Danville’s new dog license policies prove popular
Denice Thibodeau/Register & Bee
Veronica Morrison (left) and her son, Jason Waller, buy a dog tag for their new puppy on Thursday from Danville Deputy Treasurer Jacqueline Dix.
Danville’s new flexible options for dog licenses have had a positive reception from the dog-owning public, according to City Treasurer Lynwood Barbour.
When a dog gets its first rabies shot, the owner can license the pet for one year — the length of time the shot is good for. After that first shot, however, the vaccinations are good for three years, and dog owners have the option of licensing their pets for one, two or three years.
One big change has been that licenses are no longer good for a calendar year. Owners used to be able to walk into the treasurer’s office and purchase a tag as long as they had proof of a valid rabies shot — even if that vaccination was only valid for another month or two.
Now, when a dog owner goes in to buy a tag, it will only be good for as long as the rabies vaccination is valid, and the owner will pay a only a portion of the $5 fee to license the dog for the length of time the shot is in effect.
“No tag extends past the life of the rabies shot,” Barbour said.
The treasurer’s office keeps track of rabies vaccinations through a new state law that requires veterinarians to send the treasurer a list of all animals vaccinated and their owner’s contact information.
Being able to keep track of rabies vaccinations, and changing how the dog tags are issued, is why Barbour was able to come up with a plan for 3-year tags.
The new options went into effect on Dec. 15, and 870 dogs had been licensed by the end of January under the new plan, Barbour said. Half of those dogs were licensed for a year because they only had the initial one-year rabies vaccine, and most of the remaining dogs had rabies vaccines that would expire in 2010 — but more than 100 three-year tags were issued in that time, Barbour said.
If owners do not license their dogs, the treasurer’s office will send out a reminder notice. Barbour said he got about a 40-percent response to his reminder notices in 2009.
The remaining names were turned over to Danville Police Chief Philip Broadfoot, who sent out his own reminder notice warning that violating the licensing law is a misdemeanor and could result in a $250 fine.
“He did better than I did — he got a 50-percent response,” Barbour said. The remaining dog owners were scheduled for visits from Animal Control officers.
The new plan has brought the city some unexpected income, Barbour said.
“The city had $5,000 budgeted (for dog tag income),” Barbour said. “From our database of 3,432 dogs in Danville, we brought in $17,000 last year.”
People who adopt a dog from the Danville Area Humane Society can still purchase a one-year license there, but the shelter is not set up to re-license dogs.
Barbour said most people who have one or two dogs have responded well to the transition, but that owners who have multiple dogs are finding the transition annoying.
“They don’t like it if they have five or six dogs on different rabies shot schedules,” Barbour said, admitting they could have to return to his office several times during the first year of the transition.
Owners will have the option to purchase a $5 one-year license, a $10 two-year license or a $15 three-year license — as long as it doesn’t extend past the expiration of the rabies vaccine.
Barbour said that while the transition period may be annoying to some, the plan will ultimately make dog licenses much more convenient for the owners — and might give his office less paperwork to handle.
Thibodeau is a staff writer for the Danville Register & Bee.
Reader Reactions
It’s nice to see how JP goes AWOL when he is proven wrong. It is quite pleasing around here, actually. Please don’t stop doing it, everyone! lmao.
Hmmm dense for agreeing with you? Jeez raven get off the juice…...
Watchman you and JP are synonyms for denseness.
Although in popular belief the telephone excise tax has been in place continuously since the Spanish-American War, it has actually been repealed and reinstated several times, usually in times of war or economic crisis. Because of this connection to war, the tax has been a frequent target of war tax resisters.
President George H. W. Bush’s budget proposal for fiscal year 1991 called for the permanent extension of the telephone excise tax at the prevailing rate of 3%. Since the tax had been a continuous revenue source since 1932 and because of large continuing budget deficits, Congress concurred with the President’s recommendation and made the tax a permanent part of the tax revenue structure with the enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990.
As to being repealed it was referred to committee which in government talk means “kill it”.
So in a sense you were both right.
I would call your attention to a bill, HR 3011, sponsored by John Lewis of GA, Glenn Thompson of PA, Gerald Connolly of VIRGINIA and 70 or so others.
“Thompson- Connolly Bill Seeks Repeal of Telephone Excise Tax
May 5, 2009 12:25 PM WASHINGTON, DC –Congressmen Glenn `GT’ Thompson (R-Howard) and Gerry Connolly (D-VA) have sponsored legislation to repeal the 3 percent federal telephone excise tax that was first imposed in 1898 to help fund the Spanish American War. It is time to “hang up on the telephone excise tax,” they said.
In urging their colleagues to support H.R. 2203, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2009, the two Congressmen said the repeal of the tax “is long overdue.” The 3 percent federal tax is collected on local telephone service, toll telephone service, and teletype exchange service for the disabled.
“This tax is an antiquated remnant from the Spanish American War. It funds no specific program today and its revenues go to the general Treasury,” said Thompson.“ (from Thompson’s website)
This bill is still in committee. JP I am sure you are referring to the repeal of the federal excise tax on long distance service which is old news. The excise tax on local service still is in effect. Since I do not use antiquated land line telephones I do not pay this tax.
No need to apologize since everyone knows you suffer from a dreadful case of progressive liberalism.
ravencottage. Baloney!!! Behind (over 3 years) in reading your newspaper as always.
(5/26/2006), By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY
“A pesky, century-old tax on your phone bill is finally being put to rest.
The Treasury Department said Thursday that it will no longer collect a 3% federal excise tax on long-distance calls and would refund about $15 billion to taxpayers.
The tax was imposed in 1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American War. It was designed as a tax on wealthy Americans, back when phone service was considered a luxury.“
As with all of your posts, completely WRONG!!!! Avoid getting all your “news” from Glenn Beck and try to learn something.
Peace.
The “small tax” that really gets me is the one on telephone bills which was imposed in 1898 to fund the Spanish- American War. The United States won that war but we still pay the tax and from the looks of things agreed to unlimited immigration by the losers!
normal_person - Your comments are the very thing that sustains politicians. A small tax here, another there. Before you know it, folks are working to pay their “small taxes”. Perhaps you should spend some time looking at the small taxes you pay each and every month, then see how “The least of your worries” add up! Strictly a suggestion my friend.
These tags usually have your phone number on them. i don’t know about the animal control, but if little susie down the road finds your pet maybe someone will call your number with good news. A small tax is the least of my worries ;)
It’s a tax.
Advertisement