City Slaps Sin Tax on Pregnant Pooches

Got a license for that?

Got a license for that?

An effort to cut down on the number of homeless pets in one Texas city has prompted officials to slap pet owners with a $75 sin tax to help deter their furry friends from breeding. Failure to register your pet’s new litter within 14 days “could result in fines and penalties,” states El Paso’s new animal ordinance.

City officials have also limited dogs and cats to 2 planned or unplanned pregnancies a year in an effort to prevent shelters from being overwhelmed. Professional breeders complain that the city’s crackdown on careless pet owners unfairly punishes their responsible businesses that provide in-demand pets to welcoming new homes.

El Paso Animal Services received $250,000 from the city council to step-up its enforcement efforts that will include monitoring newspapers and other media to ensure citizens selling puppies and kittens have registered their new litters and paid the sin tax for their pets’ intentional or unintentional ‘romantic encounters.’

Your taxpayer dollars hard at work!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Advertisements

3 responses to “City Slaps Sin Tax on Pregnant Pooches

  1. Stop Animal Rights Groups

    Animal ‘rights’ groups and the fools (most of the country) who donate to the Humane Society of the United States, Texas Humane Legislations Network etc. are the biggest threat of all.

    Cass Sunstein On Animal Rights & Slavery

    http://www.thedogpress.com/Editorials/09091-Sunstein-Animal-Rights-Czar_bj.asp

  2. responsibility

    While I agree with the gist of your article, I would like to point out that absolutely no responsible breeder would ever breed a bitch more than once a year. Stud dogs are a whole other game entirely, and are often lent out or have [semen] samples taken and frozen for use at other kennels.

    I would also like to say that while human beings have a way and means to defend themselves (vocally, or otherwise), animals most often do not. [Before we get carried away, this isn’t to assume that in various circumstances humans may need to be defended from forces greater than themselves] Animals have no legal recourse, face indiscriminate execution were they to defend themselves violently, and are completely at the mercy of their stewards.

    This is why we train our dogs not to bite or jump, why the greatest effort is made to prevent wild predators from incursion, why restrictions are placed on the ownership of intrinsically dangerous animals. We expect animals to act with human civility and morality, we invite them into our homes and lives, and often treat them as if they were little dumb humans. The fact is, as an animal there is very, very little room for discrepancies in behavior.

    I am of the opinion that while animals are not humans, and should never be treated as such, they do non the less deserve our consideration and in some cases protection. Thus, when faced with the problems of animal cruelty, abuse, neglect, or other deliberate and wanton action with the express purpose of causing harm, I have absolutely no problem with criminal prosecution, lengthy deprivation of liberty, and -in personal cases- a nice a** whoopin.

    Note: I am from the country where animals still very much perform the duties which have been theirs for thousands of years. Dogs are better than fences for preventing predation as well as being excellent woods companions and hunters (some breeds will literally fend for themselves and so can be left with a flock for extended periods of time without the shepherd), cats will keep the house and outbuilding clear of rodents and pests better and safer than poisons or traps, horses don’t need gas, etc. From a practical standpoint, abusing an animal is a grievous misuse of an extremely valuable resource.

    Sorry for the long post, and I would like to reiterate that I agree with the general theme of the article, as well as the opinion that $250,000 could be much better spent.

  3. Another excuse to tax people but maybe dog owners do need to take on more responsibility for their pet. Might put some off if having a pet costs more and has potential to them money if they don’t look after it and let it roam free in their neighbourhood.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s