Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly revises animal adoption rules
Published Friday, June 27, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — The Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly voted Thursday to let public animal shelter managers put unhealthy or underage pets up for adoption, an option previously banned.
The change will let the shelter decide whether a seriously injured or ill kitten or puppy, or one younger than eight weeks old, should be spared from immediate euthanasia if a foster family is lined up to care for the animal.
Borough officials, however, have said the shelter is almost always full, meaning volunteer groups and foster families would need to get more involved for the change in law to have a visible effect.
“It’s really up to the community to make it work,” Animal Control Commission Chairwoman Ronnie Rosenberg said.
Assembly member Kelly Brown worried shelters across the United States could be bursting as owners cut corners in response to a sagging economy. She asked residents to consider the stress shelters could experience from managing too many pets.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
How much more will be have to expand the animal shelter to keep this stock of new adoptable pets for window shoppers? Why this change of procedure and who will foot the bill for extending the life of these animals? Foster families for animals? OK I guess it can work but our tax dollars are paying to administer this program and is it really a priority? I appreciate the assembly feeling warm and fuzzy by their actions but they forgot to look at my wallet again. Next warm and fuzzy feeling they get should be from using their own wallet instead of always digging into mine!
You are exactly right. I have nothing against animals or pets in general but am by no means an animal lover. I do however know quite a few of them and perhaps they should be the ones paying for this. Is it really fair for the Borough to take my money on the promise of taking my house if I don't pay and then using to to care for a bunch of "seriously injured or ill kittens and puppies?" Perhaps if people weren't having to pay 5-7% of their annual gross income in property tax they could afford to take care of all poor abandoned and ill kittens and puppies. If the people of the community feel it is a priority they will see the it is accomplished, if they (the people) are not willing to spend their own money on something that is non-essential why in the world should gov't spend it for them.
It is the lack of forethought, intelligence and a huge dose of self-centeredness on the part of humans that put pets and potential pets in the predicament they are in. Theway and "Touched", we are not paying ENOUGH for our mistakes.
Our tax dollars are better put to use trying to fix this problem and prevent future problems for animals than by funding a lot of social programs that only exist to help people who know how to work the system. At least you know animals aren't out to get a free ride from your tax dollars.
The ordinance does not result in an increase in staff and the amount budgeted for the care of sick and injured animals has not changed since 2002 despite rising veterinary fees. So this is not costing the taxpayers more money. What it will do is put an added burden on the already-strained staff and facility if the public decides to dump more underaged litters because the shelter does not have a nursery area or staff to handle round the clock feedings. Generally there is no reason why people cannot keep a litter until it's eight weeks old but unexpected circumstances do arise. Nevertheless, many people either have problems of one sort or another and/or are dysfunctional and unfortunately, their children and animals are the victims. If more folks agree to foster these little ones, it gives them a chance. Best of all would be not having unintentional litters. Two becomes six becomes thirty-six within about eight months. Animal lovers contributed over $56,000 to the Shelter in 2007. Some of it went to veterinary costs, some to shelter improvements and equipment. It's posted on the FNSB website under the Animal Control link.
Will they be required to disclose all known health issues prior to adoption?
Health issues, if known, are disclosed. Unfortunetly, the shelter has little or no informartion on the pets housed there. When adopting a pet, just ask if that pet has been to the vet and what was the diagnosis.
I have a bet this won't last very long. The shelter has a habit of putting down otherwise adoptable animals despite the fact that people are interested. They have done so in the past to decrease their own liability. I have no doubts that this will go the same way. It is only a matter of time before they adopt out a ill animal and something negative comes of it Then because there is always one in town, someone will sue them over it. End of story.
Perhaps to make up for our "mistakes" we should just let the animals go feral and fend for themselves, no more pets allowed. This way us humans can't harm them anymore.
Seems like an idea that hasn't been thought out - sounds nice as long as you are one of those people who wants to care for an injured pet, but most are looking for the "perfect" specimen.
Malcontent-
You don't live in Fairbanks, do you?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.