Analysis

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Owners should pay the cost of finding Fido

By: Steve Lafleur

Posted: 08/25/2012 1:00 AM | Comments: 0

SARAH O. SWENSON / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS The full cost of sheltering was $404 per animal in 2008. (WINNIPEG FREE PRESS) Photo Store

Winnipeg dog owners face a $250 fine for failing to license their dogs.

The city has warned dog owners of its zero tolerance for unlicensed dogs by taking out advertisements on the sides of buses.

While it seems reasonable to punish people for not complying with licensing regulations, it raises several questions about the way in which the city funds dog-related services.

The city currently charges owners an annual fee of $63 per dog: $28 for sterilized dogs, and $78 for "dangerous" dogs. Two-year licences come with a 10 per cent discount. All licensing revenue remains with Animal Services and is used to care for lost dogs, educate the public about responsible dog ownership, help neighbours resolve dog-related problems and to operate an adopt-a-pet program. While these are laudable goals, one cannot help but wonder why responsible dog owners should be stuck with the bill.

Most dog owners do not at any point have to rely on animal services to return their dog, nor do most owners experience dog-related problems with their neighbours that require outside intervention. While the city is correct to recuperate costs for animal services from dog owners, it is wrong to do so from the pockets of responsible dog owners. Instead, the city should try to ensure individual dog owners pay for services they themselves receive.

As a general rule, governments should attempt to fund programs through user fees. This approach makes it more likely people will use only those government services they truly value and helps ensure some citizens aren't unfairly forced to subsidize the choices of others. More importantly, it gives people incentives to act responsibly.

While it makes sense that all dog-licensing fees remain with Animal Services, it would be better to reduce licensing costs and charge a fee to dog owners whose pets have been lost and retrieved by Animal Services. It would also make sense to issue licences for the entire life of the dog, rather than requiring owners to re-register every one or two years. A lifetime licence would be more convenient for dog owners and would require less bureaucracy.

Lifetime licences would likely be set at a rate that would yield less revenue over the average dog's life than under the current system. However, the need for less staff to process licences would offset some of that shortfall. Much of the revenue lost from moving to lifetime licences for dogs could be recovered by charging a fee to dog owners who actually lose their dogs.

The full cost of sheltering lost animals, which was $404 per animal in 2008, ought to be charged to those who actually receive the service. It is unfair to force all dog owners to cover this entire cost through annual licensing fees, rather than charging the owners of retrieved dogs.

It may not be possible in every instance to charge the specific individuals who impose costs on the system. Some owners simply do not reclaim their pets.

It is reasonable to use the lifetime licensing fees to cover shortfalls resulting from these situations, where it is impossible to make individuals cover the costs of their actions. However, the "user-pays" principle should be applied wherever possible to keep licensing fees for responsible owners low.

It's not just other dog owners who are forced to help cover the bill when somebody loses their canine. All Winnipeg taxpayers are on the hook. While Animal Services appears to be self-financing in the budget -- it collects and spends just under $2.7 million annually -- the city also provides a $1.15-million subsidy for animal control and care. So dog owners are really not paying the full cost of ownership to the city.

Another public cost of dog ownership is the expense of creating and maintaining dog parks. The money for parks comes from general revenue. There is a good case for funding parks through local levies, since they can increase property values and disproportionately benefit those living nearby.

But dog parks are a special case. Since there are few of them, they tend to also be frequented by people who do not live nearby. Additionally, only dog owners use them. These factors make relying exclusively on property taxes and levies unfair.

Instead, the city ought to solicit contributions from dog owners to pay for dog parks. One method would be to impose a park fee on dog owners when they purchase licences, but allow them to opt out. This would mean the fee would be voluntary, as owners could choose not to pay, but it would strongly encourage them to do so.

Instead of collecting revenue by imposing annual dog licensing fees and punishing dog owners for non-compliance, it would make more sense to charge those whose dogs are actually imposing a cost on society.

It also makes more sense to pay for dog-related infrastructure by charging dog owners. The user-pays principle is a good guideline for funding public services, where possible. Responsible dog owners should pay the full cost of dog ownership -- but nothing more.

Steve Lafleur is a policy analyst with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (fcpp.org).

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition August 25, 2012 A15

Factual inaccuracy? Something missing? Help improve our journalism.

Know about news? Share your story suggestions, photos and video.

Spelling error? Punctuation problem? Send us an email if you’ve found a typo.

More Analysis

Undock

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is register and/or login and you can join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.