Poll respondents split over pet registration, but agree fee too high

[webfact]

Poll respondents split over pet registration, but agree fee too high

By The Nation

 

Photo from: www.thaihealth.or.th

 

Just over half of people surveyed this month by NIDA Poll were opposed to a government proposal that pet owners be charged a fee to register their cats and dogs, but most respondents objected to the hefty suggested fee of Bt450.

 

In the National Institute of Development Administration survey, 51.69 per cent of the 1,271 respondents disagreed with the idea of charging a fee to register pets. 

 

They said it was not addressing pet-related problems at their roots and suspected the government was merely aiming to boost revenues. 

 

Critics have elsewhere said the government is at a loss for lack of an efficient registration system and is passing the cost burden on to the public. 

 

There is also concern that enforcing a fee for pet registration would result in many animals being cast into the streets. 

 

More than 48 per cent of those polled agreed a fee should be charged, however, believing it would force pet owners to act more responsibly and promote efficient pet management overall.

 

Still, 83.71 per cent of respondents said the proposed Bt450 fee was too high. 

 

“People with a lot of pets won’t be able to afford it,” was a typical response. 

 

More than 56 per cent suggested the state should offer free vaccinations and sterilisation for stray animals. 

 

Another 30.45 per cent recommended public-awareness campaigns to encourage pet owners to be more conscientious. 

 

Nearly 18 per cent said the country needed more animal shelters.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30356868

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-10-22

[stanleycoin]

Good to see Thailands N

33 minutes ago, webfact said:

They said it was not addressing pet-related problems at their roots and suspected the government was merely aiming to boost revenues. 

This is terrible, who would ever have thought that was the case.

Disgusted,  from Royal Tunbridge wells uk. 

 

[canuckamuck]

The registration is a very good idea, but it should be cheap, like 50 baht.

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

The registration is a very good idea, but it should be cheap, like 50 baht.

Residents of MiL's village won't pay 20 baht per month for trash collection, they sure as heck won't pay 50 baht to register the cat!

[Samui Bodoh]

If I thought that registration would help solve the issues surrounding pets/strays, I would be all for it. But, I don't. I doubt that Thais would pay it (minimum wage is 300 a day/pet registration 450. Get Real...) and I don't see what benefits accrue to people who do pay it. A book recording vaccines? My Vet already gives me one of those. Does anyone think the cash collected will go to animal control? Anyone?

 

This is just Bureaucrats wanting a new revenue stream.

 

If you want to improve the life of animals and cut down on strays, you can do four things;

 

1. launch well-funded sterilization programs for Soi animals (dogs and cats)
2. Clean up the garbage so that Soi animals do not have a source of food.
3. Cull the sick animals (yes, Buddhism and all, but they are suffering... It is the kindest response)
4. Launch a public relations campaign to teach people how to care for animals and what to do/not do

There are steps that can be taken to mitigate this problem (it will never be solved completely), but they require political will, support of the general population, and a modicum of responsibility by people for the animals. 

 

I would LOVE to see action here, but I ain't holding my breath...

 

 

[canuckamuck]

55 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Residents of MiL's village won't pay 20 baht per month for trash collection, they sure as heck won't pay 50 baht to register the cat!

To be fair that is 120 per year as opposed to 50 baht one time. But if they don't want to pay, one less cat. win win.

[humbug]

this proposed law is just nuts, i'm split between their control freak tendencies as chinese generals or a vote winner for some nuts on their audience.

 

 

[overherebc]

16 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

If I thought that registration would help solve the issues surrounding pets/strays, I would be all for it. But, I don't. I doubt that Thais would pay it (minimum wage is 300 a day/pet registration 450. Get Real...) and I don't see what benefits accrue to people who do pay it. A book recording vaccines? My Vet already gives me one of those. Does anyone think the cash collected will go to animal control? Anyone?

 

This is just Bureaucrats wanting a new revenue stream.

 

If you want to improve the life of animals and cut down on strays, you can do four things;

 

1. launch well-funded sterilization programs for Soi animals (dogs and cats)
2. Clean up the garbage so that Soi animals do not have a source of food.
3. Cull the sick animals (yes, Buddhism and all, but they are suffering... It is the kindest response)
4. Launch a public relations campaign to teach people how to care for animals and what to do/not do

There are steps that can be taken to mitigate this problem (it will never be solved completely), but they require political will, support of the general population, and a modicum of responsibility by people for the animals. 

