Pet penalty: King County puts poor on the firing line

King County is about to usher in a new penalty for anyone who hasn’t ponied up the dollars to buy a license for their pet.

Starting April 1, any pet owner in the county will be on the hook for a $75 penalty, if they haven’t already anted up for their animal.

The press release my newspaper got, of course, put this in the most upbeat of terms: you’ll get an “opportunity” to pay the licensing fee, before you get slapped with the fine.

On its surface, this seems like one of those “let’s be better pet-owner” measures. I’m sure affluent pet owners across the county are nodding their heads at the collective wisdom of making it hurt if you opt not to license your pet.

What this really is, however, is one more crack at the people who are barely making ends meet.

I see these people every day where I live in the Kent Valley. They are people, most of them with families, who are struggling to hang on to every dime they have. At the Kent Valley Safeway where I shop, I watch them doing the math in their heads as their groceries are rolling down the conveyor belt. Invariably there are items going back on the shelves.

These are the same people who are also being affected by our crisis in health funding and cuts in social services. They’re the people who need these things the most.

Because they have kids, it’s a safe bet they have pets. Or if they’re alone, it’s probably a dog or a cat that keeps them company.

These are the people who are going to be on the firing line, with a heartless punitive measure like this. It’s just one more brick to the load of trouble they’re already carrying in these economic times, and it’s wrong.

We’re already cutting services to them, and now we’re punishing them with fines.

I can tell you who else might wind up suffering at the unintended consequences of this fine: the pets themselves.

If you’re already strapped feeding an animal, and are now looking at getting penalized for the simple act of owning one, and being unable to pay for its license, Fido may be on his way to a midnight drop-off in someone else’s neighborhood. Therefore requiring additional effort by county animal-control agents.

I am not arguing the legality of having pet owners pay for county shelter and animal-control services.

But given the tremendous hardships our working poor are already suffering, this is simply big government casting a hardened eye at the people it’s supposed to be helping.