Kathy Shea: Ordinance infringes on rights of pet owners
May 16, 2005
To the Editor:
We have to agree that this ordinance is infringing on the rights of responsible pet owners. Saying “it sucks” and leaving it at that isn’t exactly the right thing to do. Can’t we come up with a compromise here?
There is a definite overabundance of cats in Craig, which we would assume to be coming from … cat owners. Not dog owners. Not to get into a cat versus dog thing here, the recommendations and amendments relative to cats may be how the city needs to proceed if we are unable to put a lid on the cat problems here.
Demanding that your dog be spayed or neutered, as a responsible dog owner who may be interested in the progeny of a particularly special or talented animal is an infringement of our aboriginal right to have pets. We understand we’re talking two arenas here, the pet traffic that clogs up the shelter and those that are abandoned around town, and the responsible pet owners who need no legislation.
With the reference to cultural heritage that we’ve seen and heard about lately, what will happen to those pets of either description that are not offered in front of the grocery stores anymore? Will we be cutting off our noses to spite our faces? Will those not offered to homes in the usual public mode here be further clogging the shelters and running lose when there are no options for adoption as we know it here in Craig?
Let’s rethink this, folks. We have picked up our pets exclusively from in front of City Market, and is this yet another small town amenity that we’re legislating away to cover for the irresponsible owners?