My small stand...am I silly?

[mvpel]

In Russia the result of no animal control is evident on the streets of the city of Nizhniy Tagil - stray dogs are everywhere.

[J’raxis 270145]

In Russia the result of no animal control is evident on the streets of the city of Nizhniy Tagil - stray dogs are everywhere.

"Animal control" vs. "stray dogs everywhere" is a false dichotomy—people in the affected neighborhoods could try to do something about it themselves, for example.

[mvpel]

But it's Russia.  They've had impulse beaten out of them over the decades.

[Dreepa]

Ok... I was in the local tax office today.  I saw the sign about dog tags.

I asked it the fees goes into the general fund.
I was told no.
Part stays in the town.
Part gets sent to Dept of Ag (some group within it) that goes to spay and neuter stray dogs.

[J’raxis 270145]

But it's Russia.  They've had impulse beaten out of them over the decades.

...by the very government that would provide animal control officers, no?

[lildog]

First, I have not had time to read the entire thread. I am a NH native and have some things to add.

I admire the outrage, but outrage without knowledge can sometimes be like a blank cartridge.

It is important to know how and why all these little laws came into existence, and it doesn't hurt to know something about how governments have come to be "budgeted" and funded.

Keep in mind that the worst takings of freedoms have been made "for a good reason."

Many of you are probably too young to remember when there were no leash laws. I remember. Dogs were not routinely spayed or neutered, and they ran free. Many damaged other people's property and/or bit animals and people (sometimes killing livestock, often running deer in packs).

Someone said, "There oughta be a law," and laws were enacted. How was that sold to the public?

Here's just a few of the rationales used then, and used today.


Problem: It costs money to have a dog catcher go get an abusive dog and take it back to its owner, and we don't know who can be held accountable in civil court for damages to property/people.

Solution: Require dogs to be licensed (for a fee to offset the expense), collared and tagged so the DC will know where to return them and/or who can be sued for damages.


Problem: The DC picks up a stray dog (abusive or not) and doesn't know where to take it. It costs "public" money to kennel the dog and it may not even have an owner.

Solution: Require dogs to be licensed and limit the amount of time that government must pay to take care of unlicensed animals.


Problem: If a dog bites, we don't know if the bitten animal or person is at risk for contracting rabies (at that time a positively fatal disease — and still lousy odds).

Solution: Require that all dogs be vaccinated for rabies.


Problem: People go to city or town hall to register/license their dogs, but they forget to take the rabies documentation. Oops. Need to make a second trip.

Solution: Require vets to notify city/town clerks of all vaccinations and that will speed up time at the window.


That's just a small example of how we have come to be buried under unfathomable amounts of petty laws governing every aspect of our lives, and fees that raid our pockets.


Now about the "fees." There are various laws governing how city/town clerks are to be paid, essentially involving either hourly pay, annual salary (funded from the general fund — more on that later), the fees for processing the paper work, or a combination of wages/salary and fees. Those decisions are ostensibly made by local legislative bodies (voters).

State and local government is funded through a combination of taxes and fees, which FOLLOW the amount budgeted. The budget limits or expands the amounts that may be spent, and in most cases individual (department) budgets are funded out of the general fund, comprised of taxes and "all other revenues" raised from fees, fines, etc.

At the local level, the local governing body (elected officials) proposes an annual budget and the people get to amend it or not, and then vote yes or no. Procedures are different for towns and cities. If they vote no, there are provisions for reverting to prior budgets with limited changes.

At the town level, anticipated revenues from (user) fees, fines, other governments and other sources are estimated and subtracted from the overall budget amount (general fund). THEN taxes are levied to make up the difference.

Everything is controlled by "the budget." At the local level, people need to vote no on spending. At the state level, legislators need to vote no on spending.

Voter spending authorization is the bottom line cause of all ills. Voters have the power to fix things. They just don't bother.

Sam, great post!

One issue though with the portion I highlighted.  In some cases towns artificially inflate the default budgets so voters are left with defaults that increase spending and new budgets that increase spending.  In some cases the budget is even higher then the default (as was the case many times in Merrimack).

[Nat F]

Ok... I was in the local tax office today.  I saw the sign about dog tags.
I asked it the fees goes into the general fund.
I was told no.
Part stays in the town.
Part gets sent to Dept of Ag (some group within it) that goes to spay and neuter stray dogs.

According to state law a grand total of $2.50 of dog license fees goes to the state.  $2 is deposited in the "companion animal neutering fund" and $0.50 is for the operation of the veterinary diagnostic laboratory.  The remaining $4 to $6.50 (fixed vrs not fixed dogs) is placed in the treasury of the town or city, first to pay "loss of or damages to domestic animals by dogs" then for general use of the city or town.  In addition all fees for late payment ($1 per month late plus $25 civil forfeiture and $5 cost of service) are kept by the town.  It's less clear where the possible $50 court fine is distributed to.

Why do I know this?  I was recently handed a summons for failure to license my dog.  In addition to discovering where the money goes I have discovered that Merrimack is overcharging for dog licenses (RSA 466:4 outlines the fees) likely due to confusion with RSA 466:9 which describes who receives various parts of the fee.  I have also discovered that the warrant authorizing civil forfeiture was not properly handled.

So now I'm asking for advice.  Is it a worthwhile effort to fight the invalid civil forfeiture and minor license overcharge?  In pure monetary terms it appears I could stand to save $31 while risking a $50 fine and associated court costs.  I'm discounting both the value of my own time and the possibility of extreme response from the judge but a pure monetary accounting also fails to take into account the pleasure in holding bureaucrats to their laws.  Any advice?

-Nat

[mvpel]

Absolutely worth it.  Not only is it entertaining, it's doing your civic duty.  I reckon it would be almost as fun as fighting a California seatbelt ticket and winning.

[error]

Can we make people get licenses to be bureaucrats? Maybe, say, $25 per resident per year...

[Eli]

I think you've missed the price point.  It should be more like $25K a year.  that might actually discourage the behaviour.