Where do things stand now?
René Houkema wrote this proposal more than twenty years ago. As far as we know, no country has introduced a disposal fee yet. But part of what he asked for is now happening.
What has changed
- Surrender fees. Many shelters ask a fee when people hand in their pet. It is usually far less than the cost of caring for the animal. People who simply dump their animal pay nothing.
- Registration. Houkema wanted a register of who owns which animal. More and more countries require dogs to be microchipped and registered. In 2026 the European Union adopted a regulation that makes chipping and registration compulsory for all dogs and cats in the EU. Owners who abandon their animal become easier to trace.
- Enforcement. In most countries abandoning a pet is against the law. If you see an abandoned or neglected animal, report it to the police or to your local animal welfare organisation.
Source: Regulation (EU) 2026/1818 on the welfare and traceability of dogs and cats. Updated October 2026. |
The proposal by René Houkema |
The temptation to keep pets
The temptation to keep pets is high. People do so, out of their own desires or when asked by family or friends to take on pets that are no longer wanted. The commercial sector is also active in tempting people to buy pet animals. Whereas the parties selling animals would not wish to draw attention to the disadvantages of keeping pets, it is also not in their interests to speak too lightly of them. They do, after all, need to uphold their own reputation and the clients' confidence in their expertise. |
Variable information from sellers
But the type of information provided by conscientious sellers on the consequences of a purchase varies considerably. In this regard, there is little difference between buying a television or a pet.
The difference becomes clear at disposal
The difference becomes obvious, however, at the point that people want to dispose of their pet. Although there are incredible numbers of indifferent people who are quite willing to simply dump their animal, there are, luckily, also people prepared to care for the abandoned animal. This is fortunate for the animal, but less fortunate for that small group of people concerned with the animal's fate. Less fortunate, in the sense that their noble attitude costs so much money and time. Added to this, our society is structured in such a way there is a huge lack of volunteers to assist in the care, let alone that we could count on sufficient paid support, if only in the form of people who could work in animal refuges in return for their social welfare benefits.
The fate of unwanted animals
There are enormous numbers of animals in our society. In many countries, farms alone hold several animals for every inhabitant. Millions of pets come on top of that. Their only fate in most cases, is that they are killed only when they are dumped. Agricultural pets are slaughtered. Pets, dumped in nature are shot or eaten. If they are dumped in an animal refuge, they receive a lethal injection if they cannot be placed in a new home, or in some cases they are used as fodder for other animals if they do not eat meat themselves. |
Finding a compromise
If you are indifferent to this system, you do not have a problem. Those of the opinion that you cannot kill an unwanted animal, do have a problem. It is therefore important to seek a compromise between the small group of people who find that you cannot just kill off animals and the large group of people indifferent to this matter. It would not be asking too much to put a price tag on this indifference, just as in the age-old practice of easing the guilty conscience with a plenary indulgence. This having been said, there is, theoretically, a simple solution. Whether that solution is feasible, depends on the politicians. When dealing with animal suffering, politicians consider in first instance the interests of the sector which earns money from animals. In this way, finding solutions is difficult, but not impossible. |
A theoretical solution: the disposal fee
If everyone deciding to keep animals was charged a disposal fee, which was equal to the costs of care for each animal that could not be placed in a new home, the problems could, in theory, be solved.
How it would work
The buyers would be charged a realistic price for their animal. In the case of a young animal, or an animal with a long life expectancy, the price would be higher. For animals with a short life expectancy, the price would be much lower. Schedules, showing the costs involved for care, per animal can be drawn up, making people more aware of the financial consequences of their purchase. Of course the commercial sector will not be very enthusiastic about this solution, but their objection is not insurmountable, as they are actually concerned with after sales. "After sales" is what the sector can earn from animal care. Professional breeders would be the hardest hit, financially, because they focus solely on the sale of pet animals and are not concerned with after sales. Does anyone feel sorry for the professional breeders? In order to survive within this sort of financial agreement they would need to have themselves registered and to pull their weight in financing the disposal fee. |
|
