With the last dog I had, I didn't register with BARC because it was a completely dysfunctional organization even by government standards. As I understand it, they're trying to fix it. So, I want to be a good citizen and do what I'm supposed to do. And, I got this new puppy that I'm supposed to register with them. But, it looks like they want me to pay $20 (altered) the first year and every year. And, so far as I can tell, they don't do anything at all for me as a dog owner that they don't do for the general public. In other words, it looks like they're asking pet owners to bear the cost of a bunch of free riders. They do animal control, which benefits everyone equally. The do pet adoptions, but I don't benefit from those. They provide proof of rabies vaccination, but the vet can do that. It looks like the only benefit specific to the pet owners that fund them is that they won't put your pet down as quickly as other animals they pick up, which sounds more like blackmail than service. So please help me out. I want to be a good citizen, but BARC fees seem unjust. They should be funded out of a general tax fund (and adoption fees, perhaps) because their services benefit everyone in common. Why should I volunteer to put myself on the hook for the costs everyone should be sharing? Tell me something that will make me feel okay about spending my money.
I started a thread many years ago regarding the same issue. I called up BARC and told them this is equivalent to a "fat Hispanic" tax and she was so disgusted she hung up on me. And that was exactly my point. This is an unethical tax. Anyways I quit playing games with these idiots by transferring title of my dog to my dad who just turned 60. I can now get away with paying $2 a year for this required tag.
It was an analogy. Paying a tax to license your dog is equivalent to a government taxing Hispanics who are fat.
Ok, th's an odd analogy, but we seem to be of like minds. Ownership of common animals (cats, dogs, fish, and some birds) seems like something that should not require a license from the government. I could understand a tax on pet ownership if pet ownership had negative externalities that made us as a society want to discourage such ownership, or if the agency funded did something to mitigate the externalities. But, I don't see how either of these are the case. So, instead it looks like a tax burden put on pet owners because some politicians wanted to look good by slashing the spending coming out of the general fund, so they shifted that burden to pet owners under the guise of licensure.
Pretty much. I got notice of a fine about 5 years ago for not registering my pets, but I never did anything about it. That was the first I had heard about having to register my pet with the city: a ~$100 fine plus paying the normal fees for doing so. I laughed and threw it away. Spoiler <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ei7pz6axpxg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I was looking at it from the point of view that being born a dog is not a choice but being fat is. You can own a fish in Harris county and not pay a tax.
