Should dog licenses be required?

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Subscribe online by clicking here.

Already a subscriber, please .



I think Linda Watkins needs to re-read soon-to-be Sheriff Svenson's side of the argument. The totality of what I've read on this subject indicates that Yamhill County will close the shelter but arrange for several other county shelter sites to handle the animal population. Without a central authority and proper funding to operate how does Linda Watkins expect this "centrally located" animal information system to happen? As a dog owner, we have our animals micro-chipped, rabies vaccinated (with tag), and county licensed. If one of our pets ever gets loose I believe that one of these tracking methods will likely find it safely returned to us.

If people are not required to get rabies shots for their dogs, they won't do it. Any safety requirement rightly levied in the interest of public safety and health still has to have enforcement "teeth". Do we trust our fellow vehicle owners to just voluntarily register their vehicles? Get a drivers' license? Insure their vehicles? Pay their taxes? I hope you get the idea. The idea of live-and-let-live may work in another solar system but the idea hasn't done so well on planet earth.

Without enforcement of basic animal health (rabies shots at a minimum) people will attempt to get away with what they can. Without registration they will whine about their lost animal and blame everyone but themselves. If their child is bit by a rabid dog or we see packs of dogs wandering the streets...who ya gonna call?

So, no animal laws, no animal control, no license fees to pay for it all? Good luck with that!


Most of the dogs owners I know don't license their dogs.

What other animals have to be licensed, on leashes, poop cleaned up? Cats roam county and dig up gardens, there are feral cats all over the county, cat poop left for all to step in.

Either enforce for all pets or none of them.


I agree with MrsBike. Cats should be licensed, and if they're not neutered, the fee would increase.


Licensing cats is a lost cause; only the most conscientious pet owners would bother to do it (which means their cats are the least likely to be neighborhood problems, anyway), and aside from the flower bed messes they leave, they are not nearly as dangerous to people and livestock as dogs are. Nor are they as easy to catch.

Dogs should be licensed for all of reasons stated by Sheriff-elect Svenson. Any cat not micro-chiped, or sporting an ID tag, if picked up by animal control, should be put down.

I Am Darren Wilson

Of course the licensing is just a cash cow. We all know that.


A cash cow? You don't know what you're talking about. The county's Animal Control program is designed to be self-sustaining, but without volunteers and generous private donors, the program couldn't survive. The licensing revenue does not cover the full cost of running the program. To call it a "cash cow" is sheer ignorance. We all know that (except the self-deluded).

Dog Lover

I think that PEOPLE should be required to have a license before being allowed a dog, or pet for that matter. People that can’t afford to feed, spay/neuter, pay for vet care, etc do not have any business owning a pet. Now, don’t get me started on ‘backyard’ breeders…. Have a nice day.

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS