Aaron Landry

The E-Democracy.org Fourms are all about cat licensing in Minneapolis in the last 24 hours or so.

It boils down to a Request for City Council Committee Action from the Department of Regulatory Services (PDF). Here’s a few select quotes that sum it up:

Liz McLemore:

Apparently my 3 cats constitute a full 2.4% of the licensed domestic felines in the city of Minneapolis. Out of an estimated 115,000 cats in the city, the City of Minneapolis has only 124 of them licensed.

The city proposes to change that.

Kevin Wynn:

The answer is, there’s no legitimate reason except to extract more money from the citizens. Outdoor pets? Sure, why not? There is a public interest in having a tagged cat or dog so they can be returned to owner or identified in case there is trouble. But indoors, not a chance. They better add hamsters and other pet rodents then too.

Michael Mackey:

I cannot see an evident rationale for increased enforcement.

Liz McLemore:

I agree with those who argue that it does seem silly to license indoor pets. However, the city’s dilemma is likely to be this: what guarantees do they have that your animal is indeed kept indoors? And what happens if the animal escapes (as mine have occasionally done, though they are indeed indoor animals)?

Mark Anderson:

I’ve always vaccinated and sterilized my cats, but have never and will never license them. How does paying for a license make it more likely that you will spend even more for vaccination and sterilization?

John Wilson:

Has Minneapolis always licenced cats? I know Saint Paul doesn’t, though they require a cat to wear an ID tag when outside.

What’s your take?

(Hat tip to Ranty.)