Lawmaker’s proposal to license cats has merit, but are goldfish and hamsters next?

Connecticut lawmakers are back at it again — taking another swipe at Nutmeggers’ wallet for another fee in what appears to be a grab for more revenue. This time, a lawmaker is proposing to implement a licensing fee for cats. Yes, cats. What’s next? Goldfi

State Rep. Kelly Luxemberg, a Democrat from Manchester, is proposing the bill and even she admits it sounds like a revenue grabber.

But Luxenberg said there is a greater good to her proposed bill. What is that greater good? She said it would serve as a reminder to have your cat spayed or neutered and also notes it would be helpful for pet owners if they lose their cat.

Well ... OK, but we’re not so sure “greater good” fits here.

House cats aren’t required to be kept in a fenced-in yard and they are typically not walked on a leash. And how could you license a feral cat that belongs to no one and roams freely?

A Connecticut statute does permit municipalities to adopt ordinances requiring registration of feral cat “keepers.” The keepers are defined as anyone who harbors or regularly feeds a feral cat. And the state already requires cat owners to vaccinate their cats against rabies.

So, let’s take a look at the money.

Currently, dog licensing in Connecticut is $8 per spayed or neutered dog per year. Luxenberg is proposing the same for cats.

So, how much revenue could this generate?

According to a calculator on the American Veterinary Medical Association website, the idea could generate $6.6 million a year for the state.

The state could sure use the money.

And Luxenberg’s proposed bill isn’t a lone wolf. Residents living in cities and towns in California, Texas, Wisconsin, Washington, New Jersey and other states are required to license their cats.

Nationwide, cat owners are spilt on licensing, with 51 percent thinking it’s a good idea.

Among the reasons pet owners, animal experts and lawmakers give for licensing cats is that it allows cities to track them for health and safety concerns, particularly when a natural disaster strikes, such as an earthquake or fire, which may cause your cat to flee to safety. Another argument is that thousands of cats are lost, end up at shelters and then are euthanized because the owner is unable to be located. There is also the reasoning that dog owners pick up the cost of animal control services.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals also is a strong proponent of licensing cats but argues against including feral cats.

.According to the ASPCA, between 74-96 million cats are owned in the United States and approximately 30 to 37 percent of households have a cat.

So, there are good, solid reasons for the bill. Still, licensing cats?

Could get expensive for cat owners. Don’t cats have nine lives?

House cats aren’t required to be kept in a fenced-in yard and they are typically not walked on a leash. And how could you license a feral cat that belongs to no one and roams freely?