- San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas - http://smmercury.com -

Letter to the editor: Dreams of empty animal shelters

To the 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

10 Comments (Open | Close)

10 Comments To "Letter to the editor: Dreams of empty animal shelters"

#1 Comment By Griffin Spell On 02/12/2009 @ 11:17 am

FTA: “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 think we can agree. IIRC if a pet is loose and caught 3 times in a 6 month period they are spayed/neutered as a precaution. Perhaps something else on top of that to help with identification.

#2 Comment By chris north On 02/12/2009 @ 11:40 am

Well said Sharri. You do great work. Thanks.

#3 Comment By Kara Sweidel On 02/12/2009 @ 2:12 pm

Thanks, Sharri, and I also share your dream of empty shelters.

Griffin has already pointed out the part of your letter I also want to address… “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 am in complete agreeance with this. If the ordinance had provisions such as Griffin mentioned, that repeat offense leads to microchipping, and even if all adopted pets from the shelter were chipped before release, I would not have taken the time to go to various meetings about this issue.

We are totally on the same page. The problem is, city ordinance forces this upon pet owners, and turns them into criminals if they do not wish to microchip. This violates the foundation of liberty that this country was built upon.

I would love to help at the shelter! I appreciate the brochure you passed out at the meeting yesterday. I will be in touch once I get my bike fixed up well enough to ride out to Kyle.

#4 Comment By Angel On 02/13/2009 @ 12:51 pm

Sharri, the issue is not whether to microchip or not to microchip, you are missing the POINT!
Our great nation was founded upon freedom of choice and the council has autocratically cut our freedom of choice at the knees! By the way I love your work and cause.

#5 Comment By Ted Marchut On 02/13/2009 @ 1:04 pm

Angel, I think you missed the point. Her letter clearly states “I believe that the decision of whether to microchip an animal should be left to the pet owner.”

How does that not align with what you are saying?

#6 Comment By Lisa Marie Coppoletta On 02/13/2009 @ 5:47 pm

Sharri, I so appreciate you coming fwd with this letter. Griffin and Kara could not have written it better.

“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.”

#7 Comment By Craig Young On 02/13/2009 @ 6:39 pm

While I think everyone is on the same page, I would suggest that the burden in this case would be placed on the responsible pet owners (who would likely comply), while the irresponsible pet owners would continue to be irresponsible. It reminds me a great deal of gun control. If you outlaw guns only criminals have them.

#8 Comment By Lila Knight On 02/13/2009 @ 9:16 pm

sorry. I don’t get it. Can you put that into a bumper sticker for me?

#9 Comment By Angel On 02/16/2009 @ 10:02 am

Mr. Young needs to run for P. Rose’s office!

#10 Comment By Organica On 04/10/2009 @ 9:27 am

Sharri,

Are you aware that 100% of lab rats given an RFID chip got cancer/tumors?

So, you are in favor of the government forcing citizens to microchip their pets?

Let me ask this, would you let the gov’t force you to microchip your children?