Pickens County is off to a pretty solid start with its proposed animal control ordinance, subject to public hearings this week. There is a lot of good stuff in it – especially some teeth for law enforcement agents to deal with dogs who like using their teeth: dangerous dog rules. The county has long needed something to make people take seriously allegations that their beloved pit bull “Poochie” menaces other pets and people in the neighborhood.
A couple of things in the ordinance (available at www.pickenscountyga.gov) still need a little pawing over. You have to wonder in a rural county if every dog should wear ID tags or whether you should prevent people from hauling dogs in the back of pickups. Not to mention how burdensome enforcing those provisions could be – “Sorry, ole Spot can’t ride up on that tool box anymore.”
While the animal control ordinance is at least off the ground, there is one glaring question mark. Where will we put all the strays? In an odd comparison, the last thing Pickens needs is to open some half-planned facility and wind up with our own Doggie Gitmo.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) has operated for seven years after being set up with little real forethought on how long it might be needed, how long to be staffed, operated and funded. As the U.S. government tries to work out somewhere for Gitmo’s 229 prisoners to go, the lack of planning is shockingly evident.
It is obviously much more complex to deal with prisoners (who might blow up something if they got loose) than to deal with a stray dog. But a closer look at the military prison presents several pitfalls of rushing to create a shelter.
First is the financial commitment. The county, like the country, should recognize that keeping anything in a cage is a poor business model. You have to pay to house them, feed them, treat them and, with dogs, dispose of them.
Our warning to county government is it needs to plan now for double the highest predicted number of dogs to be housed there. There are people who are now housing and providing bare minimum food and care for four-legged beasts who have “took up” at their homes. But many of these reluctant owners will gladly ship off their canine wards once there is a shelter available. In other words, there are some pseudo-pets who will become strays when a shelter opens.
Second, the county has discussed some type of public/private partnership with local vets to operate the program. This may be the only option right now, but it’s not a long-term solution as it makes the program subject to the whim of private individuals who may decide there are better locales, business models or careers out there. Better for the county to bite the bullet and build something permanent, rather than face a later Guantanamo situation – you want to close it but it’s full.
The public/private partnership also raises issues of chain of command for making the call on which animals are vicious, which are too sick to save, how many to put down and who is responsible if a beloved pet is put to sleep through error?
Finally, the county needs to begin with a clearly communicated plan of how long and how many dogs they can house before they begin euthanizing animals to keep crowding under control––if, in fact, that is the plan.
In several counties over the past year, differing opinions about euthanizing dogs expressed by the humane society crowd versus local governments (who pay the bills) have created acrimony and contention. Best to hammer this one out beforehand.
It’s high time for the county to move forward with an animal control ordinance. But we need a plan that works for us now and in ten years and when county leaders, volunteers and attitudes change concerning this problem as time goes by.
|
|
