Isn't this the same as the millions California would supposedly 'save' by forcing Amazon to collect sales tax?
This money just magically appears. If you're a politician, apparently.

Cats I have a harder time being okay with. They don't roam (typically) and if they get out, they are highly unlikely to seriously injure or kill someone. No, Lucy couldn't either, but a fair number of dogs *could*

They don't roam (typically)

You don't know cats. And there are plenty of people who will let their cat out at night to do just that.

Somebody has to pay for the fat pensions those lifeguards are collecting.

Does cat ownership expose the city to significant expenses? If that is the case, then it seems a licensing fee for cats is the fairest way to raise the necessary revenue to cover those expenses.

Isn't this the same as the millions California would supposedly 'save' by forcing Amazon to collect sales tax?

Amazon is going to have to collect sales tax in California; they probably should have been anyway. Even after they killed their affiliate program in a snit, they will be found to have a significant business nexus in the state, since the subsidiary that designs their most successful product is located here.

Christopher, my point is that to politicians, the money will just magically appear. Nothing to do with the fact on how it's collected.
Although the whole Amazon thing is ludicrous. Amazon has an bigger advantage over local retailers than sales tax or no, it's called SELECTION.

So sadly, the classic Monty Python sketch swearing that there is no such thing as a cat license is now dated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnq96W9jtuw

$25? You've gotta be kidding me. If it was $5, I could see it as reasonable for cost recovery and paperwork.

$25? That's just theft. Or the anti-pet whackos coming up with a new way to discourage pet ownership.

Of course, since the leftists are all idiots they don't understand that it will result in most people turning their cats out rather than pay the fee.

both cats and dogs should be "taxed" to help pay for the cost of running the animal shelters that get overrun with kittens all the time due to dumbass owners who let their cats wander anf do not have them "fixed". What to do with the kittens? Dump them at the animal shelter. BTW, I have 3 dogs and a cat that are all fixed and all tightly contained within the home and property. But, there are at least 5 local roaming cats and two different family dogs that constantly escape their yards. Yes, I am a fsical conservative, but as an animal lover this is one fee I can get onboard with

$25 to register your pussy, eh?

Yea ronc I agree I could understand this if it was to go to cover for expense due to cats like shelters, dealing with feral cat, possible feline health problems that can affect the community.

The problem is time and again governments just use excuse of we need to register or do something as way to get more money - like social security would be used and saved for the future. Instead it ends up as a piggy bank. Speeding tickets and redlight/speed traps are all said it will go towards increasing road safety and making road improvements. But each time it ends up nothing is done besides maybe a new SUV for the police department or that special PET project gets a boost. Just take a look at government toll roads versus private. All I see for this in the end is some political appointee gets a nice desk job at $100,000 a year who once in a while comes out and speaks about the evils of unregistered cats. Hey we could all ways call this person the head of pussy registration. Great lines for pickup. "Excuse miss is your pussy registered".

More questions is what does this tax/fee en-tail. Is it yearly, one cat for cat life registration? Is the cat going to be registered in any programs or benefits like if it is picked up will it get returned to owner or owner notified. Possibly added to a free vaccination program.

I am not holding my breath.

As an extremely responsible pet owner, why should I be paying for the irresponsible ones?

You're not wrong as philosophically. But as a practical matter there's no feasible way to know a priori who will be an irresponsible pet owner. So all who participate in pet ownership jointly pay for the faults of the bad actors. It's not totally fair, but it is more fair than asking non-pet owners to pay for the social costs of pets.

Feral cats and unvaccinated roaming cats and dogs are a threat to public health, and the costs of cleaning up the mess (catching, euthanasia) should be distributed throughout the community whenever they cannot be traced directly to the person responsible.

My neighbors and I take it upon ourselves to spend our time and money feeding, catching, testing, spaying/ neutering, vaccinating, or euthanizing the many cats that people abandon in a wooded lot in our neighborhood.

This week we also spent $80 and a sleepless night to rescue a fledgling robin (nature's squeak toy) from some of those same cats.

F#ck the idea of giving government $25 to spend as it pleases just because I have a pet cat.

I have to license my cat yearly, even though she never leaves the house. It's around $10, I think. I'm in Colorado.

Really what it's for is to make sure you've given your cat its rabies vaccination, which I believe is important. However, I think if I can produce a rabies certificate, that should be the end of it.

My cat also will NOT wear a collar (she's a calico, I invite you to try and see how many of your limbs are still intact afterwards). If she does manage to get out, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE HER MICROCHIPPED, I will get charged extra for her not wearing her tags (even though I've paid for them all) if I have to get her from the pound.

Highway robbery.