Alamo Drafthouse South Lamar
No-Kill Concerns
RECEIVED Tue., March 2, 2010
Dear Editor,
I have some concern for what is happening regarding making Austin a no-kill city, specifically the goal of 90% live outcomes. In an ideal world there would be little to no animals entering the shelter that were healthy and adoptable. While I recognize the odds of this ever happening are very low, in other major U.S. cities where they have passed a workable spay/neuter ordinance, the largest percentage of animals entering their shelters were not healthy and adoptable.
To set a 90% goal of live outcomes could at some future date lock the city into providing live outcomes for animals that, because of issues with health, injuries, or behavior, should not be live-outcomed.
Today I sit in wonder with all the emphasis on adoptions. While I fully support the idea that no adoptable cat or dog should be euthanized, I don't understand why there has been little or no conversation regarding a spay/neuter ordinance. As a resident of Austin, I am very concerned about the tax dollars or any other resource that will go into these increased adoptions. I feel like a very important component to eventually solving the problem is being completely ignored, and that is a spay/neuter ordinance.
As it stands today, it's as though there is a hole in the dam and all anyone wants to do is talk about getting more buckets, when they should be talking about both: getting more buckets and ultimately fixing the hole in the dam.
If nothing else, the last recession should have taught us that there is only a limited amount of money in the pot. We can choose between putting that money into what for now will be an ever-increasing number of cat and dog adoptions, or we can put those same resources into health care, education, affordable housing, transportation, or public safety. Everything has a cost, including more adoptions, and without a permanent fix in place, that cost is going to grow.
I have some concern for what is happening regarding making Austin a no-kill city, specifically the goal of 90% live outcomes. In an ideal world there would be little to no animals entering the shelter that were healthy and adoptable. While I recognize the odds of this ever happening are very low, in other major U.S. cities where they have passed a workable spay/neuter ordinance, the largest percentage of animals entering their shelters were not healthy and adoptable.
To set a 90% goal of live outcomes could at some future date lock the city into providing live outcomes for animals that, because of issues with health, injuries, or behavior, should not be live-outcomed.
Today I sit in wonder with all the emphasis on adoptions. While I fully support the idea that no adoptable cat or dog should be euthanized, I don't understand why there has been little or no conversation regarding a spay/neuter ordinance. As a resident of Austin, I am very concerned about the tax dollars or any other resource that will go into these increased adoptions. I feel like a very important component to eventually solving the problem is being completely ignored, and that is a spay/neuter ordinance.
As it stands today, it's as though there is a hole in the dam and all anyone wants to do is talk about getting more buckets, when they should be talking about both: getting more buckets and ultimately fixing the hole in the dam.
If nothing else, the last recession should have taught us that there is only a limited amount of money in the pot. We can choose between putting that money into what for now will be an ever-increasing number of cat and dog adoptions, or we can put those same resources into health care, education, affordable housing, transportation, or public safety. Everything has a cost, including more adoptions, and without a permanent fix in place, that cost is going to grow.
Sincerely,
Delwin Goss
Delwin Goss
