Include

[zoe]

I don't understand the logic. If you pay $100 to goverment you are better to keep pet?

its not a matter of who you're paying it to, its the fact than you CAN afford to pay it - its like $1 every 3 days or something to get $100 a year and i really dont think that there's many people out there that cant afford 30 cents a day. its more a matter of weeding out the people that aren't willing to do the best they can for their pets - or even the LEAST they can for ther pets. i hate to be harsh but im trying to get my point across - i have seen a lot of complete drop kicks come into the vet with their underfed, flea ridden animals that they got free from their buddy who didnt bother desexing their pet, and you try and explain to them basic health care such as how to properly FEED them and they ignore you and walk out half the time. if a $100 licencing fee prevented those people from owning pets then i would be a very happy lady. i'm not saying poor people can't own pets (i myself am not very well off) because i have seen MANY families that aren't very well off put EVERYTHING they can into looking after their pets. those people would happily pay the fee. the bottom line that i'm trying to get across is that most people that would be willing to pay the $100 would be willing to get their pets desexed.

Just because they cant afford 100 dollars extra for a [edited] licence, doesnt mean they cant afford vet bills, vaccinations etc.. What if all up all they could afford was an extra 100 bucks?

and what if their animal gets sick? where does that money come from? if you dont have emergency money available to take care of your animal if it gets sick (and i know people that have had $1000 and over vet bills) then i dont think you should have an animal. is it fair that the pet gets euthanased because you cant afford it to have minor surgery? i'm not saying anything against you brodie because i know you're one of the best pet owners around who would do anything needed for your animals .