Quote
The measure would reduce time to euthanize from one week.
By TAMI LIVINGSTON, The Times-Union
Animal advocates are upset about a Jacksonville City Council bill that would more than halve the number of days an animal picked up by shelter workers must be held before being euthanized.
It also would decrease the hold time for feral animals from 48 hours to 24 hours. The bill will get a public hearing at the council's meeting at 5 p.m. Tuesday in the City Council chambers. A vote should come next month.
Both reductions are an attempt to cut overcrowding at Animal Care and Control. City spokeswoman Kristin Beach said the average capacity at the shelter is 450 but it has held as many as 667 animals. Last year, the shelter took in more than 4,000 animals; about 2,200 were adopted.
"It's a staggering amount of animals brought into our shelter every day," she said.
The average cost of sheltering an animal is $11.26 per day, Beach said. If the proposal is passed, it would save the shelter money but she didn't know how much.
The animal advisory committee recommended the five-day period to the city. City Councilman Art Graham said the three days being put in the legislation "seems to be a simple mistake." He said he will introduce an amendment to the bill to increase the hold time to five days. Beach said the original bill was introduced by Council President Daniel Davis at the request of Mayor John Peyton.
The three-day holding period would be "totally unacceptable," committee member Sandy Golding said. "I don't know why it became three days."
She said it does not allow owners to adequately search for and possibly pick up their pet.
"It's just not long enough."
Golding plans to attend Tuesday's meeting and said representatives from other local animal care agencies, including the Humane Society, will be on hand to object to the bill in its current form.
Calls to the Jacksonville Humane Society were not returned.
The current shelter occupies about 17,000 square feet, Beach said. The new $8.5 million shelter, to be built off Forest Road, would double the space of the shelter, she said. The planned center would also have a greater focus on adoptions, Beach said.
Beach said it has not been determined if the reduced hold period would continue when the new shelter opens.
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/042008/met_270311965.shtml
This is astounding. All the money he has wasted. The Courthouse. His ballooned administration. Sweetheart corporate deals that have failed. Over-valued contracts improperly given to his friends. High-tech security systems on the 4th floor of City Hall locking the public out (unprecedented before Mr. Peyton). Taking friends and family to Jaguar skybox seats with taxpayer money.
And THIS is where he is trying to save money?? The audacity - especially after dragging his feet now for over 4 years on implementing the new shelter that was mandated by the BJP.
P.S. - Does Mr. Davis not realize what a boy toy of Mr. Peyton this makes him look like?
QuoteThe average cost of sheltering an animal is $11.26 per day, Beach said. If the proposal is passed, it would save the shelter money but she didn't know how much.
Keep in mind that they probably determined this cost by taking the total operating expenses of the shelter and dividing it by the number of animals.
A significant portion of those costs are fixed, so if they cut the shelter population in half the cost per animal will probably rise by 75%, because the only per diem expense that really rises is food, and I'm sure that it does not cost 11.00 to feed 1 dog for a day. Unless of course, they are feeding them human food, like take out.
So, this seems to be a really stupid way to attempt to save money, especially since killing defenseless animals is really a 3
rd rail issue, [touch it and you die] politically.
Those animals need to pay their own way. I'm sick of being taxed to death to support animals that just live off the system and don't want to work.
So glad I'm not alone in being upset about this. I'm just unsure what to do about it.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/15798007/detail.html Reported on 4/4.
Not sure if this is a no no, but this is my own rant on the issue. I'll not copy and paste it here due to length.
http://teresangel.livejournal.com/301424.html (http://teresangel.livejournal.com/301424.html)
>:(
Quote from: Lunican on April 20, 2008, 02:41:28 PM
Those animals need to pay their own way. I'm sick of being taxed to death to support animals that just live off the system and don't want to work.
Liberal politicians have created a welfare class in the animal kingdom now!
This does not portend well for our society.
yes, this thread is open for hijacking too. take it away Dems and Reps!
Well, the fact of the matter is that this is just another one of those government 'programs' that loses money. If it is cheaper to kill the animals immediately then that is what needs to be done. Turn-a-profit-free-market-survival-of-the-fittest-my-pet-is-safe-at-home style.
Yeah, driven. Don't be such a stiff. Life's too short. Let's not have a cat-fight. We're all right behind you on this.
My Chinese affiliate informs me that they would be happy to have you export as many sea-container loads of unwanted pets (dogs, cats and horses only, please) as are available.
How many days would be enough to satisfy y'all? Perhaps we could keep them a year? For the rest of their natural lives? The reality is at some point the system would become massively overloaded because so many irresponsible people do not spay and neuter their pets and/or abandon them. I personally would rather see more money going to help out people than letting strays live indefinitely (and I like animals too BTW). I would say they should be kept around longer than 3 to 5 days though. Maybe 10-15 days.
I can't help but wonder if the Humane Society considered the effect their decision to go no kill awhile back would have on AC&C.