Saturday, September 16, 2006
Cat Tax – Second, Speculations on Why It Has Been Proposed
9/16/6 - 
The short answer is obviously money.
The McHenry County Board wants more of it.
The County Board went through a long debate last summer about what to do about cats gone wild.
In Wisconsin, the suggestion was made to allow hunters to shoot them.
In McHenry County, cat lovers fought the suggestion to have them killed once captured by animal control officers.
Instead, the cat lovers convinced county officials to catch, neuter and release the cats back into the wild.
The theory is that they will die off over time, I think.
Is that more expensive than euthanizing the wild cats?
Apparently not in this case.
The good news is that Helping Paws is paying for the neutering.
So, that’s not the motivation.
But cat admirers did cause the county board a lot of grief before that compromise was reached.
And there is that new, expensive building in Crystal Lake to pay for.
If you were on the county board, might you be tempted to take it out on the “cat people?”
Sounds like human nature to me.
Another argument is, “Why should the dog owners carry the entire burden of the cost of animal control?”
There are plenty of dog owners—probably even some who are county board members—whose dogs are no more problem than my son’s house cat.
They have to buy a license.
Why should cat owners get off scott free?
In the abstract, that is a good question.
I don’t know enough about the history of animal control to know the answer.
My guess is that cats are less dangerous than dogs.
Government can get away with increased regulation if a threat to public safety is perceived.
Just think of what has happened since 9-11.
When I was County Treasurer in the late 1960’s, I wrote checks to farmers whose animals had been killed by wild dogs. (I can’t remember a farm animal that was killed by a wild cat, but some deceased poultry might.)
That’s more a “property protection” than a “public safety” concern, but you get the idea.
Along with the cat tax, the county is planning to require rabies shots.
That has a public safety angle to it.
But it will bring more money to veterinarians, won’t it?
Couldn’t hurt to have veterinarians on your side in an election, could it? They don’t make a lot of enemies. (In Crystal Lake one--Peggy Chamerlain--even got elected to the city council using her pet owners’ mailing list.)
But the county’s plan to exclude farm cats make no sense whatsoever to me.
Which cats are most likely to have rabies?
House cats or farm cats?
Tomorrow some potential political implications for those who vote for the cat tax.
Yesterday, my motivation for opposing the cat tax.
For more McHenry County Blog, click here.
The short answer is obviously money.The McHenry County Board wants more of it.
The County Board went through a long debate last summer about what to do about cats gone wild.
In Wisconsin, the suggestion was made to allow hunters to shoot them.
In McHenry County, cat lovers fought the suggestion to have them killed once captured by animal control officers.
Instead, the cat lovers convinced county officials to catch, neuter and release the cats back into the wild.
The theory is that they will die off over time, I think.
Is that more expensive than euthanizing the wild cats?
Apparently not in this case.
The good news is that Helping Paws is paying for the neutering.
So, that’s not the motivation.
But cat admirers did cause the county board a lot of grief before that compromise was reached.
And there is that new, expensive building in Crystal Lake to pay for.
If you were on the county board, might you be tempted to take it out on the “cat people?”
Sounds like human nature to me.
Another argument is, “Why should the dog owners carry the entire burden of the cost of animal control?”
There are plenty of dog owners—probably even some who are county board members—whose dogs are no more problem than my son’s house cat.
They have to buy a license.
Why should cat owners get off scott free?
In the abstract, that is a good question.
I don’t know enough about the history of animal control to know the answer.
My guess is that cats are less dangerous than dogs.Government can get away with increased regulation if a threat to public safety is perceived.
Just think of what has happened since 9-11.
When I was County Treasurer in the late 1960’s, I wrote checks to farmers whose animals had been killed by wild dogs. (I can’t remember a farm animal that was killed by a wild cat, but some deceased poultry might.)
That’s more a “property protection” than a “public safety” concern, but you get the idea.
Along with the cat tax, the county is planning to require rabies shots.
That has a public safety angle to it.
But it will bring more money to veterinarians, won’t it?
Couldn’t hurt to have veterinarians on your side in an election, could it? They don’t make a lot of enemies. (In Crystal Lake one--Peggy Chamerlain--even got elected to the city council using her pet owners’ mailing list.)
But the county’s plan to exclude farm cats make no sense whatsoever to me.
Which cats are most likely to have rabies?
House cats or farm cats?
Tomorrow some potential political implications for those who vote for the cat tax.
Yesterday, my motivation for opposing the cat tax.
For more McHenry County Blog, click here.
Labels: Hunting Cats, McHenry County Board, McHenry County Republican Cat Tax, Rabies
