New Animal Control.Org

This page is part of the Failed System section of New Animal Control.Org

Why the System Remains As It Is

Okay, here's an imaginary conversation that didn't take place, but should have, and probably will, eventually.

"So, why not dump the current animal control system in the trash heap of anachronism and replace it with something that will get the job done?"

"Because there isn't enough money to create and operate a new, highly efficient animal control system."

"And why isn't there enough money?"

"Because licensing fees are too low and largely uncollected, and it's extremely difficult to assess taxes on dog food."

"And why is it so difficult to levy a tax on dog food?"

"Because the dog industry lobbies against it."

"Well, why would they do that?"

"Because, if the dog food tax is insufficient to provide adequate dog-related services, a shortfall is created that must be made-up by the non-dog-owning public, as their taxes are siphoned-off to provide those services. In that way the cost of dog ownership is artificially lowered and the general public is forced to pick up the slack, thus creating a de facto public subsidy of private dog ownership. With no dog food tax, or an inadequate dog food tax in place, then, one way or the other, the public is forced to subsidize the dog industry, either through their pocketbooks or through the suffering they endure because there is no money available for the services that would have brought them relief from the abusive behavior of the poorly regulated dog owners who live near them."

It's a calamity for canines and hell on the humans who, as a result, are forced to suffer helplessly at the hands of irresponsible dog owners. But it makes it cheaper to possess a dog. And if it's cheaper to keep a dog, there are going to be more dog owners and more people buying dog food and veterinary services and all the rest of it. What's more, by ensuring a deficit in animal control funding, there is created a deficiency in governmentally-administered dog-related services, which also works to the advantage of industry."

"Okay, I can understand why an industry group would want to create a situation in which they receive an unofficial subsidy. But why would they want there to be deficiencies in government-provided dog services?"

"Because a high level of dog-related services would mean increased accountability for dog owners, which would translate to increased responsibility, which would result in fewer people keeping dogs, with a corresponding drop in revenue for the dog industry."

That's the problem, then: increasing public services and providing strict accountability for dog owners is in the canine interest and in the public interest of humans, but it is not in the corporate interest.

This page is part of the Failed System section of New Animal Control.Org