Animal control: seeking solutions, not arguments
Last week, I attended the meeting of the Warren County Court Budget and Finance Committee to hear the discussion about animal control. Unfortunately, what I witnessed was not an orderly discussion but, instead, a contest of opinions between committee members and representatives of the Warren County Humane Society.
Both parties have strongly held opinions because they have different missions. From the view of the Humane Society, animals are to be treated humanely, adopted out when possible, and euthanized only as a last resort. It is desirable to house animals as long as possible to place them with new families.
In contrast, county commissioners believe animal control is a health and safety issue. Citizens, their children, or their livestock can be threatened, injured, or killed by uncontrolled and vicious dogs. And if exotic pets such as snakes are turned loose, significant problems can result. It is, therefore, necessary to collect stray animals and house them only temporarily.
In the current fiscal year, the county court allocated up to $80,000 to the Humane Society to support the collection of stray animals. In my opinion, the county court was out-sourcing one of its responsibilities (animal control), not simply making a donation to a non-profit organization. Specific services were expected in return.
Unfortunately, it appears the county did not negotiate a written contract to specify the terms and conditions for receipt of the revenue. Therein lies the problem, as it is unclear to what extent taxpayer monies may be used to support the Humane Society mission as opposed to the county mission.
I believe this situation can be resolved without either group having to change its mission. There appear to be three distinctly different alternatives.
1. The county court should decide whether it wishes to create its own animal control program. If it does, new facilities must be built, equipment purchased, and personnel hired. Tax revenues and fees would be required to support the program.
2. The county court could decide to out-source a portion of the animal control responsibilities. The county would specify the exact services it desires and enter into a contract. This would enable the county to satisfy its needs and pay for just for the specific services rendered. The county could pay for the collection and housing of animals for a designated number of days.
3. The county court could decide to do nothing whatsoever. In response, a private for-profit or a non-profit organization might assume responsibility for animal control activities on its own initiative. If a citizen wanted to have an animal picked up, the citizen would pay whatever fee is specified by the organization doing the work.
I propose the county continue its current funding to the Humane Society through June 30, 2004, under the terms of the original resolution. If there are concerns about which expenditures should be paid by tax revenues, the parties could negotiate a written agreement on specific terms and conditions for the remainder of the current fiscal year.
For the longer term, the county should decide which of the three previously described options are attractive and develop specific plans for implementation. The decisions will affect the budget plans for 2005-06. In creating its plan, the County should gather information about animal control programs that are operating successfully in other jurisdictions – e.g., Chattanooga. It also should consider a joint city-county approach to animal control.
Other cities and counties have successful animal control programs where there is cooperation between the government and non-profit organizations interested in animal rescue. Warren County can do the same.
Thomas H. Fisher
Hickory Blvd.
McMinnville