Is Dog Licensing a 40 year old Faux Paw? Proposal to change Orillia’s yearly dog licensing by-law to a one-time fee.

After receiving a notice to pay $50 to license my dog with the City or be charged $125 I decided to review and question the reasons why we must do so. I wondered if we pet-loving citizens were being duped or was this by-law truly established as a safeguard to protect pets and humans alike.  I am calling on our society to question the validity of yearly dog licensing as it has not been re-assessed since its implementation in 1976. Let me share my findings and opinion with you so that together, we can analyze the following by-law in Orillia to assess its accuracy. 

In many cities but Orillia specifically, "A Dog License Fee is required pursuant to Chapter 284 of the City of Orillia Municipal Code"(As per 'Notice to pay dog license fee' notice from The Cooperation of the City of Orillia).  But, why? What are the reasons we, as dog owners, are forced into paying a dog licensing fee year after year? Please review the following proposition as I believe my findings help show that dog lovers should only be subjected to a one-time dog licensing fee. I am advocating that City Council change the current by-law to reflect this.

Initially, I believed that dog licensing was required to ensure dogs were vaccinated to protect against rabies which is the reason the City lists for needing this proof on a yearly basis. But, if we really look at this argument, it is illogical as it is already mandatory in Ontario to vaccinate dogs against rabies every three years. Thus, having to show yearly proof to the City before licensing should not be made necessary as it is already monitored by the Health Unit and veterinarians. 

Another point to consider is that other pets such as cats and service dogs are not required to be licensed. A reason for this is not listed in Chapter 284 of the Municipal Code. These animals are also exposed to the same risk of rabies. Additionally, some people feel as though it should be their choice to vaccinate their pets or not and disagree with having to vaccinate before licensing their dog(s). This could be due to the fact some strains of rabies like the raccoon for instance, have been eradicated and other incidence rates are so minimal, the number of cases combined between all various animals that can contract the disease equal less than 1000 since the 1990's (Rabies, Questions, and Answers, May 2014 https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/3329/rabies-questions-and-answers.pdf). Ok, so we have learned that the requirement to have your dog vaccinated yearly  before paying a yearly licensing fee may be unfounded as the anti-rabies vaccination is only required every 3 years, it is already monitored by another organization, and other animals are at the same risk of contracting the disease but are not made to be protected against it. It seems like asking people to pay to vaccinate their animals each year to be able to licence a dog has nothing to do with safety but generating money for the City.

Let’s look at this next mandatory condition; if you obtain a license before June 1 the fee is $30 unless you provide proof of spay/neuter then the cost lowers to $20. Since when was the City given the moral gift of being able to praise and penalized those who choose to spay/neuter versus those who do not? If you get the license after June 1 the cost increases to $50! Then, if you do not acquire a license within 14 days of being issued a Notice by the City, or if you are a new resident, you are subjected to the same $125 penalty pursuant to the Provincial Offences Act. I was not aware dog licensing was subjected to variable rates and that this was such a serious issue that is a Provincial offence! That is extreme. Who decided this was the right thing to do? I have chosen to take a stand and incur this $125 charge to show that we dog lovers do not have to be bullied into believing a dog licensing by-law exists for proactive, positive reasons. Can we please also look at why dog enthusiasts must obtain a new dog license each year and not just once? This gives me the impression that licensing is simply another way for the City to squeeze more money out of townspeople if you do not adhere to their time constraints which results in monetary punishment.  

Moreover, the funds from dog licensing fees "are used to help find and return missing dogs with the OSPCA" according to a response from a by-law officer in a 2008 Packet and Times article. However, dog owners are already charged a fee of $6 per day for missing dogs that become impounded. Why is it the assumed and inherent right of dog owners to pay the cost of other peoples pets when this is a collective concern?  Also, it has been said that dog licensing can help eliminate animal abuse as the number of dogs each person can own is regulated to a maximum of 2 dogs per home. Limiting the number of dogs a person has does not protect an animal from its owner as it cannot reduce the amount of abuse one will emit. The mistreatment, injured, or lost animals is and can continue to be managed by OSPCA not the city and other solutions exist to reduce abuse and solve gaps in operating costs of the OSPCA.

 Should people be made to follow a 40 year old law and license their dog year after year as the City professes? No. While de-constructing the argument of necessary dog licensing using bona fide information, I have found more reasons than not to support the amendment of the by-law to reflect the reality of the situation.  I can see how licensing can help reunite a pet to its owner if the dog wears its tags as owner information is on file but again licensing year after year is redundant. I also agree that better process needs to exist to help vet’s/Health Unit ensure pets receive the anti-rabies vaccination and that it is a challenge to control. That being said, we still need to change the fluctuating licensing fees and requirements to show yearly proof of anti-rabies vaccination. Perhaps an online database could be created so pet owners could register their dogs(s) once (with a fee that does not change) to obtain a license on a website.  Perhaps this database could also be connected to veterinarian offices who could then electronically submit vaccinations given or exemption notes for pets who are allergic for instance. Also this database could be used to allow owners to change their address and other information. This database could be useful for multi-purpose, easy to access information like the one time licensing registration,  maintaining pet health records if connected to vets across Ontario, ability to update information such as the death of a pet, posting site for missing dogs with the option of uploading photos, information board, etc. The options are endless we just have to be open to trying something new and different.

The reasons we citizens are paying a yearly dog licensing fee are groundless. I vote that the Chapter 284 of the Municipal Code be changed to reflect a one- time dog licensing fee and maybe implement a streamlined doggy database. Please sign my petition and support my proposal to City Counsel if you agree.

Stacie Minten