 

I would LOVE to see action here, but I ain't holding my breath...

 

 

Agree with you but that would mean the great unwashed listening to other people and obeying a few simple rules/laws.

[csmith]

Isn't that about the same amount that the Amphur charges for a Thai marriage certificate ???? 

[Misterwhisper]

As a pet owner myself, I am all for pet registration (and chipping). It can help solve - or at least mitigate - a myriad of problems like fostering some degree of responsibility in people so they don't abandon their pets whenever and wherever they please (adding to the stray population), lowering the incident of rabies and other pet-carried diseases (by only registering pets when the owners can prove they have been vaccinated), and preventing uncontrolled breeding (a pet is only registered when it has been neutered/spayed). Last but not least: 

3 hours ago, webfact said:

 

“People with a lot of pets won’t be able to afford it,”

-- so let them have fewer pets.

 

Especially that latter point goes down to the very core of the matter of pet ownership: Responsibility. A pet is a living creature with certain needs. If an owner cannot afford a one-time registration fee for a single animal, I very much doubt they'll be able to afford a whole zoo of pets proper food and proper care (vaccinations, regular vet check-ups, etc.).

 

But perhaps the registration fee should be staggered according to the size of the animal. 100 baht seems alright for a cat or small dog, while a higher fee should be levied for a large dog.

   

[Jai Dee]

An edited quotation from another member has been removed from this thread, as well as replies.

 

From the Forum Rules:

 

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post. 

[Bob12345]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

They said it was not addressing pet-related problems at their roots and suspected the government was merely aiming to boost revenues. 

Exactly.

I only hear them talk about registration and wanting fees for that, but they dont mention anything else.

 

So lets assume everybody in Thailand is registering their dogs and cats tomorrow for 450 baht, how did that solve anything?

Now half the dogs and cats in the country are registered, and the other half not. And then?

How does that solve anything?

 

I am missing like 90% of the plan, which involves removing stray animals, registering which animals have been vaccinated, culling unwanted animals, outlawing trade in unregistered animals, breeders needing to inform the government with every litter, checks at the VET where you can get a fine for having an unregistered animal, animal catchers patroling the streets, fines for registered animals walking around without the owner, etc.

[jvs]

3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

The registration is a very good idea, but it should be cheap, like 50 baht.

I think Thailand can handle the registration thing,ten years ago or so we all had to register our phone number or we would be cut off.I never did and was never cut off.This time it is better organized .

50 baht ok,get them all registered and after 2 more years start picking up any dog without a tag and destroy them.You gotta start somewhere.I still think 'taking care' of the soi dogs right now is a better start.

[Pedrogaz]

Most people I know have several dogs.....we are in a rural area so perhaps it is different here. I think it should be cheaper because 450baht is more than a day's wage for some people, which is way too high. The other issue is enforcement. The police don't enforce the laws as it is....are they magically going to transform and enforce this law? No, so it will become yet another statute on the books which is ignored, like having a driving licence, but which will give the cops an opportunity to get tea money. 

Good idea, but for a country that has a functioning police force.

[RotMahKid]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

The registration is a very good idea, but it should be cheap, like 50 baht. 

In fact the registration is just 50 baht!

Some other thing makes it more expensive;

The ฿450 would consist of a ฿50 registration fee, ฿100 for the pet’s logbook and ฿300 for an identification, see link: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/2018/10/11/have-a-cat-or-dog-you-may-have-to-pay-฿450-to-register-them/

But I own a dog, it has already a logbook and a chip and if you also have such dog then the only thing you have to pay is indeed 50 baht for registration.

Most people so only the bug number 0f 450, but if you bought a good dog from a good breeder then you don't have to pay the total amount.

But most Thai just bought tier pet on the market or just a shop, without any documents and not chipped and that's the problem for them, nothing wrong with this suggested law.

[connda]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

There is also concern that enforcing a fee for pet registration would result in many animals being cast into the streets. 

There should be a moratorium during which all animals are registered for free after which a reasonable fee (50 THB) is charged per animal.

That way animals aren't abandoned willy-nilly. 
Extremely low cost spay and neutering services should also be offered nation-wide using the funds collected from registration fees.  And the fees should also be used to establish regional shelters and animal control services. 

