I am a responsible dog owner. I have health insurance that includes third party property liability coverage for my dog, vaccinate her, deworm her monthly, feed her a veterinary exclusive diet and meet if not exceed all of her requirements, plus she is microchipped. But it is a hard pill to swallow when the City of Langley demands I pay for a dog license.
I think that if municipalities want to institute revenue- generating programs that truly serve dog owners they need to reconsider what a dog license represents.
According to Merriam- Webster a license is:
1. the approval by someone in authority for the doing of something
2. the granting of power to perform various acts or duties
3. the right to act or move freely
Note that in all three cases a license is defined as granting the holder permission to do something. The problem with dog licenses is that they don't function as licenses at all, they're just an annual tax on dog ownership.
If only people with a dog license could use the off leash dog parks then it would make sense.
Langley municipality states:
"A dog license is 'the best way' to identify your dog and has proven to be the fastest way to return your dog home should it get lost."
This is a false statement. Microchipping remains the best way to identify your dog as it is permanent and for the life of the pet. Collars need to be worn in order for tags to be attached and they can fall off and become lost and are easily removed.
I currently pay $4,900 in property taxes before the applied grant and they want me to pay a dog tax!!!
No money raised by taxation can be appropriated to a private purpose.
50% of the license revenue retained in my municipality is used at the animal shelter and the other 50% is used by the municipality who already collects property tax annually from me!
I am going to refuse to pay and see how well they can enforce this bylaw.