Butler officials won't be deciding until at least Jan. 24 whether a McKees Rocks, Allegheny County, company will be hired to take over dog control in the city.

But whether the company is hired or not, there ought to be provisions by which the city may legally charge a fee to any dog owner whose dog must be picked up because it is running loose and causing concern.

City Councilman Mike Kelly had the right idea last week when he asked, "Why is the city paying for these people's pets?"

He was right in observing that "if you're going to have a dog, you have to be responsible for it."

The council suggested that a proposed contract with the McKees Rocks company — Triangle Pet Control — be researched to determine whether a city fee could be added to the fee that the company charges when people pick up their pets.

The $10 that Kelly suggested is not excessive, but it could serve as an additional deterrent to inadequate or lackadaisical control of pets by their owners. Meanwhile, that fee or some other amount would help pay the $300 a month that the city would have to pay Triangle for its service.

Neither the cash-strapped city nor any other municipality should have to incur financial obligations because of people's pets, but too many do as a product of their desire to serve their residents.

Hiring of Triangle or some other company would remove animal-control responsibilities from the city police, who should not be using police or other city vehicles to transport animals. In the case of Triangle, the company maintains the equipment and facilities to properly care for animals about which the company is called. Its facility in Allegheny County is certified by the state.

The city does not have a kennel to hold dogs until their owners are located. When possible, police have taken dogs to the Butler County Humane Society, but sometimes the society's facilities are full and the society isn't accepting additional pets. The society also doesn't accept pit bulls or pit bull mixes.

The other problem involving city police pet duties is the excessive amount of time that often is consumed in resolving a dog complaint or transporting a pet to the Humane Society.

The police have more important duties than dog-law enforcement. The council should consider seriously this opportunity to resolve the issue once and for all.

According to information provided to the council, Triangle would contact owners of licensed dogs, while unlicensed dogs would get 48 hours for their owners to contact the city police. After that deadline passed, the company would be authorized to place unlicensed animals in shelters or with adoptive agencies, or be humanely euthanized.

Each year the police receive numerous calls about dogs running loose. No doubt the police can't answer all of them, especially when they are involved in more serious police work.

Turning over dog-law enforcement to an outside entity makes sense now but it also made sense in the past. Too bad former council members didn't seek to address the issue in such a way.

For the council, the Jan. 24 decision should not be difficult, whether or not Triangle remains in the picture.