Not to be outdone by the imaginative folk in Olympia trying to find new sources of revenue, our local County Commissioners Steve Bauer and Josh Brown are considering Spot and Fluffy as potential revenue gold mines. A long, long time ago in a time simpler than today, we considered it appropriate to inoculate pets against diseases harmful to people.

The rabies shots required for dogs, and later cats, have been long standing responsibilities of pet ownership. We took our pet to the vet, got the shot, and paid the bill. Since those were the days before leash laws, there was a need to indicate the pets that had current rabies inoculation and thus we moved forward to putting a shot tag on the collar that Spot or Fluffy wore.

The government that passed the original law requiring the rabies shots determined that separate licensing of animals would be required to help defray the expenses of the dog catcher, employed to keep our streets free of unprotected pets. Anyhow, with mandatory licensing came an unexpected revenue stream.

People had more pets than the dog catcher needed to worry about and so there was extra money. As time moved forward, more visionary government employees figured out that if the veterinarians who gave the shots also collected the license fees, and if private foundations operated animal shelters, we could eliminate the dog catcher, and use the money for other things (like adding to the general fund).

That system really worked nicely for the longest time until people realized that if Spot never left the yard (love those five acre lots) and Fluffy never left the house, all that shot and license stuff was unnecessary. So people stopped going to the vet for shots and did not pay license fees. The government had no mechanism to make sure Spot and Fluffy were making their contribution to the general welfare of the people. After a bit of really deep pondering (probably including a session on visioning and a bit of group think) a new idea emerged.

Why not have the county directly tax (sorry, I meant “fee”) those people who owned pets? No doubt the bill would include the hidden opt out donation for parks as with vehicle registration. (Oh, you didn’t know about that?)

Don’t expect any kind of pet related service associated with the fees. After all, the money will be put to good use providing us with more extensive support of the public welfare. Perhaps we may get to see that day when those less fortunate can actually get food stamps for the pets they keep. Which, of course, is what licensing is all about.

The ability of government to devise one scheme after another to take from those who have and redistribute it to those government favors or those identified as most in need has no bounds.

All this time you thought your government worked for you. The reality is that you work for government. Man’s best friend becomes government’s best friend and revenue source. Too bad dogs don’t hold tea parties.