SETTING REGISTRATION FEES

Fees must cover costs

Like so many aspects of MPM, the question of how much to charge for dog registration is much more complicated than it seems.

Dog registration has been around for decades ñ and it has been a bit of a dogís breakfast for most of that time. In different places different registration fees apply; but, as a general rule, the fees are woefully inadequate. All manner of concessions are allowed for various dog owner groups. In some cases the fees have been so whittled away that councils are losing money by trying to collect them.

These days we expect our governments to be accountable. It is no longer good enough to think up municipal fee scales. Neither is it good enough to copy the processes used somewhere else and consider that to be an acceptable method of setting fees. Contemporary standards of financial management donít allow for this lack of financial precision.

As well, because ratepayers and service users provide the cash that keeps the show on the road, ratepayers and service users look at what they pay, and they look at what they get, and they look at what it is worth.

Who pays?

Looking closely at fee-setting in MPM, we see two models: loser pays and user pays. The second looks much better to us than the first.

Who pays?

1. Loser pays

2. User pays

ï community pays

ï dog owner pays

ï abuser pays

Loser pays

Historically, compliance with dog registration laws has been very poor. Most councils do not check on owners and do not enforce registration regulations. They are lucky if they get 50% compliance. This level of registration is worse than useless.

As we pointed out earlier, in situations where registration fees contribute to MPM running costs, the lionís share of this cost is carried by the compliant few who do the right thing and pay up. This section of the dog-owning public is most likely to include owners who cause few of the councilís MPM problems.

The balance, of course, are the ones who donít pay their fair share. They are also the ones who tend to cause the biggest slice of the headaches. Studies show that the majority of abandoned, straying or surrendered dogs are unregistered.eg.¹

When dog registration levels fall far short of 100%, it is not a user-pays system so much as a loser-pays system. The further you get away from 100% compliance, the more lopsided and unfair the registration system looks.

While actively pursuing 100% registration compliance has never been a popular option for councils, it is the only fair way to operate.

User pays

ëAh Hah!í we hear you say. ëThis is more like it! User pays is definitely the go!í

But, wait a minute, who are the users? How much do the services they use actually cost? What should the service users be paying?

In order to answer the questions above in a logical way for your local authority, it is important to adopt a systematic approach. The following outline suggests one way you might go about it. It assumes all MPM activities are being conducted in-house but it could easily be adapted if some MPM activities were contracted out.

Some specific questions to be considered could be:

1. What does MPM really cost your council?

2. What would MPM cost your council if it were done really well?

3. What standard of MPM does your community want? What would this cost?

4. How can total cost be broken up between the three main areas of MPM activity: general establishment, registration/education, and enforcement?

5. How do you propose to fund each of the three areas?

Because weíre talking about user pays, it helps to consider each of the areas in terms of its users:

1. General establishment costs ñ community pays

2. Registration/education costs ñ dog owner pays

3. Enforcement costs ñ abuser pays

For further insights, click to see:

ï Systematic approach to MPM cost issues

ï General establishment costs - community pays

ï Registration/education costs - dog owner pays

ï Enforcement costs - abuser pays

1. Pallas F. 1995. Problems: a council perspective. In: Paxton DW, Boland P, editors. Urban Animal Management: proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Urban Animal Management in Australia (Melbourne, 1995). Sydney: AVA: 11-17.