I think your stand against requiring electronic ID chips for pets is wrongheaded (“Tracking Fido–for a fee,” Editorial, March 8). Perhaps the county is trying to make some money with licensing. That still doesn’t make it a bad idea. Millions of pets are abandoned every year, and the requirement for a chip may, at least, deter people from abandoning their pets and making their problem a city or county problem.
One argument you make against the chips is that it can cost from $15 to $50. Hey. Guess what? Pets are expensive. If anyone doesn’t know that, he or she probably isn’t fit to raise an animal in a humane environment anyway. I mean, if pet owners are going to balk at $15 for a chip, they’re probably going to balk at annual vaccinations and regular vet visits too.
How about a compromise? Why not let the county keep as much of the money as it needs to keep the program going, and give the rest to animal shelters?
