By Robert Trapp,
Representatives Debbie Rodella, D-Rio Arriba, Taos, Santa Fe counties and Carl Trujillo, D-Santa Fe County are on to something badly needed in rural New Mexico, especially Española and Rio Arriba County.
They have introduced House Bill 64, which would place a fee on producers for pet food distributed in the state. Most people don’t understand how animal shelters and humane societies around New Mexico operate. Most depend heavily on donated money, time and pet supplies (including food).
Rodella’s and Trujillo’s bill is not clear how much the fee would raise per year. It states, “The department shall collect a fee of one hundred dollars ($100) on each brand name or product name of pet food that is distributed in New Mexico.”
There are exceptions to the fee, such as small manufacturers and prescribed diet pet food.
This is not a sales tax, nor a gross receipts tax, but you can bet the cost will be passed on to pet food buyers. We think that’s a fair trade for the services provided by our local animal shelter and humane society.
Almost all pet owners buy pet food, few actually pay for spay or neutering services, much less vaccinations and general health care. This is a way to make those folks pay a fraction of their fair share.
Lisa Gipe is the director of operations at our local animal shelter. She said the Española Valley Humane Society spayed or neutered 4,346 dogs, cats (and a few rabbits) in 2017. Those numbers rise almost every year.
Those operations, which could cost up to $150, are free to the public.
Gipe said she reviews documents from intakes to see which areas in Rio Arriba County are producing more strays or dropped off litters. She then works to target those areas.
That is done with grants and money from private donors. She said they’re currently working with a Pet Smart grant.
While House Bill 64 is a little vague, it creates an animal sheltering committee to oversee the animal care and facility fund. This fund, of an unspecified amount of money, may take up to 7.5 percent for administrative costs.
The bill lacks specificity and needs some language clarified. What we don’t need is a bill that creates a fund to rain down money on a committee of bureaucrats, while drizzling coins on animal shelters in desperate need of funds for the hard work they do.
The bill was referred to the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee and the House Business and Industry Committee. Normally, if a bill is referred to two committees, there is hope. But in a one-month session, it will be tight.
We hope Rodella and Trujillo can clean up the bill and move it to the floor quickly. The thousands of dogs and cats in need of spays or neuters can’t wait for politicians. The need to fund this care is now and it’s desperate.
