There is a line in The Music Man, just after Harold Hill steps off the train, when he asks a local man on the street, “What do you folks do around here for excitement?” The stranger responds curtly, “Mind our business.”
Getting elected to the legislature changes some people in a subtle way, because if they are legislators, then it must be their job to legislate. Many will dream up something to make laws about, and work to create new programs, even in areas where there are already laws. It takes a strong character to resist that temptation, to use the legislative power to fix problems rather than create new ones. I have sometimes felt like telling legislators to mind their own business. But alas, nobody ever says such a rude thing to anyone in government. Have we evolved to where there is no aspect of our lives considered none of the government’s business?
Nearly all programs are created with good intentions, often to address some tragedy where our instinctive reaction is, “there ought to be a law.” Not every sad situation calls for a government program, but sincere and caring people will react – often without fully understanding the situation, sometimes making things worse.
That is precisely what led a freshman Colorado legislator to introduce a bill requiring registration and taxing of all pets. Rep. Regina English, no doubt well-meaning, was concerned about abandoned pets, especially those left behind during emergencies when neither the owner nor any other “caregiver” could be found. Police and firefighters sometimes must take such pets to animal shelters, which are underfunded and have few good options for unclaimed pets.
Out of that legitimate concern came Rep. English’s bill. It would set up a new program, the “Pet Animal Registration System,” in the Agriculture Department (as if the Commissioner had no more important duties) to register every pet in Colorado and identify the alternate “caregiver” in case its owner is unavailable. To address concerns about the high cost of such a statewide system, a tax on every pet was included.
Every pet owner in the state would have to register their pet and pay the fee. It would be capped at $8.50 per pet but would be double for a dog or cat not spayed or neutered, and $25 if no caregiver were designated, along with their contact information. The caregiver must agree to be responsible for the pet, so presumably would also have to sign a form. Owners who fail to comply could be fined $100 per pet.
Pets are not just dogs and cats under this bill. “Pet animal” is defined as “a dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, mouse, rat, gerbil, ferret, bird, fish, reptile, amphibian, invertebrate, or any other species of wild or domestic or hybrid animal six months of age or older, that is sold, transferred, or retained for the purpose of being kept as a household pet.” So, an owner’s tax would be up to $8.50 (but possibly $25) on each pet, no matter how many they owned. As one opponent pointed out, someone with a large aquarium or a garden koi pond with 100 fish could be charged $850 annually, and without a designated caregiver as much as $2,500 a year. A Tom Sawyer-like household with a dog, cat, hamster, parakeet, tarantula, 2 snakes, three frogs, and 10 fish would be charged $170 to $500 a year.
The bill was intended to “connect pet animals with their owners and designated caregivers when and after emergencies occur, and protect pet animals by supporting animal shelters that are caretakers of last resort.” I’m for protecting animals, and I inherited from my grandma a distaste for animal cruelty. But would a new government bureaucracy end it? Or would it just become yet another dependable and permanent revenue source? The irresponsible pet abusers we occasionally read about in horror would be the ones who refuse to pay the tax. Others might just decline to keep pets for their kids, which would be equally tragic.
When the bill was introduced, there began an angry statewide outcry, which never abated. The measure was to be heard in committee this month, but learning it would go down in flames, the sponsor withdrew the bill. It died for lack of any alternate caregiver. She was surprised at the intensity of opposition, showing how little she apparently understands about people and their pets. Or about a remaining handful of things people still consider none of the government’s business.
Comments on this entry are closed.