Thoughts on Chicago

There's an interesting story today from the Chicago Sun Times.

The city of Chicago has raised its licensing of unneutered dogs from $10 to $50, and has also begun working toward increasing licensing compliance.

Chicago is mostly on the right track on this, although there are some concerns.  Increasing licensing can be very beneficial for cities for a number of reasons. 

First off, it increases revenue.  Chicago has around 500,000 dogs, but only sells about 20,000 licenses annually. Even if they got their licensing up to 50%, at the $5 a year for a neutered animal, they'd increase their revenue by $1.2 million each year.  That's a lot of coin.

Licensing also would help them find the owners of dogs that get picked up by animal control.  This would keep a lot of dogs from being euthenized, dogs' homes found, and quicker turnaround on finding these dogs' homes -- which would help save a lot of money in shelter costs.  It would also aid in finding the owners of dogs that are involved in biting incidences so owners could be held accountable.

They're also making strides to improve the ways that owners license their dogs -- providing for online licensing is a complete no-brainer so they don't have to worry about being overhwelmed with applications (which 250,000 applications might just do to a department).  I also like the 3-year licensing sign up.

Meanwhile, I don't have a problem with their differential licensing for unneutered animals vs neutered...but I do think a 1000% increase is a bit much.  Unneutered dogs are more likely to cause problems for animal control...whether it be through the potential to produce litters of unwanted puppies that might end up in a shelter, or because they're slightly more likely to jump a fence in order to seek out a dog in heat. 

I don't buy that neutering makes dogs less aggressive.  While statistically, unneutered dogs certainly are involved in more bites than neutered dogs, I don't necessarily think that it's a causal relationship.  Like I've always said, the vast majority of neutered dogs are owned by responsible owners, while an irresponsible owner is very unlikely to neuter their dog.  This doesn't mean that all unneutered dogs belong to irresponsible owners, but I do think that an irresponsible owner is MOST likely to have an unneutered dog...thus screwing up the stats.  It's that type of thinking that concerns me about Chicago's thinking on this that treads a slipperly slope toward mandatory spay/neuter policies which aren't the right way to go.

However, the increased licensing fees for unneutered animals is a pretty good idea, but I do fear that $50 may make it cost prohibitive and actually decrease the likelihood of people complying with licensing (which is counter to the vision they've set forth).

But I like most of the thinking....and mostly it's a step in the right direction for the city of Chicago.

Comments

[Marjorie]

Yeah...you're bang on with your take on this.

It's been proven over and over again that high license fees tend to discourage compliance, rather than improve anything. That doesn't mean we shouldn't still support some measures, but high licensing fees have to be backed up with licensing enforcement. Otherwise, it's just wishful thinking.

I, too, have never bought the theory that neutering decreases aggression. There is something to the argument that such a high percentage of dogs involved in serious attacks are reproductively intact males. But that could include any number of causational factors.

Take, for instance, the kind of person who keeps a mixed breed/non-breeding-quality dog intact. Not always, but often times, they're also the kinds of people who have that dog for "protection". Then, low and behold, when the dog behaves aggressively in the way its owner encouraged, its testicles (or breed) are cited as the cause.

Even those who follow the notion that neutering makes dogs less aggressive follow this tier:

#1 intact male dogs
#2 intact female dogs with puppies
#3 spayed female dogs
#4 neutered male dogs
#5 intact female dogs without puppies

My experience shows any, and all, of these dogs can be either the most aggressive dog you've ever seen (if poorly raised) or the most gentle, reliable dog imaginable. Thousands and thousands of intact breeding stock successfully compete in obedience each year.

One man said to me he would never own a male dog "because they're always stopping to mark territory." Having trained countless intact males in the past, I smiled and replied, "Well, they can't stop to urinate if they're heeling," to which the man grudgingly agreed.

Training and supervision trump just about everything.

[Caveat]

I agree, great post.

I do support higher licence fees for intact pets because it is likely that the owners of those pets may generate more costs, given my experiential evidence that those who fail to neuter a dog kept as a pet also fail to obtain prompt veterinary care, obedience instruction, etc. I'm not saying all and this is just from my own observations over the years.

To me, that's the fallacy in mandating s/n. Since s/n compliance is at an all-time high and is widely accepted by pet owners, mandating it won't address the problem of inadequate ownership at all.

Five dollars is much too cheap for a licence. Twenty-five is closer to a reasonable fee, maybe keep the $50 for intact pets.

The key to success with these programs in addition to enforcement mentioned by Marjorie (which has been sadly lacking everywhere) is the direction of the money into the animal-owner control budget, not general revenue as often happens.

I agree though, that Chicago is certainly on the right track.