With tight budgets and slow growth on property valuations, government from bottom to top have been forced to make some tough decisions on spending, just like the rest of us.

Deciding which programs get funded is not an easy task. Raising extra revenues in the form of taxes and fees is just as tricky. Everyone is in favor of the majority of services they receive, as long as it doesn't cost them more money. It's all fine until you feel you are being singled out because of what you do or what you own.

The City of Le Mars went through a lengthy process to arrive at the budget for this year, examining department by department to see what could be cut to balance the budget and limit the amount that they would have to increase taxes.

Among the items eliminated this past year was the Animal Control Officer, and the duties of the office were given, by default, to the police department.

Last week, the council began the first steps to bring the animal control position back, funded by a dog licensing ordinance that would require dog owners to have vaccinations up to date and purchase a one or three year license for their pet.

On the surface, it makes sense for dog owners, whose animals may get loose, to pay to fund the animal control officer. But animal control doesn't only involve rounding up stray or vicious dogs. Cats and wild animals any other creature that can get loose also fall within the venue of animal control.

Responsible dog owners, who are already caring properly for their animals and keep them in their homes or yards may very well see this as an unfair tax.

They will point to irresponsible pet owners who allow their animals to run loose or those that simply dump their dogs or cats off after the novelty has worn off as the true cause of the need for an animal control officer. They will also raise the enternal feud between dog and cat owners and insist for equal treatment (taxation) of cats.

Pets depend on their masters to do the right thing: feed and shelter them, care for them when they are ill and be the one who protects them and assumes total responsibility for their welfare. It not a relationship that should be taken lightly.

Nor is this proposed ordinance.