’t see why I should have to pay anyone money to keep pets. I’m paying for food and healthcare, and my pets are healthy and happy. The dogs have a fence and don’t run around the neighborhood. They’re microchipped, so if they did get out, they’re retrievable. The cats are house-cats who only go out under close supervision (and are also microchipped). If they’re going to license pets, they’d better license children as well, as far as I’m concerned.
I think our regular taxes should find a way to fund a new shelter, if it’s needed, the same way we’d pay for a new jail. It’s part of public order, and shouldn’t be a penalty on individuals. Heck, they’re charging me for street lights I don’t want, why not add 50¢ a year for shelter upkeep?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
3
What does it cost to micro-chip your pet compared to a license a pet? Who keeps that data base records? If the city has access to the data base your pet is already registered.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
First, what city services does my 8 year old house cat use? This is a cat who has never been outside (other than in a carrier going to the vet) but now the city needs money from me just to let him live inside my house? Talk about crazy. And, yet again, there goes Duluth chasing away business. I currently use a vet in Duluth, but will start heading to Hermantown or Superior if this one passes. Craziness.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
33
This isn’t about being able to afford $12 a year Paula… My cat is eating Blue Buffalo, goes to the bet whenever needed and is loved more then he can stand most of the time, he hardly needs any sympathy. This is a question of why the city thinks it should be able to tax me for what goes on (or lives in this case) inside my home. My cat will never go out side. Never cost the city a dime. This is also a question of forcing the vets trying to run a business in town into policing the cities tax policy. Perhaps you can explain to us why the city needs $12 a year for me to “legally” own my house cat.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
0
This isn’t an issue about what owners can afford> It’s about the nanny statists overreaching into our private lives. Offenders should be sanctioned while allowing non-offenders the freedom to continue. Stauber would seek to sanction all pet owners to support the misbehavior of the few.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
1
I agree with most comments. This is nothing more than the cities putting it’s hand out for money again. Money people just don’t have anymore. Duluth and it’s stupid laws like the lakewalk, parking, this and others are justing driving the Duluth population down. I stay out of Duluth unless I have no other choice. Why, because their all nuts.Pretty soon the only people living in the city will be the counsel.
But I will agree with one thing, outside dogs should have a license in case they get loose or bite someone, but I can’t see a cat or any small inside only dog.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
1
It will cost money to enforce this law. In the end how much money will it generate?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
1
forcing a vet to deny medical services to an animal because it’s not licensed?
why would you punish an animal because it’s human isn’t following the rules?!?! talk about inhumane.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
1
Really? With all of the problem that our city faces, this is what Mr. Stauber is so concerned about?
Yes, I feel for the poor defenseless animals at our animal shelter. However, there are much bigger problems in this city, and I would much rather our police department by trying to catch bigger criminals than those who didn’t license there pet.
If this is at the top of Stauber’s priority list I sure don’t want to see what else is on it…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
0
Now that it’s legal to have chickens in Duluth, will the big crackdown apply to them too?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
1
Ahhhhhhhhh, I hear the Duluthians questioning their leaders AGAIN…. Well, you voted them in, now you get to deal with all this nonsense because THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! Remember this and many more costs, fees, taxes, from your favorite representatives!!!! Some day, ya all gotta wake up!!!!
Like or Dislike:
16 
5
As someone who works in the vet industry in beautiful Duluth, I can tell you that for every 1 cat that responsible owners keep indoors, there are a dozen who get let out when the kid opens the door, when the window screen isn’t secure, when the owner goes out for her bag of groceries and leaves the garage door open a moment too long.
I also hardly think the comment “So if my cat is sick, am I supposed to let it die while I jump through hoops?” is a valid one. If you’re being a responsible pet owner and get the animal licensed in the first place, then odds aren’t very high that you’ll have to jump through hoops…you will already have done it. Additionally, the argument of not having to rabies vaccinate your indoor cats because they won’t come in contact with rabid animals…last time I checked, most vermin (rats/mice, bats, raccoons, and skunks) carry rabies. Bats and mice/rats are frequently found in homes…basements and attics specifically. Is your cat absolutely going to come in contact with a rabid animal in your house? It’s unlikely…but is it never ever going to happen to anyone? It already has.
I absolutely agree with the poster who made the comment about not being able to afford the vet…then you shouldn’t have the pet..it’s not always the case. Sometimes people have the money, but don’t want to spend it on Fluffy or Fifi now that s/he’s no longer an adorable puppy/kitten. If I had a dime for every person who came into the clinic where I worked with their sick, diseased, dying animal…singing to me about how poor they are and how they don’t have the money to treat the dog (who has probably been living outside all the time and eating Old Roy)…and then gets mad, slams their new iPhone 5 inside their Coach purse, then grabs little fluffy and storms out into their new SUV, bitching all the way about how heartless I am….well, I’d be typing this from my private island in the Bahamas.
Bottom line…your animal should be licensed. Will the vets refuse service if your animal isn’t? Of course not…because most don’t care two figs about what the city says…no one gets in this business to get rich…we do it because we love the animals that are entrusted to our care. There’s no way in hell that someone is going to show up with their sick/dying animal and be turned away. No way. No how.
But quit being whiney cheapskates and get the animals licensed. It’s just responsible. (ps…I own multiple cats and several dogs…every one is licensed…even my ‘indoor only’ cats.)
Like or Dislike:
7 
15
Reggi,
I could not agree with you more! “Inside” only animals, they never get out.
I usually do not agree with Councilor Stauber, who is probably the most anti-tax councilor up there. I don’t agree with requiring it to have your pet treated or seen. Having a pet licensed means it is up to date on its shots and the likelihood of you getting your “inside” cat or dog back after they get outside goes way up if they know where said pet lives.
Ask vets clinics to have licensing forms at their office so they can educate their customers when they bring their animals in.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7
Why post anything. The council either does not read what area people have to say, or ignores peoples beliefs or concerns. They do what they want anyways.
I’ve seen several posts against what perposals the council had, and the posts made perfect sense, but the council went against what the people said. Why? I wish I knew. Better yet, I wish the council would read and consider what people post, look at the numbers and then think about what is said. They don’t need to make a final decision the very next meeting. They should slow down and think of what is best for the people, not the city’s pocket book all the time. Balance things out.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Hey, I have a proposal. Lets have the city mail to every resident the new ordinance. This way the 83 year old grandma will know her cat Fluffy which is her only companionship is in violation of the law because it has no license. Now grandma will have to take part of her social security check, miss a few meals and get Fluffy in compiance, or maybe give Fluffy to the city. Now the shelter has added cost they don’t need.
This is what I am saying. Look at things, see what is positive and negitive for the people. Consider if your goals will be met or if this would have the opposite effect. What is the shelter gonna say when people decide not to take the time and cost of owning a pet and the shelter has more pets to deal with. Then after awhile, the shelter will have to destroy the pet. Now whats fair……………….
Like or Dislike:
7 
0