OK, so what constitutes a "Dangerous Dog" and why are they being liscensed ? So we can track them more easily when they maul someones child ?

relax...your toy poodle can as easily maul your child!

I have two dogs who would probably defend our family if threatened. Are they dangerous? If someone pays the fee for a "dangerous dog", would he/she be admitting liability in case of an incident?

Oh yeah wavoes, we do keep seeing those "child mauled by poodle" stories in the news all the time don't we? I think SummerSoul brings up a good point of liability. Are you admitting your dog is dangerous just because it is a rottweiler or a pit bull ?

as someone in the veterinary field i can say honestly that i have been bitten by and have seen more kids bitten by toy poodles and mixed pocket breeds (yes your malti-poo is a mixed breed) than pitbulls, and don't even get me started on cats...

When are we going to see licenses for cats?
Dogs are required to be contained on owners property, but cats have the freedom of the world. My wildest dream is to walk my licensed dogs on a leash, completely legal, up onto the neighbors driveway, and allow them to sprinkle in their flower beds, and occasionally water their front door.

Bang! Just like that. Was there any public consultation on raising pet license fees? With everything else going up except minimum wages and Old Age Pensions etc. couldn't the city give these people a break? How about a licensing fee tied to a person's income? I can well imagine that a cherished pet is very important to a lot of seniors, not just for companionship but for protection too. I wouldn't mind paying just a little more for a dog license to give a senior, a veteran or a poor person a bit of a break. Anybody else feel the same way? Just have a little declaration we would need to sign when buying the tag to indicate which income group you fall into and whether or not the pet is a mixed breed or a status symbol 'exotic or purebreed'. What about horses boarded in town? They don't need a tag?

Dangerous dog is defined in the Community Charter

http://city2.princegeorge.ca/Bylaw%20Documents/Consolidated%20Animal%20Control%20BL7771%20Merged.pdf

"dangerous dog" means a dog that

(a) has killed or seriously injured a person,

(b) has killed or seriously injured a domestic animal, while in a public place or while on private property, other than property owned or occupied by the person responsible for the dog, or

(c) an animal control officer has reasonable grounds to believe is likely to kill or seriously injure a person.

Also read the Animal Control Bylaw for PG

http://city2.princegeorge.ca/Bylaw%20Documents/Consolidated%20Animal%20Control%20BL7771%20Merged.pdf

"Dangerous Dog is as defined in the Community Charter, as amended from time to time, and includes a Restricted Dog."

"Restricted Dog means a Pit Bull Terrier, an American Pit Bull Terrier, a Pit Bull, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, an American Staffordshire Terrier or a crossbreed of any of the aforementioned breeds."

Summer Soul wrote: "If someone pays the fee for a "dangerous dog", would he/she be admitting liability in case of an incident?"

No, since the province and the city make the determination of what is a dangerous dog.

So, if under (c) above "an animal control officer has reasonable grounds to believe is likely to kill or seriously injure a person." and the city licenses the dog, the City is not diligent in its duties, in my opinion, of keeping the public safe.

So, the City makes the determination that a dog is "likely kill or seriously injure a person", does not remove the dog from the owner, the dog mauls a person, the City has knowingly allowed the condition which they predicted may happen, to happen.

There really are no dangerous dogs when properly trained. The 'dangerous' term belongs to the owners who neglect their habits and temperment. If your dog bits someone, sorry, but it's your fault. Watch Ceasar and learn.

Why is the city charging extra?? C'mon now - snow removal money.

I would like to see the rationale for the license fees. What City costs is it supposed to cover? Animal control officer(s)? Holding cages at the animal shelter? Printing of tags?

If a 10% raise in prices will generate $15,000 extra, it looks like they collect about $150,000 with the new fees at $165,000.

That is about 6,000 dogs which, based on an estimate of 35% of households having dogs is a considerable underlicensed dogs. The city could be making twice as much at least.

Great point gus!

How much is the SPCA charging the city to look after these impounded animals? I assume that the city is getting good value for their money, but is that what is driving the cost increases?