Yeah - in my dreams, 'eh?

[DogsBarkingAllDay]

Pet registration is good. It helps in many ways.

The issue is the fees. Lower the fees more. 

If you ask the public feedback, many of them will reject this policy.

Why? Who likes to fork out their own baht?

Tell them is free and you will see them queuing up for the registration. 

[connda]

1 hour ago, Bob12345 said:

Now half the dogs and cats in the country are registered, and the other half not. And then?

How does that solve anything?

And now the RTP has a money making opportunity to shake-down the owners of all unregistered pets for 25,000 THB each if my memory serves me correctly.
However - by the time word gets around that a crackdown is coming, you'll have half the pets in Thailand (or more) simply abandoned. 

"That not my dog" and "I have no pet" will become the mantra of the lower class and those who really have no compassion for their pets.

 

[connda]

Just to put things into perspective consider this:
How many Thais own smartphones?  I'd venture to say that there is at least one smartphone per family.
How much does a smart phone cost?  A couple of thousand Thai Baht on up. 
How much does it cost per month to maintain a smartphone?  Say 120 THB for a basic service plan on up.

So, are the registration fees really too high or is this an instance of priorities?  Btw, I am playing Devil's Advocate here.  But it's a relevant thought exercise to consider. 

[Vacuum]

10 minutes ago, connda said:

"That not my dog" and "I have no pet" will become the mantra of the lower class and those who really have no compassion for their pets.

 

I see no problems with this. Just round them up and get 'rid of them'. If nobody owns them, they shouldn't be allowed to roam the streets.

[scubascuba3]

I don't mind soi dogs except the rogue male bad mood ones kinda like you get on here. Authorities should step up and get rid of the bad apples

[chrisinth]

2 hours ago, Misterwhisper said:

As a pet owner myself, I am all for pet registration (and chipping). It can help solve - or at least mitigate - a myriad of problems like fostering some degree of responsibility in people so they don't abandon their pets whenever and wherever they please (adding to the stray population), lowering the incident of rabies and other pet-carried diseases (by only registering pets when the owners can prove they have been vaccinated), and preventing uncontrolled breeding (a pet is only registered when it has been neutered/spayed). Last but not least: 

-- so let them have fewer pets.

 

Especially that latter point goes down to the very core of the matter of pet ownership: Responsibility. A pet is a living creature with certain needs. If an owner cannot afford a one-time registration fee for a single animal, I very much doubt they'll be able to afford a whole zoo of pets proper food and proper care (vaccinations, regular vet check-ups, etc.).

 

But perhaps the registration fee should be staggered according to the size of the animal. 100 baht seems alright for a cat or small dog, while a higher fee should be levied for a large dog.

   

Like yourself, I am also a pet owner and again, would be all for registration as long as it would be an exercise that addresses the main problems that are occurring in Thailand, In my view, the biggest by far is the control of strays/soi dogs followed closely by responsibility of owners on the control and actions of their pets. The second point IMO would be addressed, the first not so much.

 

Addressing one point in your post, and I have to admit, your expectations of dog/cat/pet owners is a lot higher than mine, is the fact that chipping will reduce abandoned pets. IMO too many owners who would even consider abandoning pets would have no problem cutting the chip out and destroying it before abandoning. Makes me cringe even thinking about that, but this is reality in my book.

 

Also not sure about your last suggestion about staggering registration fees according to size? Registration is a paperwork exercise; it is the benefits from the registration that need to be made clear to the public as the incentive to register (not just the penalties if they don't). If the benefits include some form of veterinary care, whether it be reductions in cost or free service for some treatments, then yes, I would agree with different payment costs. But if benefits are not included, registration goes back to a paperwork exercise.

[yellowboat]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

They said it was not addressing pet-related problems at their roots and suspected the government was merely aiming to boost revenues. 

You mean give specifics of a plan?  Who do these people think they are to question the wisdom of the great hooha and his junta?  We can only hope that those who wanted this coup can now see where it leads: perpetual stupidity including pets.    

[oldrunner]

As responsible pet owners, my wife and I resent 'whisper's' comments. We have four cats(caged mostly except for yard walks), one indoor cat, 1 small parrot (caged) 1 singing bird (caged) and one gerbal like animal (caged), We don't intend to pay an otherwise crooked government a fee when it already costs us enough to feed and maintain what animals we have.