The changes to Tulsa's animal ordinances proposed by City Councilor Jim Mautino are step in the wrong direction. In essence, the proposal would make it harder to rescue animals, while at the same time making it easier for breeders to dump intact animals into Tulsa.
While I am not a big fan of animal protection advocates spending a lot of time and effort on rescue, we ought not be making it harder for them to do so.
On the other hand, we can, and should, make it harder for breeders to continue to pump intact animals into the system. There is no secret to creating a no-kill city, or state. There are now many examples of cities and states that have brought their companion animal populations under control and have essentially ended the practice of killing otherwise healthy animals merely because there are not enough homes for them. There is no reason we can not do this in Tulsa or Oklahoma, except that we do not currently have politicians with the political will necessary to push through the measures to make no-kill a reality.
Full fledged support of spay-neuter(including subsidized spay-neuter for low income people), spay-neuter enforcement, and clamping down on unregulated breeding are all ideas we know work to reduce the number of unwanted animals, and that save money in the animal control budget in the long run. Councilor Mautino's proposals, if enacted, are going to end up costing Tulsa taxpayers, who will foot the bill for fixing the problems caused by additional intact animals.
Again, this is a solvable problem, rescue groups need to get out of their narrow boxes and begin to devote resources to a planned and sustained campaign in the political arena if they hope to make progress towards a no-kill future.
No comments:
Post a Comment