San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas
Email Email | Print Print --

February 11th, 2009
Letter: I dream of empty animal shelters

Editor:

It would be most fortunate if those who wish to see improvement for pets become involved and join the Pet Prevent A Litter (PALS) organization, or join the Mutt Strutt organization, become regular animal shelter volunteers, or create their own organization for rescue and pet welfare. As an advocate for pet welfare and responsible pet guardianship for over a decade, I would love their help!

The fact is that the benefit of implanting a microchip outweighs the risk. The recent ordinance is targeted at those pets who are found to be stray and are not only in danger, but are causing an increased burden on taxpayer dollars through our costs of Animal Control. It would be fortunate if there were no need for animal shelters and animal control departments.

There are other identification methods available but tags haven’t worked or we wouldn’t have such a growing problem. I believe that the decision of whether to microchip an animal should be left to the pet owner, as long as their dogs are not repeatedly running off or impounded. I have two microchipped dogs because they are Houdini-like escape artists. Vaccines are linked to sarcomas, but I vaccinate all my pets for rabies, because I believe the protection from a fatal disease is worth the small risk

A pet is a lifetime commitment. Pet owners need to be responsible and keep their pets at home. Responsible pet ownership includes spay/neuter, safe and humane pet containment, appropriate food, shelter, exercise, training, routine vet care and love and attention!

I dream of empty animal shelters.

Sharri Boyett
San Marcos

Email Email | Print Print

--

4 thoughts on “Letter: I dream of empty animal shelters

  1. I am already on record supporting the proposition that pet owners should not be forced to microchip their pets, so I agree with you on that issue. Your letter caused me to think of a middle ground in this debate. That is, that no one is required to microchip their pet unless the pet is picked up running at large twice. In order to retrieve the pet after the second pick-up, the owner must pay for microchipping. This sort of regulation targets those pet owners who are not as responsible as you are, rather than forcing the procedure on everyone’s pets.

  2. Great post, and Lamar has a great point — there’s no sense in forcing everyone to microchip their pets if not everyone is irresponsible. I have two indoor cats who are terrified of the outside world. Microchipping them seems pretty pointless. I’d rather take the money I might be forced to spend on microchips and donate it to an animal shelter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:)